========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 10:06:54 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0001 Re: Shakespeare on CD; Books; Multimedia Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0001. Monday, 2 January, 1995. (1) From: Michael E. Cohen Date: Friday, 30 Dec 1994 13:12:32 |-0800 Subj: Re: SHK 5.1031 Shakespeare on CD-ROM (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 31 Dec 1994 20:57:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Books (3) From: Charles Adler Date: Sunday, 01 Jan 1995 17:53:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: [Multimedia] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael E. Cohen Date: Friday, 30 Dec 1994 13:12:32 |-0800 Subject: Re: SHK 5.1031 Shakespeare on CD-ROM Christine Mack Gordon asks concerning the highly priced full-text database of Shakespeare adaptations: >I don't suppose there's anyway the 500 of us >could contribute $10 each and make it accessible on-line is there? This no >doubt violates all sorts of copyright, but then my anarchist heart thrills to >that possibility. It does indeed violate all sorts of copyright, and could both get you thrown in jail and this list banned from the net. I think, given the expertise on this list, it would be better use of anarchic impulses to pool the resources we have at our disposal and develop our own set of freely available on-line resources. The C-H collection does not necessarily represent the last word in scholarship, in any case, and it is very over-priced. Michael E. Cohen a.k.a. lymond@netcom.com (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 31 Dec 1994 20:57:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Books This is the best general answer I got; it's from Ray Siemens. Bradley Berens actually found the book for me! Yours, Bill >Hi Bill, >Hope your holidays are going well. I've just returned and seen your post >regarding online books searches and, having just encountered a similar >problem some weeks ago, thought I would forward the following note to you. >Moe's will also search their large selection for you. >Best, >RS >>From: moe@moesbooks.com >>Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 16:35:25 PST >>Subject: RE: John Donne title >>To: "Raymond G. Siemens" >> >>Hello, >> >>Sorry we didn't have the Donne title. You might try posting a message >>to rec.arts.books.marketplace.usenet@decwrl.dec.com -- a lot of dealers >>post there and we've some luck.... >> >>Good luck! >> >>Robt. >>Moe's Books, Berkeley 12/20/94 >>FTP Site: moesbooks.com 16:35:25 >>WWW Site: http://moesbooks.com/moe.html (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Adler Date: Sunday, 01 Jan 1995 17:53:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Multimedia] I am not sure if this is "multi-media" but I would very much like to see a full text of a play with the abilty to "click on" or otherwise move directly from a portion of the text to explanatory notes and, upon a further "click" to a selection of literary criticism and historical context. Perhaps even a bibliograpy or list of audio or video productions. In other words, context sensitive offerings which broaden or illuminate the text. Also, how about being able to search the cannon for WS's treatment of, e.g. death or love or jealousy etc. In other words, search by concept. I'll buy it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 10:31:33 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0001 Re: Dreams; Dumb Show; Education; Revenge Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0002. Monday, 2 January, 1995. (1) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Saturday, 31 Dec 1994 12:18:31 -0800 Subj: re: dreams (2) From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Sunday, 1 Jan 1995 16:09:34 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 5.1019 Re: Dreams (3) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Saturday, 31 Dec 1994 17:04:16 -0500 Subj: Re: *Hamlet*: Dumb Show (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 31 Dec 1994 20:39:25 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 5.1032 Q: Elizabethan Education (5) From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Sunday, 1 Jan 1995 16:24:32 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 5.1026 Revenge (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Saturday, 31 Dec 1994 12:18:31 -0800 Subject: re: dreams Of his bones are coral made, those are pearls that were his eyes. The most obvious explanation is that this is poetry, and is not to be ruled by our conception of language. I'm reminded of Winston Churchill being told that you should not end a sentence with a preposition. He said, "That is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put." The correct "uninverted" English might well be "Coral is made of his bones," and so forth, but who would care or remember? We should not hope, now or ever, for an explanation of poetry by way of syntax. Throw away your grammar book when you come to poetry, and come with wonder to find such bones and pearls, rich and strange, and fathoms deeper than all academic soundings. Kennedy (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Sunday, 1 Jan 1995 16:09:34 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 5.1019 Re: Dreams It looks to me like quibbling over typos (on vs. of) -- more importantly, what is meant. I think "it *is* the stuff that dreams are made of." Thanks for letting me put in my $.02. Kitty Kendrick (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Saturday, 31 Dec 1994 17:04:16 -0500 Subject: Re: *Hamlet*: Dumb Show >Season's greetings to everyone. I would like to know what list members make >of the dumb show in *Hamlet*. My main query is, why does it take Claudius so >long to react? Wouldn't he recognize the accusation as it appears in the dumb >show? I realize this is a fairly old question, but I'd like to hear what list >members have to say on the subject. If anyone can suggest any published >material on this subject, I would be interested in hearing about that as well. > >Wes Folkerth I like Harold Jenkins' characteristically thorough notes on this issue in the Arden edition. Of course the king's reaction is nonimmediate for purposes of suspense! While he watches the crime reenacted before him in public, Hamlet and we the audience are riveted to his face, the expectation is extremely high, and we get nothing from him. He's keeping his cool, the plan is failing! Can there be any question about the dramatic desirability of this? Isn't that the tension of the scene? Is he going to blench or not? Imagine the two of them, Hamlet's heart sinking as the king maintains perfect composure, not a hint of disturbance. Meanwhile the play continues... Suspense! What a mistake to invent some hokey business that makes the king inattentive or confused during the dumbshow! What a complete misunderstanding of the scene! To discard THE pinnacle confrontation between hero and villain! David Evett is right to associate this weak idea with that other one (do they all come from Dover Wilson?) about Hamlet detecting his eavesdroppers in the nunnery episode, where again the "problem" being arbitrarily explained away (Hamlet's abuse of Ophelia) is in fact an exquisite and mysterious kernel of the action. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 31 Dec 1994 20:39:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 5.1032 Q: Elizabethan Education In partial reply to Richard Kennedy's questions, let me recommend R. A. Houston, LITERARCY IN EARLY MODERN EUROPE: CULTURE AND EDUCATION (1500-1800), London: Longman, 1988; Chapter 7, Profiles of literacy, has a subsection on Men and Women. See Houston's bibliography for works by Cressy and Cipolla. You may also wish to look at Jean Brink's PRIVILEGING GENDER IN EARLY MODERN ENGLAND (1993), Mary Ellen Lamb's essay in ELR 22 (1992):347ff., as well as books by Joan Kelly, Linda Nicholson, Sherrin Marshall, Mary Beth Rose, et al. One theory is that women often learned to read, but were not taught to write. So if you use the "writing criterion," women who could and did read must be considered "illiterate." So before you start, you have to determine on a definition of literary. Yours, Bill (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Sunday, 1 Jan 1995 16:24:32 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 5.1026 Revenge It seems to me that the "feminine value of revenge" is certainly alive and well and only more circuitious than the males'. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 08:55:54 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0003 Q: The Cost of a Horse Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0003. Wednesday, 4 January, 1995. From: Charles Ross Date: Sunday, 1 Jan 95 16:57:23 -0500 Subject: [Horse Cost] Can anyone tell me the average cost for a horse in Shakespeare's time? Reply: rosscs@mace.cc.purdue.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 09:05:43 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0004 Re: C-H CD-ROM; Books; Dreams Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0004. Wednesday, 4 January, 1995. (1) From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Monday, 2 Jan 1995 15:48:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare on CD-ROM (2) From: Paul Stanwood Date: Monday, 2 Jan 1995 16:31:28 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 5.1031 Re: Books (3) From: E. L. Epstein Date: Monday, 02 Jan 1995 20:49:14 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0001 Re: Dreams (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Monday, 2 Jan 1995 15:48:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare on CD-ROM I too was intrigued by Chadwyck-Healey's CD-ROM Shakespeare collection, and also wondered why it was so very expensive. Certainly at a whopping $4000 for one disk only a handful of institutions could afford it. Might we SHAKSPERians initiate a writing campaign to encourage CH to reconsider their prices, at least to individuals? We are, after all, the natural market for this product. The address I received with their flyer is: Chadwyck-Healey, Inc. 1101 King Street, Suite 380 Alexandria, VA 22314-9455 E-mail can be sent to mktg@chadwyck.com. I'm not hopeful, but it's worth a shot. Cheers, Douglas Lanier dml3@christa.unh.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Stanwood Date: Monday, 2 Jan 1995 16:31:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 5.1031 Re: Books Re: OP Books -- Try Moe's Books in Berkeley, CA Their e-mail address is If they don't have the book you want in stock, they will advertise for it. There is a nominal charge. Paul Stanwood English, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. L. Epstein Date: Monday, 02 Jan 1995 20:49:14 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0001 Re: Dreams Regarding poetic language--English poetry is written in English, and is bound by the complete rules of English. Rather than say that poetry is a kind of *word stew* with a lot of nouns and verbs and adjectives floating around in a fuzzy sauce called POETRY, it would make a lot more sense, and correspond more to the realities of poetic creation, if we realized that poetry uses all of the resources of the language, much more than prose or other forms do. A poet is someone in whom the language is so internalized that it leaps to the poet's command on an occasion when something has excited the poet. We can, in fact must, analyze poetry if we are to understand language at all, since poetry is language at its full stretch. Are we to say that we love Shakespeare but we couldn't be bothered with what he meant? I think not. It is very tempting to take a vacation from sense, and unbuckle your mind and competence to speak and understand English when reading poetry, but this is only lukewarm and indolent Romanticism, with which the real Romantics would hav no traffic. It is not too much to say that a great poet is someone who knows how to use the little words that are the backbone of the English language, not someone who picks out a few lexical rhinestone and puts them in a plastic bath. Therefore it *does* make a difference how Shakespeare used *of* and *on*! E.L.Epstein ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 09:20:09 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0005 Re: Tragic "Flaw" -- Hamartia; Elizabethan Education Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0005. Wednesday, 4 January, 1995. (1) From: Piers Lewis Date: Tuesday, 03 Jan 1995 15:47:42 -0600 Subj: Tragic Hamartia (2) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 3 Jan 1995 19:44:16 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 5.1028 Re: Tragic Flaw I (3) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Tuesday, 3 Jan 1995 18:46:36 -0600 Subj: Elizabethan Education (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Piers Lewis Date: Tuesday, 03 Jan 1995 15:47:42 -0600 Subject: Tragic Hamartia I think I agree with those who argue that 'hamartia' misses the mark (pardon the pun) as an account or explanation of tragic experience. To blame tragedy on the flaws, deficiencies, failings (or what not) of the hero is to diminish its power. _Romeo & Juliet_ and _Oedipus The King_ are cases in point. It strikes me as odd that Aristotle should have had nothing to say about the obviously intentional ironies of the latter play. 'Irony' is a rhetorical term; did he therefore consider it philosophically irrelevant? Or was there something about tragic irony that made it philosophically unacceptable to him? What deficiencies or failings account for the hideous cosmic joke that is played on Oedipus? Pride, you say? His pride is what makes him great. He possesses 'greatness of soul' in Aristotle's terms. He is a great man who is doomed whatever he does. His best qualities destroy him. He is determined -- heroically -- to uncover the truth about the murder of King Laius and the truth that he is ironically doomed to uncover is that he is--in all innocence--the shameful source of the pollution for which the people of Thebes are suffering. There is no rational solution to the 'riddle' or moral paradox that Oedipus ironically embodies--how can the same man be a hero and an abomination? both loved and hated by the gods?--and the play ends in the only way it can: with the exposure of the shameful truth of his life and the warning (Yeats' translation) "Call no man fortunate that is not dead. The dead are free from pain." Irony entails the simultaneous juxtaposition of opposed, conflicting or contradictory meanings. Moral conflict or paradox of the kind that Sophocles shows us (i.e. necessary, insoluble, grounded irremediably in the order of things) is not allowed for or even recognized in the philosophies of either Plato or Aristotle (or, it seems to me, in the philosophical tradition they initiated). Which is why I at least find Aristotle's discussion of tragedy unsatisfying and unusable. The misfortunes of Romeo and Juliet are obviously on an altogether different scale; contingency -- bad luck -- is a factor in this play as it is not in _Oedipus_ but their fate is equally grounded in necessity. Here too 'hamartia' misses the mark: Romeo and Juliet are not 'flawed' characters in any sense -- unless you happen to see them, as Auden does, from the point of view of christian righteousness; all they are 'guilty' of is thinking in all innocence that they they can alter the conditions of their lives by shucking off their names -- as if that were as easy as taking off one's clothes. "What's in a name?" asks Juliet innocently. Lots; little does she know . . . We too would like to think that names don't matter -- look at the way her question has come to be used, rhetorically, in the language of ordinary, everyday life. Names do matter and we know it yet we can't stop wishing they didn't; or imagining -- like Coriolanus -- that when life pinches and all our choices look equally bad, we can take to the open road, find a world elsewhere where no one knows who or what we are and start over. Most of us stay at home, safely, and don't act out our fantasies of escape; Romeo and Juliet, too young and innocent to know better, make their great and courageous bid for freedom and almost get away with it. Piers Lewis Metropolitan State University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 3 Jan 1995 19:44:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 5.1028 Re: Tragic Flaw I Hi. I'm just catching up with two weeks of e-mail, and have read the whole "tragic hero" debate with interest. I'm surprised, though, that no-one seems to be discussing medieval tragedy. I mean, the characters of the "Monk's Tale" seem pretty much attacked by fate. On the other hand, Lancelot in Malory seems to be brought down by flaws of his own rather than an indifferent wheel of fortune. I can't help but think that it would be more productive to concentrate on what sort of "tragic heroes" were available to Shakespeare than to notice once again the obvious fact that many of our conceptions have been received through a filter of more recent history. Cheerio, and happy new year everyone, Sean. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Tuesday, 3 Jan 1995 18:46:36 -0600 Subject: Elizabethan Education Regarding Richard Kennedy's query on Elizabethan education, especially of girls: two books you should definitely look at if you haven't already are David Cressy's *Education in Tudor and Stuart England* (1975) and the same author's *Literacy and the Social Order: Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England* (1980). By the way, the statement that both of Shakespeare's daughters were illiterate is not quite accurate. Judith signed with a mark, and there is no particular reason to believe that she could read or write. But Susanna could certainly sign her name, which would indicate that she was literate. It's not completely impossible that she was illiterate except for the ability to sign her own name, but I'd call that pretty unlikely, especially given that she was described in her epitaph as "witty above her sexe", i.e., pretty smart "for a woman". James Cooke, who had known Susanna's husband John Hall, describes in his edition of Hall's medical notebooks how he called on Susanna at New Place after Hall's death, and she brought out some notebooks that she said had belonged to one of her husband's fellow physicians. Cooke told her that one or two of them were in fact in Hall 's handwriting, but she denied that they were. This leads Schoenbaum in his *Documentary Life* to wonder whether Susanna could in fact read and write, but I don't see this as reason to doubt that she could; she could certainly sign her name (unusual enough for a woman, especially outside London), and in the context of the times (see Cressy) this is pretty strong evidence that she was literate. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 17:01:49 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0006 *MV* and Anti-Semiticism (w/ DATABASE Instructions) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0006. Thursday, 5 January, 1995. (1) From: Aaron Tornberg Date: Wednesday, 4 Jan 1995 11:38:26 -0500 Subj: Re: Merchant of Venice (2) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, January 5, 1994 Subj: Past Discussions of Anti-Semiticism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Aaron Tornberg Date: Wednesday, 4 Jan 1995 11:38:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Merchant of Venice I am a student in a Shakespeare course at York University and have been having discussions with a variety of people about my problems with "The Merchant of Venice." I have heard many defenses of Shakespeare's seemingly anti-Semitic portrayal of Shylock. In relation to "The Jew of Malta" Shakespeare seems tame, but I have trouble dismissing the fact that Shylock's daughter shuns her father too easily and the fact the obviously harassing Christians win in the end. Should we simply forgive Shakespeare because he was writing at a time when it was popular to hate Jews and hated them less than Marlowe? Should we further forgive Shakespeare's misquotation through Shylock of the story of Uncle Laban's sheep? Jacob cheated Laban only AFTER Jacob was himself cheated BY Laban. Shakespeare fails to mention this fact within the play. Shakespeare's portrayal of Shylock seems inaccurate. Aaron Tornberg, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada yku02829@cawc.yorku.ca (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, January 5, 1994 Subject: Past Discussions of Anti-Semiticism Dear Aaron Tornberg: Anti-semiticism in Shakespeare in general and Shylock and *The Merchant of Venice* in particular has been discussed in great length on SHAKSPER in the past. To locate and retreive those discussions, I suggest that you try the DATABASE function. First, send an e-mail message like the following to the LISTSERV address, LISTSERV@UTORONTO.BITNET: // Database Search DD=Rules //Rules DD * Search anti-semitic OR antisemiticism in SHAKSPER Index /* You may use other Boolean operators too. You will then get back two things: an e-mail message that tells how the job went and the output file called DATABASE OUTPUT. You'll see how many hits there were in a list, a sort of index. Select those digests that interest you from the DATABASE OUTPUT and then send // Database Search DD=Rules //Rules DD * Search anti-semitic OR anti-semiticism in SHAKSPER Print all of [Item numbers] /* In [Item numbers] include the numbers from the DATABASE OUTPUT file or order all (warning this will be a very large file) by having the line read: Print all If you wish, you can limit your search by dates: // Database Search DD=Rules //Rules DD Search anti-semitic OR antisemiticism from 93/1/1 to 93/12/31 in SHAKSPER Index /* OR // Database Search DD=Rules //Rules DD Search anti-semitic OR anti-semiticism since 94/1/1 in SHAKSPER Index /* Happy hunting! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 17:19:22 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0007 Re: Education; Dreams (Prepositions) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0007. Thursday, 5 January, 1995. (1) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Wednesday, 4 Jan 1995 16:01:02 -0600 (CST) Subj: female education (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 4 Jan 1995 18:52:27 -0800 Subj: Elizabethan Education (3) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 4 Jan 1995 21:25:33 -0800 Subj: re:dreams (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Wednesday, 4 Jan 1995 16:01:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: female education Richard Kennedy should find something of use (re. literacy among Eliz. women) in Antonia Fraser's THE WEAKER VESSEL, NY: Knopf, 1984. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 4 Jan 1995 18:52:27 -0800 Subject: Elizabethan Education All of William Shakspere's blood relatives through three generations were illiterate. His oldest daughter, Susanna, could sign her name. This alone indicates that she was literate, but Schoenbaum doubts it. "Susanna Hall could sign her name to legal documents, but, although lauded as witty beyond her sex, she could not identify her husband's distinctive handwriting." As to Shakspere's other daughter, Judith, she "presumably had less wit than her sister, for she never learned to sign her name." It's hard to explain, given that Shakspere was a gentleman, and wealthy, and could afford schooling for his daughters. It is more strange in that a woman's education seemed dear to his heart. Toward the education of your daughters, I here bestow a simple instrument... Taming of the Shrew. ii,1,99 I have those hopes of her good that her education promises... All's well. i,1,46 My father charged you in his will to give me a good education... As you like it. i,1,22 She in beauty, education, blood, holds hands with any princess. King John. ii,1,493 ...Hath gain'd of education all the grace which makes her both the heart and place of general wonder. Pericles, iv,Gower 9 And so the question remains--why did Shakspere not get his daughters some schooling? Because Susanna was called "witty" is no test of literacy, I think. You might as well reason that a "musical" person can read notation, or that a "calculating" person can do long division. Kennedy (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 4 Jan 1995 21:25:33 -0800 Subject: re:dreams OF vs.ON. Oh, I suppose you might say that it makes a difference whether coral grows ON bones, or that coral is made OF bones, let the marine biologist decide it. Certainly there's a reason that a poet uses a certain word rather than another, but we're not going to know anything about it. Here's another OF/ON example from the Tempest: "You taught me language; and my profit on't is, I know how to curse." (i,2,363) Perhaps there is profit in/of/for/on/with/to the study of these wee words in searching the soul of poetry, but that beast Caliban is roaming about the island, and I've no time to quibble over prepositions. Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 17:30:46 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0008 Re: Tragic Flaw -- Hamartia Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0008. Thursday, 5 January, 1995. (1) From: Daniel M Larner Date: Wednesday, 4 Jan 1995 18:31:02 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0005 Re: Tragic "Flaw" -- Hamartia (2) From: Michael Yogev Date: Thursday, 05 Jan 95 13:43:53 IST Subj: Re: SHK 5.1028 Re: Tragic Flaw I (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel M Larner Date: Wednesday, 4 Jan 1995 18:31:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0005 Re: Tragic "Flaw" -- Hamartia Thanks to Piers Lewis for his clear and illuminating discussion of irony in Oedipus, and the equally lucid comparison with RJ. Daniel Larner Fairhaven College Western Washington University larner@hanson.cc.wwu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Thursday, 05 Jan 95 13:43:53 IST Subject: Re: SHK 5.1028 Re: Tragic Flaw I All the notes on harmartia and its meaning have piqued my interest. I agree with those who doubt that Aristotle had any sort of psychologically-based character flaw in mind, for "missing the mark" seems more an affective notion-- which makes sense when we recall that Aristotle is addressing drama. I am reminded of the meaning of one term in Hebrew for "sin", which is "chet", based on the Hebrew verb "l'hachtee" or "to miss the mark". Once again, the ancients remind us that psychological views of character are often wide of the mark when pressed too far back into the past. Michael Yogev ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 12:36:29 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0009 Re: *MV* and Anti-Semitism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0009. Friday, 6 January, 1995. (1) From: John Owens Date: Thursday, 5 Jan 1995 17:51:48 -0800 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0006 *MV* and Anti-Semitism (2) From: E. L. Epstein Date: Friday, 06 Jan 1995 00:00:36 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0006 *MV* and Anti-Semitism (3) From: Takako Nagumo Date: FriDAY, 06 Jan 95 01:09 PST Subj: Re: Merchant of Venice (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owens Date: Thursday, 5 Jan 1995 17:51:48 -0800 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0006 *MV* and Anti-Semitism I am aware that a large body of discussion already exists on this subject, but there are a few points in Mr. Tornberg's post I wanted to address directly. While I agree that Shakespeare definitely displays anti-Semitism in MV, I disagree about the source of the offense. The Christian characters clearly deride and insult Shylock, but the offensive element is Shakespeare's engineering of Shylock's character so that he is presumed to merit contempt. He quite clearly seeks to ruin Antonio financially and personally for primarily commercial reasons. In his speeches to the Christian characters he assumes a tone of self-righteousness that has misled many well-meaning critics to the conclusion that he is sincerely out for justified revenge against personal injuries - but in his soliloquy in the Bargain Scene, he clearly subordinates this motive to that of removing a business rival, and the soliloquy must take precedence (regard also Antonio's corroborating testimony that Shylock has sought his life for rescuing the moneylenders "victims"). Thus, the offending element is not that are expected to joy in the destruction of a victimized human being, but that the author uses a repellent and untrue stereotype to reinforce his supposed villainy. John Owen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. L. Epstein Date: Friday, 06 Jan 1995 00:00:36 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0006 *MV* and Anti-Semitism I also, as a Jew, have trouble approving of MV. However, for what it is worth I find that I must conscientiously dissaprove of MV, rather than hating it immediately like poison. I have had, for a number of years, a sneaking suspicion that Shylock has not made anti-Semites out of people who were not already anti-Semites. If anything, I suspect that MV may have tempered the anti-Semitism of viewers of the play, since a real person appears on the stage. Or at least, so my suspicions go. One of these days I must write something about Shylock, Fagin, and Chaucer's Prioresse, which would also include a comparison between Pound's flailing abuse of Jews, which I find less dangerous than Hilaire Belloc's cold hatred, and even Eliot's systematic anti-Semitism bolstered with political hatred. This is a long excursion on a vital topic, and I do not know how much help it is to Mr Tornberg. As I say, all that I have now are suspicions, which could certainly be blown away by a few facts. E.L.Epstein (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Takako Nagumo Date: FriDAY, 06 Jan 95 01:09 PST Subject: Re: Merchant of Venice I had the opportunity to play Shylock's daughter, Jessica, this past summer in a student production. I knew that I had problems in reconciling her running away with Lorenzo with her father's money and her conversion to Christianity, which is supposed to be a "good" thing. As an actor, I felt that I could not play a character with whom I could not sympathize, and so I looked for a perspective from which I could see her sympathetically. One key article I read that helped me shape my portrayal of Jessica was "In Defense of Jessica: The Runaway Daughter in _The Merchant of Venice_," by Camille Slights. It appeared in _Shakespeare Quarterly_ (I can't find the original date of publication). You could probably tell what position Slights takes, but she also cites articles which she refutes, which you might be interested in for the sake of balance. Takako Nagumo From: epstein@QCVAXA.BITNET ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 12:48:24 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0010 Re: Tragic Flaw; Dreams (Prep.); Elizabethan Literacy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0010. Friday, 6 January, 1995. (1) From: Patricia Gourlay Date: Thursday, 05 Jan 1995 17:39:35 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0005 Re: Tragic "Flaw" -- Hamartia (2) From: E. L. Epstein Date: Friday, 06 Jan 1995 00:03:13 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0007 Re: Education; Dreams (Prepositions) (3) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 6 Jan 1995 10:47:05 GMT Subj: Re: Elizabethan literacy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia Gourlay Date: Thursday, 05 Jan 1995 17:39:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0005 Re: Tragic "Flaw" -- Hamartia All this discussion of fate and hamartia gets tangled in the usual Aristotelian flypaper, except for Piers Lewis' very sensible look at real tragedies for guidance. For a good discussion of the way Aristotle and Greek tragedy both have been misrepresented, see Richmond Lattimore's essay in the Tulane Review back in '53 and Brian Vickers'TOWARDS GREEK TRAGEDY. Whatever Aristotle meant by hamartia, it does derive from the verb "hamartano" (to fall short ofthe target) and refers to an action rather than a moral quality. Aristotle never uses the word "hubris"; it means "an outrageous act of violence" (such as rape, or the destruction of a conquered city) and never in classical Greek to a moral flaw. Aristotle doesn't talk about fate or irony or nemesis either, because he is interested in tragedy's action and its effect, not its meaning. "Irony" in Aristotle refers only to a pretense of ignorance as used by Socrates. What critical vocabulary he had was his own invention. It's good to remember that all the Greek tragedies we have were written before Aristotle and that Shakespeare's acquaintance with him would have been minimal, even if he were inclined to follow anybody's model. A great deal of nonsense about Greek tragedy (Butcher, Kitto, Frye, Sewell) gets passed on because Greek study is out of fashion, and scholars are humbled by their inability to read the original. But there are good translations out there now, and this is a good occasion to urge everybody to take a fresh look at all the extant Greek tragedies. LIke Shakespeare's, they resist any simple formulas. Every one is different. As for fate, there are different terms (Moira for "share", Anangke for "necessity) in Greek but they all refer to what is beyond human control. In Greek tragedy, they provide the context in which the protagonists make their choices. The terms are in general descriptive rather than causative. Romantic and unclassical as they are, Romeo and Juliet are still closer to Greek tragedy than to medieval or Roman in this respect. As Piers Lewis suggests, they act within the given context of a world inimical to youth, to love, etc. where the jaws of darkness do devour it up. They go for it anyway. The consequence invites from the audience not necessarily the response "Tsk,tsk" but for some at least "What a way to go!" (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. L. Epstein Date: Friday, 06 Jan 1995 00:03:13 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0007 Re: Education; Dreams (Prepositions) In regard to quibbling over prepositions--I can only say again, can we claim to love Shakespeare, if we do not care what he said? E.L.Epstein (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 6 Jan 1995 10:47:05 GMT Subject: Re: Elizabethan literacy Dave Kathman makes a number of good points, but the term 'illiterate' drags in too many of the prejudices of a highly literate late 20th century culture. How about 'nonliterate'? How about 'pre-literate'? Cf. the work of Walter Ong (he of the Numinous Prose). T. Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 18:16:28 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0011 Apologies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 011. Wednesday, 11 January, 1995. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, January 11, 1995 Subject: Apologies SHAKSPEReans, I decided to take the weekend off from editing the SHAKSPER digests only to discover on Monday that the Academic Computing staff was doing the between the semester maintenance and no one told me. I'll get to the backlog after a hour or so of babysitting. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 21:38:51 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0015 Qs: Shakespeare as Actor; Rape/Incest; E-Mail Collaboration Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 015. Wednesday, 11 January, 1995. (1) From: Frances Reed Date: Friday, 6 Jan 1995 20:40:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakspeare as actor (2) From: Carey Cummings Date: Sunday, 08 Jan 1995 16:27:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Help about rape\incest (3) From: David Loeb Date: Friday, 6 Jan 1995 17:33:31 -0500 Subj: [E-mail Collaboration] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frances Reed Date: Friday, 6 Jan 1995 20:40:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakspeare as actor After reading that Shakspeare often acted a small role in his plays, my high school students are curious as to what role he may have played in Macbeth, which we are currently studying. If anyone can tell us, please feel free to send the answer directly to me. We would also like any other information about his acting. Thanks, Frances Reed freed@sacam.oren.ortn.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carey Cummings Date: Sunday, 08 Jan 1995 16:27:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Help about rape\incest I know that this is somewhat out of the area of this list but my lurking about has uncovered the fact that there is an immense amount of arcane and out of area knowledge out there. I have a friend who is doing as a dissertation a hypertext edition of Anne Killegrew's poems. In one of the poems Killegrew has a speaker comment on the "late laws against rape and incest." I have been unable to track down anything specific on rape/incest laws in the mid to late 1600s. Does anyone know of any specific laws in the 1650s, 60s, or 70s? Does anyone have an idea where to look? Perhaps it would be best to answer directly to me rather than to clutter the list with information not germane to the general topic of discussion, viz. Shakespeare. I would greatly appreciate any information, comments or suggestions. Thanks very much. Carey Cummings CARCUM@DELPHI.COM (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Loeb Date: Friday, 6 Jan 1995 17:33:31 -0500 Subject: [E-mail Collaboration] I'm looking for a secondary teacher who'd like to investigate the possibility of collaborating on an e-mail partner approach to studying either the comedies, individual comedies, Hamlet, or perhaps even Romeo & Juliet. I teach at Choate and I've recently worked on a hypertext multimedia Hamlet with some success. Right now, I've got my freshmen going with text, vocab, and questions for Midsummer Night's Dream on disks. Has anyone done stuff like this, and do you have pointers for me? Finally, I'm planning on showing the Central Park film, with William Hurt as Oberon. That's my favorite, ahead of the ponderous BBC and the silly old B&W with Mickey Rooney as Puck and Cagney as Bottom. Are there any other good ones out there? Thanks. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 20:51:09 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0013 Re: *MV* and Anti-Semitism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 013. Wednesday, 11 January, 1995. (1) From: Thomas Ellis Date: Friday, 06 Jan 1995 20:10:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0009 Re: *MV* and Anti-Semitism (2) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Friday, 6 Jan 1995 23:17:39 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0009 Re: *MV* and Anti-Semitism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Ellis Date: Friday, 06 Jan 1995 20:10:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0009 Re: *MV* and Anti-Semitism Regarding M of V, I teach Shakespeare classes at Hampton University, an entirely African American institution, so I consistently teach three of Shakespeare's most problematic plays concerned with culture contact and prejudice: M of V, Othello, and the Tempest. Needless to say, my students instantly identify with the victimized "other" in all three plays: Shylock, Othello, and Caliban. But few if any of them consider Shakespeare himself to be the perpetrator of prejudice or bigotry. Rather, as we explore these plays together, (despite their differences), Shakespeare's modus operandi becomes reasonably clear--at least to us. Here is a general summary of our many discussions on this topic, as regards M of V: (1) There is no denying the historical fact that Shakespeare was capitalizing on popular antisemitism--whether related to Roderigo Lopez or not--in portraying a stereotyped Jewish miser as antagonist. To that extent, Shakespeare is as "guilty" as his local culture of antisemitism (although I am always wary of the self-satisfied political correctness which is willing to pass judgment, by present standards, on past civilizations). (2) However, given that complicity, coupled with the need, imposed by the comic logic of the story, to present Shylock as the stereotyped miser who is duly humiliated by the "good" Christians, Shakespeare spares no pains in rubbing his audience's nose in their own antisemitism by humanizing the "stage Jew" whenever possible--giving him a plausible motive for despising Antonio, allowing him to comment at length on the moral hypocrisy of the Christians and on the inhumanity of antisemitism ("Hath not a Jew hands..."). (3) The classic instance of Shakespeare's modus operandi is the exchange with Tubal about Jessica's extravagance. On one hand, Shakespeare plays to the hilt the low-comic potential in Shylock's raving about his daughter's wanton spending (which we expect of the miser as an alazonic figure), with Tubal acting as straight man-- but no sooner is the audience laughing at the miser's rage than Tubal caps the exchange with the turquoise ring, whereupon Shylock, hitherto a raving miser, elicits a poignant sympathy from the audience by connecting the ring--not with lost wealth, but with his past relationship with his wife Leah: "I would not have traded it for a wilderness of monkeys..." At that moment, the audience, which has been laughing at his misery, suddenly finds itself sharing it--and probably feeling very awkward about having laughed. The point is, none of these features--Shylock's motives, his eloquent condemnation of hypocrisy and prejudice, and his pathos--was necessary to the fulfillment of his anticomic role in the play. The effect of their presence is simply to complicate--to problematize--the comedy. To this extent, M of V is not simply an antisemitic play (like Marlowe's Jew of Malta) but *also* a play about antisemitism--a play that exposes the very antisemitism that it relies upon in its conception. Thomas Ellis Hampton University Hampton, VA 23668 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Friday, 6 Jan 1995 23:17:39 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0009 Re: *MV* and Anti-Semitism In response to Mr. Tornberg's problematic question I have a couple of thoughts: First, surely the situation Shakespeare has set up, at least from one dramatic point of view, villifies the Christians no less than it does Shylock. Shylock may be a rotten individual in many ways but his bloodthirsty desire for "justice" does not compare to Portia's bloodcurdling version of "mercy". It doesn't matter that Shylock is not nice, he is human and the way in which he is treated by the Christians is inhuman. This is unfair and I think Shakespeare goes to some length to show us this if we want to see it that way. Secondly, I had the opportunity to play Jessica a while ago and found it a difficult character to reconcile myself to. One point that helped is the ring sideplot. Jessica steals the ring Shylock had given Leah (Jessica's mother) and sells it on the Rialto for a trifle. Shylock finds out about this and is crushed. Rather than a wicked and callous move I decided Jessica had to get rid of the ring because of the guilt she carried with her. Once I began to interpret Jessica as guilt ridden and ill at ease because of her elopement, a lot of her lines later in the play made a lot of sense. Shirley Kagan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 21:05:29 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0014 Re: Elizabethan Education; Dreams (Prep.); Dumb Show Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 014. Wednesday, 11 January, 1995. (1) From: Edward T Bonahue Date: Friday, 06 Jan 95 15:42 EST Subj: Re: SHK 5.1032 Q: Elizabethan Education (2) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 6 Jan 95 16:10:12 EST Subj: [Dreams (Prepositions and More)] (3) From: Joe Nathan Date: Sunday, 8 Jan 95 15:31:13 PST Subj: Re: *Hamlet* Dumb Show (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward T Bonahue Date: Friday, 06 Jan 95 15:42 EST Subject: Re: SHK 5.1032 Q: Elizabethan Education To Richard Kennedy's question about Shakespearean education. One of the most interesting and enlightening reads is Ascham's _The Schoolmaster_, where he sets forth much education philosophy considered orthodox in the late sixteenth century. All of it meant for nice boys of course, and of a certain class..... Ed Bonahue University of North Carolina (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 6 Jan 95 16:10:12 EST Subject: [Dreams (Prepositions and More)] E. L. Epstein's notion that there is some single, stable, coherent set of rules for "English" must be contradicted by her own experience, to say nothing of the theory and practice of formal linguistics. In a normal academic day I encounter at least three distinct grammars, none of which, including that of my professorial colleagues, is entirely fixed--some of us, for instance, are much more scrupulous than others about not splitting infinitives--, and two of which (those spoken and sometimes written by most of my Caucasian and most of my African-American students) are markedly unstable in many ways. (Have others in the list noted a recent marked propensity of student writers to use any old preposition as the particle in phrases such as "made. . . of/on"?) World-wide, there are dozens of more-or-less distinct communities of English speakers each of which has its characteristic set of linguistic rules, all in a state of constant change. It is, I believe, an axiom of historical linguistics that the English of Shakespeare's time was at least as various and unstable as ours--Manfred Gorlach observes that "EModE could indeed be taken as a typical example to illustrate the fact that language systems are neither homogeneous nor stable" ( [1991], 8). But in any case the problems Epstein perceives in the two lines from do not have to be solved either historically or on grounds that they are "poetic" (whatever that means) and therefore freed from conventional grammatical inhibitions. The problem in the first one--"Of his bones are coral made"--is not what Epstein says it is; it has nothing to do with the "of" but with the apparent lack of subject-verb agreement between "are" and "coral." For this there are at least three plausible explanations: (1) that the text originally read "corals" but the "s" got dropped in typesetting; (2) that some member or members of the composite being we call Shakespeare (an author, but also the transcribers and editors and typesetters who handled the text on its way to publication) allowed the number of "are" to be attracted toward the nearest preceding noun rather than the actual subject (my students do this all the time), suggested by Stephen Orgel in his recent edition, citing G. L. Brook's "The Language of Shakespeare"; (3) that there was an early modern English usage, not documented by OED and perhaps not represented in any of the surviving texts, in which "coral" was an unmarked plural, like "sheep". Take your pick. As for "We are such stuff as dreams are made on", we can treat it as G. L. Brook does, by observing simply that Sh. often exchanges "of" and "on," especially at the end of a line (, 246). I would add, however, that the phrase exploits familiar properties of its constituent terms: read "we [people]" as the the basis, the pattern, the platform, the stage, which dreams, like the plays and masques Prospero has just been discussing and of which he and Ferdinand have just seen an example, are produced. Poetically, Dave Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Nathan Date: Sunday, 8 Jan 95 15:31:13 PST Subject: Re: *Hamlet* Dumb Show Just saw the Peter Hall production of *Hamlet* at the Gielgud Theatre in London. He obviously agrees with Scott Shepherd/Harold Jenkins approach to the dumb show. In the production, Michael Pennington as Claudius shows a calculated straight-faced reaction and Stephen Dillane as Hamlet challenges him with a look, and then shows his frustration. Both parts are remarkably well-played and the desired result scores effectively. BTW if in London, don't miss the production. It is first rate. (While there I went to the Globe reconstruction. Would be glad to report on it if anyone is interested). Joe Nathan - Retiree. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 20:42:38 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0012 Re: Hamartia -- Tragic Flaw Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 012. Wednesday, 11 January, 1995. (1) From: Robert Miola Date: Friday, 06 Jan 1995 15:26:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0010 Re: Tragic Flaw (2) From: Michael Hancher Date: Friday, 6 Jan 95 15:58:46 CST Subj: Tragic Flaw (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Miola Date: Friday, 06 Jan 1995 15:26:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0010 Re: Tragic Flaw Thanks to Clayton and Gourlay and others for the discussion of hamartia, which clearly does not equate to the "tragic flaw" of so many mistranslations. Some other related points and queries: 1) Aristotle does talk of eironeia elsewhere (NE 1127B), where self-deprecation is the deficiency opposed to alazoneia, the excess. 2) Isn't it a bit harsh to say that Butcher, Kitto, Frye, and Sewell wrote nonsense about Greek tragedy? 3) On hubris: See Demosthenes, Against Meidias 21.180 where it seems to mean treating free men like slaves; and his Against Konon 54.7ff., where the term applies to the arrogance of one who, not content with merely beating his enemy, crowed like a triumphant cock over him. Ref. The World of Athens, 114-6. 4) Yes there are lots of Greek words for fate, necessity and the like; but the presence of individual gods, ex- or implicit (Apollo in OT, Aphrodite in Hippolytus) changes the dynamics so profoundly as to render comparisons with later works, like Romeo and Juliet, hard to sustain. Or do I need to hear more arguments and rethink the matter? Bob Miola (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Hancher Date: Friday, 6 Jan 95 15:58:46 CST Subject: Tragic Flaw Lane Cooper may have been (as the new _OED_ suggests) the first critic to use the _term_ "tragic flaw," but the _concept_ was an old one, as his casual use of the term indicates. In _Aristotle on the Art of Poetry: An Amplified Version with Supplementary Illustrations for Students of English_ (Boston: Ginn, 1913), Cooper translates the _hamartia_ passage in _Poetics_ 13 as follows: There remains . . . the case of the man intermediate between these extremes: a man not superlatively good and just, nor yet one whose misfortune comes about through vice and depravity; but a man who is brought low through some error of judgment or shortcoming . . . . (40) The term "tragic flaw" appears not in the translation but in Cooper's commentary, as an offhand synonym for the terms he used to translate _hamartia_: For many, the tragic flaw of the hero, described as an 'error of judgment', or a 'shortcoming', needs immediate illustration. The single Greek word, _hamartia_, lays the emphasis upon the want of insight within the man, but is elastic enough to mean also the outward fault resulting from it. . . . (40-41) Cooper goes on to identify the specific flaws of various heroes, for example: 'the wrath of Achilles' in the _Iliad;_ the overweening curiosity and presumption of Odysseus in the encounter with the Cyclops; 'Man's first disobedience' in _Paradise Lost;_ the jealousy of Othello; the ambition of Macbeth; the rashness of Lear. (41) A precedent for Cooper's use of the term "tragic flaw" was the collocating of the phrases "great flaw of character" and "the tragic hero" by Joel Elias Spingarn, a compatriot of Cooper's, in _A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance_ (New York: Columbia UP, 1899), 82 (at first paraphrasing Aristotle): . . . the misfortune which falls upon him is the result of some great flaw of character or fatal error of conduct. This conception of the tragic hero was the subject of considerable discussion in the Renaissance . . . . Though the term "tragic flaw" arrives relatively late, the concept is very old. According to J. M. Bremer's excellent monograph _Hamartia: Tragic Error in the "Poetics" of Aristotle and in Greek Tragedy_ (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1969), 67-68, Lorenzo Valla's translation of the _Poetics_ (1498) rendered the _hamartia_ phrase as "per flagitium et scelus"--that is, "through crime and wickedness." As Bremer remarks, "this rings a bell which will sound for a very long time indeed." Bremer goes on to trace the consolidation of the moralistic interpretation of _hamartia_ in seventeenth-century theatrical practice and criticism in France and England. He finds some subtlety in Dryden's formula, "allays of frailty" (85), but apparently prefers the less moralistic (if less graceful) account of Samuel Butler: For none but such for Tragedy are fitted, that have been ruined only to be pittied; and only those held proper to deter wh'have had th'ill luck against their wills to err.(85) Butler's account--ill luck, erring against one's will--is indeed close to Bremer's own: . . . it is justified to define _hamartia_ in _Poetics_ 1453 a 10/15 as _'tragic error'_, i.e. a wrong action committed in ignorance of its nature, effect etc., which is the starting point of a causally connected train of events ending in disaster. _Hamartia_ is not _'tragic flaw'_, i.e. a moral weakness, a defect of character which enlarges itself in its successive stages till it issues in crime; nor is _hamartia_ equivalent to _'tragic guilt'_, i.e. the state brought about by sinning, an inner attitude which stems from the wicked action, and a kind of burden from which one is relieved only by adequate punishment. (63) _Pace_ Cooper, the "tragic error" reading of _hamartia_ better fits _Oedipus_ or _Lear_ (if not _Macbeth_ or _Othello_) than does the more popular "tragic flaw" reading, which Bremer persuasively rejects. The popularity of the latter has a lot to do with the history of Christian moralism--and with the moralism of Plato, which Aristotle tried to repress in _Poetics_ 13, awkwardly, and with incomplete success. Michael Hancher Professor of English University of Minnesota ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 16:57:42 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0016 Qs: Teaching Materials; Grant Money; E-Text Sources; Tours Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0016. Thursday, 12 January, 1995. (1) From: Martin Zacks Date: Monday, 9 Jan 1995 12:14:55 -0800 (PST) Subj: Teaching Materials for 6th graders (2) From: Robert Lloyd Neblett Date: Sunday, 8 Jan 1995 21:21:15 -0600 (CST) Subj: Grant Money (MERCHANT) (3) From: David L. Gants Date: Monday, 9 Jan 1995 19:15:14 -0500 Subj: Print sources for etext Shakespeares (4) From: Peter Novak Date: Monday, 09 Jan 1995 17:29:31 -0800 (PST) Subj: School Tours (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Zacks Date: Monday, 9 Jan 1995 12:14:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Teaching Materials for 6th graders A friend of mine has asked me for help in finding a lesson plan or materials for teaching Shakespeare to her 6th grade class. If you know of such material please contact me directly at my email address. Martin Zacks lalalib@class.org (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Lloyd Neblett Date: Sunday, 8 Jan 1995 21:21:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: Grant Money (MERCHANT) I will be directing a free-to-the-public outdoor production of THE MERCHANT OF VENICE this June at Abilene Christian University in Abilene, Texas, and have just found out from the Theatre department Chair that we do not have the usual funds for this production. If anybody knows of any grants for Shakespearean production for which I might eligibly apply, please forward them to me. Please feel free to use my personal e-mail address as well. I realize that it is rather late to be applying for a grant for this summer, but we are desperate. Thank you in advance. Robert L. Neblett rlneblet@artsci.wustl.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David L. Gants Date: Monday, 9 Jan 1995 19:15:14 -0500 Subject: Print sources for etext Shakespeares I've recently downloaded two public domain etexts of Shakespeare's works, the "Moby Shakespeare" found at most gopher and WWW sites, and the Shakespeare available through Project Gutenberg. I'd like to work with these texts, but as with so much of the material circulating on the Net, neither contain any clues as to the print source from which they were taken. Can anyone who has worked with these texts offer information as to their source? In a related matter, I'd like to get ahold of an etext Shakespeare that derives from the old Globe Shakespeare edition. Has anyone in the group come across or used such a text? Thanks in advance, and to save bandwidth, respond personally to: David Gants, dlg8x@virginia.edu. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Novak Date: Monday, 09 Jan 1995 17:29:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: School Tours Some of my students expressed the desire to put together a 50-minute to 75-minute touring show that would educate junior high and high school students about Shakespeare. I told them that I would ask y'all to see if you had any recommendations for them as to what to include. Our university would pay for the event, so English and Drama teachers would not need to have funds for it. So, I ask...if you had a group of enthusiastic university students who wanted to talk about Shakespeare in your classes, what areas would you want them to cover for you? Do any of you have experience that would help us avoid some pitfalls? We would be most appreciative of your comments. Peter Novak PNOVAK@SCUACC.SCU.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 17:06:42 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0017 Re: *MV and Anti-Semitism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0017. Thursday, 12 January, 1995. (1) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 11 Jan 1995 14:19:54 -0800 Subj: Religion (2) From: Thomas Hall Date: Tuesday, 10 Jan 1995 16:34:33 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0006 *MV* and Anti-Semitism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 11 Jan 1995 14:19:54 -0800 Subject: Religion Shakespeare didn't have any good to say of Jews. Aside from MV, when characters in the other plays speak of them at all, it is to curse them or take out a mild oath on Jewry: "If I do not love her, I am a Jew." (Much Ado ii,3,272) Which reminds me of Goering: "If they bomb Berlin, you can call me Meyer." But that comment by Benedick is mild. Shakespeare says worse than that, and not to condemn usury merely, but speaks badly toward Jews just because they are Jews, and not Christians. In those times, to be anti-Semitic was common and thoughtless. You might say that Shakespeare himself was not this way, and lay the blame entirely on his characters, but a playwright's characters often speak speak his own mind, and Shakespeare's comments on Jews is often gratuitous. So was Shakespeare anti-Semitic or not, aside from the feelings of his characters? And here's another religious question. Was Shakespeare Church of England, Catholic, or Puritan? Schoenbaum reports that Davies wrote "He died a Papist." But Davies is an unreliable source, and Shoenbaum ventures no opinion, and leaves Shakespeare's faith an open question. Sidney Lee says of the Bard's religious opinions that we have "niether the means nor the warrent for discussing." The "means" seem to be plenty, all the poems and plays. But "warrent" is a strange thing to say. Lee seems to mean that we haven't any business asking the question in the first place. A man's faith is an important part of himself, and are there clues to his belief in what he writes? How might it be, if we may deduce from the works? Was Shakespeare Church of England, Catholic, or--God help us--a Puritan? Kennedy (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Hall Date: Tuesday, 10 Jan 1995 16:34:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0006 *MV* and Anti-Semitism Aaron: I spent some time working on Merchant last semester. I even wrote a paper sympathizing with the plight of Shylock. It isn't hard to come up with reasons with all the anti-semitic comments made. However about two thirds of the way through the course I had a revelation. Shylock is not a sympathetic character, he's a bad man and a greedy man to whom money holds more importance than his daughter. What if you took out all of the offensive Jew comments and inserted something like "Crack head" or "Loan shark." Then you get a different picture of Shylock. Shakespeare didn't create a portrait of a Jew in Shylock, he created a comic blocking character to be laughed at. Making him a Jew made the character seem exotic to a heterogenous Elizabethan audience. Merchant is a troubling play in many ways. Don't dwell on it too much I'm sure he meant no offence to you. Thomas Hall ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 17:26:07 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0018 Re: *Rom*/*Oedipus*; *Ado* Reactions; Education; Horses Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0018. Thursday, 12 January, 1995. (1) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Tuesday, 10 Jan 95 21:23:18 EST Subj: Oedipus and R&J (2) From: Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer Date: Monday, 9 Jan 1995 23:48:21 -0500 Subj: Young Men and Much Ado (3) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 9 Jan 1995 19:25:03 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0007 Re: Education (4) From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Thursday, 12 Jan 1995 13:12:09 -0600 (MDT) Subj: [Re: Cost of Horses] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Tuesday, 10 Jan 95 21:23:18 EST Subject: Oedipus and R&J I've been reading the R&J and Fate pieces in very odd orders, in part 'cause I accidentally zapped a great pile of e-mail (O, ye gods of e-missives, what message may be considered happy until its final e-rasure!). Some odd thoughts to share, though: If you want to think about culpability and Shakespeare's take on tragedy, you might glance at how he shaped and reshaped Friar Laurence in Q1 and Q2. That was a role Don Foster thinks he played (or rather, that's a role that Foster's rare-word machinery detects as being the font for a disproportionate number of rare words that show up in later plays). Repeatedly at moment after moment Friar Laurence makes worse blunders in the Q2 text than in Q1, is more cowardly, more self-exculpating, more at fault. M'gosh, he's rather like the Duke of Albany in LEAR (another role Foster's engine ascribes to Shakespeare). Which brings me to thinking about Oedipus as a "good" or "Great" man. Hunh? This schmuck solves a riddle and wins the post and bed of the old king. How though did he get to Thebes? Well, walking along the road he bumps into a group of nasty folk who get pushy so he kills them, all but one. Wow! So then later on he pushes to learn the truth about his own background, along the way cursing an old blind prophet, coming close to arresting his brother-in-law for treason, and declaring that he must rule no-matter-what. So he learns the truth. What does he do? Puts out his eyes. How come? So he won't have to look his poppa in the face when he meets him in the underworld. He's a nasty intellectual warrior who cannot face up to the viciousness of his bravado. Sorry, guys, but I grew up in that schoolyard with Oedipus and I pity and fear him. Friar Laurence leaves that teenage girl who he brought to a crypt, leaves her to kill herself, leaves her because he is afraid to stand up face to face to the "watch." Seems to me that Sophocles ain't really worried that much about the gods; rather he holds up for examination the intellectual thuggery of powerful men unconstrained by wisdom or humility. Seems like Shakespeare similarly holds up for examination the same humiliation-fear driven characters in Verona. Seems like Aristotle is playing some other game, avoiding critical looks at warriors. Tragic flaws? Yeah, they sprout into the language around the time we're tooling up for everybody's favorite -agon-, World War I. Map the drive for "truth-at-any- cost" vision of Oedipus onto the movers and shakers of trench-warfare strategies. Like Oedipus, those guys never realized that the bloodied stumps they left on the battlefields belonged to their own poppas and brothers and sons. G'night, Gracie. As ever, Steve Oediperquisites (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer Date: Monday, 9 Jan 1995 23:48:21 -0500 Subject: Young Men and Much Ado I, too, read the post about the young mens' reaction to *Ado* (5.1017) with some concern, being a man myself, and a teacher too. This is a reaction I hadn't noticed, at least when I saw Branagh's film. I've seen it in three venues: Chicago, a night show, the Arts Theatre; East Lansing, MI, late afternoon at the Cineplex Odeon (the local art house); and Jackson, MI, afternoon, at one of the local multiscreen wonders. Granted Branagh lightens the text, but the "naming" scene certainly isn't played for laughs (if you can ignore Pat Doyle's intrusive score). All three audiences seemed to find it genuinely upsetting. These audiences were older. In the case of Chicago and East Lansing, the latter a Big-10 University town, I suppose I could argue that the audiences were more sophisticated, probably about film and perhaps about Shakespeare, than was that in Jackson. I wonder whether the cheering relates to the youth of the males in question, or to their inexperience with Shakespeare. Our culture seems to have programmed a response into some young men that violence against women is acceptable or deserved in some situations, sexual infidelity being one of the primary circumstances; as Chris Gordon notes in 5.1027, certainly it has told these young men that violence in general is acceptable entertainment, and that violence against women is common, and may even be acceptable entertainment itself (witness Sega-Genesis, Nintendo, slasher films, sadie-max or highly aggressive pornography). If the young men aren't sure why Hero is being attacked but have the notion that Claudio's ire is sexual in its basis, they might fall back on this programmed reaction, since it has served them well in the past. It could also be that they're jerks, but the above, I hope, is more the case, as it might go some way toward explaining though not excusing their behavior. Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer kirkhk@aol.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 9 Jan 1995 19:25:03 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0007 Re: Education A few more words on the literacy of the Shakespeares: Given the necessarily fragmentary nature of the evidence we have, a lot of what anybody says about literacy in Elizabethan England is based on intelligent guesswork. John Shakespeare, William's father, made his mark rather than signing his name on legal documents. This provides no positive evidence of his literacy, and it allows us to assume that he probably couldn't sign his name, which in turn allows us to assume that he probably couldn't read or write. However, none of this *proves* anything; literate men, such as John's neighbor Adrian Quiney, sometimes signed with a mark, and contemporary documents make it clear that it was not uncommon for people to be able to read but not write. On balance, I'd say that John Shakespeare *probably* couldn't write, and I'd say less confidently that he probably couldn't read, but there have certainly been scholars who have believed that he was literate to some degree, and it is not unreasonable to think so. Susanna Shakespeare-Hall could sign her name, which allows us to assume she was literate. The only potential evidence against this conclusion is the posthumous story about her supposedly not recognizing her husband's handwriting, which is a little puzzling in any case. On balance, I'd say that it is most likely that Susanna could read and write, but that it is *possible* that she was only able to sign her name. (By the way, "witty" in the 17th century meant "intelligent" rather than "able to toss off clever remarks at dinner parties.") Susanna's sister Judith signed with a mark; this provides no positive evidence that she was literate, and given the very low priority given to women's education, the most natural assumption is that she was illiterate. So, Shakespeare's father was probably illiterate but possibly not; his one daughter was probably literate but possibly not; his other daughter was very probably illiterate. His only son, Hamnet, died at the age of 11, and we have no way of assessing his literacy, though the default assumption is that he would have attended the Stratford grammar school. A flat statement that all of William Shakespeare's blood relatives were illiterate through three generations seems to me not to be a very fair statement of the situation, and at best an oversimplification. And in any case, as Terence Hawkes pointed out, we're talking about the late 16th century here, not the late 20th. The upwardly mobile middle class, of which Shakespeare was a member, was much better educated than their parents' generation, but even so, education was seen as something for boys; educating girls was seen as a waste of precious resources. Shakespeare was, believe it or not, a product of his times, and however tempting it may be to infer his personal opinions from what he has the characters in his plays say, there is nothing surprising about what we know of his family's literacy. I'm glad we've been able to keep this thread civil, and hope we can continue to do so. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Thursday, 12 Jan 1995 13:12:09 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Re: Cost of Horses] My apologies if this is no longer relevant; my U changed from one computer to another and many days of messages were accidentally obliterated. When I was last connected, there was a query about the price of horses. Today I encountered the following in Giles Dawson's manual of Elizabethan Handwriting p.107: from the market Bosworth fair in 1623: William Alport bought at stoned whyte horse (i.e. a stallion, I presume) for 14 shllings.... Thomas Bannester sould a graye Colte for 3 lb 15 s 8d.... Richard Ridgeway sould a blacke mare for 18 shillings.... Hugh Marshall sould a Bay Colt stoned 2 yeares old for 3 lb 3 s 4d... John Slater sould a whyte mare for 35s 8d... But if I were really serious about the price of horses, I would look in the multi-volume Agrarian History of England. There are also farm accounts published in various places; I recall once reading Robert Loder's, whichI believe is the most complete. Incidentally, I hope any of my intermittent correspondents along the Shaksperline will now address me at my new address: ehpearlman@ castle.cudenver.edu E. Pearlman ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 08:43:17 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0019 CFP et al.: *Early Modern Literary Studies* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0019. Saturday, 14 January, 1995. From: R. G. Siemens, Editor, EMLS Date: Tuesday, 10 Jan 95 12:03:30 PST Subject: EMLS: Call for materials *********************************************************** * CALL FOR MATERIALS: PAPERS, REVIEWS, AND INTERNET LINKS * *********************************************************** [This message will be cross-posted; please excuse duplication] EARLY MODERN LITERARY STUDIES: A JOURNAL OF SIXTEENTH- AND SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLISH LITERATURE EMLS: General Information Early Modern Literary Studies (ISSN 1201-2459), a new refereed journal in electronic form, intends to serve both as a formal arena for scholarly discussion and as an academic resource for researchers in the area. Articles in EMLS will examine English literature, literary culture, and language during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries from a variety of perspectives; well-considered responses to published papers will also be published as part of a Readers' Forum. Reviews in EMLS will evaluate recent work in the area as well as academic tools of interest to scholars in the field. Our Internet site will also gather and maintain links to useful on-line resources. EMLS will be available free of charge in hypertextual format on the World Wide Web at http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/e-sources/emls/emlshome.html This site is now accessible for browsing, and our first issue will appear in Spring 1995. A version will also be available via GOPHER. EMLS will be published three times a year for the on-line academic community by the University of British Columbia's English Department, with the support of the University's Library and Arts Computing Centre. CALL FOR PAPERS 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. A wide range of approaches is encouraged. CALL FOR REVIEWS EMLS invites reviews of recent scholarly works -- critical editions, commentaries, and theoretical, historical, literary, or interdisciplinary criticism which centres on sixteenth- or seventeenth-century English or related literary culture. We also encourage reports of all resources which are relevant to literary studies of the period, including those available exclusively in the electronic medium. Our aim is to publish reviews of a consistently high standard, which are both engaging and critically fair, written by a broad range of people at different stages of their academic careers with varied disciplinary backgrounds. CALL FOR LINKS The Electronic Editors at EMLS wish to provide links from the EMLS On-line Resources Page to WWW-accessible resources of interest to scholars in English, particularly scholars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. We have a growing number of sites and services in mind, but the dispersed and evolving nature of the Internet makes it likely that we will not catalog them all. If you know of a resource that would be a useful addition to those resources already available through the EMLS On-line Resources Page, please let us know by sending a short description of the site or service along with its URL (Universal Resource Locator). SUBMISSION PROCEDURE Contributions, including critical essays and studies, bibliographies, notices, letters to the Editor, and other materials, may be submitted to the Editor by electronic mail at EMLS@arts.ubc.ca or by regular mail at Early Modern Literary Studies, Department of English, University of British Columbia, #397 - 1873 East Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z1; reviews and materials for review may be sent to the Review Editor at Review_Editor_EMLS@arts.ubc.ca or by regular mail at the same address, above. Suggestions for links and other electronic materials may be sent to the Electronic Editors at Webmaster_EMLS@arts.ubc.ca Brief hard-copy correspondence may be sent by fax to (604) 822-6906. 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 Modern Language Association Handbook, in addition to the following conventions used by EMLS for ASCII text: *bolded text* is denoted by asterisks, %italicized text% by percent signs, _underlined text_ with the underscore, ^superscript^ is denoted with the caret and 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 demand. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more information, or to join our mailing list, send a message to Ed_Asst_EMLS@arts.ubc.ca Raymond G. Siemens Editor, Early Modern Literary Studies, Department of English, University of British Columbia. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 08:52:16 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0020 Re: *MV* and Anti-Semitism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0020. Saturday, 14 January, 1995. (1) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 13 Jan 95 12:11:19 EST Subj: *MV* and Anti-Semitism (2) From: Ben Schneider Date: Friday, 13 Jan 1995 12:19:29 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0017 Re: *MV and Anti-Semitism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 13 Jan 95 12:11:19 EST Subject: *MV* and Anti-Semitism SHAKSPEReans engaged by the ethnic relations aspects of can profit from the video production directed by Jonathan Miller, with Laurence Olivier as Shylock, Jeremy Brett as Bassanio, and Joan Plowright as a distinctly middle-aged and plain Portia. The production takes its tone from Antonio's initial melancholy; Brett is the gloomiest Bassanio anybody ever saw, Plowright somewhat livelier but still mostly grave, Lancelot cut down to a callow youth. Only in richly comic presentations of Morocco and Aragon (immensely old--a delicious invention) are the late Victorian inhibitions of the production's settings relaxed. Olivier (another bravura interpretation, in line with his Othello and Richard III), in impeccable turn-of-the-century business clothes, with nothing visibly Jewish about him except his yarmulke, gives Shylock a good deal of predatory ferocity--literally, bared fangs--but mostly under wraps; he's about equally sinned against and sinning. The last thing we hear from him, after his exit following a choked, "I am content," is an animal howl of anguish; the last thing we hear in the performance, over a shot of the alienated and excluded Jessica left alone even by her husband on the neo-classical porch of Portia's house, are the strains of the Kol Nidre. It's all very well-bred, veddy British--as though produced for Masterpiece Theatre-- (all the settings and costumes and voices are beautiful), and probably more resonant for British than American viewers, with their rather different history of Christian-Jewish relations. But at times strikingly, even shockingly moving. Melancholically, Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Friday, 13 Jan 1995 12:19:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0017 Re: *MV and Anti-Semitism As Hardy pointed out at the beinning, this topic has been much discussed already here, and (I think) with somewhat more rigor. Joan Ozark Holmer in fall 1993 published a very nitty gritty article on anti-money-lending literature in Shakespeare's time, showing it to be a considerable threat to English life (Shakespeare Studies 21). I deposited an article on the moral issues in MV which has now appeared in Restoration 17(fall 1993). Both argue that Shylock looked a lot different in his own time from the way he does now. Yours ever BEN SCHNEIDER Lawrence U, Wisconsin ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 09:03:49 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0021 Re: Globe Restoration; *Ado* Reaction; Boy Actors Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0021. Saturday, 14 January, 1995. (1) From: Ann Watts Date: Thursday, 12 Jan 95 23:33:38 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0014 Re: Dumb Show (2) From: John Boni Date: Friday, 13 Jan 1995 09:22:21 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0018 Re: *Ado* Reactions (3) From: Duke Pesta Date: Friday, 13 Jan 95 20:59:38 EST Subj: Boys--Again--But Why? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ann Watts Date: Thursday, 12 Jan 95 23:33:38 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0014 Re: Dumb Show Please, Joe Nathan, do indeed report on the Globe restoration as you recently observed it in London. Ann Watts (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Friday, 13 Jan 1995 09:22:21 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0018 Re: *Ado* Reactions Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer continues the issue of the treatment of Hero (and, by implication, of women) in MAAN. Though this issue as raised on SHAKSPER recently focused upon the behavior of young men at a screening, I would like to continue it in the form of the equity of the treatment of Claudio and Don Pedro in relation to what they have apparently caused. It appears that Hero is dead, as a result of the attacks by Claudio and Don Pedro (Leonato's reaction is no help, either). Yet, except for the graveside mourning scene, and Claudio's subsequent willingness to marry on faith once the truth is revealed, little is done to balance out the acts of the two males. Oh, yes, there are some comments about that awful Don John. Certainly, Betrice's "Kill Claudio" injunction to Benedick must be given weight. It strikes me, in addition, that the mourning scene and the marriage on faith decision both need to be played up heavily on stage to balance what has been done. In this aspect, Branagh's film fell short. Given the violence of the disrupted wedding, the brief (though rather pretty) mourning scene and the conventionally pleasant resumed wedding did not balance. Claudio, though grateful at his good fortune, is perhaps too nicely treated; Don Pedro seems to escape altogether any real blame. And this seems a case where Shakespeare turns to ritual or symbolic means to untangle a problem he has created. Though the attacks were literal enough, the solutions (a wedding on faith, a ritual mourning) are not. MAAN, despite the liveliness of B&B, has for a long time left me less than satisfied. As with so many of the other of the "defamed woman" plays, it continues to attract my interest. Other views? John M. Boni, Dean ujboni@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu College of Arts & Sciences phone 312-794-6130 Northeastern Illinois University FAX 312-794-6689 Chicago, Il 60625 (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Duke Pesta Date: Friday, 13 Jan 95 20:59:38 EST Subject: Boys--Again--But Why? Boys--Again--But Why? After following this discussion for several weeks before Christmas, it seems that the evidence tipped in favor of boy actors. If this is so, then what does it say about the theater? I am wondering if the participants in the discussion--on both sides of the debate--would take their line of inquiry one step further and talk about the significance of this issue. What I have in mind is that Stephen Orgel says boy actors make for a homoerotic theater. Boys playing the parts of women creates a "transvestite theater" which, he seems to argue, is fully interchangeable with the idea of a homoerotic theater. The reason, in part, is that: "Homosexuality in this culture appears to have been less threatening than heterosexuality...." What I am looking for is clear evidence (on either side of the issue) that might point to a more definitive answer. It seems to me that Orgel sometimes finesses the evidence to bring it in line with his own conclusions. If he is right, then a lot of things we have been saying about Renaissance drama are wrong. In this connection, I am surprised at how quiet more traditional scholars are on this issue. Is this something that has lain undiscovered for 400 years, is there perhaps some kind of conspiracy that has kept it a secret, or, on the other hand, are the arguments of Orgel more the result of selective evidence taken to be the whole story? What, if anything, is the Renaissance view of this issue? Orgel does a lot with the Puritan writings--what did the humanists have to say about the subject? Are there historical and literary counterexamples to Orgel's argument? More examples in favor of his argument? Why *did* the English stage take boys for women? Any help that anyone could give on this issue would be most appreciated. Respond to me through SHAKSPER or write to me directly. Duke Pesta ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 09:13:49 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0022 Occidental College Symposium Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0022. Saturday, 14 January, 1995. From: Renee Pigeon Date: Friday, 13 Jan 1995 11:52:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Symposium at Occidental College Symposium announcement (please cross-list) Third Annual Teaching the Renaissance Symposium Sponsored by The Renaissance Conference of Southern California and Occidental College Occidental College, Los Angeles Saturday, February 4, 1995 The Renaissance Conference of Southern California invites you to attend the Third Annual Symposium on Teaching the Renaissance, which will feature the following sessions: a workshop on using performance exercises in Shakespeare courses, led by Caroline McManus (CSU Los Angeles) and Edward L. Rocklin (Cal Poly Pomona); a roundtable discussion on the traditional canon and multiculturalism; a workshop (to be held in Occidental College's rare book room) on introducing students to Renaissance texts; a panel on producing instructional videos; and a colloquium on designing the Shakespeare course. To register for the Symposium, please provide the information below. Additional information, including the program and directions to Occidental College, will be mailed to registrants. Registration deadline: January 27 Name: Academic Affiliation: Address: Telephone Number: E-mail address: Symposium registration fees (includes coffee and luncheon) Regular: $28 ___ Graduate Student: $22 ___ (please include a photocopy of your current student I.D.) Make checks payable to: The Renaissance Conference of Southern California Mail to: Renee Pigeon, RCSC President, Dept. of English, CSU San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA 92407 for receipt by January 27th. Registration will be available "at the door" on the day of the Symposium, but please telephone or e-mail and reserve by January 27th to enable us to provide luncheon. Telephone: (909) 880-5896; e-mail rpigeon@wiley.csusb.edu. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 09:19:17 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0023 Q: Brewer's Thatre Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0023. Saturday, 14 January, 1995. From: Avrid Sponderg Date: Friday, 13 Jan 1995 17:35:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: Brewer's Theatre I am looking for information and opinion about Brewer's Theatre and its author, Mr. Brewer. Any help would be appreciated. Please accept my apologies if this was a duplicate message. ASponberg ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 09:22:47 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0024 Keanu's Review Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0024. Saturday, 14 January, 1995. From: Tom Loughlin Date: Friday, 13 Jan 95 20:37:28 EST Subject: Keanu's Review SHAKSPEReans may be interested to know that the production of *Hamlet* starring Keanu Reeves at the Manitoba Theatre Centre in Winnipeg opened last night. I heard one report on the Canadian Broadcasting Company radio program "Morningside," hosted by Peter Gzowski, and the CBC reporter he talked to gave the review a positive notice, although from the various vocal inflections and other sorts of non-verbal clues in her voice I did not sense a security in that notice. I sensed she liked the show, but she didn't quite know why she did, as if she hadn't seen enough Shakespearean productions to really have a frame of reference from which to judge the work. She also reported that the reviewer from the London *Times* "gushed" over it, while the Manchester *Guardian* critic was less than enthusiastic. She also reported that the general reviews seemed to be mixed; Reeves got high marks for the physicality of the role but poor marks for the "dramatic" sections. No sense of how well he played the language. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 08:17:08 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0025 Re: Miller *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0025. Monday, 15 January, 1995. (1) From: Daniel M Larner Date: Saturday, 14 Jan 1995 08:57:01 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0020 Re: *MV* and Anti-Semitism (2) From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Sunday, 15 Jan 95 22:32:18 EST Subj: The Miller/Olivier Merchant (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel M Larner Date: Saturday, 14 Jan 1995 08:57:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0020 Re: *MV* and Anti-Semitism Thanks to David Evett for his posting on the video of the Jonathan Miller MV with Olivier and Plowright. I saw this production in London when it first appeared (1971?) and was deeply moved by the way it puts the moral pinch on Jessica, and leaves us with the bitter pill to swallow that no one here--not just Shylock, Jessica, Bassanio and Antonio, but also Portia and whole crew--are living over a barely covered swamp of deadly hatred. Daniel Larner Fairhaven College Western Washington University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Sunday, 15 Jan 95 22:32:18 EST Subject: The Miller/Olivier Merchant Yes, Jonathan Miller's 1973 MERCHANT OF VENICE is a tour de force. Miller discussed the production in an interview I saw once. He said Olivier was determined to use a panoply of facial prosthetics to make himself look more "Jewish." Miller let him play with his false nose, his distorted upper lip, and his other artificial deformities in rehearsal but then gently stripped them away one by one as he convinced him, using himself as an example, that Jews didn't really look that much different from other people. The performance he helped Jeremy Brett shape in the role of Bassanio is also unique. Miller's MERCHANT is availabe on VHS videocassette for $19.98 from The Writing Company. Call 1-800-421-4246 to order or get on their mailing list. Their new 1995 catalog has also added, at the same price, Welles' OTHELLO and Branagh's MUCH ADO. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 08:52:05 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0026 Re: Dreams (Prepositions); Greek Tragedy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0026. Monday, 15 January, 1995. (1) From: E. L. Epstein Date: Saturday, 14 Jan 1995 12:33:19 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0014 Re: Dreams (Prep.) (2) From: E. L. Epstein Date: Saturday, 14 Jan 1995 12:44:14 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0018 Re: *Rom*/*Oedipus* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. L. Epstein Date: Saturday, 14 Jan 1995 12:33:19 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0014 Re: Dreams (Prep.) I would like to thank Mr. Evett for his thoughtful reply to my comments. He is right about varieties of English, but they are not different languages. They are different *registers* and *dialects* of English, each with its own rules, which are followed within each register and within each dialect. We can tell when these rules are broken; we get an uneasy or ironic effect at that point. As for the difficulty in agreement for Coral and Are, see Abbott(/) on Shakespearean grammar; he points out that Shakespeare frequently makes verbs agree with the *nearest* noun, whether or not that is appropriate, which makes for difficulty in heavily inverted constructions. Which still leaves us with the problem of *of* in the Tempest line. (I think the name of the author of Shakespeare's Grammar is Abbott.) E. L. Epstein (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. L. Epstein Date: Saturday, 14 Jan 1995 12:44:14 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0018 Re: *Rom*/*Oedipus* I once had an odd thought in re Greek (ie Athenian) tragedy. It seemed to me that the Athenians attitude toward tragedy has a rather gloating element about it. "Sure, the king of Thebes killed his father and married his mother! What else would you expect from such a place!" I think that the Athenian attitude toward Thebes, and Argos, and other such places is that none of them are good old Athens, where such things don't happen, with the unfortunate exception of the doing to death of Hippolytus, which was just too bad. This would also shed some light on hamartia, which could bear the nuance "the stupid things that non-Athenians do." I see the Athenian attitude towards Thebes as something like the Bostonian/ New York attitude towards Dallas. How about comment? Sorry, Dallas guys--just reporting. E.L.Epstein ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 08:54:46 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0027 Q: Copyright and Commentary Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0027. Monday, 15 January, 1995. From: Stan Beeler Date: Saturday, 14 Jan 1995 13:44:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Copyright and Commentary I am developing a wais/http server that will include an indexed version of the works of Shakespeare. At the moment I have most of Shakespeare's poetry indexed so that you can search for single words or perform true boolean searches with "and," "or" and "not." The search returns hypertext links to entire sonnets or the stanzas of longer poems that include the target material. If you follow the links to the stanzas you are given a link to the entire poem so that you can read the material in context. I would like to expand the hypertext links to include more traditional secondary material on the works of Shakespeare. Unfortunately, I cannot find anything already on the Internet so I believe that I will have to provide it myself. I would like to know what the copyright issues are concerning the presentation of material like Johnson's ``Preface to Shakespeare.'' It has been suggested that if I find old editions of these commentaries I can legally scan them in with OCR software and include them in my project. If you have any thoughts on this subject or suggestions for material to include could you please send them along. For those of you who have web browsers my http server address is: http://andreae.unbc.edu Stan Beeler ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 09:03:47 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0028 Conference on New Globe Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0028. Monday, 15 January, 1995. From: Andrew Gurr Date: Monday, 16 Jan 1995 10:18:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Conference on New Globe There is to be a conference on what to do with the new Globe in Southwark, what theatre experiments should be conducted there, what kinds of costume and what kind of acting might work best there. Dates 18 - 20 April, place the Globe, Southwark, London. Title of conference "Within this wooden O". If you are interested in attending, or in giving a paper, please contact Alastair Tallon, Globe Education, Bear Gardens, LONDON SE1 9EB, UK. Fax number 0171 928 7968/928 6330. Andrew Gurr. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 09:06:21 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0029 CTI Workshops 1995 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0029. Monday, 15 January, 1995. From: Stuart Lee Date: Monday, 16 Jan 1995 11:00:02 +0000 Subject: CTI Workshops: Reminder Computers in Teaching Initiative (CTI) Centre for Textual Studies Oxford University Computing Services 1995 Workshops Throughout the early part of 1995, the Computers in Teaching Initiative (CTI) Centre for Textual Studies, based at Oxford University Computing Services, will be running a series of workshops aimed at introducing some of the latest developments in humanities computing. Details, dates, and the cost of each workshop are listed below. Please contact the CTI Centre for Textual Studies for more information, noting which workshop(s) you are interested in. **************************************************************************** Stuart Lee or Michael Popham CTI Centre for Textual Studies Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 6NN Tel:0865-273221 Fax:0865-273221 E-mail: CTITEXT@vax.ox.ac.uk Http://www.ox.ac.uk/depts/humanities/ **************************************************************************** UW=Unwaged or not in full-time employment; AR=Academic rate; CR=Commercial rate. All prices are in pounds sterling. Costs include registration, lunch, and coffee only. A list of accommodation will be made available by the CTI Centre but it is up to individuals to make their own arrangements. **************************************************************************** WORKSHOP 1: Introduction to the World-Wide-Web and HTML Date: 15th February 1995; Venue: Oxford University Computing Services; Cost: UW=25.00, AR=50.00, CR=100.00 This workshop will set out to introduce the basics of the World-Wide-Web and the markup language HTML. A provisional programme for this workshop is as follows: * An Introduction to the WWW * Hands-on Browsing of the WWW * An Introduction to HTML Mark-up * HTML Mark-up (Practical) * HTML Tools * Publishing on the WWW * The WWW of the Future **************************************************************************** WORKSHOP 2: The Poetry Shell and the Creation of Hypermedia Editions for Teaching. Date: 17th March 1995; Venue: Oxford University Computing Services; Cost: UW=25.00, AR=50.00, CR=100.00 The Poetry Shell has been developed as part of the Oxford University Hypermedia in Literary and Linguistic Subjects Project which was funded under the ITTI. The Shell is written in Asymetrix ToolBook and allows academics to prepare teaching editions of poems, in particular those written in languages other than Modern English. It allows the incorporation of translations, critical essays, grammatical information, glossary, notes, and even images. The workshop will introduce participants to the principles of electronic teaching editions in the Shell by first of all giving access to a poem already prepared. They will then be taken step-by-step through the process of creating their own edition. A short poetic text and supporting materials will be provided. *************************************************************************** WORKSHOP 3: The Electronic Text (1) Date: 30th March 1995; Venue: Oxford University Computing Services; Cost: UW=25.00, AR=50.00, CR=100.00. This workshop will set out to introduce some of the basic issues of using electronic texts. Areas covered will include a discussion of the nature of the elctronic text and the advantages of its use in teaching and research. This will then be followed by a discussion of some of the sources of electronic texts (predominantly literary in nature) including commercial suppliers, electronic archives, and the stages of creating your own (e.g. scanning and mark-up). The day will end with some demonstrations of the various projects mentioned in the talks. Familiarity with the contents of this course is a pre-requisite for 'The Electronic Text (2)'. *************************************************************************** WORKSHOP 4: The Electronic Text (2) Date: 31st March 1995; Venue: Oxford University Computing Services; Cost: UW=25.00, AR=50.00, CR=100.00. This workshop will consist of two half-day sessions. The first will include an introduction to the principles of text analysis, an overview of some of the key tools, and an opportunity to gain some hands-on experience with the text analysis package TACT. The second session will focus on the use of the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), provide delegates with the chance to try out some SGML-aware tools for creating and browsing texts, and look at the Guidelines produced by the Text Encoding Initiative. All delegates should either have attended the workshop "The Electronic Text (1)" or be familiar with its subject matter. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 09:02:54 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0030 Re: Greek (Athenian) Tragedy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 030. Wednesday, 18 January, 1995. (1) From: Victor Gallerano Date: Monday, 16 Jan 1995 10:34:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0026 Concerning Oedipus at Dealy Plaza (2) From: Sharon Beth Cinnamon Date: Wednesday, 18 Jan 1995 01:31:51 -0500 (EST) Subj: Greek Tragedy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Victor Gallerano Date: Monday, 16 Jan 1995 10:34:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0026 Concerning Oedipus at Dealy Plaza Dear E.L. Epstein, I'm not sure that any of us can establish the "athenian attitude" toward the cowboys down at Thebes...perhaps we should take a poll. What we do know is that, in his last play, Sophocles sets the apotheosis of Oedipus near Athens before a chorus of Athenians and that Oedipus (or at least the memory of him) is said to be a blessing on that city. For all the purported "tragic" aspects of the Kennedy assasination -- and its occurring out in the "provinces" -- I think none is more salient than how quickly it followed upon Jack Kennedy's own elimination of President Diem in South Vietnam coupled with Malcom X's (then scandalous) remark that the shooting in Dallas was a case of "chickens coming home to roost." (I "pitched" this view of the "Caesarian" - and, therefore, tragic - presidency in hollywood, but the "veeps" there said the public would never go for a black Tiresias. Spike wanted to stage it in the hood, but he didn't have the money back then.) This is not, of course, a conspiracy theory, but an observation of facts that, if focused in words and staged, offer enough dramatic irony (prophetic hindsight?) on the Dallas shooting to implicate all the "best and the brightest" no matter what their "attitude" toward the "Dallas guys." That of course is why we keep reading these "tragedies." We think we see a pattern. And, since it is impossible to see the mote in our own eye, we smuggly stage it in Thebes where the grotesque is safely common. Sophocles knew that to speak the wisdom of Pogo, one must become a "realist of distances," or as Flannery O'Connor said, "For the hard-of-hearing you shout, for the nearly blind you draw large startling pictures." So go on, villify Dallas. It's neccessary for the full terror, pity, tragedy (accompanied by the rising voice of Frank Zappa singing, "It can't happen here!" Provincially yours...or as we say down home _via con Dios_ Vic Gallerano (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sharon Beth Cinnamon Date: Wednesday, 18 Jan 1995 01:31:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Greek Tragedy Poking fun at and slandering foreigners was a good way for the Athenian playwrights to score points with the judges. Especially since the plays were meant for local festivals instead of widespread marketing, good old fashioned patriotism was wise. The guy in the white hat who saves the day is usually Athenian, if not Olympian. It's like a city rooting for the home team to win and a James Bond movie with the Big Bad Russians. Or it's like Shakespeare's treatment of the French and English in 2HenryVI: the French witch is hardly a saint. --New York Yankee and Boston Red Sox Fan, Sharon Cinnamon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 09:08:59 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0031 Re: Hamartia; Keanu's Hamlet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 031. Wednesday, 18 January, 1995. (1) From: Piers Lewis Date: Monday, 16 Jan 1995 15:16:09 -0600 (CST) Subj: Hamartia (2) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 16 Jan 95 15:43:23 -0500 Subj: SHAKSPER 0024: Keanu's Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Piers Lewis Date: Monday, 16 Jan 1995 15:16:09 -0600 (CST) Subject: Hamartia I want to thank Thomas Clayton and Michael Hancher for the work they have done in clarifying for the rest of us the relevant history of the term 'hamartia.' What interests me in this story is the way this term has been used to serve the interests of a reductive moralism-- most notably Christian as Michael Hancher remarks. As we have seen, however, moralism can take many forms and serve many interests. The phrase 'tragic flaw' is only the most obvious instance of the way this ancient and somewhat mysterious idea has been simplified and put to moralistic uses. I was struck by Michael Hancher's remark that even Aristotle could not entirely avoid the temptation to give 'hamartia' a moral spin. That fact should humble us all. It is a great temptation to blame the victim for her fate--to say, smugly, well you must have deserved it--and of course we see the political consequences that that leads to all the time. My students are always falling into this trap: when disaster overtakes a character in a story, they want to see it as a comeuppance. I want to say, no one deserves his fate, good OR bad but I'm not sure how far one should push that; the problem of responsibility puzzles the will, so to speak. Terms like 'praise' and 'blame' do have a use in human languages. It is clear that we are responsible for our actions--but what is an action? When does a series of actions add up to a life? A fate? When it's over? (Call no man happy until he's dead . . .) The action of a tragedy consists of a series of smaller actions each of which is understood to have been (in some sense) chosen. Each choice could have gone the other way. Yet, when the final disaster has occurred and the action of play is complete, we walk out feeling it couldn't and shouldn't have ended in any other way. Macbeth and his wife are not evil at the beginning; just a couple of worldlings and opportunists such as any society can readily supply, with an extraordinary itch for sovereign sway and masterdom. When it's all over we realize that something horrifying has been brought to light in the character of Macbeth. Was it lying there, coiled, right from the beginning or has he, somehow, been creating his character, step by step, inventing it as he goes along? Does Macbeth deserve his fate? It is his fate, it seems, to become a monster; is that what he deserves? Heraclitus said, "A man's character is his fate." A frightening thought. A tragic thought. It says, we are not in control of our lives; no one deserves his character or his fate, good or bad. Isn't that the great discovery of Greek tragedy--and of tragic drama ever since? Sophocles seems to have been working out the logic of Heraclitus' equation in _Oedipus_ and thereby succeeded in turning it into a riddle that defies rational analysis. Oedipus' character is certainly instrumental in bringing on his fate but there is no rational connection between the one and the other. No rational ethics explains or justifies the action of this play--or of any other tragedy. Tragedy is a perpetual affront to rationalists, moralists and theologians. And it seems to have been a problem for Aristotle as well: is it possible that his theory of 'hamartia' is an attempt to loosen the fatalistic grip of Heraclitus' formulation? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 16 Jan 95 15:43:23 -0500 Subject: SHAKSPER 0024: Keanu's Hamlet Hello, fellow Shakespeareans! Thanks to Tom Loughlin for his summary of Keanu Reeves's *Hamlet.* I have copies of two reviews, one from the Ottawa Citizen and one from the Toronto (?) Globe and Mail if anyone would like to see them. I'll be going to the performance with a busload of students, colleagues, and friends the weekend of Jan 26-29, and will give my personal impressions after I return. Chris Gordon University of Minnesota ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 09:18:43 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0032 Contest; ACTER Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 032. Wednesday, 18 January, 1995. (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Monday, 16 Jan 1995 15:08:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Contest that may interest some SHAKSPERians (2) From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Wednesday, 18 Jan 1995 08:07:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: ACTER tour Spring 1996 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Monday, 16 Jan 1995 15:08:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Contest that may interest some SHAKSPERians [Originally posted on SHARP-L@IUBVM.UCS.INDIANA.EDU: Society for the History of Authorship, Reading & Publishing] Subject: Jo Ann Boydston Essay Prize The Association for Documentary Editing seeks nominations for the first biennial Jo Ann Boydston Essay Prize. The prize, in the amount of $250, will be awarded in October 1995 for the best review or review essay that deals with the scholarly editing of works or documents. To be eligible, the review must have been published between June 1, 1993, and May 30, 1995. Submissions should include three copies of the published review with the source clearly identified, and the name, address, and phone number of the author, and should be sent to G. Thomas Tanselle, Vice-President, The Guggenheim Foundation, 90 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016, by June 1, 1995. This announcement has been posted on the following lists: Exlibris, S-edit, Archives, Society of Early Americanists, US Civil War, Diplomatic History, US Political History, History of Rhetoric and Communications, Women's History, Humanists, US Presidential History, Public History, and History of Authorship, Reading. Please pass it on to any other appropriate lists. Thank you. Elizabeth Marshall (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Wednesday, 18 Jan 1995 08:07:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: ACTER tour Spring 1996 ACTER, the program housed at UNC-CH which schedules tours of British Shakespearean actors in full length minimalist productions, combined with a week long teaching residency, to campuses around the country, is now looking to fill the Spring 1996 Macbeth tour. We are especially seeking warm weather sites for the chilly months of February and March. Please respond off list if you are interested in receiving more information or would like to book a residency on your campus. Thank you! Cynthia Dessen, General Manager - csdessen@email.unc.edu or 919-967-4265. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 06:13:50 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0033 Re: *MV*: Inconsistencies and Miller's Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0033. Thursday, 19 January, 1995. (1) From: Aaron Tornberg Date: Wednesday, 18 Jan 1995 10:56:24 -0500 Subj: Re: MV and inconsistencies (2) From: John Owen Date: Wednesday, 18 Jan 1995 12:06:54 -0800 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0025 Re: Miller *MV* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Aaron Tornberg Date: Wednesday, 18 Jan 1995 10:56:24 -0500 Subject: Re: MV and inconsistencies Okay, So I put the "Merchant of Venice" topic out there (again for most of you) and received some very interesting responses. I then retrieved the database and read all I could from discussions 93-. Now here's what I still haven't found regarding my original post. Looking through MV I.iii.(71-95) there is a speech by Shylock about Jacob and Laban and the sheep. From what I know of Rennaissance England, The Bible had great importance. If this is the case, then why does Shakespeare quote half the story withing MV? The only conclusion I can arrive at is that the whole story would have taken away from the anti-Semitic characterization of Shylock. If Shakespeare is so textually incorrect with the Bible, then how can we trust that his views are at all reliable when dealing with studies of Elizabethan England? After all, Riverside often indicates his misquotation of Holinshed or at least misunderstanding. This bothers me because it is a blatant disregard for any kind of accurate research. This is from a man whose use of drama and language is almost revered. For those interested in responding, the Biblical passage in its entirety can be found in Genesis 29 and continues for a number of chapters after. I am interested in continuing this discussion either on the question of accuracy in general or withing MV with which I am particularly interested. Aaron Tornberg, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada yku02829@cawc.yorku.ca (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Wednesday, 18 Jan 1995 12:06:54 -0800 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0025 Re: Miller *MV* The isolation of Jessica at the end of Miller's MV is unsettling (good) but hardly in keeping with the play's tone (bad). How can we possibly follow the charming duet between Lorenzo and Jessica, wherein they tease and joke in the most loving and familiar manner, with the unwarranted implication of a rejection of Jessica? They just don't match up. To all appearances, Jessica is happily paired at the end of the play, and there is no reason to assume otherwise. I remember seeing photographs of an Old Vic MV from the early 50's with Paul Rogers as Shylock and Claire Bloom as Jessica, where the end staging was much more effective. All the couples were paired off, and only Antonio was left alone - he, indeed, is alone at the play's end, like Shylock (though not ruined) and if a note of sadness must be added to Act V, it should be given to the ever-melancholy title character. The practice of revolving the production around Shylock, as if he were the central character, is unfortunate. Since Henry Irving's scenery-chewing 19th century performance, there has been a tendency to play Shylock up. Act V has always meant trouble for this line of thinking, and some directors have actually chosen to omit the final act altogether!! Miller's decision is the next best thing - keep him present in spirit, to haunt the consciences of the evil -- well everyone else, right? Are there other ways to handle Act V? John Owen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 06:19:44 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0034 Re: Greek (Athenian) Tragedy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0034. Thursday, 19 January, 1995. From: Date: Wednesday, 18 Jan 1995 16:05:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0030 Re: Greek (Athenian) Tragedy This Athenians vs. Barbarians idea has lots of possibilities, but it won't work for everybody, especially Euripides. Note his "Ion," which has its fun with the Athenian royal line as well as with Apollo. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 06:23:04 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0035 D.C. Performance Studies Meeting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0035. Thursday, 19 January, 1995. From: Cynthia Wimmer (cm74) Date: Monday, 09 Jan 95 14:12 EST Subject: D.C.Meeting [Please forward the announcement below to any lists which discuss the fields mentioned. Thank you. Hope many folks will be able participate in this gathering!] Attend a Mid-Atlantic Discussion about PERFORMANCE STUDIES the field that draws from anthropology, ritual studies, art, theatre, dance, music, speech communications, philosophy, & literary theory. Saturday, February 18, 1995, 11 am - 4 pm Anne Arundel Hall, U of Maryland, College Park With Bruce McConachie, Editor _Theatre Annual_, Gay Gibson Cima, Georgetown U., and Representatives from NEA and NEH Sponsored by the Performance Studies Focus Group (PSFG) of The Association for Theatre in Higher Education (ATHE) To reserve your space at this meeting, contact Cynthia Wimmer, Executive Committee of PSFG, at (301) 649-7585, or cm74@umail.umd.edu, by FEBRUARY 1, 1995. No registration fee will be charged for this meeting. For information on overnight accomodations at U of MD's Inn and Conference Center, call (800) 727-8622. Cynthia Wimmer cm74@umail.umd.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 08:28:35 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0037 Re: *MV*, Especially Act V Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0037. Friday, 20 January, 1995. (1) From: Suba Subbaro Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 95 07:55:46 EST Subj: MV Spinoffs (2) From: Stephen Schultz Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 95 11:27:25 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0033 Re: *MV*: Inconsistencies and Miller's (3) From: Jean Peterson Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 11:51:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0033 Re: *MV*: Inconsistencies (4) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 13:14:51 +0001 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0033 Re: *MV*: Inconsistencies and Miller's (5) From: Louis Scheeder Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 14:44:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0033 Re: *MV*: Inconsistencies and Miller's (6) From: Daniel M Larner Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 17:24:43 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0033 Re: *MV*: Inconsistencies and Miller's (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Suba Subbaro Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 95 07:55:46 EST Subject: MV Spinoffs Pardon me if these questions have been asked before--I am a relative newcomer to this list. Is Arnold Wesker's "Merchant" a MV spinoff? Also, I've heard that the cult movie, "My Own Private Idaho" is loosely based on MV. Is it? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Schultz Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 95 11:27:25 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0033 Re: *MV*: Inconsistencies and Miller's On ways to handle Act V of _MofV_: One of Irving's biographers says that Sir Henry regularly cut the fifth act as anticlimactic. When some critic had the temerity to attack this excision, Irving restored the act in a spirit of experiment. But he excised it again upon discovering that it (added onto the pauses for scene changes at the Lyceum) made the play so long that audience members couldn't catch public transportation after the show. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 11:51:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0033 Re: *MV*: Inconsistencies John Owen has a point--yet one of my favorite idiosyncrasies of Act 5 is that the "charming duet" between Jessica and Lorenzo that begins the act invokes famous examples of romantic disasters...Troilus and Cressida, Pyramus and Thisbe, Dido and Aneas...and finally, Medea and Jason! That the Medea reference is used to segue into Jessica and Lorenzo's tale is maybe telling--another betrayal of a father, rejection of home and "nation," infatuated elopement, ending in romantic treachery, rejection, loss, bitterness, and grief... I am teaching this play for the first time next week--so this discussion is proving both provocative and timely! Jean Peterson Bucknell University (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 13:14:51 +0001 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0033 Re: *MV*: Inconsistencies and Miller's Re John Owen's remarks on the "happy ending" of Jessica's romance: why is it inconceivable that Jessica might be happy with her Lorenzo, and that she might at the same time register the fact that no one else (except for Launcelot) finds her worth talking to? Wouldn't that muddy the happiness of her marriage, to find that marriage to a Christian doesn't make her acceptable to other Christians, and that perhaps revange on her father is not as sweet as she thought it might be, when only she was the revenger? The kind of revenge that the others are enjoying might simply remind her of her own Jewishness, her own otherness, and might well make her as melancholy as Antonio. Helen Ostovich McMaster University (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Scheeder Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 14:44:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0033 Re: *MV*: Inconsistencies and Miller's Re: John Owen's comment that in the final act of MV, wherein Jessica and Lorenzo "tease and joke in a familiar way", I would suggest that such a way is not the only way the scene can be played. It can also be played for great conflict - as a real fight. He has married her for the money, and now the money's gone. They seem to be living on Portia's largess, and the servants don't seem to much like Jessica. Life is not what they thought it might be. Louis Scheeder scheedrl@acf2.nyu.edu (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel M Larner Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 17:24:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0033 Re: *MV*: Inconsistencies and Miller's I think John Owen misses the point of the isolated Jessica at the end of Jonathan Miller's MV. She has stopped, on her way to bed with Lorenzo (with whom she has just been flirting and teasing), seeing in her hand the judgment on Shylock awarding her his forfeit properties. The irony and pain of this moment, and of her discovery that she will prosper on the back of her father's loss, is intensified by (not inconsistent with) the teasing scene with Lorenzo. I found this a brilliant directorial move, and a terribly moving movement which pierced the smug self-satisfaction of the play's ending in a way that seemed appropriate and contained within it. When I saw it at the Old Vic, the intensity of the experience was doubled because Olivier was ill and had announced his retirement. This was one of his last performances, and everyone was hoping for him, praying for him, as if (who knew?) there were a real chance he might die in the middle of the performance. His manic energy as Shylock, coupled with his apparent (and rumored) decrepitude, made his performance look like something of a miracle, which his very alive appearance for many curtain calls confirmed. Daniel Larner Fairhaven College Western Washington University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:57:23 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0038 Sh Yearbook; Cahiers Elisabethains; Ben Jonson Journal Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0038. Friday, 20 January, 1995. (1) From: Holger Klein Date: Saturday, 14 Jan 1995 17:11:00 +0100 Subj: [Shakespeare Yearbook] (2) From: Luc Borot Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 95 17:25:21 +0100 Subj: Cahiers Elisabethains (3) From: David Phillips Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 12:27:59 -0800 (PST) Subj: Ben Jonson Journal (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Holger Klein Date: Saturday, 14 Jan 1995 17:11:00 +0100 Subject: [Shakespeare Yearbook] "Beginning with Vol. 4 (1993), the Shakespeare Yearbook has been edited by Holger Klein (Salzburg), with Nicholas Radel (Furman) as Reviews Editor.Members of the Editorial Board are: Dimiter Daphinoff (Fribourg), Peter Davidazi (Budapest), James Harner (Texas A&M), Joan Hartwig (Lexington), Andre Lorant (Paris), Peter Milward (Tokyo), Simon Williams (Santa Barbara)and Rowland Wymer (Hull). In an attempt to complement the emphases of other journals, the Shakespeare Yearbook concentrates on four aspects: theatre-oriented studies,interdisciplinary studies, comparative studies, and the reception of Shakespeare in a specific country or region. Contributions (up to 25 pages, MLA style, MS-DOS Word for Windows 6 for IBM, plus hard copy)are double-read. Contributions are being invited to Vol. 6 (1995) "SHAKESPEARE AND HISTORY". This was originally entitled: Shakespeare, the Tudor Myth, and Modern Historiography, but it has turned out that interesting articles were also forthcoming for comedies, hence the co-editor, Rowland Wymer and the editor decided to widen the volume's scope. Articles may cover any aspect of the relationship between Shakespeare plays and historical events, circumstances, personages, contemporary or modern historical writing, etc. The deadline for contributions is June 1995. Please send offers as soon as possible to Professor H.M. Klein, Institut fuer Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Universitaet Salzburg, Akademiestr. 24, A-5020 Salzburg, Tel. +43-662-8044-4422; Fax +43-662-8044-613, E-Mail: kleinhol@edvz.sbg.ac.at. Contributions are also being invited to Vol. 7 (1996) entitled "SHAKESPEARE AND HUNGARY", which will embrace studies of translations, critical reception, creative reception - imitations, adaptations, parodies, travesties, transmedial adaptations, etc. - literary analogues, productions, school- viz. university curricula, theatrical production, or other forms and areas of impact. The co-editor is Peter Davidhazi. The deadline for submitting articles is January 1996, please send offers to Holger Klein at Salzburg (see above). Later volumes will deal with: Hamlet on Screen (No.8, 1997, co-editor Dimiter Daphinoff), Shakespeare and Japan (No. 9, 1998, co-editor Peter Milward) and Shakespeare and Italy (No.10, 1999, co-editor Michele Marrapodi)." Please edit this announcement as you see fit. I should be most grateful for its dissemination. Best wishes and regards, Yours sincerely, Holger Klein (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Luc Borot Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 95 17:25:21 +0100 Subject: Cahiers Elisabethains Dear all, Cahiers Elisabethains inform their collaborators and readers that they now have an e-mail address: cahiers@alor.univ-montp3.fr. An ftp server is being set up to speed up communication and exchanges between the editors and contributors. Access rights will be granted to contributors between the acceptance of their papers and the publication of the issue where they will appear. The e-mail address can be used for subscription request, to propose a paper, play-review, book-review, film-review, record-review or note. Mail will be retrieved by the Montpellier editors, Angela Maguin, not online yet, Jean-Marie Maguin (jmm@alor.univ-montp3.fr), Luc Borot (lb@alor.univ-montp3.fr), or Patricia Dorval, who also acts as business editor (pat@alor.univ-montp3.fr). A W3 server will be available this Spring, with access to the library's catalogue through a WAIS database. More of this when it is ready. Due to growing rampant illiteracy in the administrative spheres of French academe and ministeries, the Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Elisabethaines has had to change its name to Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches sur la Renaissance Anglaise. Our contacts in decision-making agencies seemed more and more unable to understand the meaning of the adjective 'elisabethain'. We sometimes found it spelt 'Elisabeth Hun' or under other homophonic forms. It became more and more difficult to ask funds from local (or even national) boards in which no one knew what this word meant, so we (mournfully) decided that our 25th anniversary, which will soon be here, was the right occasion for a change of name. Our first concession (and hopefully the last) to militant technocratic ignorance. As some of our regular partners and friends are members of SHAKSPER, we take the liberty of using SHAKSPER to publish this piece of information. Cheers to all, For the C.E.R.R.A. (I'm not used to it yet), Luc Borot (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Phillips Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 12:27:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ben Jonson Journal ***************************************************************** ***************** _The Ben Jonson Journal_ ******************** ***************************************************************** Editors Richard Harp and Stanley Stewart are pleased to announce that the first issue of the _Ben Jonson Journal_ will be released this month. _The Ben Jonson Journal_ is devoted to the study of Jonson as well as all English Renaissance authors and their cultural, historical, and religious milieux. Published annually, each issue will be at least two hundred pages. Volume I features essays and reviews from our distinguised editorial board: David M. Bevington, Martin Butler, Thomas Clayton, Ian Donaldson, Robert C. Evans, M. Thomas Hester, Grace Ioppolo, William W. Kerrigan, Anthony Low, David C. McPherson, John Mulryan, Stephen Orgel, James A. Riddell, E.W. Tayler, Sara van den Berg, Susanne Woods, and R.V. Young. Volume II is nearly complete, and the editors are now accepting manuscripts for Volume III. Articles should be 20-30 double-spaced manuscript pages, notes up to 10 pages, style: Chicago. Three copies of the manuscript are required. The journal also reviews books, but book reviews are assigned. Manuscripts should be sent to: The Editors, Department of English, UNLV, Box 455069, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89154-5069. Rejected manuscripts will be returned with SASE. Subscriptions to the jounal are $15 for one year, $25 for two years. Subscribers may use the form provided below. For additional information, contact Richard Harp at harprlh@nevada.edu (702) 895- 0991 or Stan Stewart at snstewar@ucrvms.bitnet (909) 787-3674. ------------------------------------------------------------------ THE BEN JONSON JOURNAL UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA PRESS MAIL STOP 166 RENO, NV 89557-0076 SUBSCRIPTION _____ 1 year $15 _____ 2 years $25 Amount Enclosed $_____ Subscriptions outside the U.S. should add $3.00 per year for postage and handling. _____ Check enclosed _____ Mastercard _____ Visa _____ Discover Card Number ______________________________________________________ Expiration Date ___/___ Signature ________________________________________________________ SHIP TO: Name _____________________________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________________ City _____________________________________________________________ State/Zip Code ___________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:03:04 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0039 Re: Keanu's Hamlet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0039. Friday, 20 January, 1995. (1) From: Matthew Henerson Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 11:13:12 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0031 Re: Keanu's Hamlet (2) From: Dave Collins Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 14:45:04 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0031 Re: Keanu's Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Henerson Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 11:13:12 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0031 Re: Keanu's Hamlet Dear Chris Gordon, Please post the reviews of the Keanu Reeves' *Hamlet* as well as your own impressions. There's a doctoral thesis out there for somebody on the production and reception of film-and-television star-powered Shakespeare. If Reeves' experience with Hamlet is anything like Richard Chamberlain's with the same role in the early '70's, there will be some who condemn both his performance and his hubris out of hand because of the kinds of films with which he made his reputation, and there will be others whose admiration of his courage will completely color their assesment of his work. I live too far away to see Reeves, and I am curious not only about what he will do, but about how people will respond. On the subject of *Hamlet*, I am playing Horatio in a production at the San Diego Rep which runs from 1/28 - 2/19, and I'd like to post an inquiry on behalf of our Ophelia. Does anybody know of a book or article which talks about a clinical diagnosis of Ophelia's madness? Anybody with an answer can post to the list or to me personally. Thanks for the help, Matt Henerson (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Collins Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 14:45:04 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0031 Re: Keanu's Hamlet For Chris Gordon-- There's at least one soul out here who would like to see the reviews of Keanu Reeves's performance in *Hamlet.* And I'd like to hear your own review as well. Send them along! Thanks, Dave Collins Westminster College Fulton, MO ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:18:27 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0040 Re: Revenge; Globe; Boy Actors (Homoeroticism); Tragedy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0040. Friday, 20 January, 1995. (1) From: Harry Keyishian Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 17:09:16 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 5.1026 Qs: Revenge (2) From: Joe Nathan Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 18:39:06 -0800 Subj: London Globe Theatre (3) From: Catherine Kozubei Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 21:57:42 -0500 (EST) Subj: Homoeroticism in Shakespeare (4) From: E. L. Epstein Date: Friday, 20 Jan 1995 00:09:55 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0034 Re: Greek (Athenian) Tragedy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Keyishian Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 17:09:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 5.1026 Qs: Revenge I can't resist answering Bill Godshalk's query of 26 December about revenge by touting my book The Shapes of Revenge: Victimization, Vengeance, and Vindictiveness in Shakespeare, published this month by Humanities Press. It deals with the psychology of revenge, as derived from Renaissance books on the passions, and treats revenge as a reaction to victimization. Revenge is a species of punishment and serves the similar ends of retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation of offenders, though in different order of priority than punishments in criminal law. Revenge consists of a harmful act performed by an individual in response to a malicious injury. The "malicious" part is important: for the revenge to be authentic, the injury must be intentional and must do psychic as well as physical harm. Victims of malicious injury feel diminished, demeaned, violated; they retaliate to restore selfhood, vindicate justice, and deter further harm. Avengers act on behalf of victims, out of indignation, though they may, like Hamlet, develop their own cause for revenge in process. Shakespeare deals with the destructive effects of victimization: Ophelia and Lear go mad; the Duchess of Gloucester, unavenged, pines away and dies. Genuine revenge can regenerate the revenger, as it does Macduff and Edgar, who also vindicate justice and redeem the state. Their are many successful comic revengers, including the wives of Windsor (clearly revenge is not "gendered male.") Vindictiveness is the evil twin of revenge: subjectively, it feels the same--Richard III and Iago perceive themselves as aggrieved persons--but Shakespeare (and Webster and Chapman, et al.) invited us to see it as a personality flaw, based on envy and false pride, traits that endow characters with a grudge against all those who are more successful, happier, or fulfilled than they. The most interesting are the mixed cases: Hamlet and Othello, in differing ways, slide fatally into vindictiveness at crucial moments. As to whether revenge is tied to an ideology: certainly it reflects individualism, as the injured party assumes the rights of the sovereign to feel outrage, to judge, and to punish (cf. Foucault on punishment). The spectator is invited to follow the arc of action and become similarly empowered through sympathy with a just revenge. Harry Keyishian, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. Madison NJ 07940 harry@alpha.fdu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Nathan Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 18:39:06 -0800 Subject: London Globe Theatre Several people asked me for more info on my recent visit to the restoration of the Globe Theatre in London. I did indeed prepare that info and tried to send it to SHAKSPER as an attachment. Evidently it didn't work, so here is another attempt. 1) Restoration progress: The restoration itself is well along. The stalls are up, the thatched roof is being completed. The "groundling area" is finished. The stage is blocked out, and may very well be under construction right now. The area above the stage (for lifting scenery, producing deus ex machina effects, etc.) is completed, and the area below the stage (for trap doors, rising ghosts, etc.) is pretty well finished also. All this is done using authentic clay brick, green English oak, thatch, and lime plaster. A real labor of love. They are planning on a grand opening in 1995 with the Queen attending! In addition, work is planned for restoring the surrounding area. There are several other period buildings and of course the Swan Theatre is not too far away. 2) Some interesting findings: They discovered a curving wooden chute which ran from well above the stage to well below, and it contained rounded boulders. They have deduced that rolling boulders from top to bottom produced sounds of thunder, cannon, etc. Clever. It was also determined that the "groundling area" which is shaped like a dish was also pitched in such a way that the outside perimiter was 8" higher than the center. This allowed water to drain to the center where there was a drain, and also helped the groundlings in the back look over the heads of those in front. 3) The visit: Highly recommended. The guides are excellent - knowledgeable, charming, and excited about the project. They have a video which is pretty good and shows the beginning of the concept with Sam Wannamaker. There are also booklets, brochures, etc. 4) For more info: Contact The Globe Tourism Office, Shakespeare's Globe, New Globe Walk, Bankside, London, SE1 9EB. Telephone is 071 928 6406. Fax is 071 928 7968. 5) Donations are welcomed. We became a "Friend of the Globe" and "bought" a brick while we were there for 10 pounds sterling. It is also possible to have your name included on one of the flagstones and you will receive a map showing where your flagstone is located. If interested in helping out here are the USA and Canadian offices: Shakespeare Globe Centre (USA)Inc., 20 No Michigan Ave, Suite 400, Chicago, IL 60602, and Shakespeare Globe Centre of Canada, 212 King St West, Sixth Floor, Toronto, Canada, M5H 1K5. If you do become a friend, you will receive mailings, and bulletins which will keep you up to date, and forms to write for tickets when they open. Hope this is helpful. Joseph Nathan joebabe@cerfnet.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Catherine Kozubei Date: Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 21:57:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Homoeroticism in Shakespeare [Catherine Kozubei shared SHK 6.0021 Re: Boy Actors with Bruce Smith, who asked that his response be sent to the members. --HMC] Concerning boy actors and homoeroticism, you might want to pass along the title of my book, since it does take a middle position, suggesting that boy actors COULD play for homoerotic appeal in certain genres, in certain circumstances. I conservatively would limit those circumstances to comedy, and to situations in which the script specifically calls attention to the boy's body beneath the female costume--usually when a boy actor is disguised as a girl disguised as a boy. Anyhow, the book is called "Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare's England: A Cultural Poetics" and has just come out in paperback from University of Chicago Press. There is also a solid new book on the subject of cross-dressing by Michael Shapiro: "Gender in Play on the Shakespearean Stage," just out from University of Michigan Press. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. L. Epstein Date: Friday, 20 Jan 1995 00:09:55 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0034 Re: Greek (Athenian) Tragedy You are right about Euripides; he is the odd man out of the tragedians. He seems to have been unpopular with conservatives, who would rather that Athens got a good press from everybody! E.L.Epstein ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 09:28:37 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0041 Re: Yiddish *MV*s; Wilson's *Sh*; Inconsistencies; *Idaho* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0041. Saturday, 21 January, 1995. (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Friday, 20 Jan 1995 10:32:26 -0400 (EDT) Subj: *MV* in the Yiddish Theater (2) From: Tad Davis Date: Friday, 20 Jan 1995 11:11:17 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ian Wilson: "Shakespeare: the Evidence" (3) From: Matthew Westcott Smith Date: Friday, 20 Jan 1995 22:19:31 GMTST Subj: Tornberg's Query (4) From: Anna Joell Goodman Date: Friday, 20 Jan 1995 23:56:11 -400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0037 Re: *MV* Spinoffs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Friday, 20 Jan 1995 10:32:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: *MV* in the Yiddish Theater My friend Tony Burton, who lives in Amherst, MA, the site of the YIVO archives, writes that YIVO has four Yiddish translations of *MV.* It would be fascinating to see what they make of the play. Tony Burton also points out that Leonard Prager wrote a long article with long appendix called "Shakespeare in Yiddish," SQ (spring 1968), which mentions a number of Yiddish versions of *MV*. I have not yet read that article but it seems an appropriate place to begin when considering the play's anti-Semitism: that is, what do these translators have to remove, what do they have to change, in order to make Shylock sympathetic? Yours, Bernice (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis Date: Friday, 20 Jan 1995 11:11:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ian Wilson: "Shakespeare: the Evidence" I just ran across a "new" book by Ian Wilson called "Shakespeare: the Evidence." In the mold of his book about Jesus, Wilson seems to have taken a kind of journalistic approach to writing a biography of Shakespeare: recognizing that he isn't an authority himself, he's interviewed a lot of people who are. The title might lead one to think he's wading into the authorship controversy, but apparently that's only a small part of the book. I call it a "new" book because it was copyright 1993, and was apparently published in Great Britain then -- only now being made available in the U.S. Has anyone seen or read this one? It appears to be pretty well up-to-date, especially on the subject of John Shakespeare. Wilson is an absorbing writer but not always reliable in his conclusions. Tad Davis davist@umis.upenn.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Westcott Smith Date: Friday, 20 Jan 1995 22:19:31 GMTST Subject: Tornberg's Query Mr. Tornberg: You comments regarding Shakespeare's "blatant disregard for accurate research" are, to say the least, puzzling. Shakespeare--indeed any poet--is not a theologian nor a historian when writing poetry. This does not mean that omissions, restatements, and/or misrepresentations are not important and significant for understanding the Shakespearean corpus; of course they are. Indeed, it is precisely through the selection of certain necessarily limited aspects of human life and experience that the poet distinguishes himself from other thinkers. To my mind, this is especially the case with Hall and Holinshed in the History plays--which are just that *dramas* based on historical events. I think if one read them as particularly accessible or pleasant historical narratives simply, their penetrating insight to the nature of human (hence political) life is likely to be missed. I am not prepared to comment on Jacob and Laban matter at any length, but I would suggest that the way the dramatist distorts the relevant OT passages is just as significant as its presence in the first place. Matthew Westcott Smith, PhD Lecturer of Political Philosophy Kossuth University, Debrecen Hungary (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Joell Goodman Date: Friday, 20 Jan 1995 23:56:11 -400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0037 Re: *MV* Spinoffs In reponse to the question posed regarding the film "My Own Private Idaho", with the Keanu Reeves and the late River Phoenix: It was actually a modern-day take on *Henry IV, Part I*, not *MV*. It was reasonably well-acclaimed when it came out in the late 80's. In it, Phoenix plays a narcoleptic male prostitute, and Reeves is the Hal-esque young man running away from his political- figure father. Unfortunately, I have not been able to see this one, but several of my friends assure me that it is worth a look. --Anna Joell Goodman [Again, the DATABASE function will enable anyone interested in previous discussions of *My Own Private Idaho* to locate and retrieve them. --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 10:01:56 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0042 Re: *MV*: Inconsistencies and Act Five Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0042. Monday, 23 January, 1995. (1) From: Ben Schneider Date: Saturday, 21 Jan 1995 11:53:37 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0033 Re: *MV*: Inconsistencies (2) From: Matthew Henerson Date: Sunday, 22 Jan 1995 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0037 Re: *MV*, Especially Act V (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Saturday, 21 Jan 1995 11:53:37 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0033 Re: *MV*: Inconsistencies Answer to Aaron Tornberg: Shylock says, regarding Laban's device, "this was a way to thrive, and he was blest." The rest of the story only confirms that "he was blest." However, Antonio disagrees about why he was blest. Joan Holmer whose essay on MV and Elizabethan arguments against usury appeared in Shakespeare Studies 1993 has a lot to say about 16th century thought on the Laban story. Yours ever BEN SCHNEIDER (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Henerson Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0043 Re: Globe; Reinventing Shakespeare; *Idaho* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0043. Monday, 23 January, 1995. (1) From: Paul Nelsen Date: Saturday, Jan 21 12:22:49 1995 Subj: Globe project (2) From: Michael Groves Date: Saturday, 21 Jan 1995 09:40:26 -0800 Subj: "Reinventing Shakespeare" and problematic endings (3) From: Robert Lloyd Neblett Date: Sunday, 22 Jan 1995 12:28:12 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0037 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Nelsen Date: Saturday, Jan 21 12:22:49 1995 Subject: Globe project Re: ISGC Globe Joseph Nathan's recent report (20 January, SHK6.0040 #2) on progress of the International Shakespeare Globe Centre's effort to construct a rendition of the first Globe on London's South Bank conveys a sense of the enthusiasm for this project that so many of us share. I visited the site three times in early January as part of ongoing research. As much as I concur with Mr. Nathan's delight in the progress of the project, some aspects of his report are inaccurate. Here is a modest effort to set a few matters straight. This project should not be understood as a "restoration" -- nothing remains of the first or second Globe to restore. The enterprise is a careful effort to build an Elizabethan style public playhouse incorporating as many authentic elements as possible. For detailed discussion of design issues related to the ISGC project, see my articles "Reinventing Shakespeare's Globe?" 10, iv (Fall 1992), "Sizing up the Globe" in 11, iv (Fall 1993), and "Transition and Revision at the Globe" in 12, ii (Spring 1994).Fifteen bays of triple tiered audience galleries form a horseshoe around what is now a barren concrete yard. Thatching of the galleries' roof is nearly complete; some plastering of internal walls is done but the vast majority of plaster work awaits return of warm weather. A composite of ash, clinker, and hazelnut shells will eventually cover the yard on which "groundlings" will stand. This surface will be pitched ever so slightly - dropping 8 inches toward the center of the yard over a span of 35 feet -- for the sole purpose of aiding drainage (not for sight-lines). The brick in the foundation (those above ground level) are made from the same recipe as those found in Tudor brickwork at Hampton Court Palace but are not "authentic" 16th-century recyclables. The timber framework for the tiring house is presently being fabricated in workshops off the site. Architect Jon Greenfield states that he hopes the five bays of the tiring house frame will be joined the galleries prior to August. The actual stage, the heavens with its machinery, and frons scenae, will not be ready to install until sometime after the "prologue season" is completed next Fall. The official festive opening of the Globe is scheduled for 14 June 1996. Michael Holden, Chief Executive of the ISGC, advises me that advertisement of the Queen's participation in opening festivities is premature and inappropriate. I join Mr. Nathan is recommending a visit to the Globe exhibit. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Groves Date: Saturday, 21 Jan 1995 09:40:26 -0800 Subject: "Reinventing Shakespeare" and problematic endings 1) When I first started thinking about the possible Victorian influences on Shakespeare scholarship and how I think about Shakespeare, I decided to read more about "tragic flaw." The suggestions from the conference will keep me busy for a long time, and I thank you for them. From my own library I rediscovered Taylor's _Reinventing Shakespeare_, which I had read a few years ago. In it he has a chapter on the "Victorian Values" and Shakespeare. He reminded me that some of the popular editions (Cambridge Shakespeare, Clarendon Shakespeare) were published during the period. Shakespeare studies at the univserity level became popular ("the dominant component of the new subject of English Literature"), and because of technological changes in the book publishing industry more editions became available at a cheaper price and many readers felt they too could be experts. The plays, like the novels of Dickens and others, were serialized. As never before, "women and children shaped the prevailing image of Shakespeare" (209). And, according to Taylor, although it did not originate with the Victorians, "the author question" has its roots in Victorian scholarship. It occurred independently of the late 18th century scholarship of James Wilmot as a "kind of intellectuall spontaneous combustion" (211). Although there was no discussion of the tragedies per se, other than a lengthy discussion of the influence of A. C. Bradley's lecture-like comments, I found the chapter well worth a read. 2) _Reinventing Shakespeare_ made me wonder how we have reinvented Shakespeare. An example probably concerns the problematic endings to some of the plays, _Measure for Measure_, _Two Gentleman of Verona_, and _Much Ado about Nothing_. Last weekend I saw _Measure for Measure_ produced by the Portland Center Stage, an offshoot of the Oregon Sahkespeare Festival. When the Duke asked for Isabella's hand, the audience laughed; during another evening, they groaned. The reactions are not what the director wanted. What is to be done? In two other plays, _TGOV_ and _MAAN_, traditonally the women must overlook the harsh treatment of their lovers and in the end all reconcile and depart together for better and more enlightened lives as husbands and wives. In productions of _TGOV_ and _MAAN_, which I saw at the Tygres Heart Theatre, the ending suggested that the men did not, will not, get off so easily. The couples are not reconciled. For example, while not ignoring Claudio, Hero does not celebrate with him when dance and music is called for in the end. She exited with someone else and left Claudio standing alone; he left alone. When she told him, "As surely as I live, I am a maid," she challenged him. It seems that such "reinventions" are needed if we are to continue to produce the plays. The laughter and groans at the ending of _Measure for Measure_ suggested a disatisfied, incredulous audience who walked away thinking Shakespeare and some of his characaters rather silly. ----------- Michael Groves mgroves@teleport.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Lloyd Neblett Date: Sunday, 22 Jan 1995 12:28:12 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0037 Gus Van Sant's film "My Own Private Idaho" (atrocious) is based upon HENRY IV Parts I & II, focusing on Part II, due to the Hal character's abandonment of his past. The movie not only "borrows" the plot from the Bard, it also modernizes some of the verse. And if you thought Keanu Reeves slaughtered Don John's character in an otherwise pleasant production of MUCH ADO with Branagh & Co., hearing him spout iambic pentameter about "lines of coke" will make you run from the room screaming. The cinematography is interesting, but for the most part, MY OWN PRIVAYE IDAHO should be abandoned as anyone's MUST SEE. Robert L. Neblett rlneblet@artsci.wustl.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 10:21:34 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0044 Bibliography on Historical Approaches Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0044. Monday, 23 January, 1995. From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Saturday, 21 Jan 1995 13:43:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Bibliography Three months ago, I asked SHAKSPER members for help in concocting a bibliography on historical approaches to Renaissance literature (in conjunction with a graduate course I'm offering this semester). I promised at the time to share the bibliography with interested SHAKSPER subscribers. If you want an e-copy, send me your name and e-address (my address is dml3@christa.unh.edu). Please send your request to me and NOT to the SHAKSPER group. Some caveats: this bibliography is geared to graduate students at UNH in this particular course and to the limited resources of our research library (i.e., I make no representations of completeness); since the class is finally a literary-critical one, the bibliography is weighted heavily in that direction; the divisions I've made in the materials--again, geared to my syllabus--are to some extent arbitrary. I'd be grateful for additions or corrections, but not for flames. My thanks to those who gave suggestions--I deeply appreciate the help and encouragement many offered. Cheers, Douglas Lanier dml3@christa.unh.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 13:09:37 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0045 Keanu Reviews Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0045. Tuesday, 24 January, 1995. From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 23 Jan 95 10:00:57 -0500 Subject: Reviews of Keanu's Hamlet Here are the three reviews I've received via the Internet so far. Enjoy! (Please note that these are all reproduced without permission.) [As I understand, these reviews can be reproduced for "fair use" so long as they are not used commercially or sold. --HMC] **************************************** Winnipeg Free Press Saturday, January 14 PRINCELY PERFORMANCE Kevin Prokosh Every actor who utters "This is I, Hamlet the Dane" is under intense scrutiny to justify the claim. None more so than Keanu Reeves, the Hollywood movie star returning to the stage to star in the triumphant MTC production of Hamlet, which opened Thursday to a capacity audience. Reeves pulled on the dark tights of the troubled Prince Of Denmark and pulled off a credible princely performance, crowned with power, poetry, and humor. The role may be worn through with familiarity, but Reeves commands our attention throughout this visually rich, strongly acted, and clear minded production. The VIP laden opening night crowd accorded Reeves and the cast a well earned standing ovation. But not even the screams of adulation from some of his female fans drew a smile from the still melancholy looking Reeves. More likely this sweet prince was exhausted and relieved from passing acting's ultimate test. His was a mercurial, intense, and physically heroic Hamlet. Any Hamlet has to face a house divided, and no doubt Reeves will be taken to task for his un-Shakespearean voice, as well as for not always sustaining the music of the words and their meaning. He did not flatter the "To be or not to be" soliloquy where Hamlet contemplates "self-slaughter" but delivered a stirring "Oh what a rogue and peasant slave" to close out the first act with a flourish. His portrayal will not share the same breath with that of legendary Hamlets. He is a younger Hamlet than most, not necessarily a better one. His Hamlet is not the traditional Hamlet, wrapped in pale and inky despair. Reeves is a fierce and demanding rebel hell-bent for revenge, awaiting only a proper opportunity. When he says he could drink hot blood, he is convincing. His antic disposition cloaking his plan for revenge is nicely worked out. His comic scenes are all realized and then some. The climactic swordfight scene - a cut above the typical offering thanks to fight director B.H. Barry - reveals an athletic Reeves with plenty of swash and buckle. Reeves's work in his opening scenes did not bode well, as he portrayed a malcontented Hamlet, who returns to Denmark brooding over the death of his father, and his mother's all too quick marriage to his uncle Claudius, the new king. His acting was bloodless and his delivery so breathless as to raise doubts as to whether or not he would survive this stage ordeal. But as with many actors, Reeves began to find the passion for his prince as soon as he began to move around set designer Brian Perchaluk's cold damp Elsinore Castle In such dreary greyness sits King Claudius's opulent and decadent court, pervaded with a sense of its own imminent destruction. The courtiers are all finely dressed in Debra Hanson's eye popping scarlet and gold costumes. The production is more than three hours and 30 minutes long. But director Lewis Baumander avoids Shakespearean tedium by keeping his production moving briskly. It was not the endurance test it could be. Baumander provides capable and invisible direction, which is sovereign for its clarity. He also adds several fine touches, such as a projection that serves as a window on the action. When Hamlet is feigning madness, the moon representing lunacy appears. Hamlet puncuates the second act by throwing his sword thorugh the stained glass window depiction of the madonna and child, signifying his break with his mother just before he is to confront her in her closet. Surrounding Reeves was an impressive cast headed by Stephen Russell, who ofers Claudius as a haunted, corrupt usurper. Louisa Martin, Baumander's wife, is a weak shallow Gertrude, who is terrified by the pressure of events she does not understand. The resourceful Robert Benson is a deftly amusing old poop of a Polonius, a pumped up domestic tyrant in need of some deflating. As Ophelia, Liisa Repo-Martell is a casting conundrum. Although a more than competent actor, her childlike Ophelia is mismatched with Reeves's virility. Andrew Akman happily storms the part of Laertes, a man of finely tortured nobility who unlike Hamlet, acts immediately without a thought to avenge the death of his father. Gary Reineke's strong work as the ghost, grave digger, and player king, is an example of how placing superior actors in small roles raises a production. The Winnipeg contingent in the cast did themselves proud. Lora Schroeder was a fine player queen, as was the platoon of small part men of Elsinore: Gene Pyrz, Wayne Nicklas, Robb Paterson, Derek Aasland, Myles Burdeniuk, Dan Deurbrouck, and Neal Rempel. To see or not to see Hamlet? No question, based on the opening night performance. (Four stars out of five) [Note from the friend who forwarded the article to me: "The same paper has comments from some of the international critics which I'll post later. The London Sunday Times critic compared Keanu to a young Olivier !! Quite a compliment!"] ***************************************** Ottawa Citizen Saturday, January 14, 1995 Speed Demon Reeves delivers uneven Prince of Denmark Jamie Portman Winnipeg- A usurping new king and his queen coil and uncoil in elevated sexual ecstasy, while stained-lass images of the Crucifixion and the Madonna and her Child provide and ironic visual counterpoint. Meanwhile, below and in the foreground, another image is taking shape on the stage of the Manitoba Theatre Centre, that of a young prince mourning at the tomb of his murdered father. Such is our first glimpse of Keanu Reeves as Hamlet. The scene is nowhere in Shakespeare's text, but it does provide a powerful beginning to what is destined to be the most talked-about production of the current Canadian theatrical season - a production that sold out its 3 1/2 week run months before it opened. It also gives doting fans (some have from far away as Japan) the chance to get over their initial excitement at seeing Hollywood's hottest superstar (Speed, Little Buddha) in the flesh before settling down to the serious business fo Hamlet itself. Reeves takes playing Shakespeare very seriously. It really isn't his fault that his celebrity status has stireed up a media circus: foreign press outlets converging on wintry Winnipeg this month have reanged from teh respectable (The Guardian) to the direputable (the U.S. tabloid shows, Hard Copy and Current Affair). The 30 year old actor, who was raised in Toronto, could have been doing another movie this winter. Instead, he has chosen to come to Canada's oldest established regional theatre (a theatre whoe total budget is less than half the $7-million fee he now commands for a single movie) to play Hamlet for a salary of $2,000 a week. Given the glare of public scrutiny, it's a courageous initiative for him to have taken. But it's also a foolhardy one: this is the Everest of roles for even the most experienced of young actors, and they take it on at their own peril. So it's scarcely surprising that this is a frequently uneven characterization. At this stage in his development, Reeves simply lacks the equipment to sustain such a role. Even so, his Hamlet is not quite the act of effrontery that one might expect. Reeves never disgraces himself. And if some cast members do act circles around him - notably Stephen Russell and Robert Benson who are both splendid in the respective roles of Claudius and Polonius - Reeves's Hamlet far outshines the insipid Ophelia of Liisa Repo-Martell and the excessively bland Horatio of Donald Carrier. What Reeves does bring is a strong and sometimes commanding stage presence, emotional sensitivity and genuine warmth of character, a sleek and assured athleticismm, and some refreshing moments of humor. He's also capable on occasion of surging dramatic power, such as his explosion of rage and psychological pain over the murder of his father, the king, by Hamlet's ursurping uncle, Claudius, and the latter's "incestuous" marriage to Hamlet's mother, Gertrude. But repeatedly, Reeves is undermined by his own lack of classical theatre technique. True, he brings intelligence to the role. But - and this may partly be due to opening night jitters - there's a real problem with a number of Hamlet's speeches. There's a failure to find the right rhythm, phrasing and cadence, to achieve th fusion of sound and meaning so vital in communicating Shakespeare to audiences. The soliloquies are particularly disappointing in the regard, even To Be Or Not To Be is perfunctorily spoken, without conviction or emotional reflection. One searches in vain for a sustained dramatic sensibility both in this production and in Reeves' performance. On the other hand, there have been productions of Hamlet far more pretentious - and far worse - at both the Stratford and the Royal Shakespeare Company. And one must give Reeves credit. He is never less than interesting on stage. And on those occasions when he does fail, he does so with honor. ********************************************* Western edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail. REEVES AS HAMLET? IT LOOKS GOOD ON HIM H.J. Kirchoff Let's get the most important point right out front: Keanu Reeves is not a bad Hamlet. I've seen better, I've seen worse. He did not embarrass himself in the Manitoba Theatre Centre's Hamlet which opened Thursday night, and that was a considerable risk for the hunky Hollywood superstar, who made his fame and fortune mostly in film roles that could generally be described as bimbo-esque. He didn't really need to return to the stage to take on arguably the most difficult, complex role in the Shakespearean canon. But he did, and it looks good on him. All right, he won't make anyone forget Geilgud or Branagh, or even Mel Gibson, but Reeves remembered all of his lines -- all 1,500-plus of them -- and delivered them without a hint of "hey, dude." If anything, he overenunciated, carefully pronouncing every consonant in the text ("bit-ter.") After a shaky half-hour or so on opening night, in which his voiced sounded breathless and thin, he limbered up and began speaking with punch and vigour, and a lot more assurance, and his delivery of the famous monologues was plain-spoken and clear. He is undeniably better in the more physical scenes and with the larger emotions; he does anger and madness well, but his brooding seems more like fretfulness. And he does look great in tights. Director Lewis Baumander -- who directed Reeves in Romeo and Juliet at Toronto's Leah Posluns Theatre many years ago -- seems to have gotten the max out of his young star, partly through intensive coaching, and partly by tailoring a large-scale, extravegantly visual production that well suits Reeves' undeniable physical presence. His fatal duelling scene with Laertes (Andrew Akman), arranged by fight director B.H. Barry, is sprawling, violent and scary. Brian Perchaluk's set -- a gothic creation of enormous stone pillars, arches, buttresses, platforms and stairways -- simply shouts "castle," and Debra Hanson's costumes are elaborate, colourful and bejewelled confections that would fit right into the court of any Renaissance prince. There's enough velvet in this show to clothe Winnipeg. Baumander has surrounded his star with a generally strong supporting cast. These are mostly veteran actors who know what diction is and don't have problems "speaking Shakespeare." Stephen Russell and Louisa Martin are especially good as Claudius and Gertrude, Hamlet's uncle and mother. Russell is a particularly smooth-talking and decadent Claudius, murderer of the late king (his brother and Hamlet's father) and usurper of both the throne and the widowed queen. For her part, and in keeping with the tone of the production, Martin is a very sexual Gertrude. (In one very interesting directorial touch, Baumander opens his Hamlet with the Prince standing silently over his father's body, while above and behind him, in hot red lighting and little else, Claudius and Gertrude perform a stylized, graceful and pretty mime-dance of lust. Apart from anything else, this gives the audience a look at Reeves, permitting his more vocal fans to get their cheers and moans and swoons out of the way before the play actually begins.) Robert Benson, decked out like a Borgia cardinal, is a superb Polonius, holding a fine edge of dignity while playing the fussy pomposity for laughs. Liisa Repo-Martell is at the other end of the scale as Ophelia, Hamlet's sometime love interest; her mad scenes are good in a twitchy sort of way, but she seems far out of her depth through most of the play. Nor was I much impressed by Gary Reineke, who gave the same bland, restrained tone to both the Ghost and the Player King, and barely loosened the stays for a jokey turn as the Gravedigger. Baumander and the MTC were clearly intent on doing it up big for Reeves, and so they have. He, in his turn, has given them a credible performance and a red-hot ticket -- Hamlet is already sold out for its entire run. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 13:21:20 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0046 Re: *MV*: Act Five Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0046. Tuesday, 24 January, 1995. (1) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Monday, 23 Jan 1995 09:36:22 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0042 Re: *MV*: Act Five (2) From: John Owens Date: Monday, 23 Jan 1995 10:58:00 -0800 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0042 Re: *MV*: Act Five (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Monday, 23 Jan 1995 09:36:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0042 Re: *MV*: Act Five Greetings all, I just read my dear friend Matt Henerson's comments about recent productions of Merchant and the inability of a modern audience to re-enter the romance in Act V. I have two responses. 1) Was it ever that easy to wallow in the romance of Belmont? We only even GET there after that odd scene between Bassanio--who must be the biggest drip in the comedies--and Antonio. That tends to inflect it away from "happy" for me both in reading and in the productions I've scene. Also, at least in the current political atmosphere Portia's intense xenophobia in 1.2 makes her less attractive. 2) More importantly, I remember having a discussion a few years ago-- it was probably with the very same Matt Henerson-- in which the other person suggested that Shylock, characterologically speaking, got away from Shakespeare and popped out into three dimensions when, functionally speaking, he should have been more like Marlowe's Barabas. Norman Rabkin says along vaguely similar lines that Shylock was one of the first truly individual characters with speech patterns all his own: "At this point in Shakespeare's career his ability to create characters with authentic voices and to effect mercurial changes in his audience's emotions leaped beyond what he had been able to do earlier..." (Shakespeare and the Problem of Meaning, 6-7). Now, what I'm interested in is the uncontainability of a character like Shylock. I am NOT particularly interested in whether or not he was more easily contained in the 1590s. What does it mean that a character so exceeds his function as villain, hero, etc? Other candidates might include Mercutio, or Malvolio (who is the same as Shylock anyway). Yours, Bradley Berens UC Berkeley email: claudius@garnet.berkeley.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owens Date: Monday, 23 Jan 1995 10:58:00 -0800 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0042 Re: *MV*: Act Five Another way out? First of all, I agree that the antisemitism in MV may prevent audiences from enjoying Act V in the form Shakespeare intended. That said, I cannot imagine a truly attentive audience buying Antonio as a fascist. This is equally, if not more, unsatisying. Can a play be enjoyed if its author's intentions are so completely ignored? Secondly, I want to address a tendency I have seen in this discussion to ignore or minimize Shylock's villainy. "Not nice" and "unpleasant" are gross understatements. At the risk of repeating the obvious, allow me to summarize Shylock's behavior. He fully intends to publicly skin a living human being in front of his friends. This is sadistic, not "unpleasant". Mutilation for the sheer pleasure of killing is absolutely unforgivable, and Shylock should alienate any unbiased spectator here if not for the idiotic antisemitism of some of the Christian characters. Directors who play up this prejudice to the point where Shylock appears to be a prisoner in a concentration camp are merely shooting themselves in the foot. First, because it isn't true, and second, because the play makes no sense once the deeply bloodthirsty Shylock is made the hero. One answer to the MV problem was investigated in a production some years back where Tubal was shown to be deeply contemptuous of Shylock in their scene together. Recognizing his brutal temperament, he intentionally toys with him, bringing him up and down for his own amusement. Unfortunately, this doesn't really set Tubal in a very good light. I guess I am at a loss to understand how this play can be salvaged in a century sensitive to the results of religious and ethnic intolerance. Make Shylock the hero -- you turn the play inside out and glorify the sadism of his revenge. Make Shylock a snarling villain, and you seem to buy into the genuinely repulsive teasing of his enemies. Finally, have we no other choice but to recognize the play as a failure, albeit a failure not lightly dismissed, with fine poetry and fascinating characterizations? Regarding the breakdown of Lorenzo and Jessica's marriage: You can, I suppose, play any dialogue as an argument if you shout and stamp your feet, but the text really doesn't seem to support this course. John Owen ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 13:26:36 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0047 Defending the NEA and NEH Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0047. Tuesday, 24 January, 1995. From: Edward Gero Date: Monday, 23 Jan 1995 12:46:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Mobilize to Defend the NEA and NEH Hardy and SHAKSPEReans: As an artist working with theatres that are supported by the National Endowment for the Arts; a member of the Goals 2000 Arts Action Committee; a member of the National Committee for Standards in the Arts, and as a private citizen, I feel compelled to forward this message as widely as possible. As you know, since the November elections the future of our arts national cultural agencies, including the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, is seriously threatened. These agencies are facing severe cuts to their current funding or possible elimination. Congress may make decisions about these and other agencies within the next several days. The Emergency Committee to Save Culture and the Arts, a project of the American Arts Alliance, has set up a 1-900 number so that citizens can quickly and easily register their support for the continued funding of the arts and culture with their members of Congress, for a nominal fee. Time is short. You are invited to use this number immediately. When you call this number, 1-900-370-9000, the following will happen: 1) Following a brief statement that the call costs $1.99 per minute and that you must be 18 or over, the operator then asks the caller if s/he would allow the Emergency Committee to send a mailgram in the caller's name to their two Senators and one Representative. 2) If the caller says yes, the above process takes place and is billed to the caller's home phone. The caller leaves his/her name, address, and zip code, which is then matched with the corresponding congressional district to assure that the correct elected officials receive the mailgram. The Alliance has put together a steering committee currently made up of more than a dozen organizations to participate in this campaign. Please call the American Arts Alliance at 202-737-1727 if you would like to join this steering committee or have questions. In order for this emergency campaign to be effective, we need your help to distribute the 1-900 number. Please make use of all means at your disposal including e-mail and electronic bulletin boards. Thank you for participating in this critical grassroots effort. Sincerely, Edward Gero ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 13:42:47 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0049 Q: Renaissance Webs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0049. Tuesday, 24 January, 1995. From: Luc Borot Date: Tuesday, 24 Jan 95 11:51:44 +0100 Subject: Renaissance W3s Dear all, I am preparing a presentation of the Shakespearean and Elizabethan servers on the Net for the coming issue of Cahiers Elisabethains. I have spotted 2 WWW servers in Germany, and several links to US servers. I would be very grateful if the colleagues involved in W3 or gopher or ftp servers in Tudor and Stuart studies sent me a note with a description of their servers, their addresses of course, and a brief blurb on the spirit behind the machines. The servers offering a choice of Shakespeare editions are also welcome to inform us of the choice they made. It is not always bery obvious: which text? why? which editions were considered in a first phase? how were they made into e-texts? If time gets too short (you know how printers are), I will only publish a catalogue this April, followed by a review essay in the October issue. Glad to be of some help to advertise our activities in the 'paper' world. Yours, Luc ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 13:37:49 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0048 Re: *Idaho*; Wilson's *Sh.*; New Globe Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0048. Tuesday, 24 January, 1995. (1) From: Thomas Berger Date: Monday, 23 Jan 95 14:03:55 EST Subj: *Idaho* (2) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 23 Jan 1995 16:12:43 -0600 Subj: *Shakespeare: The Evidence* (3) From: Andrew Gurr <> Date: Tuesday, 24 Jan 1995 10:14:01 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: The Rebuilding Globe. (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Berger Date: Monday, 23 Jan 95 14:03:55 EST Subject: *Idaho* In response to Robert Lloyd Neblett on *MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO*; yes, there are some really bad parts, too be sure, but the narcoleptic role (and its treatment by the film and by River Phoenix, who acts it) is the best essay on Poins I have ever "read." Tom Berger (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 23 Jan 1995 16:12:43 -0600 Subject: *Shakespeare: The Evidence* With regard to Tad Davis' query on Ian Wilson's book *Shakespeare: The Evidence*: I just finished reading this a couple of weeks ago, and I can't say I was all that impressed. I, too, was led by the title to think he would deal with anti-Stratfordian claims, but his one chapter on that consists mainly of a brief summary of Baconian, Oxfordian, Derbyite, etc. claims, all of which he dismisses without any actual arguments to speak of. The book as a whole is basically just a biography of Shakespeare, with the underlying purpose (more or less explicitly stated in the preface) of arguing that Shakespeare was a closet Catholic. Thus, he dwells on John Shakespeare's Testament of Faith, but as far as I remember he doesn't say anything that isn't in Schoenbaum's *Documentary Life*; he also dwells on the Catholic connections of Ferdinando Stanley (Wilson assumes, a little too easily for me, that Shakespeare started out as a member of Strange's Men) and the Earl of Southampton. The level of scholarship is, I'm afraid, nothing special; by his own admission, Wilson seems to have relied mainly on the biographies of A. L. Rowse and Samuel Schoenbaum, and while these are both fine scholars, there were many times when some variation would have been helpful. Wilson's admiration of Rowse, and his concomitant subtle digs at Schoenbaum, are almost embarrassing at times; his chapter on the sonnets consists mainly of a summary of Rowse's positions on the identity of the Fair Youth (Southampton), the Dark Lady (Emilia Bassano-Lanier), and the Rival Poet (Marlowe), interspersed with approving comments and a rather patronizing swipe at Schoenbaum's agnosticism in this area. There are a few morsels in the book, such as some new (as far as I know) information about John Heminges' connection with the Company of Grocers, but there are also lacunae (Wilson's summary of the Elizabethan theatre scene makes no mention of the Boar's Head playhouse, for instance). I wanted to like this book more than I did; it's not a bad summary of a lot of issues, but it's rather one-sided as well, and Wilson's prose style is not particularly to my liking. That's my two cents; I'd be interested to hear other opinions. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Gurr <> Date: Tuesday, 24 Jan 1995 10:14:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: The Rebuilding Globe. I can add a few points to Joe Nathan's account of the New Globe. That, by the way, seems to be the current title. Southwark Borough Council has re-named Emerson Street at "New Globe Walk", and the name is apt enough to stick. His comment on the wooden trough with stones in it puzzles me. I didn't think any such thing had been found, though at the Rose in 1989 they found a long rectangular wooden trough that seems to have been a drain, leading down from the tiring house out north to the ditch there. There are refs about stone-rolling in troughs from the time, but I doubt if this discovery was one of that kind. The yard at the New Globe is at present about fifteen inches lower than it will eventually be. There's a black line around the inner gallery walls that marks the eventual level. Like the Rose's yard, it's sloped for drainage, and will eventually have a deposit on it not unlike the Rose's permeable layer of ash, clinker and hazel-nut shells. This, it is thought, was 'industrial debris' from the local soap-making factories, laid to give a standing surface through which the rainwater would drain itself. As for the hazel-nut shells as audience debris, when a test was done on some of the Rose remains to see how permeable it was, they found a few cherry-stones, which can't have come from the soap factory. So we needn't abandon the idea that the yard surface was pure and unsullied road-surfacing entirely. Readers with memories of previous kinds of social combat might also enjoy the news that the stage and tiring-house structure is being put up in a hangar at the Greenham Common air base. Please note also, as in my previous piece, that there's a conference to discuss what academic benefit might be gained from proper use of the Globe stage once it's in use: what kinds of experiment can it best bear? If you can't come to the conference (on 18-20 April at the Globe: for information fax Alastair Tallon, Globe Education, London, 0171-928-7968), then please send me your ideas. Andrew Gurr. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 10:00:57 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0050 More Keanu Reviews Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 050. Wednesday, 25 January, 1995. From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 24 Jan 95 11:17:47 -0500 Subject: More Winnipeg Hamlet Reviews Winnipeg Sun, January 13, 1995 Sweet Prince Reeves excellent in MTC's Hamlet Riva Harrison There was much ado about Keanu Reeves last night as he took to the Manitoba Theatre Centre mainstage to perform Hamlet -- William Shakespeare's most challenging role -- in front of a sold-out house. At press time, the three-act, three hour Elizabethan marathon wasn't complete, but Reeves was going strong in the first act in his portrayal of the brooding Prince of Denmark. With his trademark movie star voice, he was at times a fiery, passionate Hamlet -- the lines of agony etched clearly on his $7 million profile. Although the 30-year-old Beirut-born actor flubbed his lines during recent Theatre For Young Audience performances, he was quite clear last night, stumbling only a couple of times when he seemed to be rushing his lines. In other words, he was a pretty good dude; appropriately tormented as the melancholy Dane and charming as a madman. The audience was quiet throughout, except to chuckle when he greeted Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as "my excellent good friends." The curtain rose to reveal a tormented Hamlet kneeling over his dead father, while his uncle, Claudius (Stephen Russel), and his mother, Gertrude (Louisa Martin), make passionate love on a raised platform behind the troubled prince. Claudius and Gertrude are both naked, except for a strategically placed sheet. The wordless, five-minute scene is set to ominous music that says something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Moments later, through an eerie fog appears a ghost, which looks like the late king of Denmark, Hamlet's father, at the castle of Elsinore. Meanwhile Hamlet is in a deep, mournful funk; his mother married his uncle within two months of his father's death, a move considered incestuous at the time. This is the true source of his deep depression, revealed by his sarcastic "the funeral bak'd meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables." Hamlet meets the ghost of his father (Gary Reineke), who tells Hamlet that Claudius killed him by pouring poison in his ear. A heartbroken Hamlet is instructed to avenge his father's death, but to leave his mother's punishment to heaven. Time passes and Hamlet is acting like a madman, ranting and raving around the castle. At this point, much of Hamlet's inner turmoil is the result of his own inability to avenge his father's murder and lingering bitterness over Gertrude's relationship with Claudius. The play, set in the 16th century, has a soft, illusory aspect to it. The iron-grey set covering the entire mainstage creates a dungeon-like aura. It's an enormous, moody, medieval creation, with various levels and plenty of black spaces that swallow up the actors and heighten the sense of foreboding. (For a complete review, see tomorrow's Saturday Scene.) *********************************** Maclean's Magazine January 23, 1995 KEANU, PRINCE OF DENMARK Brian D. Johnson HAMLET By William Shakespeare Directed by Lewis Baumander It is a daunting role for any actor, no matter how talented. Master thespian Daniel Day-Lewis once walked offstage during a London performance of _Hamlet_, never to return. Keanu Reeves is no Daniel Day-Lewis. And on opening night in Winnipeg last week, as Reeves prepared to scale this Everest of theatrical roles, anticipation was running high. Local TV crews combed the crowded lobby at the Manitoba Theatre Centre, hoping to line up instant post-play verdicts from out-of-town critics. Kiosks conducted a brisk business in black Hamlet T-shirts sporting Reeves's image on the front and a Shakespeare quote on the back -- "To thine own self be true." Hamlet is, quite simply, one of the most ballyhooed stage events in Winnipeg history. And during the play's five-week rehearsal period, the star who fell to earth in the Manitoba capital seemed to charm everyone from crew members to people on the street. They said he is friendly, humble, accessible, hardworking. And, above all, brave to take on _Hamlet_. They worried about him, as if he were attempting a daredevil stunt. How on earth would he do it? How would he remember all those lines? Well, he did remember his lines. In fact, at times he recited them. Very quickly, like a schoolboy dying to get to the end. Perhaps it was just opening-night nerves, but Reeves raced through some lines at such a clip that the sense was almost unintelligible. He whipped through the soliloquies, the signature tunes of _Hamlet_, as if they were air-guitar solos. Locked into Shakespeare's iambic pentameter, he surfed from one consonant to the next, faster and faster. He rode the play as if it were wired to blow up below a certain speed. But it was not a performance that deserves harsh criticism. Although he was out of his depth in the big swatches of text, Reeves proved adept in the comic scenes. And whenever he had a chance to get physical, he was impressive. Even when his delivery was lacking, there was something intriguing about his presence. The ingenuous lilt to his voice, the blank sense of disconnection that he projects and his valiant efforts to overcome it -- those qualities make him a more suitable casting choice for Hamlet than he might at first seem. The Winnipeg production is a handsome one. Debra Hanson's costuming has an old-fashioned opulence. Brian Perchaluk's set consists of brooding, slanted walls with Escher-like stairs and arches. The production opens with an imaginative tableau, a "dumb show" in which a dour Hamlet stands silent over his father's corpse, while above him Gertrude (Louisa Martin) and Claudius (Stephen Russell) make love beneath scarlet sheets. But it is a false promise, for the play then settles into a traditional and unprovocative interpretation. Reeves has little impact until he acts out Hamlet's madness. Dressed in tattered breeches and bare feet, the actor seems visibly relieved by the scene's jocularity. And as he greets Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as "my excellent good friends," a titter from the audience underscores the inevitable allusion to _Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure_. Unfortunately, Reeves does not cultivate complicity with the audience. Instead of capitalizing on Hamlet's role as the play's outsider, he portrays the prince in an earnest fashion. Director Lewis Baumander must take some of the blame for the shapeless interpretation -- for the throwaway tone of the "To be or not to be" passage, for instance, which falls utterly flat. Throughout, Reeves is overshadowed by several more eloquent Shakespearean actors, notably Russell and Robert Benson (Polonius). At the end, however, he does take charge in spectacular fashion. The sword fight is breathtaking. Suddenly, Reeves commands the stage with acrobatic finesse, leaping and rolling like a true action hero. Finally, he is there, a Hollywood star on stage, acting the part. On opening night (the play runs until Feb. 4) the audience accorded him a standing ovation. At the reception after the show, when Reeves finally joined the crowd, he spent half an hour patiently signing autographs for a throng of young women who had him trapped in a corner. One fan proudly displayed what he had scribbled on her program: "To bee or not to bee." Awesome. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 10:24:12 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0052 Announcements: Job; Middleton Performances Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 052. Wednesday, 25 January, 1995. (1) From: Lawrence S Schwartz Date: Tuesday, 24 Jan 1995 14:34:54 -0600 (CST) Subj: Job Announcement (2) From: Timothy Reed Date: Tuesday, 24 Jan 1995 15:39:12 -0700 Subj: Performances of Middleton (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lawrence S Schwartz Date: Tuesday, 24 Jan 1995 14:34:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: Job Announcement Opening for Director, Division of Fine Arts North Dakota State University, Fargo invites inquiries, nominations and appli- cations for the position of Director, Division of Fine Arts. The Division, with 16 FTE faculty, includes programs in Music (B.A., B.S., M. Music Ed.), Theatre (B.A., B.F.A., M.A.) and Visual Arts (B.A., B.S.). The Director reports to the Dean, College of Humanities and Social Sciences. For more information on responsibilities and qualifications, see the January 20th issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education and/or contact Search Committee Chair, Dr. George Youngs (701.231.8941, youngs@plains.nodak.edu). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Timothy Reed Date: Tuesday, 24 Jan 1995 15:39:12 -0700 Subject: Performances of Middleton The Upstart Crow Theatre Company in Boulder, Colorado has selected as the first play of its 1995-1996 season "The Second Maiden's Tragedy" by Middleton. This is the work that Charles Hamilton has touted as the lost Shakespearean play "Cardenio". We would be greatly interested to know of any instances of fully staged productions of this play. (For general interest, our production of Middleton's "The Changeling" opens February 9, 1995, followed by Giraudoux's "The Madwoman of Chaillot". The 1995-96 season includes "The Second Maiden's Tragedy", Shaw's "Heartbreak House", Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing", and Ibsen's "The Wild Duck") Timothy Reed The Upstart Crow Theatre Company Boulder, Colorado ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 10:17:17 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0051 Re: "Globe"; Electronic Riverside; *MV*'s Act Five Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 051. Wednesday, 25 January, 1995. (1) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 24 Jan 1995 18:25:16 GMT Subj: The Globe project (2) From: Don Foster Date: Tuesday, 24 Jan 1995 11:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0027 Q: Copyright and Commentary (3) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 25 Jan 1995 01:01:08 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0046 Re: *MV*: Act Five (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 24 Jan 1995 18:25:16 GMT Subject: The Globe project Perhaps Paul Nelsen is unaware that what he describes as simply 'a careful effort to build an Elizabethan style public playhouse incorporating as many authentic elements as possible' is in fact being forcefully marketed as 'Shakespeare's Globe'. The pamphlet offering to arrange for the inscription of your name on the flagstones outside (at 300 quid a go) promises that 'Your Name Goes Down In History next To Shakespeare's Globe'. It adds that 'The Shakespeare Globe Theatre is being RECONSTRUCTED in London . . .' Terence Hawkes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Tuesday, 24 Jan 1995 11:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0027 Q: Copyright and Commentary Dear Stan Beeler: For the past several years I've been using ETC Word Cruncher (an electronic text of the Riverside Shakespeare, ed., G.B.Evans, et.al.). Word Cruncher is based on the BYU Concordance program, and it has some limitations, but you might want to have a look at it. Don Foster (Vassar College) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 25 Jan 1995 01:01:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0046 Re: *MV*: Act Five Hi. On the question of *Merchant*'s Act V being anticlimactic, a few recent critical movements seem to point towards a possible solution. On one hand, queerists have pointed to the intensity of the Antonio-Bassanio relationship, and the need to marginalize Antonio. Portia forces Bassanio to make an absolute choice between her and Antonio, using the ring. In Belmont in Act V, in what could be a very tempestuous scene of lust turned to aggression, Antonio is alienated from the central conflict. Finally, his love for Bassanio is turned on itself when he becomes honour-bound for Bassanio's faithfulness towards Portia, and hence Bassanio's rejection of himself. Similarly, some Marxists (I think) have suggested that the merchant is an outsider within the aristocratic society, to which he hopes to ingratiate himself by his largesse. Portia's "Which is the merchant here, and which the Jew?" seems relevant. Suffice to say that the rejection of the bourgeois merchant by the decadent aristocrats, or the rejection of the queer by the hetero could both be played with a similar emotional power to that of the rejection of the Jew by the Christian. Moreover, the tragedy of Shylock's fate would be amplified into more than an individual fall. It would be shown as a rejection of commerce itself, or as the triumph of a bigotry that soon extends to all forms of otherness. Cheerio, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 19:18:25 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0052 Re: *MV*: Jacob/Laban; Margins; NYSF Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0052. Thursday, 26 January, 1995. (1) From: Aaron Tornberg Date: Wednesday, 25 Jan 1995 10:28:42 -0500 Subj: Re: Jacob and Laban's Sheep/Daughters (2) From: T. Fred Wharton Date: Wednesday, 25 Jan 95 14:02:56 EST Subj: *mv* (3) From: Joe Nathan Date: Wednesday, 25 Jan 1995 18:55:17 -0800 Subj: *MV* Inconsistencies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Aaron Tornberg Date: Wednesday, 25 Jan 1995 10:28:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Jacob and Laban's Sheep/Daughters I appreciate the discussion which has been going about MV thus far, especially Don Foster's comments about the "Jacob and Laban" passage which I found extremely intriguing. One thing I have noticed further is the possible connection between Laban fooling Jacob with regard to the daughters and MV. Jacob was forced to marry the older daughter due to the laws of primogeniture, but had thought he would be able to marry the younger, Rachel, not the elder, Leah. (Incidentally, he had no real problem cohabitating with Leah regardless of the fact she wasn't Rachel.) Could Shylock's plight not be represented in the story? After all, Shylock feels he is "fooling the Christians" at the beginning of the play. Then, Shylock himself is fooled by the Christians during the trial. So Shylock is Jacob, and Laban is the Christians, who based on the Biblical text should not be victorious over Shylock/Jacob. The two parts of this story have direct connections to MV in my mind, and yet, Shakespeare must let the Christians have victory over the Jew. Thus Shakespeare's exclusion of the first part of the Jacob/Laban story. Jacob's servitude to Laban and Laban's broken promise is *followed by* the part quoted by Shakespeare regarding the sheep Jacob appropriates from Laban. (I would argue justifiably given the nature of Laban's actions.) When dealing with Biblical criticism, I believe it is necessary to look at the whole picture, and not just a part as Shakespeare tries to do here. Aaron Tornberg, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada yku02829@cawc.yorku.ca (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: T. Fred Wharton Date: Wednesday, 25 Jan 95 14:02:56 EST Subject: *mv* I much enjoyed Sean Lawrence's piece on queerists, marxists and otherness in *MV*. While Shylock in the theatre is rather hard to cram into any margin, that's clearly where the play's christians would prefer him to be. When their prejudice becomes self-fulfilling -"since I am a dog, beware my fangs" - a little "compulsion" becomes necessary. Tolerance of Antonio comes much more easily, not only to his hangers-on, but to an entire mercantile community. That would surely have included Portia, had not Antonio's potential martyrdom rendered him suddenly much more threatening to her marriage. At that point, she has to elminate him as a rival - by rescuing him. I've never been able to see Act V as sunny, even without the ghost of Shylock. Portia's entry is brisk: she seems thoroughly "pumped-up" for the "ring" encounter with Bassanio and Antonio. So, the marxists and queerists have a real point, but part of the entertainment of the play - perhaps its true central interest - is to watch the contortions the "christians" go through, to disguise a termination as mercy, cupidity as contempt of lucre, ruthless exclusion as smiling welcome. Fred Wharton. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Nathan Date: Wednesday, 25 Jan 1995 18:55:17 -0800 Subject: *MV* Inconsistencies So many interesting postings under this heading. I just attended a preview of the NYSF production of *MV* at the Joseph Papp Public Theater in New York City - directed by Barry Edelstein with Ron Liebman as Shylock. Liebman was excellent - tho, having seen him in *Angels in America* it was a little bit like watching Roy Cohn play the part. The rest of the cast was only so-so and the direction was uneven. There were some unecessary homosexual overtones in the first act between the courtiers featuring some gratuitous male-to-male kissing. (?????) But there were also some very good touches and the notorious ACT V which has been the subject of so much discussion in this conference came over rather well. I wonder whether anyone has actually attended a broadly comic performance of this play -- all out burlesque including the courtroom scene. Could Shakespeare have been serious about an obvious impossibility like excising a pound of flesh? I can only think of one part of the anatomy where it could be obtained in one piece, and the business of Antonio and Shylock preparing for that would produce a truly ludicrous scene. It makes me fantasize about Shylock being played by Jerry Lewis, and wondering when and how this "comedy" became a vehicle for tragedians. I'm new to this conference, has this been covered previously? Joseph Nathan, Happy Retiree joebabe@cerfnet.com wccm15a@prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 19:22:11 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0053 CTI Conference Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0053. Thursday, 26 January, 1995. From: Stuart Lee Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 14:58:56 +0000 Subject: "Beyond the Book": One-day conference, Oxford **************************************************************************** Beyond the Book: Text in the World of Electronic Communication Friday 17 February 1995 Oxford University 9.30-5.00pm A One-Day Conference Co-Sponsored by the CTI Centre for Textual Studies and Office for Humanities Communication, Oxford University and the Centre for English Studies University of London The aim of this conference is to address some of the issues around books and electronic publishing in an era when hypermedia and Internet communications are becoming increasingly important and popular. The presenters are all working in literary or cultural studies and are all interested in the changes brought about in teaching, scholarship, and culture by the new modes of publication and communication in electronic form. They include Kathryn Sutherland, Professor of English at Nottingham University and Director of Project Electra, a major electronic resource of women's writings and images of women; George Landow, Professor of English and Art History at Brown University, and an author of several key works on hypertext, literary theory, and humanities computing; Sadie Plant, Lecturer in Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham, and a controvertial, newsworthy cyberfeminist. There will be plenty of time for discussion, and we anticipate an exciting and lively day. Draft Programme 9.00-9.30 Coffee and Registration 9.30-9.45 Introduction and Welcome Marilyn Deegan 9.45-10.55 Textual Encounters of a Postponed Kind Kathryn Sutherland, Nottingham University Re-viewing the Film (Studies) Text Mike Allen, University of East Anglia 10.55-11.20 Coffee 11.20-12.30 The Web, Semiotics, and History: Samuel Delaney's Imagined Worlds Laura Chernaik, Nottingham University Title to be Announced, Sadie Plant, Birmingham University (to be confirmed) 12.30-2.00 Lunch 2.00-3.45 Hypermedia: when will they feel natural? John Pickering, University of Warwick Beyond the Book, Towards Hypertext George P. Landow, Brown University Text and Interfaces Jon Cook, University of East Anglia 3.45-4.00 Tea 4.00-4.30 Panel Discussion ************************************************************************* The cost will be 30 pounds (waged); 15 pounds (unwaged). This includes tea and coffee, but not lunch. There are plenty of cafes and restaurants of all kinds in the vicinity. To reserve a place at the conference, contact: Mari Gill CTI Centre for Textual Studies Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 6NN Fax/phone: 0865-273221 E-mail: MGill@vax.ox.ac.uk Please give your full name and contact details. Cheques should be made payable to 'Oxford University Computing Services'. If you book by e-mail, please send your cheque by post as soon as possble after booking. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 09:20:02 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0054 Q: Migrating Characters Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0054. Saturday, 28 January, 1995. From: Helen Ostovich Date: Thursday, 26 Jan 1995 15:50:50 +0001 (EST) Subject: Migrating characters (fwd) [NOTE: This question originally was posted on FICINO. Any responses should most properly be sent there -- FICINO@UTORONTO.BITNET -- or to the inquirer -- Matthew Steggle . You may, of course, CC: to SHAKSPER. --HMC] Another question about drama characters I'm afraid, but the previous one attracted some interesting responses: Can anyone think of an example in, say, pre-Restoration drama where Author A invents a fictional character in a play, and then Author B steals that character and redeploys him/her in a new context? I'm not bothered here about three rival versions of someone historical like Julius Caesar, or about authors adapting non-drama works like the Faerie Queene: but simply appropriating individual characters. So far the only examples I have found are DekkSATIROMASTIX which explicitly remakes Captain Tucca from POETASTER, and possibly Field's AMENDS FOR LADIES which steals and recolours the (admittedly not entirely fictional) Moll Cutpurse from THE ROARING GIRL. Any other parallels or suggestions about relevant criticism are gladly received, either to the list or to me (STEGGLE@VAX.OX.AC.UK). All the best, Matthew Steggle Trinity College Oxford ENGLAND. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 09:26:28 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0055 Re: *MV*: Shylock and Moonlight Bank Scene Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0055. Saturday, 28 January, 1995. (1) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 26 Jan 1995 18:23:28 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0046 Re: *MV*: Act Five (2) From: Ben Schneider Date: Friday, 27 Jan 1995 10:47:17 -0600 (CST) Subj: moonlight bank, MV 5 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 26 Jan 1995 18:23:28 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0046 Re: *MV*: Act Five In response to John Owens post that we should keep Shylock in perspective because: "He fully intends to publicly skin a living human being in front of his friends.. .Mutilation for the sheer pleasure of killing is absolutely unforgivable, and Shylock should alienate any unbiased spectator here if not for the idiotic antisemitism of some of the Christian characters". It is true that mutilation for the sheer pleasure of killing is unforgivable, but it is NOT true that this is Shylock's motivation. On the contrary, his desire for Antonio's pound of flesh is motivated not by some inexplicable tendency to gore but by that same "idiotic antisemitism" that would probably drive the sanest of us towards some pretty malicious feelings. It is very important that we see Shylock's bloodthirtiness in its proper context. It is specifically this context that causes so many of us to read him as "nasty" and "unpleasant" but not as a villain. Shirley Kagan University of Hawaii at Manoa. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Friday, 27 Jan 1995 10:47:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: moonlight bank, MV 5 The trouble with all of these nasty renditions of the moonlight bank scene is that they ignore the way it ends. Does one have to repeat that these aren't real people but characters in a play? Jessica admits, as the scene closes, that she is sad, because music always makes her so. Lorenzo tells her, that's because she really appreciates it, her "spirits are attentive." A person who doesn't like music, he continues, is "fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils." Shylock doesn't like music. Belmont is full of music. In context, then, Jessica proves in this scene that, far from being an outcast, she is a well-qualified member of Belmont society, and that, I would say, is the function of the scene. All these nasty renditions of act V only prove once more that a director can make a play say anything he wants it to, and the author be damned. See Lawrence Danson, _The Harmony of MV_, and my article in _Restoration_, aforementioned. Yours ever, BEN SCHNEIDER ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 09:36:27 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0056 QE1 Novel; Greek Tragedy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0056. Saturday, 28 January, 1995. (1) From: Raymond Crispin Date: Friday, 27 Jan 1995 11:59:53 -0800 (PST) Subj: New Elizabeth I book (2) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Saturday, 28 Jan 95 08:39:36 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0030 Re: Greek (Athenian) Tragedy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Raymond Crispin Date: Friday, 27 Jan 1995 11:59:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: New Elizabeth I book I just finished reading _I, Elizabeth_ by Rosalind Miles and would like to recommend it for anyone interested in the life of Elizabeth I. Although this is a novel which reads like an autobiography, the material was carefully researched by Ms. Miles who is a serious historian, and the book carefully follows the life of the queen and her court. For anyone looking for a readable biography, this would be a good choice. And, yes, Shakespeare is not ignored. Toward the end Elizabeth rages against the Lord Chamerlain's men and "their hack Shakespeare--he took my shilling.... I am Richard II, know you not that?" Cheers, Brenda Crispin (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Saturday, 28 Jan 95 08:39:36 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0030 Re: Greek (Athenian) Tragedy Sorry for the delay in getting in this comment on edible Thebans and condescending Athenians . . . but here goes: I'd like to point out that the apotheosis of Oedipus at the end of the Colonus play isn't the end of the action. Yes, the Chorus says nice things about him, okay. But then Antigone, swelled up with the godliness of it all, says, "Hey, I'm now going off to end the strife between my brothers" or words to that effect. The effect has to be something like ending a movie about a romantic pursuit with the couple sailing off on the honeymoon cruise on the Titanic. Seems to be a lot of condescension by we moderns. G'morning gracie. Urk ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 09:40:21 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0057 Announcement: UWV Summer Seminar Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0057. Saturday, 28 January, 1995. From: Wayne Hilt Date: Friday, 27 Jan 1995 15:16:30 EST Subject: WVU Summer Seminar West Virginia University is presenting a summer seminar entitled "Radiant Textuality: Humane Studies in Virtual Spaces" by Jerome McGann. It would be greatly appreciated if you would consider posting the following announcement to your discussion list. Thanks for your consideration. **************************** Announcement ************************************* West Virginia University Summer Seminar in Literary and Cultural Studies presents RADIANT TEXTUALITY: HUMANE STUDIES IN VIRTUAL SPACES Seminar Leader: Jerome J. McGann Commonwealth Professor of English University of Virginia June 8-11, 1995 West Virginia University Morgantown, WV For seminar rates and more information, contact: Dr. David C. Stewart Department of English West Virginia University PO Box 6296 Morgantown, WV 26505-6296 304-293-3107 WVSSLCS@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 09:21:26 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0058 Re: Greek (Athenian) Tragedy, esp. Oedipus Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0058. Monday, 30 January, 1995. (1) From: Grace Tiffany Date: Saturday, 28 Jan 1995 18:43:53 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0031 Re: Hamartia (2) From: E. L. Epstein Date: Sunday, 29 Jan 1995 00:15:57 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0056 Greek Tragedy (3) From: Victor Gallerano Date: Sunday, 29 Jan 1995 15:28:51 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0056 Greek Tragedy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Grace Tiffany Date: Saturday, 28 Jan 1995 18:43:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0031 Re: Hamartia; Keanu's Hamlet Especially to Piers Lewis: I've been teaching the Oedipus Cycle this week and, with my students, pondering your questions about what moral lesson the plays contain for us. I say "plays" because while Oedipus at Colonus was not initially performed immediately after Oedipus at Rex, it's an indispensable part of the Oedipus myth, one with which Sophocles' audience was undoubtedly familiar, and a final phase of the story to which the closing ode of Oedipus Rex clearly points us ("Count no man happy until he is dead" ultimately culminates in "his ending was wonderful, if mortal's ever was"). It seems clear to me that the Oedipus cycle, and even Oedipus Rex in isolation, contains a profound moral lesson, though the lesson is not the simplistic and wrong-headed one so often taught to high-school students and college freshmen, i.e., that Oedipus deserves to be a parricide and commiter of incest for "disobeying" some divine decree (he doesn't disobey, for one thing; there's no decree, but a prophecy), and this judgment makes no sense as any high school student can tell because if he had done his best intentionally to fulfill the prophecy he would have ended up a parricide and committer of incest anyway, which are precisely the things he curses himself for at the end of the play. The moral (as opposed to moralistic) lesson of Oedipus Rex, which is enhanced, deepened, and clarified by the profoundly moving Oedipus at Colonus, lies more in the area of the teaching of what true hubris is (a lesson elaborated on by the choral odes): i.e., the wrong-headed and prideful assumption that one is in utter control of one's fate, that one's personal intellect is sufficient to supply all the answers to the mystery of life, and that one may in fact function as God in one's own universe, mistreating and slighting those whose perspectives don't fit one's own paradigm (note Oedipus's short-sighted treatment of Tiresias's words). It seems to me that Oedipus is just BEGINNING to learn the lesson of openness at the end of Oedipus Rex, beginning to learn to listen to someone else, to begin on a pathway toward humility, to understand that his own mind and being are not the central fact of the universe, but he still has a long way to go as he begins his pain and exile. For example, the extended pathos in which he blames and indicts himself for committing incest seems a function of his initial hubris, and not an example of humility at all ("How could I, the wisest and best of men, have done this? MOI?") He doesn't begin to reproach himself for impiety, doubt, and skepticism -- the things whcih the choral odes tell us are really at moral issue in the play. In Oedipus at Colonus, while Oedipus is not exactly sweetness and light -- that prideful nature dies hard -- he is MUCH more open and humble, questioning, supplicating, depending on others for help rather than trying to solve it all by himself, and, importantly I think, he's reached the point where he can let his former crimes go by acknowledging that he was following a track laid by god in performing them -- that he wasn't aware that he was committing incest when he did it. Rather than an evasion of responsibility, this seems to be a real evidence of spiritual growth -- advancing to the point of realizing that he isn't the omniscient power saving the universe, but a player in a game which is much larger than he can possibly realize. And when he reaches that point, he is fit to be called blessed. This is a message which Sophocles was clearly inspired by toward the end of his life; the great "Philoctetes," written around the same time as "OC," also dramatizes the paradoxical blessing available in the giving up of self to a greater plan, letting go of control, agreeing to be part of something larger even when you can't CONTROL (through intellect or in any other way) the larger plan, and the enlargement of self that's available through that choice (Act 5 of Hamlet also comes to mind in this context). Anyway, that's how the plays work for me and that's how I teach them. -- Grace Tiffany at U. of New Orleans (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. L. Epstein Date: Sunday, 29 Jan 1995 00:15:57 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0056 Greek Tragedy Oedipus, the confused old fellow, has to end up in good old Colonus, not by coincidence the hometown of the author. You can trust Athens suburbs to solve barbaric problems. ELEpstein (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Victor Gallerano Date: Sunday, 29 Jan 1995 15:28:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0056 Greek Tragedy Steve Urkowitz, I'm not sure I follow you. The action at Colonus is both the last of Oedipus the character and the last indication of anything Sophocles has to say about the meaning or importance of the Theban story for Athens. Unless we are going to commit some species of social science theorizing about Athenian attitudes toward Thebes, we have to take what's given in that play. On the issue of what Thebes means to Athens in Sophocles' texts, what we get in the action at Colonus carries greater weight than the action presented in the Antigone for two reasons: First, the Chorus from the Antigone are Theban rather than Athenian and second, although the action of the Antigone is supposed to occur after the action at Colonus, the Oedipus at Colonus was written and performed some sixty-odd years later than the Antigone. Is it modern condescension to think that Sophocles' choices in the matter are not meaningless? Or to think that his last word on the subject is not undermined by one of his first? But, you are right that Sophocles' first and last plays seem to offer two, somewhat different words to Athens. Perhaps, a ninety year old man recognized that he was speaking to a different city. (For which difference see Bernard Knox's introduction to the Fagles translation of these same Theban plays, or better still, consider Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War.) By the time of Oedipus at Colonus (to turn your simile into a metaphor) the honeymoon was over for Athens, not because of the melodramatic appearance of an iceberg, but because of the rather tragic recognition that (to paraphrase Pogo) Athens had met the enemy and married them. (Forgive me for observing the different emphasis of ancient and modern thought here. That the modern, comic version, "we've met the enemy and they are us" turns on the psychological context of "identity" while the paraphrase to fit tragedy turns on the context of marriage and family.) That's why Sophocles will outlast "As the World Turns." The "action" to which he attends adds up to more than one damn thing after another. If it didn't, I'd join you in line for the Burns and Allen re-runs. Vic Gallerano vgallera.osf1.gmu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 09:31:21 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0059 Re: Characters; *MV* Ongoing Discussion Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0059. Monday, 30 January, 1995. (1) From: Thomas Berger Date: Saturday, 28 Jan 95 13:58:31 EST Subj: Migrating Characters (2) From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Saturday, 28 Jan 1995 21:06:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0055 Re: *MV*: Shylock and Moonlight Bank Scene (3) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Saturday, 28 Jan 1995 23:14:32 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0046 Re: *MV*: Act Five (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Berger Date: Saturday, 28 Jan 95 13:58:31 EST Subject: Migrating Characters For Mr. Steggle? I would have him consult AN INDEX OF CHARCTERS IN ENGLISH PRINTED DRAMA TO THE RESTORATION, by Thomas L. Berger and William C. Bradford (Englewood CO: Microcard Editons, 1975) and that might be of some help to him on migrating characters. He will note that Shakespeare's characters very rarely, if ever, migrate. I'm making you edit too hard. Thanks, Tom Berger (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Saturday, 28 Jan 1995 21:06:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0055 Re: *MV*: Shylock and Moonlight Bank Scene > The trouble with all of these nasty renditions of the moonlight bank scene is > that they ignore the way it ends. Does one have to repeat that these aren't > real people but characters in a play? Jessica admits, as the scene closes, > that she is sad, because music always makes her so. Lorenzo tells her, that's > because she really appreciates it, her "spirits are attentive." A person who > doesn't like music, he continues, is "fit for treasons, stratagems, and > spoils." Shylock doesn't like music. Belmont is full of music. In context, > then, Jessica proves in this scene that, far from being an outcast, she is a > well-qualified member of Belmont society, and that, I would say, is the > function of the scene. All these nasty renditions of act V only prove once > more that a director can make a play say anything he wants it to, and the > author be damned. See Lawrence Danson, _The Harmony of MV_, and my article in > _Restoration_, aforementioned. > > Yours ever, > BEN SCHNEIDER > What do you make of Portia's statement shortly thereafter that she has a "bad voice"? If being musical is the mark of being at home in Belmont, shouldn't Portia have a good voice? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Saturday, 28 Jan 1995 23:14:32 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0046 Re: *MV*: Act Five >Regarding the breakdown of Lorenzo and Jessica's marriage: You can, I suppose, >play any dialogue as an argument if you shout and stamp your feet, but the text >really doesn't seem to support this course. > I experienced a similar problem with Henry IV, Part 1 some years ago. I was cast as Lady Mortimer. The director wanted me to play the scene as though I hated Mortimer and all my lines were basically "Go away, you Seisnig colonialist pig." Since the audience didn't speak Welsh, I had to pantomime extreme anger and disgust, which made nonsense of the lyrical lines addressed to Lady Mortimer. Maybe it isn't fashionable to say so, but some Shakespeare plays really feel--when you play them--as though they are constructed a cretain way and you play against it at your own risk. My gut suspicion about the Henry IV scene is that the real moral is "For a truly affectionate relationship, marry someone whose language you don't speak. It takes language to build a fight." Melissa Aaron ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 10:54:09 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0060 Re: Oedipus and Greek Tragedy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0060. Wednesday, 1 February 1995. (1) From: Piers Lewis Date: Tuesday, 31 Jan 1995 12:55:16 -0600 Subj: Oedipus (2) From: E. L. Epstein Date: Monday, 30 Jan 1995 23:58:52 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0058 Re: Greek (Athenian) Tragedy, esp. Oedipus (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Piers Lewis Date: Tuesday, 31 Jan 1995 12:55:16 -0600 Subject: Oedipus I should like to respond to Grace Tiffany's sensitive and intelligent remarks re _Oedipus The King_. For it seems to me that she has, unintentionally, replaced one reductive moralism with another. Where to begin? I keep coming back to the fact that Oedipus has already fulfilled the terrible prophecy that attended his birth when the play begins: he has killed his father and married his mother. That's history and nothing can alter it; and, apparently, nothing he or his parents could have done would have prevented these crimes from being committed. The only question for Sophocles and for the audience is, how or whether these facts should become known. Perhaps, had Oedipus been a different sort of person--less proud, more humble--these facts would not have become known, the great riddle of his identity never solved, but that seems doubtful; for the other fact with which the play begins is that the god, Apollo, is punishing Thebes for allowing itself to be polluted by the presence of King Laius' unknown murderer: as if the god were determined to force the truth about Oedipus into the open, willy-nilly. So it doesn't matter what sort of person Oedipus is: one way or another, the terrible truth about who and what he is will be known. In other words, this play--this monstrous machine as Bernard Knox says, somewhere--is not about moral responsibility at all. For there is no rational connection between crime and guilt and shame in this play, or between crime and punishment. Nor is it about spiritual growth. That's a Christian not a Greek idea. Humility is a Christian virtue. Pride, power, courage--these are the qualities the ancient Greeks admired; and honor and glory is what these intensely competitive people cared about and sought. The heroes of the _Iliad_ are men like Oedipus; Oedipus is made to their measure not ours. The world, the cosmos, of the _Iliad_ is rational: everything is described and explained to the last detail. You always know who is doing what to whom and why and that applies to the gods as well as the people. Actions have predictable consequences. Achilles knows that he can have glory or a long life but not both and he chooses glory. No Greek before Socrates would have thought he made the wrong choice. The same tragic choice faces all the heroes of that great poem. Oedipus is not given a choice. Instead, the qualities that make him great, the qualities that he shares with Achilles and the other heroes of the _Iliad_, are instrumental in closing the trap that fate has prepared for him--for reasons that are not and cannot be known. Sophocles seems to have been willing to contemplate--in this play, if not in the much later _Oedipus at Colonus_--the possibility that the will of the gods cannot be known, that their values and purposes are not commensurate with ours; and that therefore the cosmos may be fundamentally irrational. Or nonrational. This thought makes us very uncomfortable. No doubt, since I don't know Greek, this reading of Sophocles's play is also more or less mistaken. Completely mistaken perhaps-- we know so little about how the tragic drama fit into the festivals to Dionysius in which, for which they were staged. This play has always baffled us and I readily admit it baffles me. Piers Lewis Metropolitan State University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. L. Epstein Date: Monday, 30 Jan 1995 23:58:52 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0058 Re: Greek (Athenian) Tragedy, esp. Oedipus It is not really necessary to produce wild guesses about Athenian attitudes toward Thebes; the historical facts point to the Athenian attitude. Thebes had notably strong walls and had a military tradition of considerable power. It was the Theban general Epaminondas who contributed greatly to Greek military tactics and strategy, more than any other military leader. In fact, it could be said that Epaminondas destroyed the fabulous military power of Sparta. It requires a bit of imagination, I grant, to extrapolate from the walls and Epaminondas to an Athenian impression of a grim and relentless military power, with little of culture, as the Athenians saw it, with the only exception being Pindar, who lived in Thebes. In addition, there was the civil wars between the sons of Oedipus, with the assistance of such great warriors as Tydeus the father of Diomedes, to contribute to the reputation of a place that was both grim and politically unstable. My application of Greek history to American history and the assignment of the roles of Athens and Thebes to Boston and Dallas is not, I think, entirely indefensible.E.L.Epstein ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 11:00:51 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0061 Re: *Hamlet* in Winnipeg Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0061. Wednesday, 1 February 1995. From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 31 Jan 95 16:15:57 -0500 Subject: Hamlet in Winnipeg Well, fellow Shakespeareans, I had an absolutely transcendent experience in Winnipeg. I loved the city, its museums, restaurants, and people. I had a wonderful time with the busload of Twin Cities folks (and one North Carolinan) with whom I travelled. And the play was magnificent. I've seen numerous filmed Hamlets (Burton, Olivier, Gibson, Kline, Jacobi) and a few on stage, but I've never seen a production that worked as successfully as this one. From the magnificent pre-show to the enthralling and exciting conclusion, it was a riveting experience. As far as I could tell (I haven't gone back to the text to check), it was also one of the most complete *Hamlet* productions I have seen. I was only occasionally aware of missing lines while I was watching it, and I didn't note _any_ missing scenes (though there may have been some). I thought the cast was excellent overall, although I was disappointed by Liisa Repo-Martell, who played Ophelia (this tended to be true of most of the people I talked with). She simply didn't seem to have a clear insight into her character, and although she was somewhat better in the nunnery and the mad scenes than she was earlier, she still didn't quite pull it off. Claudius (Stephen Russell), Polonius (Robert Benson), Gertrude (Louisa Martin), and the Ghost/Player King (Gary Reineke) were superb. I thought all the smaller supporting roles were excellent as well, especially Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (Roger Honeywell and Richard Hughes) and the two gravediggers (sorry, I lost the inserted slip that had their names). Laertes (Andrew Akman) was OK, as was Horatio (Donald Carrier), although I'm especially picky about the latter since it's a part for which I feel a certain affinity, having played it in high school some thirty years ago. And then there was Hamlet. (Caveat: I _like_ Keanu Reeves. I first saw him in *My Own Private Idaho* and was sufficiently impressed to go out and rent all his earlier films.) I thought he was splendid: from the controlled, tormented, long-haired prince of the opening scenes to the shorn and bedraggled madman to the betrayed lover and son to the resigned avenger, I thought he played a remarkable number of variable tunes on his instrument. Others considered the comic and active scenes more successful, but I think that's because they are comic and more active. I do think the soliloquies were not all they might have been, though I think that has as much to do with the director's choices as with the actor's. They were delivered, for the most part, from a single spot with little or no movement--and that didn't work well. But there were moments in all four soliloquies that came alive for me in new ways, even in "To be or not to be," which I thought the least successful. Mr. Reeves's reading of certain lines gave me a whole new sense of the speech and Hamlet's thinking at the moment. I thought the nunnery scene was successful, with Hamlet attentive and concerned intially and then angry and outraged, and then (momentarily) distraught and appalled. The closet scene was also wonderful. He murdered Polonius not with a rapier but much more deliberately with a dagger (though he still couldn't see who it was) and his interaction with his mother ranged from almost comic intially to full-blown rage to despair. Their contract was sealed with a mutual, but amazingly non-erotic, kiss (very unlike Oliver or Gibson). The scenes throughout with R & G were played for comedy, but comedy with a clear edge; we always knew that Hamlet was wary and watching. When they escort him in to see Claudius after the murder of Polonius, his hands were covered with blood and he very deliberately licked one of his fingers: a horrifying but apt touch. And the entire final sequence was exquisite: the graveyard scene both funny and moving. Hamlet and the gravedigger _sang_ the lines Imperious Caesar, dead and turn'd to clay, Might stop a hole to keep the wind away. O that that earth which kept the world in awe Should patch a wall t'expel the winter's flaw. --something I'd never seen done and which moved me in ways that I am still not able to articulate. The final sequence was brilliantely staged--the fight one of the best I've seen: again, it combined some nice comic touches with a true fierceness. And when Hamlet murders Claudius, he first stabs him with the tainted sword, then forces the remaining drink down his throat, _then_ slits his throat with his dagger. Once he got to this moment, he wasn't taking any chances. He uses the last of his energy to prevent Horatio's suicide, then takes his rightful place in the throne, grasps the hand of his dead mother, and dies. Horatio's "Good night, sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest" was the play's final line. The physical production: set, costumes, lighting all worked beautifully. The set had a heavy, dark medieval feel; a stained glass window above the second level changed to show various scenes (I'm sure of a virgin and child--this is the one Hamlet destroys by throwing his sword through it after he comes upon Claudius praying and elects not to kill him; one was an angel, I think; but there were one or two others. I couldn't see the window well because we had seats in the first row[!]). The costumes were what I guess I would call modified Elizabethan; lots of deep, rich colors. The other remarkable thing about this production is that it absolutely sang: none of this attitude that "this is a sacred text, and we must slow down so the poor beknighted audience can understand every single word." They spoke as if they were speaking and it came through beautifully. My spouse, who says it usually takes him a full half-hour to get into the swing of the language says he was with it right from the start, and none of the younger people (we had some middle and high school kids with us) had problems. I thought the language overall, including the verse, was handled beautifully. Something about the interpretation (and, again, I'm still musing on this) captured both a particular essence of Hamlet the character that I haven't seen before, and conveyed a very contemporary sense of the play. I only wish I could have seen it again, and I sincerely hope that despite the $7 million film offers Keanu Reeves will take on more Shakespeare in the future. Chris Gordon University of Minnesota ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 11:45:04 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0063 Re: Characters; *H5* Film; Rare Books Course Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0063. Wednesday, 1 February 1995. (1) From: John Cox Date: Monday, 30 Jan 1995 09:36:21 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0054 Q: Migrating Characters (2) From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Saturday, 28 Jan 95 16:01:26 Subj: 1989 Henry V (3) From: Daniel Traister Date: Monday, 30 Jan 1995 21:24:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Summer rare book courses at the University of Virginia (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Monday, 30 Jan 1995 09:36:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0054 Q: Migrating Characters With regard to characters borrowed by one playwright from another, does Jaques count in *As You Like It*? He has often seemed to me to be based on Jonson's misanthropic satirists that were being staged by the Chamberlain's Men at just about the same time as AYLI. Jaques's railing way of "curing" Orlando is strongly remininiscent of Jonson's satire (though not, perhaps, of any particular Jonsonian character, unless it be Macilente), and Jaques's "cure" strongly contrasts (especially in its ineffectiveness) with Rosalind's, which is Shakespeare's own invention. John Cox (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Saturday, 28 Jan 95 16:01:26 Subject: 1989 Henry V I thought the subscribers to the Shakespeare list might find the following of interest. it was posted on the Self-Referential Films Mailing List, and I'm forwarding it on. Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. martyj@yankeegroup.com ************************************************************************ Not sure if this is the proper format - I don't have an essay prepared or anything and I'm new to this list. Was wondering if anyone had any comment on the Prologue to Kenneth Branagh's film of HENRY V, a film which is presented as a film-within-a- film. One interesting effect in particular is when the Chorus leads the audience out of the movie studio in the beginning, through the double doors, and into the "real" film of HENRY V. As you go through the doors into blackness, the first thing you see is another door opening in the distance. This is the door to the conspirators' chamber, obviously, and through a cut, the audience is admitted into the "conspiracy" of the film (the conspiracy to put Shakespeare on film??) and doesn't leave the "real" movie until the very end of the film (via the doors). However, if the audience isn't in the movie studio, and they are not admitted into the film yet -- where are they? (Spatially they are standing in a dark hallway, but one could argue that the hallway isn't "real" until the conspirators let the audience "in" to the real film...) If only for a moment, it would seem the audience has no point of reference for "where" they are -- where they are in relation to the in-studio framing device, or the "real" movie, that is. (The only thing in this film that gives the audience a sense of continuity, in fact, is the music soundtrack, which links everything -- opening credits, framing device, and the "real" movie in between.) There are other self-referential issues in this film and some of Kenneth Branagh's other films. Many, many in-jokes and references in DEAD AGAIN -- Branagh's birthday in the newspaper front page, a scene filmed on "Shakespeare Bridge," a LIFE magazine cover featuring Laurence Olivier in HAMLET (presumably a retort to talk about Branagh being "the next Olivier,"), Roman Strauss' prison number reading 25101415 (October 25, 1415, date of the Battle of Agincourt), for example. Branagh's composer also has appeared in some of the films (HENRY V and MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING) playing characters who provide music; he was to appear in FRANKENSTEIN as a band conductor but the scene was cut from the film. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Traister Date: Monday, 30 Jan 1995 21:24:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Summer rare book courses at the University of Virginia Copies of the announcement for this coming summer's sessions of the University of Virginia's Rare Book School--which will run for five weeks, from the week of July 10 through the week of August 7--are now available. Several of this year's courses should interest Renaissance and early modern specialists, Shakespearians among them, including: July 10-July 14 (Week 1) Peter Blayney, "The Company of Stationers to 1637" ***N.B.*** July 17-July 21 (Week 2) Terry Belanger, "Book Illustration to 1880" (how did they do it? how can you tell what it was they did?) July 24-July 28 (Week 3) Jeanne Veyrin-Forrer, "Book Production in c16 France" July 31-August 4 (Week 4) Donald W. Krummel, "How to Research a Rare Book" (bibliographically, of course!) August 7-August 11 (Week 5) Albert Derolez, "Latin Paleography, 1100-1500" The school will also offer other courses--it offers some 30 courses altogether, counting repeated courses--especially in the areas of bookbinding history, papermaking history, early modern typography, electronic texts and uses of the Internet, and introductory descriptive bibliography, as well as a general introduction to the history of printed books in Europe and North America. Some of these courses, too, may interest people at work in early modern fields (as well as their students!). This announcement and additional information are available from: Rare Book School, University of Virginia, 114 Alderman Library, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2498 (phone 804 924 8824; fax 804 924 8851; e-mail biblio@virginia.edu). Daniel Traister Department of Special Collections Van Pelt-Dietrich Library University of Pennsylvania ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 11:24:41 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0062 Re: Portia's Voice Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0062. Wednesday, 1 February 1995. (1) From: Ben Schneider Date: Monday, 30 Jan 1995 11:08:04 -0600 (CST) Subj: Portia's Voice (2) From: Dudley Knight Date: Monday, 30 Jan 1995 19:35:50 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0059 Re: *MV* Ongoing Discussion (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Monday, 30 Jan 1995 11:08:04 -0600 (CST) Subject: Portia's Voice Dear Phyllis Rackin: Thank you very much for calling my attention to Portia's self-proclaimed "bad voice." She has just commanded the music to stop, and is about to begin the jest of the ring. In this context her voice won't be musical. But even here the music bursts through. Answering Bassanio's defense, in which every line ends with the word "ring," comes her riposte, in which the firt four and the last end with "ring." If your spirits are attentive you may hear a bell tinkling in these lines, and they may remind you of Shylock tolling "bond," "bond," "bond," at the ends of an earlier series of lines. But of course if you read the ending as Portia establishing domination over Bassanio, your spirits will not hear any music. Yours ever, BEN SCHNEIDER (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dudley Knight Date: Monday, 30 Jan 1995 19:35:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0059 Re: *MV* Ongoing Discussion To Phyllis Rackin: There's another possibility, which I am somewhat timorous to suggest. Maybe- just maybe--Portia has a sense of humor (in the contemporary sense, which may not last too long from current indications). Dudley Knight University of California--Irvine ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 09:05:42 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0064 Q: Performance Criticism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0064. Thursday, 2 February 1995. From: Jeff Nyhoff Date: Wednesday, 1 Feb 1995 09:24:06 -0800 Subject: Performance Criticism? I decided to assemble a bibliography of "performance criticism" for a course I'm teaching, and I must confess that I'm surprised by the difficulty I'm having. I've not had difficulty in finding instances of usage of the term "performance criticism," but in these instances the term is generally used axiomatically. What are the origins of the term, the concept? Where have critics offered definitions of the term? Where are the best (and/or worst) examples of "performance criticism"? Secondly: is performance criticism possible...? Jeff Nyhoff [One place to begin would be the SHAKSPER Fileserver. By sending the following command -- GET PERFORM PACKAGE SHAKSPER to LISTSERV@UTORONTO.BITNET -- you will receive eight very long files that constitute an electronic workbook of the "Shakespeare and the Languages of Performance" NEH seminar that met at the Folger Shakespeare Library from September 1992 through May 1993. --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 09:14:46 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0065 Re: Athenian Tragedy; Portia's Voice Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0065. Thursday, 2 February 1995. (1) From: Grace Tiffany Date: Wednesday, 01 Feb 1995 13:15:11 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0060 Re: Oedipus and Greek Tragedy (2) From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Wednesday, 1 Feb 1995 14:35:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0062 Re: Portia's Voice (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Grace Tiffany Date: Wednesday, 01 Feb 1995 13:15:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0060 Re: Oedipus and Greek Tragedy Thanks to Piers Lewis for his comments -- in quick reply I just want to say that the Homeric view of proper behavior is radically different from the Sophoclean view; for the late 5th century Sophoclean hero -- as well as for the Aeschylean hero and the Euripidean hero (Philoctetes, Orestes, Pentheus) -- humility is indeed powerfully required and the ability to be humble, questioning, and accept guidance and wisdom from others (what Creon doesn't do in Antigone) is crucial to spiritual growth. This fact need not be understood in Christian terms; humility is an attribute that transcends religions. Socrates was a man of his time in advocating a kind of questioning and openness -- such an attitude, or at least the new valuing of such an attitude, marks not only the tragic playwrights but the historians concerned with describing (correctly or propagandistically) the difference between the new Greece and the bad old Greece in the age of tyrants. How accurate the vision of Athens they generated was -- a place where the ability to put ego aside and listen to reason was practiced and valued (this was the image) -- is of course open to question; certainly we know they idealized themselves. But I can't see any reason to assume that 5th century Athenians simply duplicated the values of a radically different and centuries-prior Homeric period, especially when the plays, philosophy, and history so clearly argue otherwise. Euripides "Bacchae," The Oedipus Cycle, "Philoctetes," and numerous other plays of this period (not excepting Aristophanes's great satiric works) dramatize the dangers of a "reductive moralism" that would limit inquiry and put the egotistical self at the center of the universe; everything in the plays, including the choral odes, pushes this message. In noticing this 20th century readers aren't imposing moralism on the plays; instead, they're pointing out how strongly the plays argue against a limiting moralism. And of course that's why they're so great and why we should keep reading them! (In my view of course.) -- GCT (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Wednesday, 1 Feb 1995 14:35:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0062 Re: Portia's Voice I did notice the repetition of the word "ring," but it never struck me as musical. Maybe my spirits are inattentive, but I always thought the speech was kind of funny. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 09:22:55 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0066 Re: Migrating Characters; Mrs. Mortimer's Welsh Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0066. Thursday, 2 February 1995. (1) From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Wednesday, 01 Feb 1995 12:56:21 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0063 Re: Characters (2) From: John Drakakis Date: Wednesday, 01 Feb 95 19:57:00 GMT Subj: SHK 6.0063 Re: Characters (3) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Thursday, 2 Feb 1995 11:50:03 GMT Subj: Mrs Mortimer's Welsh (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Wednesday, 01 Feb 1995 12:56:21 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0063 Re: Characters Persons interested in migrating characters should re-read _The First Part of Sir John Oldcastle_ by the Henslowe collaborative. E. Pearlman (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Wednesday, 01 Feb 95 19:57:00 GMT Subject: SHK 6.0063 Re: Characters On the question of borrowing, what about Thorello from Jonson's Every Man In (in which Shakespeare was thought to have played a role himself). I would imagine that after a few tankards of ale which Shakespeare might have shared with Burbage, Thorello could very easily have become Othello. After all, with the aid of no ale at all Othello seems to have become OJ Simpson! At least the first letter's right! Cheers, John Drakakis University of Stirling (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Thursday, 2 Feb 1995 11:50:03 GMT Subject: Mrs Mortimer's Welsh Melissa Aaron concludes that the 'real moral' of Lady Mortimer's use of Welsh in 1 Henry 1V is "for a truly affectionate relationship, marry someone whose language you don't speak'. But why divert attention from the scene's central concern: the crucial issue of rebellion and the questions this raises for multi-cultural entities such as Britain? The Welsh language not only serves to make clear the fatal disunity of the rebel camp, it also stands as a challenge to the cultural supremacy of English in Britain, and thus to the political project of which Hal -ironically Prince of Wales- is the leading agency. A united, English-speaking Great Britain, intent on 'Englishing' any culture that lies in its path (Henry V's dismissal of French confirms the point) must construct languages like Welsh as potentially subversive where they're not merely ludicrous or barbaric. This complex issue is as carefully probed in this scene as it is later in the cycle when Fluellen, an English-speaker who proclaims his Welshness in the language which has bull-dozed his own, enthusiastically supports its driver (who cannily also proclaims himself Welsh). The remorseless 'Englishing' of Welshness, Scottishness and Irishness are fundamental, and still-potent issues in these plays. To drain them away, as 'character' analysis tends to do, is to reduce a serious engagement with politics to the cosy domestic level of soap opera. Terence Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 09:49:45 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0067 Re: Performance Criticism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0067. Saturday, 4 February 1995. (1) From: Ron Shields Date: Thursday, 2 Feb 1995 09:38:23 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0064 Q: Performance Criticism (2) From: Fran Teague Date: Thursday, 02 Feb 95 10:59:01 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0064 Q: Performance Criticism (3) From: Daniel M Larner Date: Friday, 3 Feb 1995 12:25:25 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0064 Q: Performance Criticism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Shields Date: Thursday, 2 Feb 1995 09:38:23 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0064 Q: Performance Criticism "Performance criticism" is alive and well in contemporary theatrical/ performance studies circles, as played out in the journals Text and Performance Quarterly, The Drama Review, Theatre Journal, Performing Arts Journal, etc. Two recent books which contain examples of recent efforts in this area: Upstaging Big Daddy and Critical Theory and Performance (both published the the University of Michigan). In answer to your question, "Is Performance criticism possible"--I would say yes--onstage, in the audience, and in print. Ron Shields Bowling Green State University Chair and Associate Professor Theatre (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Thursday, 02 Feb 95 10:59:01 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0064 Q: Performance Criticism Performance criticism is a term that is used to mean a wide range of things, from traditional performance history (e.g., Carol Carlisle, Arthur Colby Sprague), records of performances used to discuss literary issues (Rosenberg), anthropological/cultural studies use of performance (e.g., Schechner's work), semiotic analysis (Elam), issues of dramaturgy (Styan or Beckerman), and so on and so on. A good starting place for the study of Shakespeare performance issues is the collection _Shakespeare and the Sense of Performance_ by Marvin and Ruth Thompson (U Delaware). It has a historical survey of performance criticism at the outset, essays from a wide variety of scholars, and an appended list of suggested readings in Performance Criticism. I hope you find this information useful. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel M Larner Date: Friday, 3 Feb 1995 12:25:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0064 Q: Performance Criticism For Jeff Nyhoff--:Look for the works of Richard Schechner, and review The Drama Review and Performing Arts Journal for the last 10-15 years. Hello, Jeff! Daniel Larner Fairhaven College Western Washington University. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 09:59:01 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0068 Re: Athenian Tragedy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0068. Saturday, 4 February 1995. (1) From: Edward M Moore Date: Thursday, 02 Feb 1995 09:08:20 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Oedipus (2) From: Bob Gingher Date: Thursday, 2 Feb 1995 12:43:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0065 Re: Athenian Tragedy (3) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Thursday, 02 Feb 1995 14:12:17 -0500 (EST) Subj: Epic and Tragedy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward M Moore Date: Thursday, 02 Feb 1995 09:08:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Oedipus "Sophocles seems to have been willing to contemplate . . . the possibility that the will of the gods cannot be known, that their values and purposes are not commensurate with ours; and that therefore the cosmos may be fundamentally irrational. Or nonrational." --Piers Lewis Perhaps . . . but. The fact that the prophecy comes true, despite the efforts of Laius, Jocasta, and Oediupus, shows that the cosmos, at least at the level of the gods' relation to humans is rational and ordered. Had they been able to thwart Apollo's prophecy, what kind of universe would there be? Jocasta dismisses such prophecies (tr. Grene, 707ff.), as does Oedipus (964ff.), and Jocasta even concludes "Why should man fear since chance is all in all/ for him, and he can clearly foreknow nothing?" (977-8). Of course she is proved wrong--there is an order, inscrutable, but not at our level irrational as would be the case if Oedipus were the "child of Fortune" (1080) he at one points proclaims himself. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Gingher Date: Thursday, 2 Feb 1995 12:43:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0065 Re: Athenian Tragedy Interesting commentary. The Sophoclean sense of humility and morality invites consideration of the way Mystery, the big "Other," breaks into the lives of procrustean heroes, the loss-before-transformation route of the circular journey. One of my best teachers once noted that the hero or heroine of a work is always the one with the most to lose. Creon does come to mind... (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Thursday, 02 Feb 1995 14:12:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Epic and Tragedy I have to agree with Grace Tiffany that values differ between Homeric epic and the tragedy of fifth century Athens. Indeed, I think the _Oresteia_ of Aeschylus can be plausibly read as a self-conscious critique of Homeric values, a dramatization of the superseding of the archaic warrior ethos, a progress from aristocratic _oikos_ to democratic _polis_. It's not just that values are different: Aeschylus' trilogy is a celebration of difference. --Ron Macdonald ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 10:11:44 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0069 Qs: Book Search; Caius; Homoerotic; Auditions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0069. Saturday, 4 February 1995. (1) From: Jim Rapport Date: Thursday, 02 Feb 95 13:45:08 EST Subj: Book Search (2) From: Melissa Kolar Date: Thursday, 2 Feb 95 14:24 EST Subj: Lear/Caius (3) From: Jung Jimmy Date: Thursday, 02 Feb 95 17:29:00 PST Subj: Naive questions from the homoerotic front (4) From: Dan Kois Date: Friday, 3 Feb 1995 15:01:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: Auditions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Rapport Date: Thursday, 02 Feb 95 13:45:08 EST Subject: Book Search Am I the world's only owner of the out-of-print paperback, Shakespeare Was A Computer Programmer by Jeffrey Holmes, Brunswick Press, Fredricton , New Brunswick, Canada, 1975? It's lovely and great fun. (My computer maven son buys the whole enchilada.) I would like to buy new or used copies for some of my uptight/authorship freak/somewhat humourless/albeit good friends/colleagues. Responses duly appreciated. Have all of you heard about the serious note posted on the backstage callboard by the senior costumer at the Stratford Festival theatre? "All actors will wear jockstraps including those with small parts." Jim Rapport CAPS Northern Michigan University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Kolar Date: Thursday, 2 Feb 95 14:24 EST Subject: Lear/Caius In the last scene of the play, Kent refers to himself as Lear's servant by the name of Caius. Does anyone know why Shakespeare might have chosen this name? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jung Jimmy Date: Thursday, 02 Feb 95 17:29:00 PST Subject: Naive questions from the homoerotic front I've been embroiled in a discussion that centers on Emily Dickinson's poetry as lesbian, and while the argument seems convincing, it is countered by an attitude that passionate exchanges between female friends were the norm in her time. Does that have anything to do with Shakespeare, or am I writing to the wrong list? No, it's just that the argument echoed what I remembered being taught about the sonnets. So I was wondering; 1. Is the current thinking still that sonnets to beautiful young boy have no sexual aspect? 2. Are there other sonnets from Shakespeare's time that also fall into the same-sex/no-sex-intended category? Back to lurking, Jimmy P.S. About a year ago I saw a T-shirt that said, "Are you Shakespearienced?" Since then, I've been unable to relocate it. Can anyone help? (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Kois Date: Friday, 3 Feb 1995 15:01:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Auditions I'm a non-Equity actor, looking for summer work. If any of you out there on SHAKESPER know of summer Shakespeare festivals that are having auditions soon, could you let me know? I'm looking mainly in the SE (NC, SC, VA, GA, DC, TN) or midwest (WI, IL, IA, MN, IN). Write back to dankois@email.unc.edu Thanks! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 10:24:20 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0070 Re: Portia's Voice; Welsh; Fortinbras at Winnipeg Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0070. Saturday, 4 February 1995. (1) From: Naomi Liebler Date: Thursday, 2 Feb 95 11:16:00 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0065 Re: Portia's Voice (2) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Thursday, 2 Feb 1995 10:10:04 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0066 Re: Mrs. Mortimer's Welsh (3) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 2 Feb 95 11:00:16 -0500 Subj: Fortinbras in the Winnipeg *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Thursday, 2 Feb 95 11:16:00 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0065 Re: Portia's Voice An addendum in support of Phyllis Rackin's notice re Portia's diminished "musicality": When Portia and Nerissa enter the scene at around line 95 or so, P. says, "Music! hark!" and Nerissa points out to her that "It is your music, madam, of the house." I've always thought this was a bit peculiar: why wouldn't Portia recognize her own musicians? why would she be surprised that there should be music coming from her house? My guess has been that she, too, "hath no music in [her]self," ironically pointing to the insistence the play makes on hierarchical "difference" between the (best of?) the Venetians and Shylock. This eradication of "difference" (as I read it) underscores the artificiality of Shylock's demonization. Also, if I may, a belated response to Grace Tiffany's richly-informed discussion on _Oedipus Rex_ et alia: Brava! Moreover, the idea of "harmatia" as "missing the mark" (to return to THAT one again) is well-supported in the plot and story of Oedipus. From the time Oedipus learned that his doom was parricide and incest, he did all he could to avoid fulfilling it--he left Corinth where his "parents" (as he thought) lived, and made his way to Thebes. In other words, he aimed to do the right thing, to avoid the extreme sin that was his destiny, and "missed the mark." That is why the play's tag is "Count no man happy until he has seen the end of his days"--the tragic core of hamartia is that we sometimes DO not (not to say CAN not) avoid evil. We take aim, and sometimes we miss. The fact that Oedipus takes responsibility for his actions also marks him as heroic in the tragic mode: as king, as son, he DID the deeds that brought the plague upon Thebes. Responsibility is not the same thing as "guilt" in the emotive frame. None of this "my client couldn't help himself, milord; he was doomed to do what he did" that we might hear from defense counsel today. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Thursday, 2 Feb 1995 10:10:04 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0066 Re: Mrs. Mortimer's Welsh I would never suggest draining away the Celtic issues in Henry IV:1, nor reducing it to the level of soap opera. Surely, though, this does not obviate the difficulty of this director's rendition of the play: THE AUDIENCE IN CAMBRIDGE HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING ON. A "seduced" or "bewitched" Mortimer, a Mortimer who has been seduced by Welsh and is therefore no longer "really English" makes as effective of a political point. It also happens to coincide with the cynical reading of personal relationships I cited earlier--that linguistic and indeed political unity are inimical to romance. I think that's pretty political. Melissa Aaron (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 2 Feb 95 11:00:16 -0500 Subject: Fortinbras in the Winnipeg *Hamlet* Dan Colvin asked me about the director's handling of Fortinbras in the Manitoba Theatre Centre's production of *Hamlet,* since I indicated that the play ends with Horatio's "good night, sweet prince" line. Fortinbras _was_ in the production: we had Horatio's description of the political situation in the third scene, and saw Fortinbras himself in 4.4 as he embarks on his Polish invasion. So he did provide a foil to Hamlet as intended; I thought this made Hamlet's "How all occasions do inform against me" one of the more powerful soliloquies. I have to admit that I wondered how they would end the play, and I think in this case they made the right choice. True, we lost both the ambassadors from England and Fortinbras, but the moment they chose worked very well for this production. You definitely got the sense of the Danish situation being national/political as well as personal/familial. Gene Pyrz played Fortinbras (as well as Barnardo and a sailor) and came across as brash, energetic, and non-intellectual, so although the part was small, it had its own special impact. Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 10:28:14 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0071 Multimedia Shakespeare Project Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0071. Saturday, 4 February 1995. From: Leslie Harris Date: Friday, Feb 03 22:59:34 EST 1995 Subject: Multimedia Shakespeare Project Hi, Folks. I mentioned last semester a "Shakespeare Multimedia Project" that I did in my Shakespeare class. I said I would talk about how the project went if people were interested, and someone has requested the information, so here goes! ;-) In general, I would say that the project was a success. The students had lots of fun with it (after they figured out how to use the software), the projects turned out pretty well, and--heck--I actually got them to check books out from the library! :-) For those who didn't hear about the project the first time I posted about it, here's what it involved. I broke the students up into groups, with each group responsible for annotating a passage from one of the Shakespeare plays we read during the semester (a different play for each group). The software they used was Multimedia ToolBook 3.0, by Asymetrix. Their task was to create a hypertext document, linking words in the passage to explanatory notes, background information, scanned pictures, sound clips, video clips--whatever they deemed appropriate to help explain the meaning of the passage. In hypertext documents, when you click on a "hotword," the program takes you to the linked page, and you read the note, see the picture, or whatever. Then you can click on a button to return to the passage. I wanted them to learn to read their passage closely, explore contextual information relevant to the passage, and be creative in the process, producing a document that others could use, benefit from, and enjoy. In all those aspects, I think the project succeeded. The problems: some students were a bit frightened by the freedom the project gave them (here's what you need to do, here are help sheets to teach you how to use the software, here's when it's due--with subsidiary deadlines--o.k., get going). That's basically how I assigned the project, although we continued to meet while it was going on, so I could make announcements, give further directions, troubleshoot the projects, and so on. This might not be true of all students, but the very traditional students here wanted a bit more hand-holding than I gave them. I think the project would work even better for students who like being independent learners. Another problem: video clips are *huge* files. Students could basically include only a few lines of dialogue for a clip, before the size got pretty unmanageable. Such clips are definitely too large to be saved on a disk, and that involved using shared network drives on which to save the files. Making back-up copies was difficult, especially because we couldn't use floppy disks (or hard drives, for that matter, since the computers were in a public lab). Despite the problems, though, I was very pleased with the end results, and I was pleased with the work the students put into thier projects. They *did* check out books from the library (lots of them, in fact), they learned lots of interesting things about the period, many of the students enjoyed the project and found the multimedia software totally cool, and they were highly motivated to do the work. I saved the projects (on a shared network drive, of course), and if anyone knows how to change MultiMedia ToolBook files into HTML (and can offer space on a WWW server), I'd be willing to put the better ones on the Web (if anyone were interested). Let me know if you want any more information about the project. Leslie Harris Department of English Susquehanna University Selinsgrove PA 17870 lharris@einstein.susqu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 15:03:51 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0072 Q: The Scottish Play Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0072. Sunday, 5 February 1995. From: Bill Schmidt Date: Saturday, 04 Feb 1995 11:21:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: The Scottish Play From a review of Garry Wills's, "Witches & Jesuits" in the February 16, NYRB: "I had assumed that this superstition [about Macbeth in performance] had degenerated into a custom or running joke, but to make sure I troubled a number of experienced actors with inquiries. The results were, I think, of some interest. It is still forbidden in the green rooms for anybody to name the play or quote from it, something you might do inadvertently, for instance by saying you had won "golden opinions" from the reviewers. An offender is obliged to leave the room, and in the corridor, turn thrice in a circle, and swear an oath. He or she may then bereadmitted. Or if immediately on offending, the culprit remembers to quote Hamlet's 'Angels and ministers of grace defend us!' he or she may stay in the room." Really? I would appreciate hearing from any subscribers with experience of Shakepeare in production whether this is true. Is there any difference in custom between the US and the UK? I'd also be interested in hearing about any other theatrical superstitions relating to Shakespeare. Thanks. Bill Schmidt (WASCHMIDT@delphi.com) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 15:10:09 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0072 Re: Portia's Voice Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0073. Sunday, 5 February 1995. (1) From: Richard C. Jones III Date: Saturday, 04 Feb 1995 13:04:32 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0070 Re: Portia's Voice (2) From: Joan Hartwig Date: Sunday, 05 Feb 95 13:14:38 EST Subj: Portia's Voice (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard C. Jones III Date: Saturday, 04 Feb 1995 13:04:32 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0070 Re: Portia's Voice Naomi Liebler's comments on Portia's not recognizing her own musicians are lucid and interesting, but I wonder if we aren't over-intellectualizing a bit here. This is a play, after all, not a novel. I've always viewed the passage in question simply as a means of telling the *audience* what's up, and of making sure the music cue didn't disappear. Not the subtlest of devices, to be sure, but forgiveable, I think.... Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joan Hartwig Date: Sunday, 05 Feb 95 13:14:38 EST Subject: Portia's Voice Reading Naomi Liebler's response in support of Phyllis Rackin's opinion that Portia is not "musical," I realized that I am surprised. I have always thought that Portia hears the music as unusual, possibly even ethereal, possibly thinking that she has for an instant been allowed to hear the music of the spheres. After all, the audience has been prepared to think in these terms by Lorenzo's preceding discussion of the "harmony [that] is in immortal souls." Portia's response to Nerissa's literal reading, "It is your music, madam, of the house," is somewhat wry to my ear: "Nothing is good, I see, without respect. / Methinks it sounds much sweeter than by day." Nerissa, as so many comic parallel characters do, has the literalizing ear that brings Portia back to recognize that values cannot be absolute, but are related to their contexts--a point that Shakespeare seems to be making with the working out of "vows" violated and forgiven in the final scene, a point that contrasts with Shylock's adherence to the letter of the law. To differ respectfully, Joan Hartwig ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 15:20:53 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0074 Re: Homoerotic and *The Sonnets* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0074. Sunday, 5 February 1995. (1) From: E. L. Epstein Date: Saturday, 04 Feb 1995 14:34:00 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0069 Qs: Homoerotic (2) From: Jon Connolly Date: Sunday, 5 Feb 1995 00:18:37 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0069 Qs: Homoerotic (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. L. Epstein Date: Saturday, 04 Feb 1995 14:34:00 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0069 Qs: Homoerotic We must be very careful when we apply modern standards to previous ages. The matter of homoeroticism is a case in point. In the old days (that is, the Old Stone Age , when I was a boy), marrying a wife was in essence, hiring a housemaid who would bear your children. Of course, there is some reason for this attitude: in an age when everybody lived on the edge, what we call sentiment was a seldom thing. You *could* love your wife; nothing could stop you. However, if you did, the Romans at least had a pejorative to apply to you: uxorius. It is difficult to find affection in early marriages. In tHe Bible, for instance, there are only two marriages that come to mind where the husband is considerate of his wife's feelings: the man who will later be the father of Samuel consoles his wife, Hannah, by saying when she laments her barreness, "Am I not better for you than ten sons?" That is, I love you and this should make up for a great deal of your pain." In addition, there is Boaz who behaves like a gentleman to Naomi and Ruth. However these are the exceptions. Now here is the point: In such a society if the husband does not look for affection from the wife, nor does he give her any, where can he expend his affection? With his menfriends, that is, a male-bonding unit. (The women presumably did the same with their female friends) Therefore, strong male friendships need not have any sexual content, nor should strong female friendships. In our own time, however, we are on the other side of the Romantic Revolution, in which personal sincerity and strong emotion were considered de rigeur in personal relationships. Hence, affection between husband and wife is now take for granted as a condition of their relationship. Now, if a married man has *strong* friendships with other men, and the wife with other women, it is not without justification the strong friendships could be seen to have a sexual component. Women are now, in intention, autonomous, that is, in charge of their own destiny, and therefore equal partners in a marriage, at least in a healthy modern relationship. Therefor the firiendships of David and Jonathan and Achilles and Patroclus, or to get back to the subject Shakespeare and Southampton, can be seen to be examples of male bonding, rather than love affairs in our modern sense of the term. This would also relieve the possibility\ of sexual tinge in the men acting as women in the theatre. Comments? E.L.Epstein (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jon Connolly Date: Sunday, 5 Feb 1995 00:18:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0069 Qs: Homoerotic To Jung Jimmy, Re: Homoeroticism and *The Sonnets* I would hesitate to generalize about what the "current belief" on the subject is, but for two nuanced takes on the subject that avoid the "are they or aren't they" trap, you might try Alan Bray's "Homosexuality and the Signs of Male Friendship in Elizabethan England" in _Queering the Renaissance_ (Jonathan Goldberg, ed. Duke U.P., 1994) and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's chapter on the sonnets in _Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire_ (Columbia UP, 1985). Jon Connolly U.C. Santa Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 15:34:45 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0075 Re: Hubris; Fortinbras; Welsh; Multimedia Project Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0075. Sunday, 5 February 1995. (1) From: David Wilson-Okamura Date: Saturday, 4 Feb 95 10:36:01 CST Subj: HUBRIS and HAMLET (2) From: David Glassco Date: Saturday, 04 Feb 1995 17:01:57 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0070 Re: Fortinbras at Winnipeg (3) From: Bob Gingher Date: Sunday, 5 Feb 1995 05:42:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0066 Re: Mrs. Mortimer's Welsh (4) From: Bob Gingher Date: Sunday, 5 Feb 1995 05:55:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0071 Multimedia Shakespeare Project (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Wilson-Okamura Date: Saturday, 4 Feb 95 10:36:01 CST Subject: HUBRIS and HAMLET My knowledge of Greek is rudimentary, but I have it on good authority (viz., my wife) that _hubris_ is not to be confused with "intellectual pride," much less some "tragic flaw." Its primary meaning is suggested, rather, by the verbal form _hubrizdo_, which L.S.J. defines thus: "to wax wanton, run riot, Lat. _lascivire_, opp. to _sophronein_ to practice moderation; of over-fed horses, to neigh, snort, prance, etc.; of plants, to run riot, grow over-rank. 2. with regard to others, to treat despitefully, do despite to, to outrage, insult, affront, ill-treat; in Att. more commonly, _hubrizdein eis tina_ to deal wantonly, commit outrages towards one; _hubrizdein hubries_ to commit outrages; so, _hubrizdein adikemata_ to do wanton wrongs. -> at Athens to do one a personal outrage, to beat and insult, assault . . ." Now it is not hard to see from this how _hubris_ came to be translated as "overweening pride" and the like. But in the case of Oedipus, it seems obvious to me that we can take the word in a far simpler sense: Oedipus assaulted his father, the king of Thebes. This constitutes a double outrage, in that Laius is his superior both by reason of paternity and civil rank. THAT is why Oedipus is called "hubristic": not because he strove against his Fate, but because he killed a kinsman who was also his superior. Wherefore (I would suggest) we ought not to speak of Oedipus's pride so much as his "unkindness," in the old sense of the word: in that sense, his crime is like that of Claudius in Shakespeare's _Hamlet_--not "murther," perhaps, nor even "foul," since he struck in self-defense--but "unnatural," an affront to kinship and to kingship; as for the incest, it is condemned in both plays on similar grounds. The difference is, that Oedipus is not a "villain," since he commits these unnatural acts unwittingly, whereas Claudius knowingly persists in them (v. Claudius' attempts at prayer, _Hamlet_ III iii). Yours faithfully, David Wilson-Okamura dswilson@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Glassco Date: Saturday, 04 Feb 1995 17:01:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0070 Re: Fortinbras at Winnipeg I wonder if Chris Gordon would elaborate on exactly why or how Hamlet's soliloquay "How all occasions do inform against me..." was made so powerful in the production she's discussing. I have always been bemused by the fact that the occasion Hamlet has just experienced (Fortinbras going off to a pointless war) is precisely the sort of occasion that might lead to a recognition of the need for further thought _before_ action, rather than encouraging anything precipitous. David Glassco Trent University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Gingher Date: Sunday, 5 Feb 1995 05:42:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0066 Re: Mrs. Mortimer's Welsh Of interest here also is the (linguistic) Outsider, the role of the artist and visionary as outcast, able to straddle two worlds like Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith and thus write meaningfully in the way Yeats means when he notes "conflict is consciousness." The Anglo-Irish tradition and explosion of American "Southern fiction" testify to the importance of "fighting the Englishing" (or any other homogenizing ruination) of nativ language, roots. Writers "write what they know," always better than looking with one eye over the shoulder back at the metropolis... (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Gingher Date: Sunday, 5 Feb 1995 05:55:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0071 Multimedia Shakespeare Project I'm interested in the "video clip" portion of your announcement and in your distinguishing between independent learners and hand-holders when involved with classes of "the subscribed." I have over a hundred students on-line in various classes now and find the independent learners are having a ball, the hangers-back aren't. P.S. Are you the Leslie Harris w/whom I went to grad school? --bob gingher ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 16:56:52 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 5.0076 Re: The Scottish Play Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0076. Monday, 6 February 1995. (1) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Sunday, 5 Feb 1995 14:02:11 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0072 Q: The Scottish Play (2) From: Michael Faulkner Date: Sunday, 5 Feb 1995 14:46:12 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0072 Q: The Scottish Play (3) From: Steven Gagen Date: Monday, 06 Feb 1995 10:44:34 +1100 Subj: Re: The Scottish Play (4) From: Jean Peterson Date: Monday, 6 Feb 1995 12:53:35 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0072 Q: The Scottish Play (5) From: Fran Teague Date: Monday, 06 Feb 95 14:01:59 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0072 Q: The Scottish Play (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Sunday, 5 Feb 1995 14:02:11 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0072 Q: The Scottish Play My experience is that it's still forbidden. The operatic equivalent is Verdi's *La Forza del Destino*, sometimes called "the one without a name." Along this line, does anyone know if there's a curse or something funny associated with John Ford's *Tis Pity Shee's a Whore?" Stoppard's *The Real Thing* seems to suggest that it's a play that breeds a lot of inappropriate relationships backstage, and I've heard this from other sources. Anyone know? Melissa Aaron University of Wisconsin-Madison (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Faulkner Date: Sunday, 5 Feb 1995 14:46:12 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0072 Q: The Scottish Play Bill, Having done many productions of Shakespeare's, including the dread play itself, I can say that the superstition is indeed alive and well. I have heard of many variations on the "cure", however, those being: After turning around three times, one must *spit* over the left shoulder After turning around three times, one must quote from "Midsummer Night's Dream" Once the entire ritual is completed, one must knock on the dressing room door, formally ask for re-admittance, and be welcomed in by a fellow actor that speaks their full name, as in "Yes, you may enter, Michael John Faulkner". I have been witness to many backstage arguments about the validity of the superstition (as I have inadvertantly let the name slip out), the most notable being one in which people that didn't believe in it were divided between whether or not one should honour the superstitions of other actors, and, being a disbeliever, still participate in the "cure". I myself am not sure what to believe...and would be curious to see if you learn the source of the superstition. Unlike the "no whistling" backstage fear, which has a basis in the early technical operation of the theater, no one I have met seems to know the origin of the "Scottish Play" superstition. Regards, Michael Faulkner hotspur@mcs.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Gagen Date: Monday, 06 Feb 1995 10:44:34 +1100 Subject: Re: The Scottish Play Bill Schmidt is dubious as to whether the superstitions surrounding The Scottish Play are still alive. I can tell him that plenty of people still believe in them here in Melbourne Australia. Many people in the theatre world will not mention the play's name or quote from it (or whistle in the theatre either, for that matter). It is often referred to simply as 'That Play'. According to friends of mine who say they know about such matters, the reason for the play's bad reputation is that some of the spells and incantations used by the witches are _genuine_ spells and incantations, capable of invoking evil entities. Our theatre group planned to stage a production of That Play in April this year. My wife and I were to have co-directed it. We were scornful about the superstitions, and blase about the prognostications of those who told us about the number of productions that had had to be cancelled because of ill-health and death. Until, that is, my wife developed sudden and serious valvular heart disease which meant that the production has had to be deferred for at least a year, and two members of our company died suddenly (one at the age of 26 years). We are still planning to stage That Play next year. But this time, we will respect those superstitions -- just to be on the safe side. Regards from Steve Gagen. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Monday, 6 Feb 1995 12:53:35 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0072 Q: The Scottish Play BE WARY HOW YOU SCORN SUPERSTITION... About 3 years ago at Bucknell, during a rehearsal of a student-directed show (NOT the scottish play, but nonetheless), the director and stage manager got into a conversation about that "stupid" superstition. Secure in their secular rationalism, they tempted fate by joyously screaming the M-word, onstage and backstage... Opening night's performance was interrupted by a backstage fire, which started in the room where the conversation began...(no one was hurt, but it WAS eerie). Verily, I say, these things are true! Cheers Jean Peterson Bucknell University (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Monday, 06 Feb 95 14:01:59 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0072 Q: The Scottish Play The theater group I work with regularly (non-profit community) does observe the prohibition on Macbeth when someone notices that a violation has occurred. Perhaps the parties who enforce the superstition are trying to show off; the two of us who regularly teach Shakespeare don't fuss too much about it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 17:10:56 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0078 Re: The Homoerotic Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0078. Monday, 6 February 1995. (1) From: Grant Moss Date: Monday, 6 Feb 1995 09:48:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0069 Qs: Homoerotic (2) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 6 Feb 95 09:34:39 -0500 Subj: SHK 6.0069 Qs: Homoerotic (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Grant Moss Date: Monday, 6 Feb 1995 09:48:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0069 Qs: Homoerotic Regarding the recent inquiry on homoeroticism in the sonnets I would suggest the book "Queering the Renaissance," a collection of essays edited by (I think) Jonathan Goldberg. To the best of my knowledge, the debate still rages on, but I think we need to be wary of trying to apply 20th-century standards and definition of gayness to the 16th and 17th centuries, tempting though it often is. I don't mean to reject the idea of the sonnets and other works being gay--they may very well be--but the fact that they sound like love letters to someone in 1995 is not enough to establish anything definite. Grant Moss UNC-Chapel Hill (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 6 Feb 95 09:34:39 -0500 Subject: SHK 6.0069 Qs: Homoerotic In addition to Jon Connolly's suggestions, I would highly recommend Bruce Smith's *Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare's England.* Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 17:15:05 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0080 Re: Oedipus and Greek Tragedy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0080. Monday, 6 February 1995. (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Monday, 06 Feb 1995 09:22:53 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Oedipus (2) From: Piers Lewis Date: Monday, 06 Feb 1995 11:18:38 -0600 Subj: Greek Tragedy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Monday, 06 Feb 1995 09:22:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Oedipus Yes, Oedipus kills his father and marries his mother unwittingly--but he had gone to the oracle in the 1st place because he had been told that the couple who had brought him up were not his parents. He runs off, then, forgetting about that concern, and kills the 1st person he meets old enough to be his father and then marries the 1st woman he meets old enough to be his mother. I don't think he is entirely the victim of fate. Just adding my two cents.... Bernice (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Piers Lewis Date: Monday, 06 Feb 1995 11:18:38 -0600 Subject: Greek Tragedy Nietzsche would be amused. You've missed the point he'd say: Sophocles isn't "contemplating" the possible irrationality of the cosmos in _Oedipus_, he's proclaiming it. The play's a fable, he'd say, about knowledge, inquiry, the new philosophies that call all in doubt. Preceding Aristophanes' attack on Socrates and the sophists by six years, it dramatizes the futility of intellectual inquiry and rational understanding. And he'd have had a good laugh at the notion that democracy and the decline of the aristocratic warrior ethos should be acclaimed as evidence of progress. 'Progress' is a modern, post-renaissance idea. "Why," he asks in the posthumous fragment, 'Homer's Contest'," did the whole Greek world exult over the combat scenes of the _Iliad_? I fear that we do not understand these in a sufficiently 'Greek' manner; indeed, that we should shudder if we were ever to understand them 'in Greek.'" Bernard Knox makes a related point in his 'introduction' to Robert Fagles' translation of the _Iliad_: "Homer's Achilles is clearly the model for the tragic hero of the Sophoclean stage; his stubborn passionate devotion to an ideal image of self is the same force that drives Antigone, Oedipus, Ajax and Philoctetes to the fulfillment of their destinies. Homer's Achilles is also, for archaic Greek society, the essence of the artistocratic ideal, the paragon of male beauty, courage, patrician manners--'the splendor running in the blood,' says Pindar . . . And this too strikes a tragic note, for Pindar sang his praise of aristocratic values in the century which saw them go down to extinction, replaced by the new spirit of Athenian democracy." Knox goes on to say that even Socrates, "a man whose life and thought would seem to place him at the extreme opposite pole from the Homeric hero, who was so far removed from Achilles' blind instinctive reactions that he could declare the unexamined life unlivable . . . on trial for his life, should invoke the name of Achilles" in order to explain to his judges "why he feels no shame or regret for a course of action that has brought him face to face with a death-sentence . . . rejecting all thought of a compromise that might save his life . . . . In the last analysis, the bloodstained warrior and the gentle philosopher live and die in the same heroic, and tragic, pattern." It's the strangeness of the ancient world that ought to impress us: not how much our distant ancestors resemble us but how little. None of them were liberals. Why on earth should we suppose that the Dionysian religious and literary culture of 5th century Athens supports the values and principles of modern liberalism or responds to the demands of the liberal imagination? Piers Lewis Metropolitan State University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 17:02:17 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0077 Re: Epilepsy in the Tragedies; Staging *Ant.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0077. Monday, 6 February 1995. (1) From: Jocelyn G. Shannon Date: Sunday, 05 Feb 1995 17:56:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Epilepsy in tragedies (2) From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 06 Feb 1995 09:11:43 -0500 (EST) Subj: Staging *Anthony and Cleopatra* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jocelyn G. Shannon Date: Sunday, 05 Feb 1995 17:56:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Epilepsy in tragedies Forgive a query which may have been discussed many times here, but my students and I are constantly discussing the fact that both Caesar and Othello suffer from "the falling sickness". What was the Elizabethan point of view on this malady? What was Shakespeare's slant? As my television wraps around another grim day at *Camp OJ*, I sometimes wonder if Nicole said, "I do fear you when your eyes roll so." No, that was NOT a part of my request....just the flickering of an overloaded yellow journalist. Thank you for any enlightenment! Jocelyn G. Shannon CAJGS@delphi.com (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 06 Feb 1995 09:11:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Staging *Anthony and Cleopatra* The artistic director of the Centaur Theatre in Montreal has asked me to provide him with answers to these questions as he sets about plans for a production of *Anthony and Cleopatra* for next season, and I thought I would see what posting them here might glean. Replies could be sent to me privately, at hilhar@vax2.concordia,ca 1. What seem to you to be the main pitfalls to avoid in staging *Anthony & Cleopatra*? 2. How can the political "background plot" be made compelling in the theatre? 3. What design ideas can make the *story-telling* clear? Marice Podbrey is a fine man of the theatre, with the Order of Canada [the equivalent of a knighthood] and other honours. It is partly his South African background that draws him to the play as a work in which private passions are played out in the midst of political wranglings. He is sharply aware of the possibilities of artistic failure, and therefore interested in as many answers to his questions as possible. Thank you. Harry Hill ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 08:41:33 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0079 Re: Multimedia Project Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0079. Monday, 6 February 1995. From: John Boni Date: Monday, 6 Feb 1995 09:32:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0075 Re: Multimedia Project RE: Multimedia Project, comments of Leslie Harris and Bob Gingher-- Fall term I set up a listserv for my Shakespeare Honors Seminar. Since I am at an urban commuter institution, one of my goals was to provide an opportunity for students to "talk" in ways analogous to those available on a residential campus. Secondarily, we have recently instituted a computer Literacy requirement and my course helped fulfill it. Prof. Gingher's comments I found most apt: The good students profited from this new tool. I learned from colleagues in history and literature that sending assignments, or amplifications of assignments, or news about upcoming examinations, etc., through the list helped motivate others who might not have used it as much. We have continued the lsit this term, and a few of us convened to see the Chicago Shakespeare Repertory's very good production of "Troilus & Cressida." It is no surprise that while our colleagues in the sciences use computers for mathamatical analysis, we in the humanities find them a tool to communicate better with our students and thus augment instruction and learning. I'd be interested in others' ideas and experiences. John M. Boni, Dean College of Arts & Sciences Northeastern Illinois University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 08:50:34 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0081 Re: Welsh; Shylock; Fortinbras Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0081. Tuesday, 7 February 1995. (1) From: John Owen Date: Monday, 6 Feb 1995 15:10:28 -0800 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0075 Re: Welsh (2) From: Alexander D. Smith Date: Monday, 6 Feb 1995 17:16:08 -0600 Subj: Re: Fortinbras at Winnipeg (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Monday, 6 Feb 1995 15:10:28 -0800 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0075 Re: Welsh It is difficult for me to understand Terence Hawkes statement regarding character vs. political analysis, as the two are completely in harmony in this case. The idea of 1 Henry IV only as a political tract reduces the heartbreaking personal implications of the scene. Mortimer is quite tragically a nincompoop who marries a woman he can't communicate with; and his co-conspirators are the unstable Hotspur, the half-mad Glendower and the self-seeking Worcester. The realization, certain by the end of the scene, that they are utterly doomed is almost unendurably pathetic. Regarding Shylock, I don't want to get into a war where the only weapon is repeated assertion, but I feel compelled to remind Ms. Kagan that the motive Shylock himself confesses is that of "making what merchandise I will". In other words, Antonio is bad for business. Shylock's treatment at the hands of the Christians inflames the desire to destroy the merchant, but that intent is calculated before the action of the play. Shakespeare's humanization of the character is purely a post facto transformation of a villainous stereotype. John Owen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alexander D. Smith Date: Monday, 6 Feb 1995 17:16:08 -0600 Subject: Re: Fortinbras at Winnipeg David Glassco called the war Fortinbras is preparing for in the background during IV, iv a 'pointless war'. I couldn't disagree more. Old Norway (Fortinbras' father) and King Hamlet (Hamlet's father) made a 'bet' and fought a war a short while ago. The deal was that whoever won would get the all of the land that the loser had conquered. King Hamlet won, slayed Old Norway, and took the lands. Now Fortinbras' will not sit passivley by and let his father be killed and his honor destroyed and all of the lands he had conquered by taken away. He prepares to wage war againt Denmark to regain the land that King Hamlet won from his father and to regain his father's honor. In IV, iv Fortinbras is not preparing for his attack on Denmark, but rather on Poland. Perhaps this is a 'pointless war' in the senese that there is no real reason as to why Fortinbras should attack Poland save to gain some more land, but it is not at all pointless in how it speaks of Fortinbras' person. Fortinbras takes what he wants. He does not let his environment confuse and reduce him to a coward in "bestial oblivion" (IV, iv) as becomes of Hamlet in this chaotic and disguised world (a world where his mother runs to marry his uncle, his uncle kills his father and crowns himself, Ophelia, the woman he loves, is used as bait before him so that Poloniuns can spy on him, and his two close friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, are sent to spy on him by Claudius). Fortinbras can motivated himself to fight for a war that does not have very special and close meaning to his heart, yet Hamlet cannot motivate himself to fight for something of the greatest importance (avenging his father's murder). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 08:53:45 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0082 Q: Shakespeare and Science Fiction Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0082. Tuesday, 7 February 1995. From: Paul Franssen Date: Tuesday, 07 Feb 1995 12:46:44 -0600 (CST) Subject: Shakespeare and SF Dear Fellow Shakespeareans, In my search for stories linking Shakespeare with Science Fiction, I have come across references to two volumes of _The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction_: volume 63, of November 1982, contains a story entitled "Shakespeare MCMLXXXV," by Bill Pronzini and Barry N. Malzberg, and book reviews concerning Shakespeare by the same authors; and vol. 72 of January 1987 contains a story by E. Bertrand Loring, "The Man who Wrote Shakespeare." So far I have been unable to trace the magazine anywhere. Could anyone help me out? Paul Franssen University of Utrecht Department of English Trans 10 3512 JK Utrecht The Netherlands e-mail: p.franssen@let.ruu.nl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 08:56:25 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0083 Re: Shakespeare and Science Fiction Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0083. Wednesday, 8 February 1995. (1) From: Daniel Traister Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 09:46:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare and science fiction (2) From: James Schaefer Date: Tuesday, 07 Feb 1995 09:45:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0082 Q: Shakespeare and Science Fiction (3) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, February 8, 1995 Subj: Shakespeare and Science Fiction (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Traister Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 09:46:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare and science fiction Paul Franssen seeks "stories linking Shakespeare with Science Fiction." In addition to the specific story for which he is looking, in the commonly available *Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction*, he might also want to know about *Weird Tales from Shakespeare*, ed. Katharine Kerr and Martin H. Greenberg (New York: Daw Books, 1994). This title is in print in the United States and should be readily available from general or specialist booksellers with large paperback stocks. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Tuesday, 07 Feb 1995 09:45:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0082 Q: Shakespeare and Science Fiction To Paul Franssen: F&SF is the Grand Old Man of science fiction (actually, it was founded in the '30's by one of the Grand Old Men: somebody Campbell, I believe, who first published people like Asimov and Heinlein. Somebody out there will know.) As one of the original and true examples of "pulp fiction," you're not going to find it in standard library collections. Your best bets are either (a) a university library with a strong collection of American popular culture, or (b) a bookstore that specializes in catering to the fantasy and sci-fi market. Uncle Hugo's in Minneapolis is a well-known one; perhaps Christine Mack Gordon could supply you with their phone number and address. They, or similar stores, could also put you in contact with clubs whose members collect such things. "Grok," to quote an obscure source. Jim Schaefer Georgetown University schaefej@guvax.georgetown.edu (202) 687-4478 (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, February 8, 1995 Subject: Shakespeare and Science Fiction I've always been fond of Isaac Asimov's "The Mortal Bard" from *Earth Is Room Enough*. At my suggestion, Marilyn Schoenbaum included it in her *A Shakespeare Merriment: An Anthology of Shakespearean Humor*, Garland, 1988. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 09:07:10 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0084 Re: The Scottish Play Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0084. Wednesday, 8 February 1995. (1) From: Jon Enriquez Date: Tuesday, 07 Feb 1995 09:50:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 5.0076 Re: The Scottish Play (2) From: Jim Hamilton Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 95 13:52:00 CST Subj: Another tangent on superstitions (3) From: Anna Joell Goodman Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 17:14:37 -400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0072 Q: The Scottish Play (4) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 16:35:55 -0600 (CST) Subj: The Scottish Play (5) From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Wednesday, 08 Feb 95 01:10:01 EST Subj: The Macbeth curse (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jon Enriquez Date: Tuesday, 07 Feb 1995 09:50:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 5.0076 Re: The Scottish Play I was always taught that the Scottish curse dates back to the earliest indoor production of the play. In those days, of course, an indoor production was unheard of. That production was beset with elaborate difficulties -- fires, smoke, stuff collapsing -- and the legacy remains today. Jon Enriquez Georgetown University ENRIQUEZJ@guvax.georgetown.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Hamilton Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 95 13:52:00 CST Subject: Another tangent on superstitions I've been digging recently in search of information on a particular theatrical tradition. While on the hunt last week, I ran across Richard Huggett's *Supernatural on Stage*, which devotes a chapter to the curse of the Scottish Play. A number of associated disasters are recounted. Some companies, it seems, refuse even to allow reuse of their Scottish props in other productions. If I may wander just a bit, I wonder if anybody on the list is familiar with the tradition of the ghost light. That's the thing I was looking for when I found Huggett's book. Does anyone out there work with a theatre that uses a ghost light? Is there any tie to Shakespeare? Jim Hamilton (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Joell Goodman Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 17:14:37 -400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0072 Q: The Scottish Play In response to Bill Schmidt's enquiry about theatrical superstitions surrounding "The Scottish Play", I would respond that those superstitions are not only alive--they are thriving. It has been my experience in working in the theatre (as an actor, as a technician, as a stage manager, and as an associate director of p.r. and marketing) that the play is definitely out-of-bounds backstage. Whether the theatre in question is academic, professional, or what-not, mention of the play is forbidden behind the scenes of ANY production--be it Shakespeare or no. An interesting aside--the only production on which I have ever worked when the play was mentioned backstage featured numerous sound and set glitches, one actor breaking a leg, a dancer with a stress fracture, and a stage manager with a sprained ankle--all on the night in question! --Anna J. Goodman (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 16:35:55 -0600 (CST) Subject: The Scottish Play Those interested in the Scottish Play superstition will find lots of history and anecdote in these sources: - Richard Huggett, THE CURSE OF MACBETH AND OTHER THEATRICAL SUPERSTITIONS: AN INVESTIGATION, Clippenham: Picton, 1981 - Margaret Lucy, SHAKESPEARE AND THE SUPERNATURAL, A BRIEF STUDY OF FOLKLORE, SUPERSTITION AND WITCHCRAFT IN MACBETH, MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM, AND THE TEMPEST, Liverpool: Shakespeare Press, 1906 - Cumberland Clark, SHAKESPEARE AND THE SUPERNATURAL (pt. 1 about superstition) London: Williams and Norgate, 1931 My personal eerie example: listening to the Metropolitan Opera radio broadcast of the Verdi MACBETH. First interval, they're playing the usual Metropolitan Opera quiz. It goes on and on and on. I kill time by laughing with my colleague about the naivete of the Scottish Play superstition. Finally the announcer comes on to say the performance has been cancelled because a patron has fallen out of the upper balcony to his death in the orchestra. It's not enough to make me a believer but I'm less likely to be openly scornful about the superstition. Read THE CURSE OF MACBETH; the sheer volume of terrible anecdote is impressive. Finally, I find that actors over forty all know the superstition. Most younger actors never heard of it. We don't say the play's name in our theatre but we all know it's just a game. (At least we all SAY it is.) (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Wednesday, 08 Feb 95 01:10:01 EST Subject: The Macbeth curse In twenty years onstage I have shed my own blood only twice - in my two appearances in MACBETH. In Michigan, playing Ross, I caught a flying lead-weighted goblet, meant for Banquo's ghost, in the side of the head. It knocked me senseless and the wound would have been stitched if I wasn't determined to do my next scene with Lennox. Playing Macbeth here in NY at Bouwerie Lane Theater one matinee I parried MacDuff's most energetic down-swing - the one we had found would throw sparks off our steel blades if we did it hard enough - and caught the edge of his machete across my knuckles. Only my insistence on wearing heavy leather gloves for the battle scene saved my index finger, which healed a bit twisted to one side and retains its deformity to this day. Both wounds bled copiously and left visible scars. I retain a low tolerence for superstitious nonsense in all its forms, and if anyone ever again offered me a role in MACBETH (which title I speak aloud whenever necessary, in or out of theaters) I would accept without hesitation. But I would be very careful..... A good friend worked for Penn and Teller on their last Broadway production and told me about their nightly routine. Before the curtain opens Teller strolls about backstage whistling a few of his favorite tunes, Penn opens a copy of MACBETH and declaims a speech or two, and both go about to the backstage crew and say, "Good luck!" or "Have a good show!" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 09:12:19 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0085 Re: Teh Homoerotic Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0085. Wednesday, 8 February 1995. (1) From: John Cox Date: Tuesday, 07 Feb 1995 10:23:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: homoerotic sonnets (2) From: Stefanie DuBose Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 15:54:42 -0600 Subj: Homoeroticism in the Renaissance (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Tuesday, 07 Feb 1995 10:23:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: homoerotic sonnets While acknowledging those who've addressed the issue of homoeroticism in the sonnets, don't neglect Joseph Pequigney, *Such Is My Love* (Chicago, 1985). John Cox (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stefanie DuBose Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 15:54:42 -0600 Subject: Homoeroticism in the Renaissance In response to Jung Jimmy's question on Renaissance homoeroticism, Jonathan Goldberg published a book in 1992 titled Sodometries: Renaissance Texts, Modern Sexualities. I have gone through parts of his text and found it quite interesting and useful in for a (Renaissance) paper with a subtext on sexual orientation. The index lists references to male friendship; and the first chapter is "'Wee/Men': Gender and Sexuality in the Fromations of Elizabethan High Literariness." The rest of the book focuses on representations of sodomy in the theater and the New World. His notes at the end of the text are also good for further research. Hope this helps ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 09:21:43 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0086 Re: Multimedia Project Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0086. Wednesday, 8 February 1995. (1) From: Leslie Harris Date: Tuesday, Feb 7 11:30:42 EST 1995 Subj: Shakespeare Multimedia Project (2) From: Edward Gero Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 11:55:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0079 Re: Multimedia Project (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leslie Harris Date: Tuesday, Feb 7 11:30:42 EST 1995 Subject: Shakespeare Multimedia Project I thought I'd send this response to the list rather than to Bob Gingher himself, since his question asked for some clarification. My class was actually a traditional Shakespeare class, at least in terms of its setting. I met with a group of about 24 students, synchronously present, in a classroom (with occasional meetings in a computer lab). These are traditional students, coming to college out of high school, most of whom come from rural or suburban areas with small populations. The project took up the last two weeks of the class (during which we met MWF in the computer lab), plus some time during finals week. When I made a distinction between "independent learners" and "hand-holders," I was thinking of those who enjoy the kind of project assigned the way I did, in which I became the "guide on the side." I gave them the assignment, provided incremental deadlines (chosen passage due this date, bibliography due this date, overview due this date, complete "draft" of the hypertext document due this date, final project due this date), and gave them help sheets (telling them how to use the hypertext software). I didn't specify what they needed to annotate or how deeply to annotate. I just told them: annotate this passage the way an editor would (or a future editor would), giving as much detail as you think is necessary to explicate its significance fully. They got to choose what contextual and background information to explore (and to include), based on their own interests. I've done projects like this before, but in a MOO environment, rather than true hypertext. With the Shakespeare Multimedia project and my MOO projects, I always get students who complain that I didn't give them enough "guidance," despite my very clear help sheets (and my continual presence in the lab, answering their questions). For those students, giving reference sheets isn't enough. They want to be taken through the process step-by-step, and they don't want to experience the frustration of learning something new. They want it to be painless, without set-backs, and they don't like the challenge of learning things on their own. Those students don't get the same sense of exhiliration that independent learners do--of successfully meeting a true challenge. To me, the independent learners are those who like the freedom that such an assignment gives them, want some help from me, but basically want to do the project themselves. They tend to have fun with such projects, they explore the software beyond the information I give them, and do things that are new and unexpected. As for video clips (your other query), that involved a "video capture" process, in which you attach a VCR to a properly equipped computer (needing a special board, I've been told), use video capturing software (I think we used "Splice"), and create a file with a .avi extension. You can't capture more than a few lines of action, though, because such files get *huge* very quickly. Multimedia ToolBook allows you to play such videos within your hypertext document (after you learn the write scripting commands). As to your final question (sorry for ending with a personal note), I doubt I'm the Leslie Harris you went to grad school with. I received my Ph.D. from U.C. Berkeley in 1993, and your name doesn't ring a bell with me. Is my memory faulty, or is there another Leslie Harris out there also with a Ph.D. in English, but from a different grad school? Hope this response helped. Leslie Harris Department of English Susquehanna University lharris@einstein.susqu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Gero Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 11:55:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0079 Re: Multimedia Project In response to Dean Boni's post: I, too, have set up a mailing list for my advanced undergraduate Acting students. In fact, we are the first course in the Division of Dance and Theatre to require students to have e-mail accounts. I think it works wonderfully. The students discuss work from the previous class and share their experiences as they prepare the next assignments. I also have them send me their journals electronically so I can interact with them in a more immediate way with their artistic and educational process. I have required one on-line chat with me at the midterm break to discuss their progress in class. [As many of my students commute or work their way through college, this is a particularly helpful net to catch those students who would otherwise be unavailable to meet. As I balance my schedule between performances and the classroom, it supports me as well.] Nothing can replace the classroom contact when it comes to this particular content area, but the augmented discussions, announcements and queries absolutely enhance classroom participation. Most of the students have little or no contact with the technology. It is a joy to shephard them into the 20th Century in time for the 21st. Electronically yours, Edward Gero Actor, Shakespeare Theatre Assistant Professor, George Mason University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 09:38:39 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0087 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0087. Wednesday, 8 February 1995. (1) From: Andrew Gurr Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 13:33:31 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0066 Re: Mrs. Mortimer's Welsh (2) From: Naomi Liebler Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 95 10:34:00 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0077 Re: Epilepsy in the Tragedies (3) From: Roy Blount, Jr. Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 11:31:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0081 Re: Shylock (4) From: Steven Metsker Date: Tuesday, 07 Feb 1995 11:14:00 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0077 Re: Staging *Ant.* (5) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 95 16:28:43 -0500 Subj: SHK 6.0070 Fortinbras at Winnipeg (6) From: E. L. Epstein Date: Tuesday, 07 Feb 1995 18:17:23 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0075 Re: Hubris (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Gurr Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 13:33:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0066 Re: Mrs. Mortimer's Welsh To: Terry Hawkes on colonising the Welsh in Henry V. Dear Terry, Paola Pugliatti has a neat article on the languages in Henry, in The Yearbook of English Studies 23 (1993), pp.235-53. I do think that a 'band of brothers' speaking in strange tongues needs a broader frame of reference. Andrew Gurr. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 95 10:34:00 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0077 Re: Epilepsy in the Tragedies Jocelyn Shannon asks about the early modern understanding of epilepsy. Plutarch's _Roman Questions_, trans. Philemon Holland 1603, has several entries regarding the "falling sickness," associating it with goats (because the Romans thought that the goat's bleating sounded like what emanated from the throat of an epileptic during a seizure). In an article published in _Shakespeare Studies_ 14 (1981), I made something of this in regard to _Julius Caesar_, linking this association with goats to Caesar's sacrificial function in the play and to the rites of the Lupercalia in which the sacrifice of the goat is a central element. See what you think. I didn't do anything with _Othello_, but as I recall, he mutters something about goats and monkeys. The point of the goat-connection in _JC_ has to do not only with its Lupercalian function but also with the interpenetration of sacred and taboo in the body of the sacrificial victim. --Naomi C. Liebler (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roy Blount, Jr. Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 11:31:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0081 Re: Shylock Regarding the _Merchant of Venice_, I personally think the whole play was constructed in such a way that Shylock could be taken as the stereotypical evil Jew, but to the critical reader, or watcher, Shakespeare undermines the various themes the play seems to be enforcing, arriving at a much more complex conclusion than first appears. As evidence, all of the different elements in the play are not what they first appear: Antonio's latent or overt homosexuality (depending on your reading), which calls into question Bassanio's orientation (if he's gay, he's marrying Portia strictly for the money, if he's not, he's using Antonio) The crossdressing of all the women. Physically on the Elizabethan stage this would be boys playing women dressing as men, which gives all the sodomy jokes another level of meaning, and reinforces the homosexual subtext. Portia's caskets -- clearly Shakespeare warns against assuming the outward appearance is in reality the inward one. Even worse, carefully read Portia's song before Bassanio chooses; she cheats. Even Portia's "quality of mercy" speech is ironic; for all her words she still enacts a harsh penalty on Shylock. I imagine Shakespeare was caught between the pressure to put on a successful Jewish play like Marlowe's _The Jew of Malta_ while also recognizing the anti-semitism such works enforce. The work he finally produced may not be entirely successful at deconstructing itself, but I think it contains enough subversive elements to make the comedy a somewhat dark and troubled one. A final note about the Laban reference: Marlowe's _Doctor Faustus_ contains a similar situation, where Faustus quotes the Bible but doesn't quote the portion which is most relevant. Shakespeare could be doing the same thing, expecting his audience to fill in the relevant portion. The lapse is as telling as the quote. -- Roy Blount, Jr. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Metsker Date: Tuesday, 07 Feb 1995 11:14:00 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0077 Re: Staging *Ant.* The commentary in the Oxford edition of "Antony and Cleopatra" is terrific. It does a nice job of covering the staging problems. As I recall, the hardest scenes include Antony's "How! not dead? not dead?" lines, which may appear humorous, and the hoisting of him "aloft" by Cleopatra and her maids. Steve (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 95 16:28:43 -0500 Subject: SHK 6.0070 Fortinbras at Winnipeg To David Glassco and interested others: I wish I had a photographic memory, so I could instantly relive the performance in Winnipeg. But here's my take on why "How all occasions do inform against me" worked so well. The Fortinbras we saw, even though briefly, was clearly a very action-oriented, non-intellectual type. Reeves's Hamlet was both action-oriented and thoughtful, but clearly the thinking/weighing has been predominant. When he sees this foil going off to a pointless war, he recognizes how different his own situation is, especially now that Claudius's actions have clarified his guilt. Hamlet already has Polonius's blood on his hands (which I've always seen as a crucial turning point in the play, and which seemed to be one in this production as well), but now he knows he will have to follow through with the rest. It's as if by removing himself from the court (or, rather, being removed), he can finally confront the absolute necessity of returning to set things right. There was a sense of resolve in this speech that conveyed that, while he also commented ironically on Fortinbras's action. The full humanity, the amazing complexity of this young Hamlet was what made the performance so compelling, and his death at the end so very heart-rending. Hope this helps. Chris Gordon (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. L. Epstein Date: Tuesday, 07 Feb 1995 18:17:23 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0075 Re: Hubris In re hybris: the root of the word *hybr-* is cognate with the Latin *super-*, so someone suffering from hybris is burdened with a superiority complex, and has definitely gotten above himself! ELEpstein ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 09:48:34 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0088 *The Spanish Tragedy*; UCLA Shakespeare Colloquium Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0088. Wednesday, 8 February 1995. (1) From: Ed Gieskes Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 08:59:36 -0500 (EST) Subj: THE SPANISH TRAGEDY (2) From: Martin Zacks Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 17:20:11 -0800 (PST) Subj: UCLA Shakespeare Colloquium (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Gieskes Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 08:59:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: THE SPANISH TRAGEDY Dear SHAKSPEReans, I am writing to announce that Willing Suspension Productions (a graduate student theatre organization at Boston University) will be performing Thomas Kyd's THE SPANISH TRAGEDY (directed by Andrew Hartley) April 21, 22, and 23 on the Boston University campus. Willing Suspension has produced THE REVENGER'S TRAGEDY and THE ALCHEMIST in past years and is committed to staging plays from early modern England that do not often get performed-- i.e. plays not written by Shakespeare. More information will be forthcoming as we get closer to opening night. We can be reached care of the English Department at Boston University (236 Bay State Road, Boston MA 02215). Address any correspondence to Andrew Hartley, Kirk Melnikoff, Lauren Kehoe, or Ed Gieskes. Sincerely, Ed Gieskes (egieskes@acs.bu.edu) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Zacks Date: Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995 17:20:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: UCLA Shakespeare Colloquium A Colloquium on Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice: To Cut the Flesh: The Law Allows It. Friday, February 24, 1995. California Room, UCLA Faculty Center. Cosponsored by the UCLA Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, UCLA Department of English, and the UCLA Friends of English. Registration by telephoning (310) 825-1880. 8:45 Registration 9:00 Welcome Prof. Patrick J. Geary, Director, Center for Medieval & Renaissance Studies 9:15 Film: The Merchant of Venice Directed by John Sichel, starring Laurence Olivier 12:00 Lunch 1:30 Introduction Michael J. B. Allen, Dept. of English, UCLA 1:45 Cat and Mouse: Converting Jews in Renaissance England James Shapiro, Dept. of English, Columbia University 2:45 Break 3:00 The Classroom on the Rialto: Reflections on Teaching The Merchant of Venice in High School Stephen Bellon, Dept. of English, Harvard-Westlake School 3:45 A Reading from the Merchant of Venice Alan Mandell, Actor & Director, former General Manager of the Repertory Theater at Lincoln Center, former Consulting Director of Los Angeles Theater Center 4:00 Round Table Discussion A.R. Braunmuller, Dept. of English, UCLA Michael J. B. Allen, Dept. of English, UCLA Stephen Bellon, Dept of English, Harvard-Westlake School Kathleen Irace, Writing Programs & Dept. of English, UCLA Alan Mandell, Actor & Director Claire McEachern, Dept of English, UCLA James Shapiro, Dept. of English, Columbia University Debora Shuger, Dept. of English, UCLA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 15:40:03 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0089 Re: The Scottish Play Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0089. Thursday, 9 February 1995. (1) From: Gregg Henry Date: Wednesday, 08 Feb 95 08:15:00 PST Subj: RE: SHK 5.0076 Re: The Scottish Play (2) From: Edward Gero Date: Wednesday, 8 Feb 1995 09:35:49 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 5.0076 Re: The Scottish Play (3) From: Timothy Reed Date: Wednesday, 8 Feb 1995 08:01:23 -0700 Subj: The Scottish Play (4) From: Ed Pechter Date: Wednesday, 08 Feb 1995 10:15:16 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0084 Re: The Scottish Play (5) From: Peter Greenfield Date: Wednesday, February 8, 1995 Subj: The Scottish play and indoor performance (6) From: Kathryn M. Moncrief Date: Thursday, 9 Feb 1995 00:00:22 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0084 Re: The Scottish Play (7) From: Tom E. Hodges Date: Thuursday, 9 Feb 1995 14:00:09 GMT-6 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0084 Re: The Scottish Play (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gregg Henry Date: Wednesday, 08 Feb 95 08:15:00 PST Subject: RE: SHK 5.0076 Re: The Scottish Play To add to the discussion about the Scottish Play . I was playing Teach in _American Buffalo_ ten years ago. The cast's pre-show ritual was to play some gin. I quoted from "that play" (although, I can't, now, for the life of me remember what I said) when I won. The other two actors tsk- tsk'd me. In the final scene that night, when I was trashing the junk shop with the "pig sticker", I very freakily smashed my nose and finished the play with blood pouring down my face. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Gero Date: Wednesday, 8 Feb 1995 09:35:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 5.0076 Re: The Scottish Play The superstition regarding the "Scottish Play" or one I heard most recently, the "Plaid Play" is observed to this day in my circles. At the slip of the tongue, (while in the theatre only) the offending person is asked to leave the dressing room, spin around three times, repeat "goats and monkeys" from Lear and formally request readmittance. The genesis of this superstition and the whistling derives apocryphally from the 19th Century. Tradition has it that when traveling companies were having financial problems at the box office, the producer would announce a performance of Macbeth, assuring two things: (1) That the box office would have a terrific take, and (2) The company would be disbanded thereafter. In the 19th Century, Macbeth apparently meant unemployment. The phrase "the ghost walks", on the other hand, meant that Hamlet was on the bill and the company would surely be paid. Consequently, "the ghost walks" on Thursdays, the official Actor's Equity pay day. The whistling superstition stems from the 19th Century as well. Hemp houses, theatres that had rope and pulley to fly sets [before the advent of counterweights et. al.], were often operated by sailors; their rigging expertise put to good use. They would use a system of whistles to communicate directions concerning which rope and pulley to lower or raise. So, any interference from anyone other than the master flymen could result in a bag of sand landing on your, or someone else's, head, or some other sort of disaster. Hence, no whistling in the theatre. Traditionally yours, Edward Gero Shakespeare Theatre Washington, DC (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Timothy Reed Date: Wednesday, 8 Feb 1995 08:01:23 -0700 Subject: The Scottish Play Evidence in support of the Macbeth superstition is like the daily newspaper horoscope; theatre people who believe in it will vividly remember and recount the one or two coincidences that support the theory and discount the hundreds of times it doesn't work. My stage experience, both in performances of Macbeth and other plays, shows no evidence to support the superstition; nor do the experiences of many of the actors I work with. Many of the theatre people I know are openly scornful of anyone who takes the superstition as anything more than an amusing in-joke. (Interesting sidebar: During a performance of Henry IV, Part I, some of the actors spent their long breaks between scenes in the green room by reading questions off "Trivial Pursuit" cards for the others to answer. The question "What is generally regarded as bad luck backstage at a theatre?" came up. The actors instantly chimed in "Macbeth!") At our theatre company, due to a particularly problem-ridden production of Schnitzler's "La Ronde" it is now only acceptable to call it "The 'R' play" or "The Austrian play" Timothy Reed The Upstart Crow Theatre Company, Boulder, Colorado (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pechter Date: Wednesday, 08 Feb 1995 10:15:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0084 Re: The Scottish Play Without wishing for a moment to deny the social utility and scientific validity of beliefs associated with productions of The Scottish Play, I wonder about two things: 1. Have people catalogued the number of instances in which the taboo was broken and nothing untoward occurred? 2. Have people catalogued the number of instances in which untoward events occurred in productions of plays other than Macbeth? Ed Pechter (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Greenfield Date: Wednesday, February 8, 1995 Subject: The Scottish play and indoor performance The notion that the curse on the Scottish play derives from disasters at its first indoor performance won't stand up if an important element in the story is that indoor performance was unheard of. In fact, with the exception of the few most famous London theatres, indoor performance was the norm in Shakespeare's time: halls of noble households, town halls, and inns provided the overwhelming number of known performance locations outside London. The literary dominance of the Globe, Rose and Fortune have tended to obscure this fact. Please see the Records of Early English Drama series for the documentary evidence, J.A.B. Somerset's article in the most recent SHAKESPEARE SURVEY, and especially Robert Tittler's excellent book on Elizabethan town halls, ARCHITECTURE AND POWER. Peter Greenfield University of Puget Sound (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathryn M. Moncrief Date: Thursday, 9 Feb 1995 00:00:22 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0084 Re: The Scottish Play Roger D. Gross claims that only actors over 40 are superstitious about "the Scottish play." Not true! Being a younger actor and academic I can report that the tradition/ superstition is still going strong in theatres where I have worked. The cure with which I am most familiar: leave the room, turn around three times, then spit. On the subject of "ghost lights." This, in my experience, refers to a single light left shining on stage. It looks rather like a tall, standing lamp with no shade, just a bare bulb. Its purpose is practical: when you are the first person to enter or leave a dark theatre from a backstage entrance (as a stage manager often is) it can be very dark and potentially dangerous, especially when the set, or pieces of it begin to appear on stage. The "ghost light" is for safety. Are there superstitious associations as well? Kathryn M. Moncrief University of Iowa (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom E. Hodges Date: Thuursday, 9 Feb 1995 14:00:09 GMT-6 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0084 Re: The Scottish Play Columbia Pictures' _The Dresser_(1984) includes a scene in which The Scottish Play is mentioned backstage, followed by the ritual of atonement required of the transgressor. In addition the movie is a hilarious and poignant rendering of a veteran actor's 227th performance of _King Lear_, and the backstage activities (sound effects, props, etc.) are usually interesting to American undergraduates. For what it's worth, Tom Hodges ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 15:45:10 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0090 Re: Ghost Light Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0090. Thursday, 9 February 1995. (1) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Wednesday, 8 Feb 1995 17:21:15 -0600 (CST) Subj: Ghost Lights (2) From: Fran Teague Date: Wednesday, 08 Feb 95 15:31:26 EST Subj: Superstitions (fwd) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Wednesday, 8 Feb 1995 17:21:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: Ghost Lights Jim Hamilton asks about ghost lights. I've worked in about fifty theatres in this country and never seen one without a ghost light nor heard the instrument called by any other name. Many cities have a ghost light requirement (not by that name). It's a matter of safety. Too many of us have fallen in orchestra pits or walked through scenic walls while fumbling for the light switches. So, after turning out all of the stage lights and work lights, the last thing a stage manager does before locking up is roll out the ghost light on its pedestal (most of us still use this primitive version) and screw the bulb in. We are about evenly split between those of us who want to believe that the light is there to: - protect us from the ghost which every theatre houses - keep the ghost company during the long, lonely nights - keep the ghost at bay so he doesn't get us when we come in It seems that we began having ghost lights somewhere around 1875. I can't learn if there was such a thing before electricity. There are much more convenient ways to safely light the theatre when its out of use but most of us cling to the tradition of that awkward little three-wheeled trolley with the bare light bulb and no switch. I've never heard any kind of "story" connected with the ghost light; no allusion in the name. Roger Gross (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Wednesday, 08 Feb 95 15:31:26 EST Subject: Superstitions (fwd) Re: the various superstitions. My husband was amused by an earlier message and sent this information along. Fran Teague ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- From: Ben Teague <71320.1174@compuserve.com> Our community theater uses a ghost light. It's an unshaded floor lamp that is left on whenever the theater is (otherwise) dark. This is absolutely a matter of superstition. We consider it bad luck to fall on an invisible step or trip over an invisible brace and break our ankle. I have personally been responsible for chasing two miscreants out of the theater ("Don't say that name!" "What, Macbeth?") and making them go through the curse-lifting ritual before readmitting them. But now we have the problem that one of our best tech people has "Macbeth" for his middle name. After an afternoon's pilpul we concluded that it's all right to say "Macbeth" in the theater _provided_ we are referring to Mike (a loud minority wanted to expel him altogether). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 17:20:11 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0091 Re: Shakespeare and Science Fiction Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0091. Thursday, 9 February 1995. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Wednesday, 08 Feb 1995 09:45:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: More S & SF (2) From: Wolfgang Hink Date: Thursday, 9 Feb 1995 06:34:16 +0100 Subj: Re: Shakespeare and Science Fiction (3) From: Daniel Traister Date: Wednesday, 8 Feb 1995 11:29:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare and science fiction: a follow-up (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Wednesday, 08 Feb 1995 09:45:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: More S & SF Lurking somewhere in the backroom of my memory is an episode of Rod Serling's "The Twilight Zone" in which Shakespeare is brought to the 20th Century. Was this the plot in which he registers for, and fails, a college course in Shakespeare? Or do I have that memory entangled with Asimov's or someone else's short story? Sometime ago we had a thread going about "first times" with Shakespeare. But that first time assumed having been hooked earlier on reading itself. The reading habit feeds itself, and satiation, as in all habits, promotes a desire for variety. My 14 y.o. son has been heavily into Tolkein, SF, and other alternative realities ever since he could read. That's how I got started, too. Others I know got hooked on 19th C novels as teenagers, and that led to other books, and .... No call to action here, just musing on the strange ways of the Muses. James F. Schaefer Jr. Georgetown University schaefej@guvax.georgetown.edu (202) 687-4478 [You appear to be describing the Asimov short story I mentioned yesterday. At a faculty Christmas party, a physics professor tells a colleague in English he has made a time machine and brings people back from the past. He brought Socrates, but he could not understand Greek and sent the philosopher back. Then he mentions that he brought back Shakespeare. The English professor says, "You know I teach Shakespeare?" The physics professor says, "I know, poor guy." As it turns out, Shakespeare enrolled in the English teacher's course and failed. --HMC] (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wolfgang Hink Date: Thursday, 9 Feb 1995 06:34:16 +0100 Subject: Re: Shakespeare and Science Fiction In my Guide to Literature on the Internet (which I publish monthly in some Usenet newsgroups) I found the following list: >Shakespeare in Star Trek >From: petersm@CSOS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen) I didn't see this list yet, but it may be interesting for the subject Shakespeare and Science Fiction. Wolfgang Hink (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Traister Date: Wednesday, 8 Feb 1995 11:29:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare and science fiction: a follow-up As I reread my message replying to the inquiry about a science fiction story when it appeared on screen today, I thought that it might have sounded a *little* arrogant ("readily available" indeed!--well, it may *not* be readily available where the writer resides). The next message sounded more or less the same to me, with additional warnings about how, as a "pulp," *F&SF* won't be held by "ordinary" libraries. I understand the writer's fear on that point--but, perhaps surprisingly, it isn't exactly justified: even *this* properly be-Ivy-ed library, the one from which I write, holds it; so do our neighbors in town (Temple has a *real* science fiction collection, quite noteworthy). What original inquirer ought to do is to either (1) send an Interlibrary Loan request through his or her own university library or (2) send me a private message (traister@pobox.upenn.edu) and I will see what I can do here. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 17:24:36 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0092 Newberry Library Fellowships Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0092. Thursday, 9 February 1995. From: Michael T. Calvert Date: Wednesday, 08 Feb 95 09:14:18 CST Subject: Newberry fellowships Please cross-post as appropriate. ***************************************************************** APPLICATION DEADLINE FOR SHORT-TERM FELLOWSHIPS IN THE HUMANITIES AT THE NEWBERRY LIBRARY THE NEWBERRY LIBRARY invites applications for short-term residential fellowships in the humanities for 1995-6. The application deadline for fellowships for the second half of 1995 is March 1. The deadline for the first half of 1996 is October 15. These fellowships are for scholars, including those at the dissertation stage, who desire a short period of residency to use particular Newberry collections. The fellowships carry a stipend of $800 per month. THE Newberry is an independent research library, free and open to the public, located on the near north side of the city of Chicago. Founded in 1887, its holdings today number more than one and one-half million volumes and five million manuscripts in the humanities. The Newberry's collections concern the civilizations of western Europe and the Americas from the late middle ages to the early twentieth century. Bibliographic holdings are extensive, and certain collections are internationally noted. These contain material on the following subjects: American history and literature Discovery, exploration, and settlement of the New World The American West Local history, genealogy, censuses Family and social history Literature and history of the Midwest, especially the Chicago Renaissance Native American history and literature European history and literature The Renaissance The French Revolution Portuguese and Luso-Brazilian history History of cartography History and theory of music History of printing Early philology and linguistics For further information and application forms, contact the Awards Committee, Newberry Library, 60 W. Walton St., Chicago, IL 60610, call 312-255-3666, or e-mail your name, and _ground mail_ address to u30373@uicvm.uic.edu. Be sure to specify that you are inquiring about Newberry short-term fellowships. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 19:26:28 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0093 Re: Welsh; Athenian Tragedy; Hubris; Shylock Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0093. Thursday, 9 February 1995. (1) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Wednesday, 8 Feb 1995 15:55:45 GMT Subj: Mrs Mortimer's Welsh (2) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Thursday, 09 Feb 95 01:13:38 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0068 Re: Athenian Tragedy (3) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Thursday, 09 Feb 95 01:38:35 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0075 Re: Hubris (4) From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 9 Feb 95 12:14:49 EST Subj: [Shylock] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Wednesday, 8 Feb 1995 15:55:45 GMT Subject: Mrs Mortimer's Welsh To Andrew Gurr, on speaking in strange tongues: Annwyl Andrew, Diolch yn fawr! Terry Hawkes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Thursday, 09 Feb 95 01:13:38 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0068 Re: Athenian Tragedy Ron Macdonald's thought about the Orestia as a critique of "Homeric" warrior values might also be applied to the ODYSSEY as a similar critique. Odysseus is a terrific hero, but Homer makes it very clear that you don't really want to build a house next to his nor go out a-voyaging with him. Not if you want to survive to hear the tale told to your grandchildren. As ever, Grandpa Steve Urkowitz (off to see Benjamin Max Fischer Urkowitz, age 2, in Bloomington Indiana next weekend) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Thursday, 09 Feb 95 01:38:35 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0075 Re: Hubris On hubris et alia . . . David Wilson-Okamura mentions that the unwitting murder of his poppa by Oedipus somehow makes it not his fault that he did the deed. He was TRYING not to kill his poppa by running away. But ain't that the point? You shouldn't kill any damn soul on the road just because the dude does you dirty. He might be your poppa. If you're gonna live in a polis, you treat all folk like family or you wind up with plagues, (or so Sophocles may have learned from Dante where folks lost the sense of civility in exchange for slaughter.) Oedipus is NOT a nice fellow. Teiresias reads him loud and clear. Aristotle doesn't. And now that I'm a department chairman, everyone is entitled to my opinion! Say goodnight, Jocasta. Steve Egreekowitz (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 9 Feb 95 12:14:49 EST Subject: [Shylock] As somebody who has been stung by others' treating with severe literalness a word or phrase tossed carelessly onto the net in the heat of some moment, I don't want to hold John Owen too stringently to the letter of his recent posting. I am nonetheless disturbed by his notion that Shylock's "destruction" of Antonio was "calculated before the beginning of the play" and by the accompanying proposition that a humanized Shylock is merely a "post facto transformation of a villainous stereotype"; neither will stand examination. With regard to the first. The nature of dramatic images such as Shylock--at base, not a person but a string of words--is that they enter the time of readers and auditors a word at a time, beginning with the first word by and about them; as far as the reader or auditor is concerned, they have no existence "before the beginning of the play". To the extent that they have a kind of "history" which involves events and statements and feelings from a time before the time presented/represented by the speeches and stage directions of the text, the indisputable content of that history is confined to those events, etc., explicitly recalled by the words of the text, and those that can be unequivocally inferred from them. Thus the dramatic image called Shylock tells us that in a time prior to that [re]presented by the speeches and stage directions of someone named Leah gave him a turquoise (Riverside ed. 3.1.121-22); it seems reasonable to infer that this person became his wife and the mother of his daughter Jessica (the text does not explicitly say so). We may choose to develop other inferences, for instance, on the ground that Tubal's mention of the ring is a torture to Shylock to suppose that the character has felt conjugal affection for this Leah. But even when (as here) there is no obvious reason to think otherwise--that he married some other woman, or that their marriage was unhappy--we can only suppose, not assert. Shylock does tell us (and Antonio confirms the telling) that in a time prior to the time [re]presented by the text Antonio interfered with Shylock's practice of lending money at interest, and spat upon his Jewish gabardine, and he tells us that if he has a chance he will "feed fat" this "ancient grudge" should he catch Antonio at a disadvantage (1.3.46-47); the phrase is metaphoric and hence polysemous but very likely implies revenge of some kind. But he does not say anywhere that he has previously "calculated" Antonio's "destruction". It seems very improbable that prior to the beginning of the play he had "calculated" the device of the pound of flesh ("Boy, if that Antonio ever comes to borrow money from me, instead of charging monetary interest I'll set the bond at a pound of his rotten Christian flesh"); not only is it Antonio, not Shylock, who has initiated the deal, against all Antonio's normal practice ("I neither lend nor borrow . . . Upon advantage" [1.3.61-69]), but under circumstances (the failure of six different shipping ventures) that make collection of the bond unlikely. A clever financier who wished to "calculate the destruction" of a venture capitalist such as Antonio could presumably try to do so-- suborn sailors or shipwrights, hire pirates, set up enticing dummy ventures whose guaranteed failure would eat away at his enemy's capital. But that's not Shylock's proceeding here. It seems much more probable that the human behavior imitated in this scene of the text is impulsive, improvisational: a preposterous collocation of circumstances has given Shylock a remote chance to "catch [Antonio] once upon the hip" and he offers an equally preposterous response to it. Indeed, it seems more plausible to me that having offered the preposterous but psychologically gratifying response, when, preposterously, the fantasy turns real, Shylock is trapped in it (not by any means unwillingly), caught between prudence and desire, with not only personal but ethnic honor at stake, his anger exacerbated by Jessica's betrayal and the incessant goading of the Christians, by the Christians' refusal to treat the situation (despite the momentary distraction of Portia's speech about the quality of mercy [what mercy does she show to Morocco or Aragon?]) in any but literal, monetary terms, so that his customary prudence gives way, with disastrous results. Such a reading humanizes the image, of course--treats Shylock as a person rather than as an animated stereotype. Theoretically speaking, I should tread carefully here. What I argue, however, is that the text invites this kind of reading--that as constructed it has already begun to progress of complicating the stereotype, by giving the rapacious Jewish usurer a domestic as well as a business setting, moments of geniality, a rhetorically if not logically effective expression of his outrage at his Christian tormentors, tormentors who themselves are conspicuously deficient in the peculiarly Christian virtues, especially mercy. The stereotype, as defined by figures such as the comic tormentors and priests of the mystery cycles and Marlowe's Barabbas, is assuredly present as a ground on which this image is being constructed, but the Shakespearean image itself cannot be reduced to the formula without loss of actual complexity. Which does not mean that it has achieved, on its own, the kind of liberal humanization present in the Karnovsky-Olivier-Ron Liebman tradition of performance. Characterologically, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 19:30:18 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0094 Q: Kiss Me Video Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0094. Thursday, 9 February 1995. From: Suba Subbaro Date: Wednesday, 08 Feb 95 13:14:16 EST Subject: re: shrew video Could somebody tell me where I might borrow/rent the video Kiss Me Petruchio? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 19:36:24 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0095 Re: *Hamlet* in Winnipeg Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0095. Thursday, 9 February 1995. From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 8 Feb 95 16:04:18 -0500 Subject: Hamlet in Winnipeg (London Times review) MOST EXCELLENT PRINCE -- "What a piece of work is Keanu's Hamlet! This is one role that might have been written for the star of Speed, says Roger Lewis." {this is a 2 page spread with a large picture of Keanu holding the skull in the middle} I crossed oceans of time to find him: 30 hours from my house in France, through several time zones and the polar wastes, to Winnipeg -- of all places the most God-forsaken. Situated in the dead centre of Canada, ice-bound for half the year, once a trading post for the Hudson Bay Co, and now a maze of subterranean shopping malls, Winnipeg is a town even the locals mock: "Winnipeg folk travel a lot -- to get away from Winnipeg";"Winnipeg looks great -- after dark, when the view is better..." They need not be so diffident. The standard of living is high (no beggars, no litter, no germs); they have opera, ballet, theatre -- and Keanu Reeves, the 30-year-old actor who had fled there, to be far out of reach, to play Hamlet. Let's get it out of the way at once, and wipe that smirk off your face; if you had anticipated Bill and Ted's Shakeapearean Adventure, forget it. He was wonderful. He quite embodied the innocence, the splendid fury, the animal grace of the leaps and bounds, the emotional violence, that form the Prince of Denmark. He has the sheer virility of Larry Olivier's melancholy Dane -- which Keanu saw on video just the other week -- plus the Peter Pannishness, the little-boy-lost quality, that I remember Mark Rylance bringing to the role. He was both vulnerable (as in the scenes with Gertrude when a goodnight kiss goes on and on until mother and son recoil in horror at their arousal) and severe (as in the bit where he flies at Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for presuming to "play upon me...you would pluck out the heart of my mystery"). He is one of the top three Hamlets I have seen, for a simple reason; he *is* Hamlet, and he has been a lonely a resourceful type, who won't submit, in film after film. He is full of undercurrents and overtones, which is why the world's big directors want to work with him. He is killingly attractive, no question. He can look, from moment to moment, faintly oriental, with his slanted black eyes -- he has Chinese, Hawaiian and British blood in him -- or crew-cut clean Caucasian; he can be Californian (especially in his locutions: I'd not been asked whether I felt a really cool dude before) and exotic, like a Canadian-Indian -- I kept seeing his profile in ancient Inuit sculpture, which Winnipeg has museums full of. But his physique is just the first thing which sets him apart. What counts is the impression we get of a nature that is turbulent and proud -- though he can exude calm and courtliness -- and that he has a gift given to few; like Garbo, he is an actor who can register -- simultaneously -- both pleasure and pain. And, like Garbo, he prefers to keep his own company. He doesn't want to be crowded. Is that why he chose Winnipeg? A self-enclosed community in the lonesome prairie? He was there without bodyguards or companions; there is no Court of Keanu; no agents or PR persons or those curious factotums, former ballet dancers usually, who tend to cluster around a star, like maggots on a chop. He walked to work, shuffling through the snow (it was minus 25 degrees C) in his curious, dancing, tripping-over-himself way. He'd been seen in a cafe on his own, nursing a Perrier. Here was the paradox of this famous and desirable man, and there is nobody with him, ever. He is loved -- by million of hungry fans -- but does he know how to love? He went to the Prarie Oyster restaurant with the cast, and left early; taking his food away in a doggy bag; he went to an Italian restaurant and left in case two girls at the bar pestered him. None of this behaviour is sulky, tantrumy, make no mistake about that, for he has a great and unfeigned tenderness; it is more that, like Hamlet, he has a world within himself. He is coping with stardom, and trying to appear normal (when he knows he is not) by ignoring it. He doesn't own a house in L.A. He lives in hotels or in the rooms of actors who are out of town. He doesn't want too easy a life -- the mansions and the flunkeys. He anchors his ship for a little while only, and this is how he struck me in conversation -- though he is sitting there, he is not quite there all the time, as he darts from mood to mood, curving and winding, cautious and direct. Though he had been an athletic, piratical Hamlet, there is this huge, I can only call it ethereal, element. He is retiring from society, from life -- and that might be dangerous; his spirituality could intensify, and he could spirit away. He is in his dressing room hours and hours before the show. I'll bet he is bouncing around and getting himself into mortal and human shape so that he can appear or stage. For he is an eagle, really; or a glossy and supple stallion. Hollywood, meantime, would prefer this wild beast to be back with them, making more bomb-on-the-bus stuff; there were brokers and moguls, less interested in him than in the money he makes, doing their best to scupper the production. Shakespeare in Winnipeg! Three weeks on a basic Equity rate! When he could be reaping billions after Speed! (After all, reports last week of his sign-up fee for the new movie, Drop Dead, ranged from 4 million pounds to 10 million pounds.) Thus, the Manitoba Theatre Centre, a concrete lump that looks as though it is dissolving, was forbidden from arranging publicity interviews with the Principal Boy; there were to be no press tickets, photo calls, nothing. CBC was forbidden to run a clip of Keanu in action -- so their bulletin was literally Hamlet without the Prince. Hollywood pretended it was not happening; they were deeply contemptuous and suspicious of the entire affair. The rumor was that Keanu's own representatives would not fly to see his performance until they were absolutely certain he had not made a fool of himself. Supportive, huh? It just makes him the more like Hamlet, coming here, against the odds; embattled. It had been his idea to work again with his drama school mentor, the Toronto director Lewis Baumander, for whom he was once a thrilling Mercutio; and the production was built around Keanu, quite deliberately. Gone is the messy, modern, neurotic Hamlet; Baumander has encouraged us to see the character's sense of duty; and Keanu -- who is himself facing a challange, taking a risk -- would make a good King of Denmark, because he has re-discovered the splendour of heroism, its Camelot quality; which is how he transfigured Speed, giving it extra spin and nuance. The Winnipeggios were tickled pink to have him in their midst -- they had not seen a star since Charlie Chaplin drove through on his way to fish in the lake -- and this, plus the fact that all 22,000 seats for the run were sold out on subscription (i.e. before the box office opened), was a story in itself. The local press had a Keanu Hotline: "If you see Keanu out and about in Winnipeg, don't keep it a secret. Call 697-7368." But this scheme was spiked -- by the readers. "It's wonderful what he has done for Winnipeg," I was often told, and though most people had indeed spotted him, he was to be accorded respect and privacy. This seemed rather British -- old-fashioned and virtuous -- British like an Ealing comedy. People were so polite, they would phone the theatre and ask if they could ask for an autograph ("He's very approachable," said the receptionist. "You could come and see him in the lobby"). The staff at the Sheraton, not wanting to over-do it, obtained a single signature and photocopied it. Best of all -- a moment out of a Boulting Bros. film -- was the opening night itself. "Ladies and gentlemen, please be upstanding for the Governor General of Manitoba and Mrs Carlton Browne, and the Lady Mayoress and her goddaughter Patsy." And in trooped these Peter Sellers characters, in medals and ostrich plumes and we sang God Save the Queen. That this was followed by a burst of jangling rock music and Keanu in a spotlit tableau grieving over his father's tomb is I suppose what these days gets to be called surreal. Afterwards, the cast party: to which the entire audience was invited. Though the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Sun reported this as a stellar evening to outrank Graumann's Chinese, the atmosphere, for all the ice sculptures of Elsinore and cavier canapes, was actually much more like a village hall -- with Keanu down at the end scribbling on people's programmes and posters. He was still performing -- or continuing to be, in endless permutation. For each person, he would adjust, to make them special: a puppyish younger brother with men; a chivalric knight when calming the hyperventilating teens; the adored grown-up son to the older women, who want to be his mother, Wendy to his frowning Peter Pan. Men and women desire that he should like them, and he would speak to them and pose for their Instamatics, and they'd fantasise forever that he'd stay with them. (There were no ogling gays in evidence, by the way. Perhaps the Canadian cold snaps keep them down.) He doesn't need applause; he wants to survive the flattery. His exhortation to me was to deal justly with him. He is measurelessly puzzling and fascinating. I'll never forget one occasion. It was midnight and we were standing outside the theatre, wrapped up against the cold -- and there was this huge hearse-like stretch limo 20 or so yards away. This was the only touch that said "movie star" and was very un-Winnipeg. "My mother," he said, in his low, soft and furry voice. She had come to town to see the production and the sinister car conveyed her -- and him -- around the corner to the Westin Hotel. Before disappearing, he glanced at the the vehicle with amusement and embarrassment. Dressed in his layers of black, tall and elegant and as slim as a shark's fin, and with the snowflakes softly falling on his hat, twinkling and refusing to melt on his skin, and with his face inclined towards me, so intent you would swear he could listen to the wolves barking amid the ice and frozen rivers, he was very beautiful. Photograph by Bruce Monk. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 19:40:58 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0096 Ben Jonson Conference Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0096. Thursday, 9 February 1995. From: David Phillips Date: Thursday, 9 Feb 1995 06:35:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Conference Announcement CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT ***************************************************************** ********** BEN JONSON: TEXT, HISTORY, PERFORMANCE ************* ***************************************************************** An international conference on Ben Jonson will be held at The School of English, University of Leeds on July 5th through the 7th, 1995. This conference will focus on changing critical perceptions of Jonson, both in relation to his own times, and to his afterlife in the theatre and on the page. A central purpose of the conference will be the discussion of proposals for a new complete edition of Jonson. We shall be seeking to define the needs that such an edition should fulfil for scholars, teachers and readers in the next century. Speakers will include David Bevington, Martin Butler, Michael Cordner, D.H. Craig, Ian Donaldson, Joseph Loewenstein, Stephen Orgel and Lois Potter. Conference fee: 97 (English pounds) residential; 34 (English pounds) non-residential. For further details, contact: Dr. Martin Butler School of English University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT UK TEL UK (0113) 233-4766 or 233-4739 FAX UK (0113) 233-4774 E-mail engmhb@leeds.ac.uk ** This announcement posted on behalf of Dr. Martin Butler by the editors of The Ben Jonson Journal. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 08:22:02 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0097 Re: Ghost Light Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0097. Monday, 13 February 1995. (1) From: John Mills Date: Friday, 10 Feb 1995 13:30:08 -0700 (MST) Subj: [Ghost Light] (2) From: Cary Mazer Date: Friday, 10 Feb 1995 09:56:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0090 Re: Ghost Light (3) From: Alice Kroman Date: Saturday, 11 Feb 1995 00:27:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0090 Re: Ghost Light (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mills Date: Friday, 10 Feb 1995 13:30:08 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Ghost Light] The Ghost light: At Ind. Univ. in the late fifties we used the light, wheeled tripod, bare bulb with no switch and all, but to the best of my recollection we did not call it the ghost light. But I no longer remember just what we did call it. I think though it was "fire light." State law required that the "fire curtain" or "asbestos" be lowered whenever the theatre was unoccupied; hence the last two things the stage manager did in closing up was lower the fire curtain and set out the light which was called fire light by association with the curtain. (It strikes me that we may even have been so prosaic as to call it simply the night light). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary Mazer Date: Friday, 10 Feb 1995 09:56:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0090 Re: Ghost Light > It seems that we began having ghost lights somewhere around 1875. I can't > learn if there was such a thing before electricity. There were indeed Ghost lights before electricity--usually an array of gas jets on a crossbar on top of a post, in the shape of a T. One can be seen in the middle ground of the caricature by "Spy" of Henry Arthur Jones conducting a rehearsal, which appeared in Vanity Fair 2 April 1892. Cary (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- About the ghost light issue. I am aware of the placing of a sort of street light on the stage and that this is called a ghost light. But in the theater where I do a lot of work, there is another type of ghost light. Some light boards will leave one or two lights glowing even after the board has been shut off and the main power supply disconnected. It is truly rather eerie because there is no logical pattern to which light will be the ghost light each night. Eventually it will fade out after about ten minutes, but it is still rather odd. Perhaps this is where the 'ghost' in ghost light came from. Any ideas on this? Alice Marie Kroman akroman@osf1.gmu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 08:28:53 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0098 Conferences: Performance Studies; Medieval/Renaissance Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0098. Monday, 13 February 1995. (1) From: Amanda Barrett Date: Saturday, 11 Feb 1995 17:10:51 -0500 (EST) Subj: Performance Studies conference information: March 23-26 (2) From: Thomas M. Costa Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 95 14:06:02 EST Subj: CFP: Medieval-Renaissance Conference (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amanda Barrett Date: Saturday, 11 Feb 1995 17:10:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Performance Studies conference information: March 23-26 F I R S T A N N U A L PERFORMANCE STUDIES CONFERENCE "The Future of the Field" Thursday March 23-Sunday March 26, 1995 Department of Performance Studies Tisch School of the Arts New York Univerity, NY We invite you to attend the First Annual Performance Studies Conference, "The Future of the Field." The program will feature over 50 events, including panels, roundtable discussions, practical workshops, and performances. Over 180 scholars, graduate students, and artists will participate as speakers, moderators, and performers. In all, our participants will represent over 40 academic or artistic institutions from around the country and abroad. Our international participants will hail from France, the former Yugoslavia, Slovenia, Canada, England, Israel, and Australia. The conference will feature four plenary sessions and seven "breakout" sessions, during which smaller panels, seminars, and performances will be held concurrently. Many panels address interdisciplinary topics and aim to expand and complicate issues in performance scholarship. Major areas of inquiry include: new dance scholarship; theatre research; new technologies and performance studies; queer performativity and performance; gender in/as performance; reading/writing the body; race and performance scholarship; and performing new identities. Performances will be held each night. A Kick-Off cabaret will be held on Thursday night. The Friday and Saturday night events at a nearby nightclub, Fez, will feature Yareli Arizmendi, Circus Amok, The Five Lesbian Brothers, Marianne Goldberg, Dan Hurlin, Guillermo Gomez Pena, La Grand Scena Opera, Holly Hughes, Salley May, Peggy Pettitt, and Carmelita Tropicana. This conference inaugurates an annual event to be hosted on alternate years by the departments of Performance Studies at the Tisch School of the Arts and at Northwestern University. The Mid-Atlantic Chapter of the Society of Ethnomusicology will hold their annual conference concurrenty on the NYU campus. The theme of this year's MACSEM conference is "Ethnomusicology and Performance Studies." The two conferences will co-sponsor a panel, and registered members of the Performance Studies Conference will be welcome at selected MACSEM events. Conference events on Friday and Saturday, March 24 & 25, are scheduled from 9am to 6:30 pm, followed by a reception on Friday and a Dinner on Saturday. On Sunday, events begin at 9am and end at 2pm. A book fair will be held throughout the conference. ========================================== IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO REGISTER BY E-MAIL. ========================================== You may download or copy the following form, or send a letter including your name, address, phone number, institutional affliliation (if any) and a check payable to New York University for the appropriate amount (remember to include both registration and dinner if you choose) to: Jill Lane and Amanda Barrett Directors, First Annual Performance Studies Confernence Department of Performance Studies, 6th Floor 721 Broadway NYU, Tisch School of the Arts New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 998-1624 Fax: (212) 995-4960 Email: PS-CONF@acfcluster.nyu.edu ------------------------------------------------------------- Performance Studies Conference Registration Form **Early registration: postmarked by February 21 [ ] $35 [ ] Students $15 Registration after February 21 [ ] $40 [ ] Students $20 (On-sight registration: Students $50; students $30) **Special dinner Saturday March 25 in the spectacular Snow Dining Room: Don't miss it: great views, open bar, and a chance to get to know your colleagues! (Dinner reservations must be made by March 5, 1995.) [ ] $30 [ _______ ] TOTAL Name: Address: Phone number: Institutional affliliation (if any): E-Mail address: ------------------------------------------------------------- Hotel information: We recommend that you make your reservation at one of the following hotels as soon as possible: The Washington Square Hotel 103 Waverly Place. Reservations: (212) 777-9515 European-style hotel on Washington Square. Double bed, $120; 2 twin beds or 1 queen sized bed, $120; quad (2 doubles) $142. Includes continental breakfast. The Grammercy Park Hotel 2 Lexington Avenue at 21st Street. Reservations: 1-800-221-4083 Overlooks Gramercy Square Park. Rates range from $125-$140 per night. The Carlton Arms Hotel 160 East 25th Street. Reservations: (212) 679-0680 Funky student-style accommodations, a bit of a walk from NYU. Rates: single $40-$50; double $50-60; triple $75. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas M. Costa Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 95 14:06:02 EST Subject: CFP: Medieval-Renaissance Conference CALL FOR PAPERS MEDIEVAL-RENAISSANCE CONFERENCE IX SEPT. 28-30, 1995 CLINCH VALLEY COLLEGE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA KEYNOTE ADDRESS: KELLY DEVRIES OF LOYOLA COLLEGE, BALTIMORE, "LEGENDS OF THE MIDDLE AGES" Submissions on all topics of interest to Medieval and Renaissance scholars, including history, philosophy, literature, art, and music, are welcome. Please submit a brief abstract accompanied by a one-page vita by June 1 to: Tom Costa Dept. of History and Philosophy Clinch Valley College Wise, Va. 24293 (703)328-0231 tmc5a@clinch.edu For further information, please contact Dr. Tom Costa Dept. of History and Philosophy tmc5a@clinch.edu Clinch Valley College, Wise, Va. 24293 (703)328-0231 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 08:37:56 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0099 Re: The Scottish Play Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0099. Monday, 13 February 1995. (1) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 9 Feb 1995 17:46:30 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0089 Re: The Scottish Play (2) From: John Gardiner Date: Thursday, 9 Feb 1995 18:33:39 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0089 Re: The Scottish Play (3) From: William Godshalk Date: Thursday, 09 Feb 1995 23:12:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Macbeth (4) From: Julie Dubiner Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 01:08:03 -0500 (EST) Subj: RE: The Scottish Play (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 9 Feb 1995 17:46:30 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0089 Re: The Scottish Play I played the bear in A Winter's Tale, and will answer to the question of bad luck in plays other than Macbeth. It was my first appearance in a Shakespeare play, and I growled so wonderfully that the audience cried out, "Let him growl again." At least I hoped that was on their minds. I was to chase Antigonus off the stage and devour him in the wings. Antigonus defended himself with a piece of driftwood, and I told the actor to lay on, since I was well-padded and mounted with a bear's head on top of my own head, and so Antigonus slugged at me desperately with his driftwood club, and one night broke my finger, and I had to trade in my manual typewriter for an electric because I was hurting for many weeks and could not stand the pounding. So there's an example of injury not connected to Macbeth, and there are hundreds no doubt. But not having that aura of bad luck, they are not mentioned. However, who can be sure. One night of a full moon, I was scorning were-wolves among friends, then drove home and was stopped by a cop for something dumb in my opinion, a mere sliding stop, and he would not repent his gross misuse of his power, but gave me a ticket. I took a look at his name badge before we parted so that I might sic my congressman on him or something. His name was Wolf. Kennedy (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Gardiner Date: Thursday, 9 Feb 1995 18:33:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0089 Re: The Scottish Play In the new and very fine film "A Man of No Importance", Albert Finney's character enngages in a connversation with a fellow thespian in the theater in which they hope to stage Wilde's "Salome". His assistant cannot remember what was the Shakespeare play or scene that was cursed, to which Finney replies "you mean Macbeth". You can guess the fate of their production. Foreshadow through superstition. I love it. By the way, how safe is it to mention the Dreaded Scottish Play on a Shakespearian listserve? ;) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Godshalk Date: Thursday, 09 Feb 1995 23:12:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Macbeth "Angels and ministers of grace defend us!" According to Frank Kermode, if you say that line immediately after mentioning MACBETH, you'll be all right. My account has been jammed for some days, and I've missed a good deal of the MACBETH stuperstition thread. Is all of this commentary a result of Garry Wills' book and Frank Kermode's review? My students recall a scene from the Black Adder series. Yours, Bill (William.Godshalk@uc.edu) Department of English University of Cincinnati 45221-0065 (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Dubiner Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 01:08:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: The Scottish Play For those who find superstitions silly, I implore you all to at least not tempt trouble. When I was an undergraduate, the new theater history professor was directing _Tartuffe_. At the first rehearsal he told the cast that superstitions were bunk, they should all whistle back-stage, turn off the ghost light, and then he proceeded to run around our little Arena screaming that Scotsman's name. Well, by the top of opening night, he had suffered through a mean case of pneumonia and his wife had left him and taken the children. By the end of opening night, his Tartuffe had slipped off the set and broken his ankle. In what may be perceived as an unrelated event, a few years later he was denied tenure. So, believe what you will, but please show proper respect. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 08:46:19 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0100 Re: Shylock; Fortinbras Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0100. Monday, 13 February 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 09 Feb 1995 22:18:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0093 Re: Shylock (2) From: Charles Adler Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 07:54:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0093 Re: Shylock (3) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 1995 22:20:17 -0500 Subj: Re: Fortinbras (4) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 1995 22:20:31 -0500 Subj: Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 09 Feb 1995 22:18:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0093 Re: Shylock David Evett, after very carefully telling us that Shylock is merely a verbal construct, goes on to tell us that his "text invites this kind of reading." Note the metaphoric slip that Dave makes. He implies that he has an active text that invites him to read in a certain way. As we all know, unfortunately, texts do not read themselves, nor do they invite specific readings. What Dave sees as an invitation in the text is in reality inside his brain. Yours, Bad Bill (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Adler Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 07:54:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0093 Re: Shylock While I agree that the text leaves little room for an ealier contrivance of Shylock's bargain, I wonder why one would be less justified in inferring the history of a dramatic character than a a real live person about whom one has similar information? Charles Adler (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 1995 22:20:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Fortinbras David Glassco writes >I wonder if Chris Gordon would elaborate on exactly why or how Hamlet's >soliloquay "How all occasions do inform against me..." was made so powerful in >the production she's discussing. I have always been bemused by the fact that >the occasion Hamlet has just experienced (Fortinbras going off to a pointless >war) is precisely the sort of occasion that might lead to a recognition of the >need for further thought _before_ action, rather than encouraging anything >precipitous. Alexander Smith answers this by defending the character of Fortinbras, which I think is a side issue. It isn't necessary for us (or Hamlet) to think that Fortinbras is a good man or that his attack on Poland is justifiable. The point of the pointlessness of Fortinbras' excursion is strategic: intensify the comparative effect. The same thing happens in "And all for nothing, for Hecuba!" etc, the common idea being to contrast Hamlet with someone who responds to his predicament definitively and with vehemence, and to exaggerate that contrast by giving that person a flimsy excuse for their behavior, while Hamlet's cause is indisputable: "What would he do had he the motive and the cue for passion that I have?"; "How stand I then that have a father killed, a mother stained, excitements of my reason and my blood, and let all sleep while to my shame I see the imminent death of twenty thousand men who for a fantasy and trick of fame go to their graves like beds...?" The notion that Hamlet might learn a lesson from Fortinbras along the lines of "further thought before action" is related to a general mistake about Hamlet, viz that his procrastination is a matter of being shrewd or of making up his mind on some sort of moral question--even though he is constantly saying the opposite of this, notably "I do not know why yet I live to say this thing's to do, sith I have cause and will and strength and means to do't." Certainly after the Mousetrap there is no more decision-making to be done, and during the Fortinbras speech it is unlikely that the audience will think that further thought is what Hamlet's situation requires. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 1995 22:20:31 -0500 Subject: Hamlet Continuing this "How all occasions" thread: This part >Rightly to be great >Is not to stir without great argument >But greatly to find quarrel in a straw >When honor's at the stake. has received some interpretive attention as either a corruption or a case of Shakespeare not quite saying what he meant (not to stir = not to not stir), but has anybody argued for the meaning as written? I think the question "What is it about Fortinbras' expedition that impresses Hamlet," more or less raised by Edward Glassco last week, hangs on what you decide this passage means. My suggestion is that honor = great argument, ie Hamlet's gist is "This attack on Poland is an act of greatness because it is not a gratuitous display of military machismo but unflinching commitment to a question of honor." Well? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 08:52:43 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0101 Re: Hamlet in Winnipeg Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0101. Monday, 13 February 1995. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 1995 22:20:27 -0500 Subj: Re: Keanu Reeves (2) From: Paul Stanwood Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 1995 21:08:28 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0095 Re: *Hamlet* in Winnipeg (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 1995 22:20:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Keanu Reeves Am I the only one who thinks Keanu Reeves is the worst screen actor this side of Steven Segal? Isn't he indisputably horrible in Branagh's Ado? Is even his _accent_ endurable in Dracula? I figured in Speed at least he'd be limited to Schwartzeneggerish oneliners and nonspeaking action sequences, but he honestly ruined the whole experience for me, every time he opened his mouth or made any show of emotion. He has one good trick, the one he does in Parenthood, Bill&Ted, River's Edge, and My Own Private Idaho. But HIM in the role of roles? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! I get ulcers reading about it. Are there no bad reviews of that show? Will somebody post them please oh please? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Stanwood Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 1995 21:08:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0095 Re: *Hamlet* in Winnipeg I wonder if this review appeared in the SUNDAY Times magazine? It is cheap, stupid, insulting, and condescending, though these are all characteristics of the Times of London, too, especially when considering anything that occurs outside of London itself. Winnipeg IS a long way from Hollywood (one of its many virtues)! I suppose this silly reviewer meant "Lieutenant-General" for "Governor-General", though he/she would not know the difference! --Just a first impression of an irritating, though (I suppose) well meaning review. Paul Stanwood English, Univ. of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 09:01:55 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0102 Re: Science Fiction; Homoerotic; Musicals Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0102. Monday, 13 February 1995. (1) From: William Russell Mayes Date: Friday, 10 Feb 1995 10:46:32 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0091 Re: Shakespeare and Science Fiction (2) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Friday, 10 Feb 95 09:20:13 SAST-2 Subj: The homoerotic (3) From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 95 02:06:12 Subj: Fwd: Musicals based on Shakespeare (was POSSIBLE MUSICALS) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Russell Mayes Date: Friday, 10 Feb 1995 10:46:32 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0091 Re: Shakespeare and Science Fiction Regarding Shakespeare and Star Trek, there is a ton of the bard in the movies and throughout the (several) series, though by no means is there a systematic use of W.S. Paul Cantor has a paper on Shakespeare in the Star Trek movies. I am sure he'd be happy to send it to you (he is at the Dept. of English, Wilson Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903). Half jokingly, I once gave a paper entitled "Historical Criticism: The Next Generation, or Why Doesn't the Federation have a Cloaking Device?" but the writers of _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ (the one with Patrick Stewart) ruined it by writing a show where that question is answered. Alas. W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Dept. of English University of Virginia wrm2b@faraday.clas.virginia.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Friday, 10 Feb 95 09:20:13 SAST-2 Subject: The homoerotic Is the fact that sonnets addressed by men to _women_ "sound like love letters" enough to "establish anything definite?" David Schalkwyk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 95 02:06:12 Subject: Fwd: Musicals based on Shakespeare (was POSSIBLE MUSICALS) I thought the following would be of interest to SHAKSPER subscribers. It was posted on the musical theater mailing list (musicals-post@world.std.com). Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. martyj@yankeegroup.com *********************************** Michael Soliven Lara (mslara@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 Feb 1995, Adam Feldman wrote: > What does anyone else think? Any other ideas for musicals to come? It might be interesting to have musicals based on Shakespeare plays. We've already seen works which either touch on Shakespeare (e.g. Kiss Me Kate) or works which freely adapt Shakespeare (e.g. Otello, West Side Story). How about Hamlet? Some problems with this include: if there are new lyrics, the lyricist might be accused of tampering with already perfect verse (such was one reported criticism of the flop Cyrano) if there aren't new lyrics, the composer would have to find some way of musicalizing the work without making it monotonous or ridiculous <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I was in a musical adaptation of Shakespeare's "A Winter's Tale." It was a pretty horrible mishmash, partly because of some of the above concerns. Much of Shakespeare's beautiful verse was rewritten, some just shortened in the interest of time, but some because the writer was afraid it would not be understood -- it got kind of "dumbed-down." I played Paulina, Hermione's chief lady-in-waiting (or something like that -- it's never made exactly clear even in Shakespeare), which was originally a nice supporting role. However, I get the idea that Paulina was the writer's favorite character. She (the writer, who was also directing) called Paulina the original feminist, and beefed up the role a whole lot just because it was her favorite. I had three solos and three or four duets -- unfortunately, a lot of the music was awful (a song to Leontes about Hermione's child called "The Babe is Yours" stands out as particularly bad). A Pippin-like chorus that showed up at the beginning and end of each act was also added, and Father Time led them -- they were funny but had little or nothing to do with the story and were not integrated into the play at all. There was one glorious moment: Camillo the faithful servant singing a song called "I Know an Island" to Florizel and Perdita. It was a beautiful tenor ballad almost worth the price of admission by itself. Of course, the original play is problematic -- it starts out as almost a tragedy, and ends up as a sort of pastoral romance -- but making it a musical -- at least in this inception -- only exacerbated its problems. I believe this "Musical Winter's Tale" was done once before at Brown University. I'd love to hear from anyone who was associated with it or saw it. Also, back in 1981 or 1982 I saw the pre-Broadway production of "Oh, Brother" at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. It was an adaptation of "The Comedy of Errors" (or going further back "The Menaechmi (sp?)) set in Iran. Parts of it were wonderful -- I seem to remember Judy Kaye having a beautiful ballad about one of the brothers. But parts were incredibly tacky -- there was a kickline of Arabs (which was actually pretty funny, but probably offensive to some) and a lot of Ayatollah (or was it Shah?) jokes. I heard later that it closed on Broadway after something like three days -- I wonder if there's any recording of it out there? Hoping there are better Shakespeare adaptations around ... or being written. Ginny gsl@barw.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 09:08:20 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0103 Qs: Courses; Metadrama; Globe Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0103. Monday, 13 February 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 10 Feb 1995 23:33:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Courses on Shakespeare's Texts (2) From: David Reinheimer Date: Saturday, 11 Feb 1995 09:30:13 -0800 (PST) Subj: Metadrama at the 1977 MLA (3) From: Dan Falk Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 1995 16:52:06 -0500 Subj: Query: Globe Theatre (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 10 Feb 1995 23:33:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Courses on Shakespeare's Texts Yashdip Bains and I are planning a graduate course on the texts of MERRY WIVES, HAMLET, and KING LEAR. We are wondering how many of you teach similar courses, and how you approach the text problems with students who have little or no previous preparation. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Reinheimer Date: Saturday, 11 Feb 1995 09:30:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Metadrama at the 1977 MLA Researching my dissertation yesterday, I came across an entry in the MLA On-line Bibliography for _Shakespearean Metadrama_, edited by John W. Blanpied (Rochester, NY, Dept of English, University of Rochester, 1977). This is not, of course, Calderwood's 1971 book, but a collection of essays delivered at a special session (I assume on metadrama) at the 1977 MLA Convention. Unfortunately, my library here (which has, probably, the second-most frustrating computer catalog in the world) has never heard of this publication. If anyone on the list has, and could direct me to it, I would be very grateful. Either post or e-mail responses to . Thanks much in advance. Have a good day! Dave UCDavis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Falk Date: Sunday, 12 Feb 1995 16:52:06 -0500 Subject: Query: Globe Theatre Hello. Can anyone tell me if there are any Canadians (and in particular any U of T people) involved in the re-building of the Globe theatre in London? I'm planning to be in London at the time of the Globe grand opening in June, and because I'm a writer, I'm always looking for good stories (especially stories with a Canadian angle). Thanks for your help! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 08:10:28 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0104 Re: Shakespeare Musicals Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0104. Tuesday, 14 February 1995. (1) From: Yvette Grimes Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 10:23:29 -0500 Subj: Re: Shakespeare Musicals (2) From: Jean Peterson Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 12:17:28 -0500 Subj: Re: musical shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Yvette Grimes Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 10:23:29 -0500 Subject: Re: Shakespeare Musicals What about Rogers & Hart's _Boys From Syracuse_, an adaptation of _The Comedy of Errors_. Great score including songs like "This Can't Be Love" and "Falling In Love With Love." -Yvette (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 12:17:28 -0500 Subject: Re: musical shakespeare Does anyone remember an early Sixties musical version of *Twelfth Night* called, I believe, "YOUR OWN THING"? It was a real product of the times...I recall that it toyed with bisexuality in ways that were probably daring at the time, though pretty tame in retrospect (Ex: Orsino admits to himself that he is having raging sexual fantasies about "charlie"-cesario; he is more than relieved to discover that charlie is really a girl...). Set, costume, & hair a la' Peter Max--flower power, bell bottom pants, big hair... Jean Peterson Bucknell University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 08:17:00 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0105 Re: Hamlet and Fortinbras Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0105. Tuesday, 14 February 1995. (1) From: Ron Moyer Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 9:53:03 -0600 (CST) Subj: Hamlet, 4.4 (2) From: David Evette Date: Monday, 13 Feb 95 16:36:57 EST Subj: [Hamlet's "Rightly . . ."] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Moyer Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 9:53:03 -0600 (CST) Subject: Hamlet, 4.4 Scott Shepherd's suggestion that Hamlet's 4.4 soliloquy has the dramaturgical effect of intensifying the "comparative effect" of Hamlet/Fortinbras seems apt; further, the strong expression of the "How all occasions" speech helps to keep Hamlet and his bloody thoughts in the audience's mind during his England trip/absence from stage (and gives wonderful chance for rhetorical and emotional display. While theatrically effective, the soliloquy is redundant (e.g., "Now could I drink hot blood"), lacks some logic (as has been discussed on this thread), and seems a bit silly for Hamlet to express this strength of purpose at the moment when he has the least power in the play--being escorted out of the country. Apparently someone in the King's Company (the author perhaps) found the speech unnecessary or undesirable, for it was omitted in the First Folio text. --Ron Moyer, Theatre, Univ. of South Dakota (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evette Date: Monday, 13 Feb 95 16:36:57 EST Subject: [Hamlet's "Rightly . . ."] I endorse Scott Shepherd's parsing of Hamlet's "Rightly to be great / Is not to stir without great argument" as needing to be read so that "not" governs the entire infinitive phrase rather than "to stir" by itself (Riverside 4.4.53-54). To understand Hamlet is not necessarily to agree with him, however. From one end of the canon to the other, in _Titus Andronicus_, _Romeo and Juliet_, _Merchant of Venice_, both parts of _Henry IV_, _Henry V_, _Julius Caesar_, _Troilus and Cressida_, _Lear_, _Coriolanus_, and _Winter's Tale_, as well as in this play, Shakespeare carries out investigations of masculine honor, particularly those elements of the code that define manhood as the willingness to kill ("If it be man's work I'll do it") and relate it to the obligation for revenge. The _trouvailles_ here is a pile of corpses that consists mostly of the young male combatants but also includes Juliet, Ophelia, Gertrude, the Boy in _Henry V_, and the Norwegian and Polish Williamses and Bateses for whom, as Hamlet goes on to tell us, the dirt fought over by Fortinbras and his Polish counterpart will not be sufficient to make graves. I have fond memories of that wonderfully straightforward and practical critic Alfred Harbage asking the members of his graduate seminar to identify the grounds for Hamlet's delay, and scowling impatiently through a series of convoluted psychological hypotheses before somebody finally said, rather to the shame of the rest of us, "Thou shalt do no murder." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 10:42:48 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0106 Re: Hamlet in Winnipeg; Teaching Multiple Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0106. Tuesday, 14 February 1995. (1) From: Alice Kroman Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 09:49:49 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0101 Re: Hamlet in Winnipeg (2) From: David M Richman Date: Monday, February 13, 1994 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0103 Qs: Courses; Metadrama; Globe (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alice Kroman Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 09:49:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0101 Re: Hamlet in Winnipeg To Scott Shepherd: I assure you that you are not alone on your opinions of Keanu Reeve's "talent". Although I did not see the Winnipeg Hamlet, I have seen several of his movies and find his acting positively embarrassing to watch. Alice M. Kroman akroman@osf1.gmu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Monday, February 13, 1994 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0103 Qs: Courses; Metadrama; Globe To Bill Godshalk: As regards teaching multiple texts, I have found it fruitful to look at a series of acting/directing problems. How might variant versions of a given sequence be differently played? What are the implications for performance of various cuts and additions? Steve Urkowitz is one of the great people in this field, and your students might like to look at his stuff on multiple texts of Hamlet, M.W.W. R. and J. and his book on Lear. He is terrific on implications for performance. I will immodestly mention my own article The *King Lear* Quarto in Rehearsal and Performance, *Shakespeare Quarterly* Autumn, 1986. Therein, I describe a production based on the 1608 Quarto. Looking seriously and in detail at these early texts is quite rewarding. On another thread--Fritz Leiber, a great science fiction writer and the son of a noted Shakespearean actor, often used the plays in his stories. My favorite is "No Great Magic" title taken from Robert Graves, about an eerie production of Mcbeth in which the company, a band of time-wanderers, is attempting to change history. The story originally appeared in the December, 1963, Galaxy. Cheers, David ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 15:55:07 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0108 Re: Shakespeare and Science Fiction Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 108. Wednesday, 15 February 1995. (1) From: David Reinheimer Date: Tuesday, 14 Feb 1995 16:59:27 -0800 (PST) Subj: Shakespeare and Star Trek (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 14 Feb 1995 22:13:16 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare and Sci-Fi (3) From: Stephen Buhler Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1995 09:25:57 -0600 (CST) Subj: SF Shakespeare and Star Trek (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Reinheimer Date: Tuesday, 14 Feb 1995 16:59:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Shakespeare and Star Trek Just a note: The Spring issue of _Extrapolations_ is a special issue containing articles on this topic. The articles treat the original series, the feature movies and the Next Generation. Have a good day! Dave Reinheimer UCDavis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 14 Feb 1995 22:13:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare and Sci-Fi Has any one mentioned Clifford Simak, SHAKESPEARE'S PLANET (1976) and Aldous Huxley's ISLAND (1962), both of which, as I recall play off of THE TEMPEST. Yours, Bill Subject: Retraction Having recent said that Huxley's ISLAND plays off of THE TEMPEST, I hasten to point out that I was not well served by my memory. Although ISLAND may have some Shakespearean touches, Huxley was obviously updating More's UTOPIA. Yours, Bill (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Buhler Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1995 09:25:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: SF Shakespeare and Star Trek In response to the recent thread on Science Fiction and Shakespeare, I'm happy to let SHAKSPERians know about a special issue of EXTRAPOLATION, the SF and Fantasy journal. The issue was organized and guest-edited by Susan C. Hines, Middle Georgia College. I have adapted the following from her description of its contents: There's an editor's column by EXTRAPOLATION editor-in-chief, Donald M. Hassler. The Introductory article, "What's Academic About Trek," by Susan C. Hines, is an argument for cultural/media studies, an explanation of how such an special issue of EXTRAPOLATION came to be, and an overview of the essays on Shakespeare and STAR TREK. The issue includes three essays (by John Pendergast, Stephen M. Buhler, and Mark Houlahan) on STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY. Each of these essays has or reflects a particular theoretical slant--one new historicist, one cultural materialist, one postcolonial--and all deal with plays such as HAMLET, THE TEMPEST, JULIUS CAESAR, and RICHARD II. There's one essay on the CLASSIC TREK by Mary Dutta, a feminist perspective which deals with episodes CATSPAW, REQUIEM FOR METHUSULA, ELAAN OF TROYIUS, CONSCIENCE OF THE KING and with plays MACBETH, THE TEMPEST, TAMING OF THE SHREW, and HAMLET). And there are also two essays on STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION. David Reinheimer's is on moral philosophy and the series' most Shakespearean nonhumans, Data and Q; Emily Hegarty's is a feminist close reading of an episode called THE PERFECT MATE and its relationship to Shakespeare's sonnets. I'm told the issue is just out; it's available from the Kent State University Press. Stephen M. Buhler, Department of English, University of Nebraska-Lincoln ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 15:41:20 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0107 Re: Shakespeare Musicals Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 107. Wednesday, 15 February 1995. (1) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 08:50:20 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0102 Re: Musicals (2) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 20:20:53 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0102 Re: Musicals (3) From: Gavin H Witt Date: Tuesday, 14 Feb 95 18:27:48 CST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0104 Re: Shakespeare Musicals (4) From: Mary Bess Whidden Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1995 01:07:59 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0104 Re: Shakespeare Musicals (5) From: Tom Clayton Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1995 10:51:44 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0104 Re: Shakespeare Musicals (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 08:50:20 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0102 Re: Musicals My cousin was in a musical version of *Merchant of Venice* as Portia once. This must have been about 15 (?) years ago, in a showcase version off-Broadway. I seem to recall a duet between Portia and Nerissa called "O me, O My, Ah men" and some other stuff which escapes me. Actually, it was pretty good, but then I was a stage-struck teenager and might not have noticed. Anyone hear of this thing? Melissa Aaron (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 20:20:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0102 Re: Musicals If memory serves me correctly, someone on this list mentioned a wonderfully heinous sounding version of Hamlet as a musical. I think I remember that it plays annually at Rice University, but I could be wrong. I wish I could see it performed some time. Cheerio, Sean. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gavin H Witt Date: Tuesday, 14 Feb 95 18:27:48 CST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0104 Re: Shakespeare Musicals Regarding Shakespeare musicals, there was a musical version of _Two Gents_ done in Shakespeare in the Park back in the 70s (I think Raul Julia was in it and made a big splash with his performance). I'm not aware of any recordings of it available, though.... Gavin Witt University of Chicago (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Bess Whidden Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1995 01:07:59 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0104 Re: Shakespeare Musicals --and we all cherish Anna Russell's approximation of the operatic *Hamletto.* Mary Bess Whidden (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1995 10:51:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0104 Re: Shakespeare Musicals In case anyone is interested in looking into YOUR OWN THING (1968), it was printed together with TWELFTH NIGHT by Dell in 1970--and may well have been reprinted, but I don't know that for a fact. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 16:01:02 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0109 CFP: Western Conference on British Studies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 109. Wednesday, 15 February 1995. From: Larry Witherell Date: Monday, 13 Feb 95 14:56:47 -0500 Subject: WCBS/CFP WESTERN CONFERENCE ON BRITISH STUDIES CALL FOR PAPERS The WESTERN CONFERENCE ON BRITISH STUDIES invites proposals for papers to be delivered at the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of the WCBS, in Houston, Texas, 26-28 October 1995. The WCBS welcomes proposals for papers and sessions on all aspects of British studies and the British experience, including history, politics, literature, arts, and culture. For each proposed paper please provide a brief abstract (250 words) and for each participant a brief c.v. (1-2 pages). Send by 17 APRIL 1995 to:-- Dr. Larry L. Witherell Program Chair, WCBS Institute of International Studies 214 Social Sciences Building University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Tel. (612) 624-0255 FAX (612) 626-2242 E-MAIL withe007@maroon.tc.umn.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 18:14:54 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0110 Re: Reeves; Metadrama; Ghost Light; Kiss Me; Hamlet/Action Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 110. Wednesday, 15 February 1995. (1) From: John Mills Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 13:17:31 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0101 Re: Hamlet in Winnipeg (2) From: Michael Norman Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 16:49:50 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakespearean Metadrama (3) From: James Schaefer Date: Tuesday, 14 Feb 1995 13:14:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Electronic ghost lights (4) From: Matthew Henerson Date: Tuesday, 14 Feb 1995 11:22:55 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0094 Q: Kiss Me Video (5) From: John Boni Date: Tuesday, 14 Feb 1995 16:32:51 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0105 Re: Hamlet and Fortinbras (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mills Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 13:17:31 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0101 Re: Hamlet in Winnipeg You are certainly not alone in your opinion of Reeves. I thought him execrable in Much Ado and the mind reels at the thought of him playing Hamlet or, for that matter, any other Shakespearean role--large or small. (He was bearable in Little Buddha but then he didn't have much to do except look spiritual.) I wonder though if there is a generation gap here. I cut my teeth on Olivier and went on to admire Burton and Nicol Williamson greatly. Nor am I an anglophile snob. I thought Richard Chamberlain was more than respectable and Gibson's Hamlet was nothing to be ashamed of either-what there was of it. But the stage history of the play shows that "old-stagers" never like the upstart crow newcomer. It is worth remembering in this connection that the oldtimers thought that matinee idol movie actor Olivier had a lot of nerve daring to play Hamlet. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Norman Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 16:49:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespearean Metadrama _Shakespearean Metadrama_, edited by John Blanpied, can be located at the following libraries: Southern Illinois University Northern Kentucky University Brandeis University, MA Bowling Green State University, OH All libraries listed are suppliers with interlibrary loan. I found the information from OCLC's Worldcat on FirstSearch. This is a very valuable tool for finding where desired materials are located. I use it almost daily in my research. Hope this helps. Michael Norman (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Tuesday, 14 Feb 1995 13:14:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Electronic ghost lights I'm not an electrician, but wouldn't Alice Kroman's electronic ghost lights be the slowly dissipating current from a capacitor? Jim Schaefer (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Henerson Date: Tuesday, 14 Feb 1995 11:22:55 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0094 Q: Kiss Me Video >Could somebody tell me where I might borrow/rent the video Kiss Me Petruchio? The only place I have seen it is at the main branch of the Santa Monica Library near Los Angeles. But since it is a documentary on a production done through the Public Theater in New York, you might try calling there. Matt (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Tuesday, 14 Feb 1995 16:32:51 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0105 Re: Hamlet and Fortinbras RE: Hamlet and Action. Several persons have mentioned Hamlet's reasoning as he watches Fortinbras' army preparing to fight over something not worth the sacrifice. To me, in the "How all occasions" soliloquy, Hamlet echoes Hotspur in a fixation upon honor, despite odds and object. Someone in this thread (I'm sorry I can't recall who) pointed out that a character (particularly Hamlet) may say and do things which are very important but which will distance him/her from us. Well, that, to my mind, is part of the duality of the tragic hero, particularly in Shakespeare. Hamlet refuses to kill Claudius for the wrong reasons--he wants to control the fate of Claudius' soul (something reserved to god); he kills Polonius unthinkingly--not the sort of action we associate with the intellectual, sensitive person we have come to know and love; then in belittling his own inaction in contrast to the action of Fortinbras' soldiers, he embraces values worthy of Hotspur. Tragic loss. John M. Boni, Dean College of Arts & Sciences Northeastern Illinois University ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 19:19:34 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0111 Qs: *WT*; Shakespeare Songs; Auditions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0111. Thursday, 16 February 1995. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 14 Feb 1995 15:18:58 -0500 Subj: Winter's Tale (2) From: Michael Martin Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 09:47:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare's songs... (3) From: Dana Goldstein Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1995 21:50:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0069 Qs: Auditions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 14 Feb 1995 15:18:58 -0500 Subject: Winter's Tale I just read somewhere in rec.arts.theatre that a Swedish *Winter's Tale* directed by Ingmar Bergman is coming to the Brooklyn Academy of Music in May (maybe as part of a more general North American tour). Anybody know about it? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Martin Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 09:47:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare's songs... Hi folks, Are there good (or even *decent*) sound or video recordings of any of Shakespeare's songs, digital would be great, but I'm willing to do the transfer. Looking to create a multimedia archive for a class I teach. I'd like to focus specifically on the music for this particular element, and would include things like Mendelssohn's MND, perhaps a song or two from West Side Story...and I would love to have some samples of Elizabethan music, or even period instruments... Suggestions or references are welcome, as always, from the helpful members of this discussion group. Thanks, Michael Martin (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dana Goldstein Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1995 21:50:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0069 Qs: Auditions I'm looking for the same information regarding summer Shakespeare work. If possible, please send anything relevant to: dgoldstein@binah.cc.brandeis.edu Thanks a lot, Dana ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 19:40:32 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0112 Re: Shakespeare Musicals Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0112. Thursday, 16 February 1995. (1) From: Jerry Bangham Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1995 20:20:08 Subj: Re: Shakespeare Musicals Two gentlemen and Hamletto. (2) From: Daniel Vitkus Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 13:25 +0200 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0107 Re: Shakespeare Musicals (3) From: Cary Mazer Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 10:17:42 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0107 Re: Shakespeare Musicals (4) From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 95 11:37:36 EST Subj: Shakespeare Sci-Fi Musical (5) From: Mike Young Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 13:50:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0107 Re: Shakespeare Musicals (6) From: Matthew Henerson Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 11:19:37 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0107 Re: Shakespeare Musicals (7) From: Joseph L Lockett Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 12:55:19 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0107 Re: Shakespeare Musicals (8) From: Fran Teague Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 95 10:43:20 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0107 Re: Shakespeare Musicals (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1995 20:20:08 Subject: Re: Shakespeare Musicals Two gentlemen and Hamletto. >Regarding Shakespeare musicals, there was a musical version of _Two Gents_ >done in Shakespeare in the Park back in the 70s (I think Raul Julia was in it >and made a big splash with his performance). It went on to the St. James and was recorded on a two-record set ABC BSCY-1001. >--and we all cherish Anna Russell's approximation of the operatic *Hamletto.* Is it available? I've been looking for it for years. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Vitkus Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 13:25 +0200 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0107 Re: Shakespeare Musicals RE: Shakespeare musicals As a teenager in Chicago I once attended a rock 'n' roll musical version of _A Midsummer Night's Dream_, complete with wigged out fairies, and good, loud rock music. This was in the early 1970s, performed at the Ivanhoe Theater Uptown (now burnt to the ground). Does anyone out there recall such a production? I don't remember much else about the performance, except that I enjoyed it. Daniel Vitkus The American University in Cairo (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary Mazer Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 10:17:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0107 Re: Shakespeare Musicals Fans of _Your Own Thing_ may be interested to know that a few years later there was ANOTHER attempt to turn _Twelfth Night_ into a musical, this time a Broadway production called _Music Is_, adapted and directed by the late great George Abbott. I have no recollection of WHY I saw it, but I do remember how awful it was. The one scene that sticks out in my memory is a choreographed party scene in Orsino's house featuring a dozen or so mini-trampolines. Cary (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 95 11:37:36 EST Subject: Shakespeare Sci-Fi Musical Subject: The Shakespeare Sci-Fi Musical I'd like to tie two recent threads into a tidy bow and recall one of the most delightful evenings I ever spent in the West End. The crew I was working with at the Bloomsbury Theatre said I had to see the new show at the Cambridge and called over to get me a house seat. It was a low budget, but ingeniously staged, gem called RETURN TO THE FORBIDDEN PLANET: the world's first Shakespeare Science Fiction Rock and Roll Musical. Based loosely on the Sci Fi film, FORBIDDEN PLANET, it used rock songs from the 50's and 60's, and featured a marooned mad scientist, Dr. Prospero, a roller skating android Ariel and a Shatnerish commander named Captain Tempest. The show was written and directed by Bob Carlton and developed with a small company called Bubble Productions. After touring the provinces it came to London where it was the season's surprise hit. It even edged out the bloated MISS SAIGON for the Best Musical Olivier, prompting that show's producer to furiously demand that the rules be changed to disallow any show without original music. I never saw the New York version. Others who'd loved it in London warned me away. Even with Julie Cruise as Miranda, it failed to charm the way the original had. On the opposite extreme I, too, recall that OH, BROTHER only lasted a day or two on Broadway, but, sadly, I was trapped in the house for one of the previews. "Tacky" doesn't begin to describe this turkey. My companion was, for some reason, obligated to stick it out, so I reluctantly returned for the second act. She agreed she owed me one for that sacrifice. Tom Dale Keever keever@phantom.com (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Young Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 13:50:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0107 Re: Shakespeare Musicals If we really want to review all "Shakespearian" musicals, don't forget the version of HAMLET from Gilligan's Island. Yours in syndication, Michael Young (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Henerson Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 11:19:37 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0107 Re: Shakespeare Musicals I saw a musical version of *Hamlet* called *To Be* at Cal State Northridge some six years ago. I don't remember it fondly, but then I don't remember much of anything about it. I have no idea if it has ever been performed anywhere else. Matt (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph L Lockett Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 12:55:19 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0107 Re: Shakespeare Musicals Rice University's occasional Hamlet musical is "Hello Hamlet", performed every five years (need it or not) by Wiess residential college, and authored by former Houston city comptroller (and Rice alum) George Greanias. I've seen two different productions, and enjoyed each. Macbeth's witches make an appearance running a drug store, we hear renditions of "There Is Nothing Like a Dane" and "Ya Got Trouble (Right Here in Elsinore)", Hamlet shows up in drag (a tutu, yet) to perform for Claudius as "Olga, Olga, from the Volga". A good time all around. Greanias owns the rights, I guess, though the rampant stealing of show tunes makes all that quite murky. It's always much looked forward to, and I'm amused to hear that its fame has spread! (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 95 10:43:20 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0107 Re: Shakespeare Musicals The musical version of _Hamlet_ that is done fairly regularly at Rice University is entitled _Hello, Hamlet!_ and it's been produced since the late 60s. My husband played Claudius and I worked backstage on several of the early stagings. His showstopper number began "I'm strictly a heinous highness . . . " and concluded "I enjoy being a ghoul." As you can probably tell, the show did every bit as much damage to Broadway musicals as it did to any Shakespearean text. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 19:51:09 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0113 Re: Coral; Kiss Me; Shylock Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0113. Thursday, 16 February 1995. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1995 15:27:12 -0500 Subj: Of his bones are coral made (2) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1995 21:55:44 -0500 Subj: Re: Kiss Me Video (3) From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 95 14:50:58 EST Subj: [Shylock] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know this is an old topic, but because it mutated immediately into a heated meta dispute about appropriate critical inquiry the original question was never addressed. It's been nagging me. I agree that "Of his bones are coral made" scores so many points for euphony and fantastic image that a little semantic problem would be easy to excuse. But in fact there is no semantic problem. "Of his bones are coral made" uses the same "make...of" as "conscience does make cowards of us all." The correct rephrasing is "(Something) has made coral of his bones." E L Epstein's inversion "Coral are made of his bones" is a linguistic red herring that seems to uncover a difficulty not actually in the original. The trick is that word order _matters_ in English, and it sometimes matters in ways that are instinctive and therefore hard to detect. For example, consider this quasipoetic phrase: >From the lips of Demosthenes come diamonds This is perfectly clear, but the inversion >Diamonds come from the lips of Demosthenes sounds like it's accounting for the origin of _all_ diamonds (especially if you don't know what Demosthenes is). A native speaker can sense this without knowing why it happens. Why does it happen? I think 1) A plural or collective noun without an article tends to acquire an implied "all" at the beginning of a sentence (eg "Men are scum") but less usually in the middle (eg "The scum gave me diamonds"). 2) Simple indicative present-tense constructions often have the ring of universal factual statement (cf "Diamonds _came_ from the lips...," where past tense eliminates the confusion). Inversion deadens the encyclopedia effect by separating encyclopedia combinations like "come from" and "are made of". In our *Tempest* example things are further complicated because the present-tense verb actually denotes past action, ie "are made" = "have been made" (cf "I am transformed", "the bed is made", "Christ is reborn"). Adjusting for this will clear up Epstein's version: >Coral(s) have been made of his bones. Yes, poetry enjoys a certain linguistic license, but it's still made of words (anyway it is in Shakespeare) and must operate by means of that mysterious peculiar thing language. True semantic difficulties in the plays, no matter how florid, get plenty of critical attention. Nobody wanted to discuss this one because "Of his bones are coral made" doesn't _sound_ wrong (on the contrary it sounds great!). It only becomes problematic after erroneous examination. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1995 21:55:44 -0500 Subject: Re: Kiss Me Video If Kiss Me Petrucchio is that documentary about the Raul Julia / Meryl Streep *Shrew* production in Central Park that I borrowed once from the Midtown Manhattan Library, I borrowed it once from the Midtown Manhattan Library (not the one with the big lions but just across 5th Avenue from there). It is wonderful. Raul Julia's Petrucchio gets enthusiastically booed, and he LOVES it, gazes no-shit-takingly into the auditorium and in his beautiful Puerto Rican voice bellows "She is my ASS! My household STUFF!" etc. Footage of the play is intercut with interviews backstage and in the audience about the production and the age-old Kate problem. Anybody who was involved in that Shrew thread a few weeks ago should try to get their hands on it. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 95 14:50:58 EST Subject: [Shylock] Bill Godshalk got me dead to rights, of course, when the automatic writing part of my text constructor slipped "the text invites such readings" past the more recently installed postmodernist censor. One of those great shots _through the water barrel_, so that the water arcs out onto the white hat (must be a white hat; if he's _Bad_ Bill he has to wear the black one) where it lies, in the sun, with the dark line of shadow, diagonally across the screen, separating it from the fallen head. But we rise on the stepping stones of our dying selves to higher things, Bill, and a useful thing about the slip is that it helps call attention to two crucial elements in the problem we're concerned with here, of the appearance of stereotypical images and statements in Shakespearean texts (stereotyping not just Jews but Moors and Welshfolk and Wymmyn): (1) the huge weight of habit that governs (sure is hard for somebody with my training and experience to write without personifying the components of the process) everything that even the most assiduously self-aware of us does and says and composes; (2) the intellectual and moral inconsistency that seems to me to be a normal feature of human beings (e.g. the President of Rutgers University), such that a thoughtful writer of popular plays, consciously interrogating the validity of stereotypes which other writers and his own experience have called into question, might still have a corner in the cistern of his heart where lurks a need for a Jewish Other, a Moorish Other, a Welsh Other, a regiment of Female Others in difference from which exultantly or hesitantly to define himself. Penitentially, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 19:58:27 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0114 Political Commentary Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0114. Thursday, 16 February 1995. From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 08:21:23 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Political Commentary Thomas Sowell, darling economist of the right, notes in Forbes Magazine (Feb 13, 1995, p.109): "Some of the worst drivel in academia comes from professors in fields such as English, where there are no breakthroughs to make, but who still have to publish or perish. What is a scholar specializing in Milton or Shakespeare supposed to say that has not been said before?" Sowell may be reached at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, though I doubt that he really wants to know anything about Shakespeare studies. E. Pearlman (ehpearlman@castle.cudenver.edu) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 20:01:03 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0115 Announcement: Renaissance Electronic Texts (RET) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0115. Thursday, 16 February 1995. From: Ian Lancashire Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 11:56:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: RET announcement The first volume of Renaissance Electronic Texts (RET), a series of online old-spelling, SGML-encoded editions of Renaissance books and manuscripts (with introduction), transcriptions of basic texts, and supplementary studies, is now available as a free resource from World Wide Web URL http://library.utoronto.ca/www/utel/ret/ret.html RET 1 is "The Elizabethan Homilies 1623," ed. Ian Lancashire, Vers. 1 (University of Toronto, 1994). This includes SGML-encoded texts for two volumes of state-authorized sermons, twelve originally published in 1547 and an additional twenty-one published in 1563-71. The reading of these sermons was commanded in English parish churches throughout the reigns of Edward VI and then Elizabeth I. The two volumes had a pervasive influence on the intellectual climate of the entire English Renaissance period. Besides the text of the 1623 folio, the RET edition includes an introduction (a brief history, authorship questions, editorial procedures, and bibliography) and an appendix of encoding guidelines. For further inquiries, contact the General Editor, Ian Lancashire, Department of English, New College, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. M5S 1A1, CANADA. E-mail: ian@epas.utoronto.ca ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 09:13:17 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0116 World Shakespeare Bibliography Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0116. Saturday, 18 February 1995. From: Jim Kelly Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1995 12:00:23 -0500 Subject: World Shakespeare Bibliography [James Harner made this announcement on SHAKSPER a while back, but it bears repeating. This message is a cross-posted from SHARP-L. --HMC] I am forwarding a note received from Jim Harner which may be of interest to some members of the above-named lists. If you have any questions, please contact either me or Jim (his addresses are below). An Appeal to All Shakespeareans: The World Shakespeare Bibliography, sponsored by Texas A&M University and the Folger Shakespeare Library, is preparing The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM 1900-Present, a comprehensive annotated bibliography of studies, editions, translations, adaptations, and productions of Shakespeare from throughout the world. The first disk, which will cover 1990-93, is scheduled for release by Cambridge University Press in 1995. Updated disks, with both current and retrospective coverage, will be issued annually. Although the Bibliography staff and International Committee of Correspondents regularly scan several hundred journals and newspapers, we can't hope to identify everything published about Shakespeare or learn the details of every production. Consequently, to increase the thoroughness of coverage and to facilitate the preparation of the annual updates, I am asking for the assistance of Shakespeareans worldwide. Please Submit a complete list of your publications, scholarly and popular (including book and production reviews), related to Shakespeare. A photocopy of a portion of your curriculum vitae would serve. Send an offprint or photocopy of future essays and reviews as soon as these are published. (Mailing labels can be supplied.) Send along clippings from local newspapers of reviews of Shakespeare productions (and other items on Shakespeare). Volunteer to annotate an occasional publication in languages other than French, German, Spanish, Russian, or Italian. Please send materials or offers of assistance to: James L. Harner, Editor Dept. of English Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-4227 409-845-3400 409-862-2292 (fax) jlh5651@venus.tamu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 09:27:59 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0117 Re: *WT*; Kiss Me; Songs; Commentary Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0117. Saturday, 18 February 1995. (1) From: Julie Dubiner Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 22:54:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Winter's Tale (2) From: Patricia Gallagher Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 23:50:11 -0600 (CST) Subj: Kiss Me Petruchio (3) From: Stephen Buhler Date: Friday, 17 Feb 1995 10:13:26 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: Shakespeare and Song (4) From: David Reinheimer Date: Friday, 17 Feb 1995 08:44:59 -0800 (PST) Subj: Political Commentary (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Dubiner Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 22:54:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Winter's Tale Ingmar Berman's Winter's Tale with Bibi Anderson (and The Royal Dramatic Theater of Sweden) will be at BAM May 31 - June 3. Order tix - (718) 636-4100, or through ticketmaster, or by fax to BAM ticket services (718) 857-2021. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia Gallagher Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 23:50:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: Kiss Me Petruchio The video of "Kiss Me, Petruchio" is listed in the latest catalog from THE WRITING COMPANY. Their number is 800-421-4246, and they are open Mon-Fri 8:30am - 5pm Pacific time. The video is $79.00 and is item number FLM221V-K5. Hope this helps. Patricia Gallagher (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Buhler Date: Friday, 17 Feb 1995 10:13:26 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Shakespeare and Song Michael Martin asked about versions of Shakespeare's songs and related music. I'm looking forward to other responses, but have a few suggestions already. The venerable Caedmon collection, SONGS FROM THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE, has some very worthwhile settings and performances. I have been unable, though, to get hold of a copy of the booklet that accompanied the recordings when first released--that has severely limited their usefulness for me. As for Mendelssohn, Seiji Ozawa and the Boston Symphony have just released an ambitious version of the Incidental Music for A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM on Deutsche Grammophone, complete with excerpts from the play read by Dame Judi Dench (the Titania, of course, of the Peter Hall film version). A suite (devised by Christopher Palmer) from the William Walton score for Olivier's HENRY V similarly integrates music and text. That Chandos recording features Christopher Plummer reading the appropriate excerpts. There are some wonderful recordings of 16th and 17th Century music out now. I enjoy (and frequently use) releases from Fretwork--especially their Byrd and Dowland recordings--and The King's Noyse. And I still admire the Peter Pears and Julian Bream collaboration entitled LUTE SONGS, which came out on the London label back in the 60s (I think) and has been periodically reissued: the samplings from Campion and Rosseter are delightful. As Lorenzo says (however problematically): Mark the music. Stephen M. Buhler Department of English University of Nebraska-Lincoln smb@unlinfo.unl.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Reinheimer Date: Friday, 17 Feb 1995 08:44:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Political Commentary I have to say that, after reading of this rather inane comment from Thomas Sowell, I am beginning to have serious doubts about the Hoover Institute. About a couple of years ago, the school paper here at UCDavis printed a guest article from another member of the Institute that completely vilified the TA as a waste of money and an inveterate detriment to the undergraduate education. What is the purpose of this institute, and why do they hire people who seem to know little about the humanities in the academy yet still want to vent their spleen? Have a good day! Dave Reinheimer UCDavis ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 09:38:18 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0118 Re: Shakespeare Musicals Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0118. Saturday, 18 February 1995. (1) From: Dave Kathman Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 95 21:46:29 CST Subj: Shakespeare musicals (2) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 17:41:51 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0102 Re: Musicals (3) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Friday, 17 Feb 1995 12:39:58 -0600 (CST) Subj: musical of Two Gents (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Kathman Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 95 21:46:29 CST Subject: Shakespeare musicals I don't know if it's the same one Sean Lawrence is referring to, but here in Chicago, *Hamlet! The Musical* has been playing weekly for at least the last few months at the Improv Olympic theater at 1218 W. Belmont, and has received rave reviews. I haven't managed to see it yet (my lack of both time and a car being the main reasons), but I will quote in full the capsule review that has been appearing in the Chicago Reader: Hamlet! "Tragedy tomorrow, comedy tonight: that's the spirit behind Great Exploitations' hilarious musical spoof of Shakespeare's most famous play. Written in a perky 60s style that recalls Richard and Robert Sherman's Disney film scores, Jeff Richmond and Michael Thomas's briskly paced one-act doesn't coast on kitschy smugness or gross-out grotesqueness like so many spoofs; instead it offers a clever series of surprising variations on the original story, building to the upbeat ending implied by the title's exclamation point and proving that there is nothing like a Dane. It's all grandly silly, but it works because the company approaches the material without lazy condescension. The witty result should entertain Shakespeare admirers and musical-comedy aficionados as well as the late-night party-show crowd." Showtime is Saturdays at 11 PM, and their phone # is (312) 880-0199 for anyone who wants to check it out. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 17:41:51 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0102 Re: Musicals There's a cute adaptation of "Two Gentlemen of Verona" (very early 70's) that I think was John Guare. Don't quote me on that. I played Julia in a version for which new music was written back in 1985 at Williams College. I don't know what the original music sounds like. Our production went over really well. Shirley Kagan University of Hawaii. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Friday, 17 Feb 1995 12:39:58 -0600 (CST) Subject: musical of Two Gents Gavin Witt wondered about a recording of the musical version of TWO GENTS. It was a sensational show which involved several people who were hot at the time. It was called, simply, TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA. It won both the Tony and the New York Drama Critics Circle award for Best Musical in 1972. Adapted by John Guare and the director, Mel Shapiro. Music by Galt McDermot (composer of HAIR). Lyrics by John Guare. Ming Cho Lee did the set. Raul Julia, Clifton Davis, and Diana Davila were knockouts. A very good, two-disc album was released by ABC Records (# ?CSY 1001--do you suppose this was their first album?). Lots of pictures in this big three-fold album. The script, music for several of the best songs, and lots of pictures were published in a volume by Holt, Rinehart & Winston (a Holt Paperback). It was designed for outdoor touring and playing in the park but was so successful that they brought it to Broadway which is where I saw it. It's as good an adaptation of Shakespeare as I have seen. For Michael Martin: in your search for versions of Shakespeare-set-to-music, don't overlook the extraordinary album by the astonishing Cleo Laine. I think it's called SHAKESPEARE AND ALL THAT JAZZ. The orchestra and, as I recall, the melodies are by John Dankworth, her jazz-composer/band leader/alto-sax-playing then-husband. Most of the songs are settings of the sonnets but there is one called THE COMPLETE WORKS which makes a song of ALL of Shakespeare's titles. The style of the music is mostly mellow jazz. There are PLENTY of "period" recordings. I'll send along some titles soon. The more music, the better! Roger ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 09:45:31 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0119 Re: Keanu Reeves (Hamlet in Winnipeg) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0119. Saturday, 18 February 1995. (1) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 17:54:32 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0110 Re: Reeves (2) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Friday, 17 Feb 1995 19:40:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Keanu Reeves's Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1995 17:54:32 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0110 Re: Reeves Mr. Mills; I don't know if this will make you feel any better but I'm a generation Xer all the way - I even hate that term to describe the generation - that's authenticity for you! So, not to speak for my generation but at least for myself - Keanu leaves A LOT to be desired. His range as an actor is tremendously limited and I wish people would stop casting him in roles he can't play. It makes everone look bad. I hate to be cynical, but doesn't it make a certain amount of sense that Winnipeg's local press would praise Keanu's performance? Think of what this stint is doing for the tourist industry alone!. Jadedly yours, Shirley Kagan University of Hawaii (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Friday, 17 Feb 1995 19:40:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Keanu Reeves's Hamlet Sorry if this response is a little belated. I enjoyed the London Times review of Keanu Reeves's Hamlet; in fact, of the reviews that I have read it was far and away the most satisfying, both for its description and sensitive commentary on the performance and the production, and for its comments on what makes Reeves special as an actor. I experienced this first-hand in 1985 when I saw him in a one-act play at the Rivoli in Toronto. His presence on the fairly primitive stage of that small club had something of the effect on me that I later imagined must have been the effect on the audience of Marlon Brando's performance in the stage production of *A Streetcar Named Desire,* to judge by the accounts that have been written of it. Keanu Reeves, on the probably by most who were there now forgotten occasion that I mention, was to me electrifying: sexy, sensitive, assured, intelligent, controlled, and unstoppably watchable. I'll be the first to say I haven't seen anything in his movies to compare with that-- *My Own Private Idaho* comes closest, of the films with him that I've seen, but his performance even in it is not of the same order as the one I saw live. While I didn't find much to praise, and like others, did find much to criticize in his performance in *Much Ado*--I did not think him embarrassing. To me, the example of Keanu Reeves should teach some humility to actors and critics, when I reflect that in even the most mediocre Hollywood actor and star, which Reeves may now be, there is more gift, unique spark, and potential than in *most* of the skilled performers I see in my nation's (Canada's) theatres. The London Times review is, of the handful I've read posted on this group or in magazines, the one I trust, and is all I have to go by since I won't see the production (perhaps it's already closed). Most of the others say something like, "He didn't disgrace himself," but do not demonstrate through their description how it is that he failed to do more. That smacks to me of critical dishonesty and cowardice. Some recent posters actually *want* Reeves to be bad. Are there no negative reviews? Post them! (One recently said). I'm glad Reeves is playing Hamlet, and glad that in the London Times, at least, he has found a serious reviewer. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 09:48:29 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0120. Saturday, 18 February 1995. From: Frank Savukinas Date: Friday, 17 Feb 1995 13:05:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Romeo and Juliet An interensting question came up in one of my Shakespeare classes that I thought would be an good one to pose. If Rosaline had returned Romeo's love and Romeo had gone to the Capulet feast, would he still have fallen in love for Juliet? Of course, I thought he would have, but I have gotten some stiff opposition. What do you think? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 08:53:58 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0121 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0121. Monday, 20 February 1995. (1) From: Nina Walker Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 12:11:21 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* (2) From: Elizabeth Nancy Olesh Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 13:41:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* (3) From: Ron Moyer Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 12:49:10 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* (4) From: Gail Lerner Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 15:45:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* (5) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 14:49:00 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* (6) From: David Collins Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 17:01:36 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* (7) From: Ronald Dwelle Date: Sunday, 19 Feb 1995 22:11:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nina Walker Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 12:11:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* To Frank Savukinas: I'm delighted to see this question turn up on SHAKSPER. If it has been discussed before, I've missed it. I only wish I had your students. Mine never ask it, although I hint at it in the hopes that they will raise the issue before I have to. Unfortunately, I have to ask and invariably the nature of the discussion and views of the play change dramatically. Suddenly Romeo's ardor is not confined to Juliet and we are reminded that they are teenagers (with, perhaps, fairy dust sprinkled on their eyes.) As great as their love is for each other, their love of LOVE may be even greater. Once the question has been asked, students take over with little need of my prodding and they are very likely to end up in a thoughtful discussion about teenage suicide-- of the kind involving dying for love. While this may seem to detract from the more traditionally romantic views, it often comes full circle to the idea that the innocence inherent in young love combined with youth's propensity to give themselves over completely to their senses, make this 'brand ' of love so compelling as to be worth everything else that has been said about it. In short, I consider Roseline a crucial key to opening up the play. My compliments to your class. Nina Walker nwalker@lynx.dac.neu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Nancy Olesh Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 13:41:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* Yes, I definitely think Romeo would have fallen in love with Juliet regardless of any involvement with Rosalinde. As has been said countless times, Romeo and Juliet fall in love NOT out of choice, but because they are "star-crossed lovers" (gag me). They fall in love to satisfy the requiremnets of the play. I think this question points to some larger issues in the way we read Shakespeare today -- people tend to get caught in this Romantic "cult of personality" that sets discussion of character above all else. But we have to ask ourselves how people in the Renaissance would have understood these plays. What signs were they looking for? My understanding is that "character" was subsumed under other issues, such as form, rhetoric, and ritual. Think of Richard III comparing himself to "the formal vice, Iniquity." RIII is looking back to the earlier dramatic tradition while looking forward to a new kind of play. Or, you can examine the difference between Romeo's language in the early parts of R+J (up until the secret wedding) and the later acts -- I see this as a comedy that turns into a tragedy, in part because the wedding was private and thus not sanctioned by society according to the standard Renaissance wedding script. Okay, okay. I know this post is too long, and I know that the people in this group have many exciting ways of looking at Shakespeare. Just thought I'd offer a view that I haven't seen around this group in a while! (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Moyer Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 12:49:10 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* The speculation regarding Romeo and Rosiline can be, as could be the case with other change-one-circumstance speculations, an enjoyable exercise, but it avoids the notion that such speculation simply refers to the reader and has no reference to the playscript. The words and implied actions of the characters are finite (well, kinda finite--considering the vagaries of textual transmission), and the play doesn't deal with Ros and Romeo getting together but does deal with Juliet and Romeo's passion. Extra- textual speculation can be fun--witness the long list of Shakespearean spinoffs--and can stimulate many sociological/philosophical discussions, but, since it cannot be supported or verified from the text, tends to be a reflection of the respondents' personalities/philosophies/aspirations/ disappointments. --Ron Moyer (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gail Lerner Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 15:45:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* In response to the question about whether Romeo would have fallen in love with Juliet if Rosaline had returned his love and he had gone to to the feast already in her thrall, I can think only of how my grandmother would have responded, "You know, sweetheart, if I had wheels, I would be a streetcar." I can't say for sure if he would have noticed Juliet if his dance card had already been filled, but I am pretty sure that Rosaline wouldn't have been able to co-improvise a love sonnet with Juliet's aplomb. She's beautiful,she's funny, she uses big words, and her name scans better. I don't think Rosaline ever had a chance. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 14:49:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* Greetings all, Regarding Fred Savukinas question about Rosaline returning Romeo's love, my first thought was that it was a question about as answerable as "how many children does Lady Macbeth have?" My second response, though, was that we already know the answer to the question: of course he would have fallen in love with Juliet, and abandoned Rosaline. How do I know? Because if you change the names a little, Romeo becomes Demetrius, Rosaline becomes Helena, and Juliet becomes Hermia. Whaddya think, Fred? Brad Berens (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Collins Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 17:01:36 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* Would Romeo have fallen in love with Juliet had Rosaline returned his love? That depends. Would the family feud still have provided an impediment? Could he have loved Rosaline openly? If so, I'd suspect he would have fallen in love with Juliet whatever Rosaline's feelings. Was it Denis de Rougemont in _Love in the Western World_ who argued that "Happy love has no history?" That's the real key to this question. Romeo need an impediment to his love; it thrives on opposition. It's roots are in the love of suffering and death. Romeo is after all the consumate Petrarchan lover. Witness his "O brawling love! O loving hate!" collection of Petrarchan contraries moments after his first appearance in the play. Like the literary master who has taught him all he yet knows about "love," and who in fact doesn't really get going with his sonnet sequence until Laura is safely dead and out of reach, Romeo needs impossibility, some sort of impediment in order to fuel his love. Were Rosaline to return his love Romeo would not have what he really needs as an adolescent lover and would soon be looking for another object for his affections. Let me quickly add that I don't think Romeo stays an adolescent lover all that long. There's a change in him when he sees Juliet, a change marked by his language. All of a sudden he is a master of metaphor. Love for Rosaline is "a smoke made with the fume of sighs," but Juliet "doth teach the torches to burn bright" and "hangs upon the cheek of night/As a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear." Nobody could love Rosaline long--if only because nobody could sustain a literary pose that long. (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronald Dwelle Date: Sunday, 19 Feb 1995 22:11:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0120 Q: *Romeo and Juliet* It's always fun speculating about what might have been. What if Rosaline had slept with Romeo? Would he have dumped her for Juliet, revealing that he is just one more unstable teenager? Or would Romeo have remained faithful to Rosaline? I think he would have remained faithful to Rosaline -- at least for a little while. But then I doubt if his marriage to Juliet would have lasted. What keeps him everlastingly faithful is his death. Yours, Cynical Bill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 09:03:11 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0122 Re: Shakespeare Songs and Musicals Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0122. Monday, 20 February 1995. (1) From: William Schmidt Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 10:21:21 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare's Songs (2) From: Louis Scheeder Date: Sunday, 19 Feb 1995 18:42:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0118 Re: Shakespeare Musicals (3) From: Larry Soller Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 18:22:00 -0700 (MST) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0118 Re: Shakespeare Musicals (4) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 22:20:35 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Rock *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Schmidt Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 10:21:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare's Songs There are a number of recordings of settings of Shakespeare's songs, mostly by English composers in the 30's and 40's. Many of these were issued as LPs, and I'm uncertain about their availability on CD. I am particularly fond of Gerald Finzi's "Let Us Garlands Bring" (issued on Lyrita 93). Also, Finzi did some incidental music to LLL, which is on CD (Nimbus 5101). There is also a collection, "Songs to Shakespeare" (Hyperion A66026) with music by Eric Coates, Ivor Gurney and Peter Warlock, among others. Finally, the Folger Theatre Group issued an LP several years ago, "The Music of Shakespeare" with settings by William Penn. Best, Bill Schmidt (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Scheeder Date: Sunday, 19 Feb 1995 18:42:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0118 Re: Shakespeare Musicals Re: Michae' Martin's quest for music from Shakespeare - have a listen to *Such Sweet Thunder*, Duke Ellington and his Orchestra, composed and orechestrated by Eillington and Billy Strayhorn. It dates from 1957 and is dedicated to the Shakespeare Festival, Stratofrd, Ontario. Ellington working from Hamlet, Othellor, Midsummer, etc. is pretty terrific. Columbia CD - COL 469140 2 Louis Scheeder (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Soller Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 18:22:00 -0700 (MST) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0118 Re: Shakespeare Musicals You might include Lorena McKennitt's(sp) versions with her remarkable voice. lss soller@pc.maricopa.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 22:20:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Rock *Hamlet* Does anyone remember a rock *Hamlet* around 1970? It played on Broadway and was not a success. I liked it because it was a serious attempt to interpret the play, and some of its decisions were interesting. I don't remember much about it though. Yours, Bernice ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 09:10:12 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0123 Re: Shylock Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0123. Tuesday, 21 February 1995. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 18 Feb 1995 19:59:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shylock To Dave Evett, I ask, "Say what?" I picked up your reference to Conrad's "Secret Sharer" (water and hat), and the reference to OTHELLO: "a cestern for foul toads" (4.2.61 Riverside with perhaps a glace at A&C 2.5.95). Ah, but I attribute references to you, when I must say that I read these references out of your prose. I notice the water imagery. I wonder why it's there. I think of Keats. I know there's something out there, but I'll be damned if I know what it means! Nevertheless, I feel a deep compulsion to create a meaning for what's out there. Otherwise, I'd be living in a meaningless world. Yours, Sweet William ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 09:19:50 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0124 Re: Shakespeare Songs and Musicals Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0124. Tuesday, 21 February 1995. (1) From: Sarah Cave Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 09:16:51 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0122 Re: Shakespeare Songs and Musicals (2) From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 09:35:57 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Rock Hamlet (3) From: Greg Grainger Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 11:06:58 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0122 Re: Shakespeare Songs and Musicals (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Cave Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 09:16:51 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0122 Re: Shakespeare Songs and Musicals The Atlanta area is fortunate enough to house composer Bo Ketchin, whose Songs of Shakespeare are available on CD. The disc contains music from A Midsummer Night's Dream, As You Like It, The Tempest, Twelfth Night, and lovely instrumental pieces for Romeo and Juliet. If anyone is interested, please let me know and I will be happy to put you in contact with the composer.. Sincerely, Sarah Cave (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 09:35:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Rock Hamlet Bernice, This may not be the one you have in mind, but the rock HAMLET that I remember from that decade was the Papp version, called "William Shakespeare's 'Naked' HAMLET." It was included in the New York Shakespeare Festival, 1968. The production, with rock music by Galt MacDermont, opened in the Anspacher Theater in later December 1967 and continued into early 1968, to a barage of scathing reviews. This *Hamlet* originated in New Haven in connection with his teaching of a Play Production course as an Adjunct Professor at the Yale Drama School The Production Handbook was published by Macmillan in 1969. Martin Sheen played Hamlet and Ralph Wait played Claudius (*Apocalypse Now* meets *The Waltons*?). Cleavon Little replaced Sheen in the title role when the play opened March 4 at the Anspacher for school audiences. If there was another one (aside from its re-incarnation , I'd like to know more about it. I'd have sent this reply more personally, Bernice, but I thought others might be interested in the Papp version even if it isn't the one you have in mind. Your friend, Nick Clary (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg Grainger Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 11:06:58 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0122 Re: Shakespeare Songs and Musicals If it's [Rock *Hamlet*] the same one I'm thinking of, it was called 'Elsinore 1492' or some-such. It was written by Cliff Jones, who also wrote the (execrable) musical version of the life of Marilyn Monroe called 'Hey, Marilyn'. There was another musical version of Hamlet called 'Rock-a-Bye Hamlet'. It sticks in my head that this was another Cliff Jones effort, possibly an altered or updated [sic] version of his earlier work. Greg Grainger grainger@epas.utoronto.ca ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 09:38:08 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0125 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0125. Tuesday, 21 February 1995. (1) From: Charles S. Ross Date: Monday, 20 Feb 95 09:20:15 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0121 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (2) From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 09:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Romeo and Juliet (3) From: Marcia Hepps Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 11:38:26 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0121 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (4) From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 11:38:18 -0500 Subj: Capulet's fingers (5) From: Jean Peterson Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 11:54:25 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0121 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (6) From: Robert S. Cohen Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 09:27:49 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0121 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (7) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 12:34 ET Subj: Romeo and Rosaline (8) From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Monday, 20 Feb 95 12:51:40 EST Subj: Capulet's itchy fingers (9) From: Jerry Bangham Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 21:41:28 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0121 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (10) From: Frank Savukinas Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 14:49:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: R and J Question (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles S. Ross Date: Monday, 20 Feb 95 09:20:15 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0121 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Capulet's fingers itch because he anticipates striking Juliet. This form of bodily prophecy occurs in Macbeth when one witch predicts the arrival of Macbeth by the prickin of her thumbs. Similar phenomena occur today: fighters thumb their noses because itchy noses were thought to indicate a fight; if you scratch your ear in Ireland today, people will ask you if you think someone is talking about you. I think there's a note on Capulet's itch in the Variorum. Charles Ross Purdue Univ. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 09:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Romeo and Juliet "I can't say for sure if he would have noticed Juliet if his dance card had already been filled, but I am pretty sure that Rosaline wouldn't have been able to co-improvise a love sonnet with Juliet's aplomb. She's beautiful,she's funny, she uses big words, and her name scans better. I don't think Rosaline ever had a chance." Gail Lerner "My second response, though, was that we already know the answer to the question: of course he would have fallen in love with Juliet, and abandoned Rosaline. How do I know? Because if you change the names a little, Romeo becomes Demetrius, Rosaline becomes Helena, and Juliet becomes Hermia." Bradley S. Berens What if you change Romeo's name to Orlando, Rosalind's name to Ganymede, and then Ganymede's name back to Rosalind? I don't know which name scans better, but this Ros is every bit as beautiful, as funny, as able to use big words as Juliet. And Orlando? Well, he's no poet but I kind of like what's become of him by the end of the play. Nick Clary (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcia Hepps Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 11:38:26 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0121 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* I'm directing the show now and here are my 2 cents worth. I think it is neither comedy nor tragedy but the most beautiful melodrama ever written. Remembering that Roz was herself a Capulet or else close enough to be invited to the Capulet party we could still have had the "brawling love" but then the play but if but but me no buts. I love the trolley car line and who knows. Mont and Cap each have one child --done deal. And by the way how many kids do the Scottish couple have (is it taboo to email the name while in production. Sorry for the ramble I am delirious with fever. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 11:38:18 -0500 Subject: Capulet's fingers According the the high school textbook from which I used *not* to teach R&J, Capulet's fingers itched because he wanted to slap the ungrateful little baggage. Dale Lyles artistic director Newnan Community Theatre Company (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 11:54:25 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0121 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* >When Capulet goes bananas over Juliet's refusal to go for the County Paris, he >makes the odd statement, "My fingers itch." What are we to make of that? Ha! Good question. I've always assumed that he means something like, "My fingers itch to slap the stubborn wench upside the the head"--or to otherwise inflict harm--and that's usually how I've seen it played. Are there alternative suggestions? Jean Peterson Bucknell University (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert S. Cohen Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 09:27:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0121 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* I played "my fingers itch!" as Capulet's warning Juliet of an impending spanking: i.e. "I itch to spank you for this!" But the line is dark and grisly, and reminds me of Rodney Dangerfield's characterization in *Natural Born Killers.* Robert Cohen (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 12:34 ET Subject: Romeo and Rosaline As Ron Moyer usefully reminds us, speculations about such might-have-beens are strictly extraterrextual. But they can be fun. Seems unlikely to me that R and J would have got together. If Rosaline has admitted his suit, he's going to be obliged to follow up at least for awhile. Even if he does discover some disabling difference between the love-image and the love-actual, there'll be a gap of days or weeks. In the meantime, Juliet has been betrothed to Paris; he is, after all, a perfectly presentable young man, and with no marriage to Romeo to interfere, and no ground on which to recruit Friar Lawrence and his knockout drops, no way to prevent that wedding from occurring--as keen as both Paris and Capulet are, within a couple of weeks at most. The possibility of a subsequent and adulterous relationship would remain; for whatever reasons, Sh. wasn't ready to explore that kind of thing for another 10 years or so. Practically, Dave Evett (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Monday, 20 Feb 95 12:51:40 EST Subject: Capulet's itchy fingers Ronald Dwelle asks "[W]hat are we to make of [Capulet's line "My fingers itch]?" I'm sure there are plausible academic, not to mention dermatological, glosses, but I can suggest a practical answer. Actors love any text that suggests strong physical expression, especially if it addresses the perennial problem of what to do with our hands. When I toured as Capulet with The National Shakespeare Company I recall lunging at Juliet's throat with that line, so that my wife and the Nurse had to restrain me. Other actors and academics will surely find more restrained interpretations. I confess I played the scene completely over the top and enjoyed every moment of it. (9)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 21:41:28 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0121 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* >When Capulet goes bananas over Juliet's refusal to go for the County Paris, he >makes the odd statement, "My fingers itch." What are we to make of that? I'd assume that he was indicating that he was anxious to give her a whipping. (10)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Savukinas Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 14:49:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: R and J Question In response to Ronald Dwelle's question concerning Capulet's quote in Act 3, Scene 5 of "Romeo and Juliet" where he says "My fingers itch," there is a simple answer to it. The interpretation I take from it is that Capulet's fingers were itching to hit Juliet. Many people might not imagine this kind of cruelty from him, but rememeber his terrible temper. In many productions of this play, the director has Capulet hit Juliet in some form during this scene. During Zeferelli's production, Capulet pushes Juliet off the bed. I think Shakespeare was brilliant in giving Capulet such a terrible temper. It adds to the danger that both Romeo and Juliet face in this relationship. Frank Savukinas fsavukin@ashland.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 09:42:38 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0126 Qs: *1H4*; *Rom* CD-ROM Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0126. Tuesday, 21 February 1995. (1) From: Gavin H Witt Date: Monday, 20 Feb 95 14:14:51 CST Subj: Henry IV (2) From: Stuart Lee Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 15:21:49 +0000 Subj: Attica's _Romeo & Juliet_ (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gavin H Witt Date: Monday, 20 Feb 95 14:14:51 CST Subject: Henry IV For an upcoming production, our theater will be developing an adaptation of _H4_ that will incorporate both Parts into one single evening, similar to the idea behind Welles' _Chimes at Midnight_. We will focus on the father-son triangle (Henry, Falstaff, Hal) with Hotspur as an added counterpoise. I am interested to know of any productions SHAKSPEReans may be aware of that may have tried anything similar. Obviously, the recent _My Own Private Idaho_ falls into this group, and I know A.R.T. and the Shakespeare Theatre recently did both parts toether, but merely as the two Parts of Henry IV, rather than as an adaptation. Also, does anybody know of any critical discussions, directing journals, journal articles, etc. of particular relevance to this focus? Has anybody seen a production that took a similar approach, or tried to adapt the plays in any way--and what were your reactions? Sorry to make this such a general request, but I'm pretty much soliciting any information anyone might have. Thanks in advance, Gavin Witt Court Theatre, Chicago ghwitt@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Lee Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1995 15:21:49 +0000 Subject: Attica's _Romeo & Juliet_ I was interested in hearing from anyone who has had a chance to take a look at the new CD-ROM by Attica of _Romeo & Juliet_. We have a copy here at Oxford and it looks quite good but is anyone else using it at the moment? Stuart Lee ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 09:44:57 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0127 CFP: CATH '95 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0127. Tuesday, 21 February 1995. From: Stuart Lee Date: Tuesday, 21 Feb 1995 08:22:59 +0000 Subject: CFP: Computers and Teaching the Humanities (CATH 95) CATH '95 (Computers and Teaching in the Humanities) ADVANCE NOTICE and CALL for PAPERS The CATH '95 conference will be held at Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, from 5th-7th September 1995. The conference is organized by the Office for Humanities Communication and the Computers in Teaching Initiative Centre for Textual Studies (both at the University of Oxford), and the English Department, Royal Holloway. The theme of this year's conference is Computers and the Changing Curriculum. We would like to encourage proposals which include practical experiences of the use of computers in teaching, and approaches taken by the teacher in integrating computing into courses, describing problems as well as successes, plus examples of student feedback. Experiences are sought from a wide mix of humanities disciplines. Contemporary topics and new developments are always welcome, for example, use of resources on the Internet. Contributions are invited for individual formal papers (30 minutes inclusive of 10 minute question time), panel sessions comprising three related papers, or workshops. Workshops should be about 2-hours in length and should involve hands-on tuition as well as time for discussion; the level of experience aimed at should be indicated (and may be from novice to more experienced). For individual papers, please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words (500 for each paper in a panel session) no later than March 30th. This should include a summary paragraph of the main points covered in your paper which will be used in the programme to describe the session. For workshops, a descriptive paragraph of aims and means will suffice. The proposals will be refereed by a programme committee and all authors will be notified of the outcome by April 30th. We are also interested in proposals for other forms of presentation such as poster sessions, and demonstrations at the software fair. Further information including a draft programme and costs is expected to be available in May. All participants at the CATH '94 conference will be sent these details. Please submit your proposal by March 30th (also any enquiries) to: Christine Mullings Office for Humanities Communication Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 6NN Tel: 01865-273221 Fax: 01865-273221 email: cath95@oucs.ac.uk Format for submission: paper copy plus copy on 3.5" disk (standard wordprocessor files or plain ASCII files will be accepted). Electronic submissions are welcome (plain ASCII files please). Details should include title of contribution, your full name and contact address, and telephone, fax, and email address. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 09:12:16 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 129. Wednesday, 22 February 1995. (1) From: Dan Patterson Date: Tuesday, 21 Feb 1995 10:53:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: Romeo & Juliet (2) From: An Sonjae Date: Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 08:37:01 +0900 (KST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0125 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (3) From: Frank Savukinas Date: Tuesday, 21 Feb 1995 20:22:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Romeo and Juliet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Patterson Date: Tuesday, 21 Feb 1995 10:53:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Romeo & Juliet I'm sure that someone either has or will point out that Rosline is also related to Capulet. The list of people invited to the party includes: "My fair niece Rosaline..."as read for Peter by Romeo in Act I, Sc. II, line 72. This would have obviously meant that Rosaline was the daughter of either Capulets brother or sister. In other words, she plays for the Capulet team. If we speculate that Romeo might have linked up with Rosaline, the "ancient grudge" would have still been an impediment. It is interesting to note that, although everyone in the play makes a big deal over the fact that Juliet is a Capulet, no one reacts that way to Romeo's infatuation with Rosaline. Why not? Is she just too far removed in the bloodline to matter? Or is it that no one really takes Romeo's infatuation seriously? Conjecturing is such fun stuff. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: An Sonjae Date: Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 08:37:01 +0900 (KST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0125 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* It seems that idioms about itchy fingers do not exist on the western shores of the Atlantic? In the isles to the east, there are still a variety of sayings of the kind "I'm itching to get at him/her" as well as "I'm itching to have a go at that crossword puzzle/game/whatever" and at least in my childhood Cornwall I'm sure I quite often heard people say their fingers were itching to do whatever it was they were eager to do. On the Rosaline topic, by a extension, I have always wondered just what it was Juliet saw in Romeo, assuming he remains masked the whole time as the interlude with Tybalt suggests. Can you really fall madly in love with a voice? An Sonjae Sogang University, Seoul anthony@ccs.sogang.ac.kr (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Savukinas Date: Tuesday, 21 Feb 1995 20:22:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Romeo and Juliet Can somebody please give me a reason why Romeo and Juliet's marriage would not have lasted? After all it was true love. I especially want an answer from you, Cynical Bill!!!! Frank Savukinas fsavukin@ashland.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 09:14:46 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0130 Q: Software for Stage Manager Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 130. Wednesday, 22 February 1995. From: Joyce Crim Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 07:45:42 -0600 Subject: Computer Software for Stage Manager What computer software is being used to record blocking notes and other details of productions? What software have directors and stage managers found useful in both amateur and professional productions? Are people using general drawing programs, or are there programs developed specifically for the theatre? I'm especially interested in software for the Macintosh. Thank you. Joyce Crim ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 09:05:35 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0128 Re: Shakespeare Songs; *1H4* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 128. Wednesday, 22 February 1995. (1) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Tuesday, 21 Feb 95 10:48:42 -0500 Subj: Shakespearean Songs etc (2) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 21 Feb 95 12:52:57 -0500 Subj: SHK 6.0126 Qs: *1H4* (3) From: Louis Scheeder Date: Tuesday, 21 Feb 1995 14:55:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0126 Qs: *1H4* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Tuesday, 21 Feb 95 10:48:42 -0500 Subject: Shakespearean Songs etc Shakespearean songs and music: "Sweet Airs That Give Delight" 40 seasons of music from the Stratford (Canada) Festival available from the Festival store or from ATTIC Records Ltd., 102 Atlantic Ave., Toronto, Ont. M6K 1X9. (ATTIC ACD 1378). Son't kon the cost since it was a very welcome Xmas present. Most of it from 1977 & onwards - mostly the comedies (with music from Cherry Orchard and Satyricon as addenda) "As I went to Walsingham" The Muscicians of Swanne Alley HMC 905192 Varied Elizabethan music, vocal & instrumental. "In the Steets & Theatres of London: Elizabethan ballads & theatre music --- slso Swanne Alley Virgin Label VL 790789-2 This works well in class. Yours Sabbatically, Mary Jane PS Shakesperean musicals Calling other Canadians 1969? -70/ -71? Cronenberg 15-? There were two versions of a "serious" rock opera treatment of Hamlet, one for the theatre and one performed on CBC radio - music by Cliff ....? Fragments, but maybe others will remember more. I did hear it, but did not, as you can see, find it memorable. (typos due to Jack, MJ's husband) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 21 Feb 95 12:52:57 -0500 Subject: SHK 6.0126 Qs: *1H4* For Gavin Witt and interested others: The Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis did the Richard-Henry IV-Henry V sequence in 1990, and combined the two parts of Henry IV into one. The focus was (to my mind, at least) on the Hal-Henry-Falstaff triangle. I have an extra copy of the program and I also have the study guide that the Guthrie put together for educators from which I could make material available. The guide includes reprints of some significant essays, as well as material prepared for the guide; it's 163 pages long, and the Guthrie might well still have copies. If you want to contact them directly, write: The Guthrie Theater, Vineland Place, Minneapolis MN 55403 or call (612) 347-1100. I've also done some work in two different classes using *My Own Private Idaho*; students are very surprised and intrigued when they become aware of what's going on. (A significant number of those who had seen the film when it was first released but before they ever read the play were particularly illuminated. I love the fact that the closing credits includes "additional dialogue by William Shakespeare.") Chris Gordon (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Scheeder Date: Tuesday, 21 Feb 1995 14:55:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0126 Qs: *1H4* Re: conflacted HIV. I seem to remember reading an adaptation prepared for the Goodman Theatre sometime in the early/mid seventies. You might want to check out Theatre World from those years. Or give the Goodman a call. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 09:37:28 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0131 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0131. Friday, 24 February 1995. (1) From: Larry Hammer Date: Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 08:48:06 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: Romeo and Juliet (2) From: John Boni Date: Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 09:56:01 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (3) From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 11:19:28 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (4) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 14:11:06 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (5) From: Dan T. M. How Date: Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 17:19:20 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (6) From: William Godshalk Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 16:39:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: *Romeo and Juliet* (7) From: Charles Adler Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 21:02:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Hammer Date: Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 08:48:06 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Romeo and Juliet Frank Savukinas writes: >Can somebody please give me a reason why Romeo and Juliet's marriage would not >have lasted? After all it was true love. Well, one does has one's doubts about how lasting a relationship is when the teenage boy dumps a girl he is (or claims to be) in love with for another girl, whom he marries the next day after only two conversations, both under rather constrained circumstances. And the bride is fourteen. We have no idea just how compatable they would be in daily married life, expecially under the strain of their family feuds. And as the divorce rate in the United States demonstrates, love, even true love, is not enough to make a marriage. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 09:56:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* RE: Frank Savukinas' query as to why Romoe & Juliet's marriage wouldn't have lasted. When I asked that of a class in Shakespeare Tragedies lo these many years ago, a very bright female student answered by pointing to the intensity of their existence and suggested the difficulty of imagining them as an old, gray-haired couple. Something about tragedy in that response. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 11:19:28 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* I wonder. Shakespeare's take on true love in the rest of his plays roundly ridicules such romantic posing as goes on in R&J. It's always been my impression that he regarded that first passionate infatuation as something to be gotten over as soon as possible. Besides, true love doesn't mean dying for your love; it means staying alive with your love. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 14:11:06 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Re: Romeo and Juliet marriage: Because True Love doesn't last (though as William Goldman points out, it's better than coughdrops.) And I suspect W. Godshalk is not the only Cynical Bill to walk the earth. See especially the Sonnets and my earlier suggestion that the Mortimers are madly in love through lack of linguistic comprehension. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan T. M. How Date: Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 17:19:20 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Can Romeo be truly in love with Juliet? I would like to think so, but looking at Romeo's recent affair with Rosaline, it would appear that Romeo falls often and falls hard. Conversely, Juliet is very much in love with Romeo, but is that love out of desperation to escape a forced marriage? The difference between Romeo and Juliet can be observed in the famous balcony scene, 2.2 Romeo says "Juliet" once, while Juliet says "Romeo" 12 times. I would like some feedback about that, actually. Romeo compares Juliet to a multitude of wonderful lyric imagery (I wonder how many of the same lines he used on whatzername?) While Juliet, after her initial embarrassment, takes control and plans their marriage. Romeo is simply happy to be wooing someone, ANYONE it seems. :) But in her rush to squeeze in the subject of marriage and the time to meet, she forgets to tell him WHERE, "I have forgot why I did call thee back.", which prompts the Nurse to look all over the place, and arriving late, setting up 2.5 Dan Patterson brings up the interesting dilemma of why wasn't there any fanfare of Romeo's involvement with Rosalind, if she indeed was part of the Capulet clan. This seems true by 1.2.84: "At this same ancient feast of Capulets'/ Sups the fair Rosaline whom thou so loves..." How's this: Rosaline rejected Romeo's love (this seems justified in the text), so there isn't any problem. She rejected him because he was a Montague. There doesn't seem much to justify whether or not there was even an actual relationship between Romeo and Rosaline. I would conclude that Romeo simply has a crush on her. 1.1.166: "In love?" asked by Benvolio would seem to indicate he had no idea that Romeo was in love, and since Benvolio and Romeo are fairly close, it would seem to indicate that Romeo's love of Rosaline is new. Romeo goes to the masked ball initially to find Rosaline, perhaps to try and convince her that it would be no big deal if they got together, and OOPS! guess who wanders into view? "...O brave new world That has such people in't!" -The Tempest, Act 5, Sc 1 (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Godshalk Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 16:39:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Romeo and Juliet Frank Savukinas asks why I think Romeo and Juliet would not have lasted as a couple. Let's admit right up front that this is extra-historical (in the Leah Scragg sense) speculation. I don't see this teen relationship based on any lasting qualities. Seen from the perspective of ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, this play seems to lack a "grown-up" dimension. Had Romeo and Juliet lived, what would they be talking about 20 or 30 years down the road? (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Adler Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 21:02:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* And, as a parting shot, let us not forget all those "ichy trigger fingers" attached to various villains. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 10:45:12 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0132 Qs: Non-Trad. Pieces; Portia/Bassanio; Education Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0132. Friday, 24 February 1995. (1) From: Christopher J. Madsen Date: Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 14:15:48 -0600 (CST) Subj: Shakespeare in the Park - Winona MN (2) From: Helen Robinson Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 95 14:40:32 EST Subj: Portia/Bassanio (3) From: Jo Clayton <9164931c@arts.gla.ac.uk> Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 11:46:58 GMT Subj: Shakespeare and Education (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher J. Madsen Date: Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 14:15:48 -0600 (CST) Subject: Shakespeare in the Park - Winona MN My name is Christopher J. Madsen and I am currently the Production Coordinator for our 5th Annual Shakespeare in the Park here in Winona MN. I have been involved in the festival, which lasts about two hours, for the past five years. Each year, we have performed short scenes from Shakespeare's plays as well as monolouges. (poor sentence structure, forgive me!) We also try to include a non-traditional piece revolving around the characters Shakespeare created. For example, we had a Shakespearean Squares one year and the next, a Shakespeare Family Feud between the Capulets and the Montigues. I would like to hear any suggestions for non-trad pieces that you know about or have performed before. Please reply as soon as possible. We begin planning March 8th and any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Suggestions can be sent back to this internet address, or to: Winona State University Dept. Theatre & Dance/Wenonah Players P.O. Box 5838 Winona, MN 55987-5838 Thank you for your help!! May the bard live on and may we continue to "Sakesperiment"!! Christopher J. Madsen Production Coordinator/Chair - Wenonah Players (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Robinson Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 95 14:40:32 EST Subject: Portia/Bassanio I am rather curious about the dialogue between Portia and Bassanio at the beginning of Act 111 Scene 2. Portia declares her feelings for Bassanio but he seems to be hedging. He knows he can lose this gamble by choosing the wrong casket and is he therefore reluctant to give rein to his feelings? Dose the line 'Promise me life' imply uncertainty? Could someone also clarify the lines 'O happy torment....deliverance'. Thanks Helen Robinson (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jo Clayton <9164931c@arts.gla.ac.uk> Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 11:46:58 GMT Subject: Shakespeare and Education Questions to internet Shakespeare Specialists and Educationalists. 1.a)Should Shakespeare be compulsory teaching on the English Literature syllabus of secondary schools for pupils of the ages: i)14-16? ii)16-18? b)What would be the reasons for this? 2.a)What should be the key elements and overall emphasis in the teaching of Shakespeare? b)Please justify your answer 3.a)Should attendance at live theatre productions of Shakespeare's plays be part of the curriculum? b)Why/ why not? 4) Is the cannon of texts taught at age 14-18, a sufficient introduction to Shakespeare's work?(n.b. In my research the following were taught in the majority of schools, with Romeo and Juliet the most popular) Romeo and Juliet The Merchant of Venice A Midsummer Night's Dream Macbeth) 5) In one questionnaire a 15 year old pupil responded that Romeo and Juliet was enjoyable because it taught her "the true meaning of love"; what, in your opinion does this reveal about the teaching of the play in her school? 6.a)Are you familiar with the BBC/Time Life series of Shakespeare videos? b)What is your opinion of this series? c)These videos are often shown in schools as many pupils' first experience of Shakespeare in performance, what do you think the effect of this is in their comprehension of Shakespeare's plays? Please add any other opinions you have on the teaching of Shakespeare; the question of making Shakespeare compulsory; and Shakespeare in performance and education. Many thanks Jo Clayton, Glasgow University, e-mail 9164931c@arts.gla.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 10:48:33 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0133 CFP: Ben Jonson Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0133. Friday, 24 February 1995. From: David Phillips Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 06:09:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Call for Papers ***************************************************************** ******************** CALL FOR PAPERS ************************ ***************************************************************** The Ben Jonson Journal will be sponsoring several sessions at the annual 1995 meeting of the Sixteenth Century Conference, to be held in San Francisco on October 26th through the 28th. We invite papers on any topic related to Ben Jonson. Deadline for submission is March 22nd. Please send your 10 to 12 page paper (no abstracts please) to David Phillips Department of English 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 455011 Las Vegas, NV 89154-5011 You may also submit you paper via E-mail to julius@nevada.edu or FAX (702) 895-4801. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 10:50:43 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0134 *AWW* at Hope College Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0134. Friday, 24 February 1995. From: John Cox Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 12:42:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: *All's Well* in production at Hope College Those in the west Michigan area should know that the Hope College theater department is presently staging *All's Well That Ends Well*, guest directed by Jeff Nyhof, a doctoral candidate at UC Berkeley. Nyhof's production is very capably performed entirely by Hope undergraduates. They understand their lines and deliver them convincingly and with feeling. The production is just two hours long, made possible by considerable cutting--Lavatch is absent, for example, and much of Parolles' role is reduced. The effect is spare and cinematic, an effect emphasized by a video screen mounted stage left, which occasionally displays black and white footage to complement the action on stage. The production emphasizes *All's Well* as a problem play, focusing on the emotional closeness of Bertram and Helena as quasi-siblings in their childhoods and seemingly tracing Bertram's rejection of her as his wife to this difficulty, rather than their class difference. Problems are unresolved at the end: Bertram does not ask forgiveness, and Helena strongly emphasizes "divorce" in her last remarks to him! Everything about the production works to enhance the problematic effect, with sensitive and complex performances especially by Sara Murphy as Helena and Clayton Gibson as Bertram. The production continues at 8 p.m. on Feb. 23, 24, and 25. John Cox ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 11:05:53 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0135 Re: Musical; Software; *1H4* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0135. Friday, 24 February 1995. (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 09:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Musical (2) From: Brian Jay Corrigan Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 95 13:59:52 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0130 Q: Software for Stage Manager (3) From: Thomas L. Berger Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 95 15:28:12 EST Subj: Re: *1H4* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 09:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Musical The Medicine Show, an off-off-B'way group, is presenting *Mr. Shakespeare and Mr. Porter* a new edition of "their preposterous mini-musicals" with book by Wm Shakespeare and music and lyrics by Cole Porter, featuring *Lr., Ant., Ham., AYL, MND.* It plays from Feb. 3 to March 4 weekends only. 552 W 53rd st, NYC. 1-212-262-4216. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Jay Corrigan Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 95 13:59:52 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0130 Q: Software for Stage Manager I know of no design program specifically for theatre. I use the DesignCad progam (2D and 3D). I am also fond of the AutoCad program. For the AutoCad there is an extremely helpful book--Rich Rose's *AutoCad Onstage: a Computer-Aided Design Handbook for Theater, Film, and Television* published by Betterway ISBN 1 55870 164 8, list $19.95--which takes the novice step-by-step into the specific theatre applications of the program. AutoCad is available for IBM compatibles, but I'm not certain about Mac. Hope this helps. Brian Jay Corrigan North Georgia College (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas L. Berger Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 95 15:28:12 EST Subject: Re: *1H4* Gavin Witt at the Court Theatre, Chicago, might be well advised to take a look at the Dering *HENRY IV*, a conflation made for private(?) performance in the 1620s/1630s, the edition of which, G.W. Williams and G.B. Evans, eds., (Folger, 19??) I do not have at hand. It would give him some idea of the way they would have conflated (and conflate they did, all the time, all over the place) in the early 17th c. Tom Berger St. Lawrence Univ. (TBER@MUSIC.STLAWU.EDU) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 13:56:31 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0136 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0136. Saturady, 25 February 1995. (1) From: Stuart Lee Date: Friday, 24 Feb 1995 15:08:58 +0000 Subj: Attica's Romeo & Juliet CD (2) From: Jon Enriquez Date: Friday, 24 Feb 1995 09:39:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0121 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (3) From: Gail Garloch Date: Friday, 24 Feb 1995 10:18:17 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0131 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (4) From: Dan How Date: Friday, 24 Feb 1995 13:19:14 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0131 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (5) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 24 Feb 95 16:44:53 EST Subj: Some Observations on Romeo and Juliet and Rosaline and Love: (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Lee Date: Friday, 24 Feb 1995 15:08:58 +0000 Subject: Attica's Romeo & Juliet CD I'm well aware that advertising is strictly forbidden but I hope people will forgive me the following. in repsonse to my query on use of Attica's new CD on _Romeo and Juliet_ many people wanted to know where it is available from. I don't know the exact price but it is around the 50 pounds mark in the UK, Stuart ********** Message from Attica: R& J is available from CAMBRIX Publishing in the states. 6269 Variel Avenue, Suite B Woodland Hills CA 91367 Tel: (818) 992-8484 Fax: (818) 992-8781 In the UK various outlets but you can contact ATTICA directly Tel: 01865 791346 Fax: 01865 794561 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jon Enriquez Date: Friday, 24 Feb 1995 09:39:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0121 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* One more remark about this topic. The extratextual speculation seems to me to be a great way to get students to think about a "hidden" question. What is the nature of R&J's love? I am personally of the opinion that the tragedy of R&J is that their immature attitude about love dooms them to death. Consequently, I would argue that yes, Romeo would have fallen in love with Rosaline given the chance -- or indeed with any carbon-based bipedal life form that returned his advances. Cool teaching tool. Jon Enriquez The Graduate School Georgetown University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gail Garloch Date: Friday, 24 Feb 1995 10:18:17 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0131 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Whether Romeo and Juliet's marriage would have lasted? Maxine Kumin's wonderful sonnet has always made me glad it didn't: Purgatory And suppose the darlings get to Mantua, suppose they cheat the crypt, what next? Begin with him unshaven. Though not, I grant you, a displeasing cockerel, there's egg yolk on his chin. His seedy robe's aflap, he's got the rheum. Poor dear, the cooking lard has smoked her eye. Another Montague is in the womb although the first babe's bottom's not yet dry. She scrolls a weekly letter to her Nurse who dares to send a smock through Balthasar, and once a month, his father posts a purse. News from Verona? Always news of war. Such sour years it takes to right this wrong! The fifth act runs unconscionably long. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan How Date: Friday, 24 Feb 1995 13:19:14 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0131 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING R&J...(don't get me started...) I think it's important to realize that although Romeo and Juliet are young by OUR standards, in the context of the period, it was common for people that age to get together and have babies. (Can someone say, full circle?) And however romantic we may view this period, death was prevalent, not love. It was not the most sanitary time, and people did not bathe much. There were many diseases that were floating around, and many children did not live to maturity. (Take Shakespeare's own children, for instance). The average life span was shorter than it is today, so naturally the ages of love, marriage and death were compressed. Lord and Lady Capulet, and Lord and Lady Montague were probably in their 30's, depending on how many offspring you argue they each had. The Lords would probably be a little older, because the marriages were probably arranged, but the point is that for the most part, people were younger than we would assume. Many people argue, "they were SO young..." Yes, they were young by OUR standards, but their relationship and its maturity were commonplace. Girls as young as Juliet were married off (and she just about was). The idea of love has changed considerably, and it is unreasonable to apply 20th century standards to Romeo and Juliet. "The marriage won't last..." argument doesn't really apply, because many marriage were arranged, with love pushed aside. Romeo and Juliet, although from different families, most likely would have stayed together even if their love failed, because their union would create a very POWERFUL alliance with GREAT influence over the politics of the city. Let's remember that love and marriage were two fairly separate things in this time and place; one emotional, the other legal and financial. The point is these "Star-crossed lovers", which means, "these lovers CURSED by fate" (I hate it when this quote is used in a positive sense), were simply that: Cursed. Arguing whether or not the marriage would have lasted is kind of pointless, as fate declared they must die. Arguing "what if's" are interesting, but pay attention to the variables involved. Do not argue that their marriage won't last based only on a 20th century opinion. You're better off rewritting it and making sense of it in a 20th century version. (See "westside story") What would have happened if they lived? What would happen if we prove the existence of God? Both are simply self-defeating. The play was written with the ending in mind, hence it was a tragedy. I enjoy SPECULATING on "what if's", but I dislike people that give them as if they were CONCLUSIONS, attempting to end the subject. stay tuned to this email address for more R & J...and there will be MORE :) -dan (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 24 Feb 95 16:44:53 EST Subject: Some Observations on Romeo and Juliet and Rosaline and Love: (1) Dale Lyles: Shakespeare "regarded that first passionate infatuation as something to be gotten over as soon as possible. . . ." Romeo's "first" infatuation was clearly with Rosaline. But in any case the evidence here is, as usual, ambiguous. The happy couples in the romantic comedies mostly love at first sight, from Luciana and Ant. S. in to Rosalind and Orlando in ; the only couple in any of those plays about whose long-term marital prospects the text expresses doubts are Touchstone and Audrey; they are among the more obviously mismatched, and the melancholy Jacques is not necessarily a reliable expert on the gentle passion. The tragedies and problem comedies, especially and , offer a more equivocal view, but, as in , adverse circumstances are at least as responsible as shallow-rooted affections for destroying these relationships. (2) Dan How: Romeo uses "lyric images," perhaps "the same lines used on whatzername" (I take that to mean Rosalind). Shakespeare clearly distinguishes the images Romeo applies to Rosalind from those he applies to Juliet. The former are mainly visual, and are almost all conventional Petrarchan epithets, in the familiar oxymoronic patterns, placing the speaker in an essentially passive position. The latter are tactile, novel, and active, consonant with a love that is vigorously active, not merely verbal, expressing itself in clasped hands and kisses, dangerously climbed walls, marriage and its consummation, and finally suicide. The text does not clearly state that Romeo has ever actually communicated his feelings to Rosaline. When I was a very weedy ninth grader, I mooned over Lillian Fugate, who was a junior, and sat in third-period study hall trying to write a sonnet about the way the morning sun caressed the curve of her cheek and chin, but although I still have a clear image of her, wearing a dark green sweater, white blouse, pleated plaid skirt, green knee socks, and brown loafers, with a gold sun on a rather heavy gold chain nestled in the sweet hollow between her breasts, I never gave her the poem, or said a word to her, and would not be surprised to learn that to this day she has no idea who I am. As I recall Zeffirelli suggests something like this in the long wordless first phase of his treatment of the Capulet banquet, by having somebody who is probably Rosaline look at Romeo without recognition. 3. Bill Godshalk: "what would they be talking about 20 or 30 years down the road?" Most married couples pass through the passionate infatuation stage, during which they mostly talk about how wonderful the other is. Then they find other things; the possibilities are pretty various, and may include intellectual interests, politics, etc., or just domestic matters. R and J are as potentially compatible as anybody--more than most, perhaps, because their talk is on the same general rhetorical plane, the speech of each equally rich and various in its lexical and syntactic and rhetorical resourcefulness (except that we don't hear Juliet matching quips with Mercutio); language so fertile suggests wide-ranging interests. Paris, by comparison, talks in cliches, and so does Lady Capulet, as though to supply a linguistic baseline. Romantically, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 14:08:57 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0137 Re: Casting; Protia/Bassanio; Steretyping Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0137. Saturady, 25 February 1995. (1) From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Saturday, 25 Feb 95 Subj: Fwd: Re: Non-traditional casting (2) From: Dan How Date: Friday, 24 Feb 1995 13:18:25 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0132 Qs: Portia/Bassanio (3) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 24 Feb 95 16:45:22 EST Subj: [Stereotypes] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Saturday, 25 Feb 95 01:07:42 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Re: Non-traditional casting I thought the readers of the SHAKSPER list might find this of interest. It's from the musicals list. Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. martyj@yankeegroup.com ************************************************** Excerpts from internet.musicals: 23-Feb-95 Re: Non-traditional casting by Brian M. Vollmer@faraday > My problem with an all-female 1776 is that, although > it's fiction, it's based on male characters familiar to all of > us, and it's set in a time when women largely would never be > placed in positions of authority like that. That's the realism > thing. Just as you wouldn't have a female Henry V. Unless your production wished to explore something other than the fact that the real Henry was a man. I think that trying to make a historical play "real" is quite a futile effort because then all you're doing is reproducing what can be found in history books, and that's pretty dry stuff. Even plays which are based on real people and events take artistic liberties in interpreting these events and accounts. So, in fact, nothing is truly "real". If I wished to explore how an underdog rises to the top and successfully achieves victory, then casting a female Henry might achieve an effect or interpretation quite unseen before. It would be very interesting. I know of a production of "The Merchant of Venice" which was set in Wall Street and Shylock was played by a woman. It really brought the play into an '80s context of the "glass celing" which many women in high-ranking positions face. Suddenly, Shylock's dilemma in a "Christian world" was equated to that of a woman trying to gain a place in a "man's world". What an exciting production! Diong Chae Lian (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan How Date: Friday, 24 Feb 1995 13:18:25 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0132 Qs: Portia/Bassanio This is in response to Helen Robinson's question, 23 feb 95. I'm not sure what you mean by "...Bassanio but he seems to be hedging." You said that you thought he was reluctant to give rein to his feelings, but the opposite is true. Portia, at the beginning of the scene, does not want Bassanio to choose NOW. Her argument is basically, "what's the rush? Why don't we just hang out together and forget about the caskets for a while?" If you look at the disjointed structure of this opening monologue, you can see it's all pretty much desperate stalling, to keep Bassanio from choosing and perhaps getting killed. Bassanio regards being in love with Portia as torture, ln 24: "...Let me choose, / For as I am, I live upon the rack." The rack is an instrument of torture. The torture lies in the prophecy that only Portia's true love will open the correct casket. Bassanio's uncertainty lies in the fact that the only way to know if he was meant for Portia is to open the correct casket. "Promise me life..." is in response to the first rack/torture reference. Immediately preceeding "Promise me life..." is ln 32 Portia: "Ay, but I fear you speak upon the rack, / Where men enforced do speak any thing." Which basically means, any man would say the same thing under similar (harsh) circumstances. Bassanio responds, "Promise me life, and I'll confess the truth". The rack was commonly used to get someone to confess to a crime, and Bassanio's statement basically means, "If you help free me from this torture (of not knowing whether I am the right man for you), I will demonstrate my love to you." Portia plays along, saying, "Well then, confess and live." She is offering Bassanio his "life" both literally and figuratively, for his "confession" of his love. Bassanio responds with, "...O happy torment, when my torturer / Doth teach me answers for deliverance!" Which could be interpreted as, "How ironic, that Portia, for whom I endure the torture of not knowing whether or not I am her true love, is trying to help me escape the torture she herself has caused" You'll notice that the song and her subsequent monologue, can be a dead giveaway, so she is indeed "teaching him answers for deliverance". I hope this doesn't make you even MORE confused than before! -dan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 24 Feb 95 16:45:22 EST Subject: [Stereotypes] Since I commented on the place of stereotypes in Shakespeare's construction I have read John Gillies, . Gillies uses the semiotics of early modern maps to explore several varieties of ethnic stereotypes, exotic (Aaron, Othello, Cleopatra, Caliban) but also European; I think this a brilliant book in many ways, but the treatment of , and the exposure of the ways in which the play deconstructs capitalism's self)destructive need to define itself in its difference from the aliens it exploits, seem to me not only informative but profoundly true. Geographically, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 08:01:46 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0138 Re: Love; *Romeo and Juliet; Casting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0138. Monday, 27 February 1995. (1) From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 25 Feb 1995 17:44:53 -0500 Subj: Romantic love, again (2) From: James J. Hill, Jr. Date: Sunday, 26 Feb 1995 16:19:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Romeo & Juliet (3) From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Monday, 27 Feb 95 01:08:37 -0800 Subj: Fwd: Re: Non-traditional casting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 25 Feb 1995 17:44:53 -0500 Subject: Romantic love, again Dave Evett writes that almost of all of Shakespeare's couples fall in love at first sight. Of course they do; and then they are subjected to the trials of comedy, because their "infatuation" is inherently funny, even ridiculous. Yes, Rosalind and Orlando sigh for each other straightway, but then she spends the rest of the play ridiculing his posturing in a otherwise idyllic setting. It's as if she wants to see if his love will outlast the infatuation. "Will you have me?" he says, and she replies, "Sure thing. And lots more like you." [Or words to that effect. :)] As for Cressida, I think maybe she is the ultimately ironic comment [whether S's or my own...?] on those who get stuck in that first part of love's cycle. I think too that we have to keep in mind that we're dealing with comedy here, wish-fulfilling in its structure: we *want* every Jack to have his Jill at the end of the play, and usually we get it. In fact, isn't it all the more striking when we *don't* get it, and doesn't it cause a shudder? Think Jacques, Malvolio, and even the Duke and Isabella! Now let me pose a question: if Dave and I were both to direct one of the comedies, let's say *12N*, how would/could/should our different valuations of romantic love affect the production? Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James J. Hill, Jr. Date: Sunday, 26 Feb 1995 16:19:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Romeo & Juliet Regarding the relative value [love or infatuation] that Romeo places on Rosaline & Juliet--Romeo says of Rosaline: " One fairer than my love? th' all-seeing Sun / Ne'er saw her match since first the world began" (1.2.95-96). Yet of Juliet he says: "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? / It is the East and Juliet is the Sun. / Arise fair Sun and kill the envious Moon." (2.1.44-46). Rosaline is only observed by the Sun, while Juliet is the Sun. The imagery conveys greater to Juliet: Romeo places more value upon Juliet than upon Rosaline. May not we term this greater value "love"? At least perhaps we should see his greater appreciation of the newly met Juliet. J. J. Hill, Jr. @ Towson State Univ. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Monday, 27 Feb 95 01:08:37 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Re: Non-traditional casting I thought the readers of the SHAKSPER list might find this of interest. It's from the musicals list. Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. martyj@yankeegroup.com ************************************** In message <3iq3av$cls@nic.umass.edu> writes: > The trouble with casting whites in most non-white parts is that > there are very few parts for non-whites in which race is a minor > factor. Personally, I'd have trouble buying a white Othello, I'll go a step further and say that, if I were looking for historical authenticity, I'd have trouble accepting an Othello played by a non-Arab, because historically the Moors -- ie, the Umayyad, Abbasid, Almoravid, Almohad, and Nasrid caliphaites that ruled various parts of North Africa (and, coincidentally, most of the Iberian Penninusla from 711 CE-1492 CE) -- were Arab (ie, Semitic) peoples, not negroid peoples. It was the (un?)fortunate tendency of the British, including Shakespeare, to call all non-European peoples "black", and the later "specialisation" of the term "black" to mean "negroid", that led to the confusion about Othello's race. Karen Mercedes ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 08:27:51 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0139 Q: Chronology; Utopia, Pornography, and Imperial Project Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0139. Tuesday, 28 February 1995. (1) From: L.J.Link Date: Monday, 27 Feb 95 22:07:55 JST Subj: Questions about Chronology (2) From: Darby Lewes Date: Monday, 27 Feb 1995 10:57:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: [Utopia, Pornography, and Imperial Project] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: L.J.Link Date: Monday, 27 Feb 95 22:07:55 JST Subject: Questions about Chronology ESTABLISHMENT CHRONOLOGY OF THE TEMPEST, WINTER'S TALE AND CYMBELINE. The only authoritative source for CYMBELINE, WINTER'S TALE and TEMPEST is the 1623 First Folio, and the external evidence for dating are a few items. Simon Forman watched CYMBELINE; there is no date for his note about this but the context makes April, 1611 plausible. He also saw WINTER'S TALE on May 15, 1611. The Revels Accounts notes the TEMPEST was performed at court on Nov.1, 1611; this does NOT mean it wasn't performed earlier; and while it is not certain that Shakespeare knew Sylvester Jourdan's A DISCOVERY OF THE BARMUDAS, published late autumn,1610, it seems likely he did. If he did, it means TEMPEST was completed after the fall of 1610. What conclusions can we come to from these basic facts of external evidence? Just because Forman saw CYMBELINE before WINTER'S TALE does not allow us to infer that the plays were written in that order. Further, the evidence allows us to conclude that Shakespeare could have finished TEMPEST in late 1610 or very early 1611. In short, the external evidence would allow ANY order of those last three plays. Nevertheless, there seems to be almost universal agreement that the order is CYMBELINE, WINTER'S TALE and TEMPEST. Why? I would appreciate any information which substantiates what I consider the arbitrary standard chronology. Let me briefly indicate my own explanation for this anomaly. There are, I think, two main reasons. First, internal evidence -- feminine line endings, etc. etc. Two objections to such evidence are 1) evaluating and classifying such evidence is only partly objective; individual judgment always plays a role, and, more importantly, 2) since all three plays were written within a two-year period (probably less), it is hard to imagine that Shakespeare's style, always flexible in any case, would have changed so much that we can say with confidence: this was done in 1610, and that in 1611. Besides, some sections of WINTER'S TALE are surely as complex in texture and rhythm as anything in the TEMPEST. Second, tradition and wish-fulfillment. This, I think, is the more important reason. Chambers was the first influential figure to establish this standard chronology. Since there's been no hard evidence to dispute it, subsequent scholars have taken the safe road and followed -- up to today. But Chambers suggested his chronology and it's been followed partly because of an interpretation of the TEMPEST's final lines, SUPPOSEDLY Shakespeare's farewell to the stage. If the TEMPEST is his last play [in fact, it isn't], it's nicer, more symmetrical. It pleases and panders to our expectations, what we would like to think. How awkward if the TEMPEST were to be followed by CYMBELINE, a decidedly inferior work. I hasten to add that the traditional chronology MAY be correct but I have yet to discover any clear reasonably objective reasons why it is written in stone rather than presented as merely one possibility. Any response appreciated. L.J.Link, Professor, College of Humanities, Aoyama Gakuin Univ. TOKYO (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Darby Lewes Date: Monday, 27 Feb 1995 10:57:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Utopia, Pornography, and Imperial Project] [Please respond DIRECTLY to lewes@lyco.lycoming.edu because the poster is NOT a member of SHAKSPER. --HMC] I am in the process of researching a book which examines the links between British utopian writing, pornography, and the Imperial project. I will be working in Oxford this summer and am am attempting to put together a working bibliography. Im looking for examples of the following: 1) sixteenth through nineteenth century British utopian texts which present women as geographical territories to be conquered (e.g. Erotopolis/Bettyland, Stretser's Merryland, Cock's Voyage to Lethe, Burns's Botany Bay). I'm also interested in any presentation of the female as landscape (e.g. Venus as a deer park in Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis). 2) sixteenth through nineteenth century British texts which describe native women of color as sexually available (thru rape or native promiscuity) to any European male. 3. pornographic British or American computer games which have as their goal the rape of native women of color (e. g. Custer's Last Stand). 4. any suggestions as to how one might locate the above. Currently, I'm trying bookseller's catalogues, librarians, and collections of bawdy humor. 5. any email lists whose readers might be interested in such a topic. Any input whatsoever would be gratefully received. Thanks, Darby Lewes English Dept. Box 78 Lycoming College Williamsport PA 17701 (lewes@lyco.lycoming.edu) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 08:33:58 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0140 Re: Love at First Sight Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0140. Tuesday, 28 February 1995. (1) From: Don Wall Date: Monday, 27 Feb 1995 12:29:55 -0800 (PST) Subj: Love at First Sight (2) From: John Mucci Date: Monday, 27 Feb 1995 16:17:49 -0500 Subj: Romantic Love (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Wall Date: Monday, 27 Feb 1995 12:29:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Love at First Sight Dale Lyles implies that Shakespeare's couples who fall in love "at first sight" are thereby fit subjects of comedy because their "'infatuation'" is"inherently funny." However: isn't it true that the medical theory of that time provided a physiological explanation for this phenomenon? As I recall, if the image (phantasm) of a potential loved one conveyed by the senses to the heart warmed the blood so that it released the "spirits" in the blood, then that information was conveyed--by the spirits--to the soul. The result was love--spiritual love--at first sight. Donne and Marvell--among others--seem to believe this theory, or some variation of it. Don Wall Dept. of English, MS-25 Eastern Washington University Cheney, WA 99004-2431 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mucci Date: Monday, 27 Feb 1995 16:17:49 -0500 Subject: Romantic Love I am not sure that all Shakespeare's couples fall in love immediately; I am thinking of early on in Richard III, when Gloucester has that long scene with Anne, and he asks her to "take up the sword again, or take up me." He manages the impossible, to get her to marry him, when he has just killed her husband as well as the king. Of course, on the one hand, you may say that there never *was* love between them, even after marriage, or that it really *was* love at first sight, with Anne calling him endearing names ("Dost grant me, hedgehog?"), even though she speaks venomously of Gloucester. It is such a bizarre scene, with emotions all over the scale, that I am not sure I know what each is thinking from moment to moment; but what they are saying is definitely *not* what they are thinking. If any love --even in its basest form--can be said to be an element in that scene, it is certainly not "at first sight." John Mucci GTE VisNet ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 08:39:47 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0141 Re: Epilepsy in *Oth*; Casting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0141. Tuesday, 28 February 1995. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 27 Feb 1995 17:15:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Epilepsy in OTH (2) From: Charles S. Ross Date: Monday, 27 Feb 95 09:45:27 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0138 Re: Casting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 27 Feb 1995 17:15:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Epilepsy in OTH To Jocelyn Shannon-- Just because Iago reports that Othello suffers from epilepsy doesn't mean that Iago is telling the truth, either about what the audience sees in IV.i or about the (reported) seizure offstage. Is Iago's interpretation to be trusted? Few white directors can resist the impulse to have their Othello collapse to the stage in drooling spasms--and most of our painted Othellos have been only too happy to comply. But it is clear from the text that Othello is in a trance--which is, at least visually, a more dignified state of suffering than a convulsion. Othello's first movement from the trance comes with "Look, he stirs." The foaming mouth and savage madness that Iago cites as symptoms of Othello's supposed illness are lies, beastly images not unlike those which Iago conjures up for Brabantio in I.i. So, in answer to your question and commentary--("What was the Elizabethan point of view on this malady? What was Shakespeare's slant? As my television wraps around another grim day at *Camp OJ*, I sometimes wonder if Nicole said, 'I do fear you when your eyes roll so'")--one is tempted to reply that the falling sickness, like mad (or comical) rolling eyes and unpredictable homicidal violence, may be projected upon black males--but the "malady" lies as much ourselves as in the object of our frightened or impatient gaze. *Othello* is a smorgasbord of lies. Which ones we choose to believe is perhaps more instructive than any Elizabethan medical handbook when it comes to the question of Othello's falling sickness. --Don Foster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles S. Ross Date: Monday, 27 Feb 95 09:45:27 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0138 Re: Casting I'll bet that Karen Mercedes can't prove that Shakespeare had the narrow conception of a Moor that she ascribes to him. Complete color blind casting should be the only rule. I noticed that Sir Ian, liberal otherwise, had trouble accepting that principle during his recent Richard III talk/tour. But he was wrong. Charles Ross Purdue University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 08:42:36 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0142 *Twelfth Night* at Yale and Question Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0142. Tuesday, 28 February 1995. From: David Loeb Date: Monday, 27 Feb 1995 17:43:11 U Subject: Twelfth Night at Yale I recently saw the Yale Rep's Twelfth Night, set in the 60's with costumes from "La Dolce Vita." Feste was a nightclub singer, Maria wore a miniskirt, and there was a pool on the stage into which, as a matter of dramatic imperative, nearly everyone and everything eventually plunged. Indeed, Sebastian made his first entrance from the pool, though I'm not sure how. An interesting note: At the end, when Malvolio promises revenge, everyone breaks into cruel laughter. I'm looking for a film of Twelfth Night for my spring term comedy course. Any recommendations? Dave ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 10:06:36 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0143 Qs: Lost Play; Sh in the Park; Prounciation of P & K Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0143. Wednesday, 1 March 1995. (1) From: Michael Field Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 10:03:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: The Lost Play (2) From: Meg Dupuis Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 10:42:57 -0800 (PST) Subj: Shakespeare in the Park (3) From: Jim Helsinger Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 19:08:01 -0500 Subj: Pronunciation of Petruchio and Kate (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Field Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 10:03:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: The Lost Play I am currently doing some work with Love's Labor's Lost and would greatly appreciate the help of fellow SHAKSPERians. I have heard, from time to time, reference to Shakespeare's "Lost Play." This comes about, I believe, because of a contemporaneous commentary (by Greene, perhaps?) listing the plays and including among them both "Love's Labor's Lost" and "Love's Labors Won." If you recall LLL, the idea of a sequel doesn't seem that unreasonable. In fact, if WS had been writing for the movies I would say a sequel was all but inevitable, what with the ending where love is promised after the men perform certain tasks each lasting a year and a day. My questions though, are many, and I would greatly appreciate your ideas and suggestions either through the list or directly to me: 1) The quote mentioning Love's Labors Won -- who said it, and when? 2) Is the idea of a "Lost Play" taken particularly seriously? Is there, for instance, any belief that some day it will turn up? 3) Are there other "Lost Plays?" by WS? Or is the cannon of 37 set in stone? 4)I have a slim volume by Henry David Gray (1918, Stanford University Press) discounting "Shrew" and "As You Like It" as possible candidates for the lost play. Professor Gray suggests instead of a name mix-up there really was a "Love's Labors Won" and that at a later date Shakespeare hurriedly rewrote large sections of it to present it at a twelfth night celebration. That play became, of course, Twelfth Night--and the shade of death is successfully renounced in favor of love (sort of). Comments, anyone? 5)Finally, for extra brownie points, there was an American-made police/detective series from the 1970s (something like Colombo, Cannon, etc...) that featured an episode devoted to the lost play. I vaguely remember that a rich eccentric finds the play, hires a cast to perform it, then kills the entire cast to prevent anyone from knowing about it. If this rings a bell with anyone then you, as I, probably spent too much time watching TV in your youth. Be that as it may, I'd be grateful if you can bolster my fading memory in this matter: was it LLW that was conjectured? Did they perform any of it? Any thoughts or recollections in this matter? Thank you, in advance, for your help, and your patience with this over-long posting. Mike Field pmf@resource.ca.jhu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Meg Dupuis Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 10:42:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Shakespeare in the Park I plan to be in NYC at the end of July and wonder if anyone knows whether Shakespeare in the Park continues since the death of Joseph Papp and, if so, which plays are scheduled and when. Any info. would be appreciated. Thanks. Meg Dupuis University of Oregon (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Helsinger Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 19:08:01 -0500 Subject: Pronunciation of Petruchio and Kate I would like to open to discussion the pronunciation of Petruchio and Kate. A specific note in the Dramatis Personae of the Arden edition states: * The name Petruchio must be pronounced wtih the ch as in English much; never as Petrukkio. * I have done two productions pronounced this way, but I have been in two other productions that used Petrukkio, as does the Burton movie, the musical Kiss me Kate and others. Can anyone illuminate me on which is correct and why? Also, in listening to the show recently, I have been wondering about the pronunciation of the name Kate. Her name is first listed in the Folio as Katerina, although Katherina is also used, and Katerine, Katherine, Kate, and Kat. Now, it is easy to imagine the name nickname *Kat*, as in Cat, coming from Katerine and Katerina. It also seems to me that the line: *I am he am born to tame you, Kate, and bring you from a wild Kate to a Kate conformable as other household Kates.* is an obvious pun on *cat* and would profit from being pronounced so. There are other examples in the text as well, and the insistence of Petruchio in calling her Kate, while she asks to be called Katherine, is important in the text. Is it possible that in Shakespeare's time the name Kate was pronounced like Cat? We have many examples of words that have changed pronunciation, i.e, *kin and kind*. Could this be another? I would enjoy feedback, particularly if anyone has seen a production pronounced this way. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 10:13:18 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0144 Casting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0144. Wednesday, 1 March 1995. (1) From: Luc Borot Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 95 16:52:28 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0141 Colour Casting (2) From: Jung Jimmy Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 95 16:09:00 PST Subj: RE: Casting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Luc Borot Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 95 16:52:28 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0141 Colour Casting Charles S. Ross writes: "Complete color blind casting should be the only rule." There can be a case for counter-colour casting, as it were, in Peter Brook's marvellous *Tempest* in Paris in 1990: black Prospero and Ariel, white Miranda, black 'bad duke', the rest of the cast (including Caliban) was white. The opposition might have been simplistic if Miranda had not been white; perhaps this could be called 'selective' colour-blindness. Yours Luc (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jung Jimmy Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 95 16:09:00 PST Subject: RE: Casting Charles S. Ross calls for "Complete color blind casting," as the only rule. For my part, I've seen a number of wonderful and effective "non-traditional" casts. Off the top of my head, I recall Francis Dorn at Washington's Shakespeare Theater playing the mother, sister or queen with various white princes and kings. Usually sometime during the ride home, the color discrepancy hits me. However, a completely color blind casting, doesn't allow for some of the most interesting and illuminating choices. I recall a powerful production with a black Iago, a choice I assume was intentional. and I'm not sure I'm ready for a white Othello. jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 10:24:14 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0145 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*; Love Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0145. Wednesday, 1 March 1995. (1) From: Frank Savukinas Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 12:50:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Maturity in R & J (2) From: Don Foster Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 16:51:22 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (3) From: Catherine Fitzmaurice Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 21:37:50 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0140 Re: Love at First Sight (4) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 20:38:37 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0140 Re: Love at First Sight (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Savukinas Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 12:50:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Maturity in R & J I completely agree with Dan How's comments on how people in Shakespeare's time were considered more mature at a younger age. It is a fact that Lady Capulet was 28 and that girls younger than the 14-year-old Juliet were married and had children. In Act 1, Scene 3, Lady Capulet says to Juliet: "Well think of marriage now./Younger than you, here in Verona, ladies of esteem/Are made already mothers./By my count I was your mother much upon these years that you are now a maid." To assume the ages of the Monatgues would be just speculation as the text does not give us any clue. We can safely assume that the Capulet's marriage was arranged. We can also assume that Paris is much older than Juliet. Can we also assume that Lord Capulet is also much older than his Lady. We do know that he has had other children who have died. In Act 1, Scene 2, Capulet says to Paris: "The earth hath swallowed all my hopes but she." Since I have rattled on longer than I should have about ages, I've been trying to figure out the approximate age of the Nurse. We know that she has a daughter who would've been around Juliet's age had she lived. The Nurse mentions her as "Susan" in 1.3. This idea would suggest that the Nurse is not very old. However, in that same scene, the Nurse remarks: "I'll lay fourteen of my teeth/Yet to my teen be it spoken I have but four," This would suggest that she is pretty old if she has only four teeth, Any thoughts. Keep the R & J coming!!!! Frank Savukinas fsavukin@ashland.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 16:51:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: *Romeo and Juliet* In reply to Frank Savukinas' question, "Can somebody please give me a reason why Romeo and Juliet's marriage would not have lasted? After all it was true love." Let's call it "fictional love," of which there are many varieties, not just in Shakespeare generally, but within *Romeo and Juliet.* And the marriage of R&J *doesn't* last because the play ends. We are, after all, speaking of fictional characters with no existence beyond the script. But if one is inclined to extend the fiction with a fictive future of our own making, Maxine Kumin's vision seems about right: And suppose the darlings get to Mantua, suppose they cheat the crypt, what next? Begin with him, unshaven. Though not, I grant you, a displeasing cockerel, there's egg yolk on his chin. His seedy robe's aflap, he's got the rheum. Poor dear, the cooking lard has smoked her eye. Another Montague is in the womb although the first babe's bottom's not yet dry. She scrolls a weekly letter to her Nurse who dares to send a smock through Balthasar, and once a month, his father posts a purse. News from Verona? Always news of war. Such sour years it takes to right this wrong! The fifth act runs unconscionably long. --fr. M. Kumin, *The Privilege* (NY: Harper & Row, 1963, p.67) Don Foster (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Catherine Fitzmaurice Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 21:37:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0140 Re: Love at First Sight "hedgehog" is NOT an endearment! They are spiky little beasts - not the cute cartoons one might see now, or in Beatrix Potter. Lady Anne's line "Dost grant me, hedgehog?" is surely only shocked irony, and furious. Catherine Fitzmaurice cfk@strauss.udel.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 20:38:37 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0140 Re: Love at First Sight >I am not sure that all Shakespeare's couples fall in love immediately; I am >thinking of early on in Richard III, when Gloucester has that long scene with >Anne, and he asks her to "take up the sword again, or take up me." He manages >the impossible, to get her to marry him, when he has just killed her husband as >well as the king. >John Mucci I pass this on, knowing that my professor Andrew Weiner may not have signed up on the net group yet (though he was thinking of it.) Last spring, he suggested that Richard's strategy is that of the sonneteer--"Love me, or you're killing me.--In fact, go ahead, kill me." If that's true, then outwardly Richard seems a lot like Romeo, or Astrophil-- "pity grace obtain." The difference, of course, is that Richard is manipulating the conventions for his own ends. But by the conventions, Anne can only be cruel for so long. And that, campers, is the definition of socially-constructed love. Why does Richard do it? Well, it works. Melissa Aaron ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 10:30:58 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0146 Re: Malvolio; Chronology Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0146. Wednesday, 1 March 1995. (1) From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 22:10:01 -0500 Subj: Re: Laughing at Malvolio (2) From: J. H. Link link@cc.aoyama.ac.jp Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 95 10:00:37 JST Subj: response to chronology (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995 22:10:01 -0500 Subject: Re: Laughing at Malvolio We laughed at Malvolio in my theatre's production many years ago, but what I was hoping for, directorially, was a dismissive kind of laughter, much as Glenda the Good Witch laughs at the WWW: "Begone! You have no power here!" I had just seen one too many autumnal,melancholy *TN*s [Atlanta, BBC, and Stratford/RSC] and was determined to reclaim the joy in the piece. Malvolio got his just comeuppance, snotty bastard that he is, or at least was in our production. When he howled his last threat, it was empty, and everyone knew it. The audience laughed too. Funny story: on the way out of the theatre, a patron stopped and said, "That was a very funny play. Who wrote it?" And most were convinced that we had "modernized" the text somehow. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Co. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: J. H. Link link@cc.aoyama.ac.jp Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 95 10:00:37 JST Subject: response to chronology Mr. Forse suggests that perhaps the order in which the plays were written, given the short time span, doesn't matter too much. This seems sensible. He also suggests that TEMPEST was commissioned by the Court but I am not aware that there is any evidence of any kind that the play was so commissioned. Still, my main concern is how can we justify the almost universal ORDER of the plays in all complete Shakespeare editions, inc. Riverside, of CYMB, WT, and TEMPEST? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 08:44:39 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0147 Re: Prounciation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0147. Thursday, 2March 1995. (1) From: Ronald Dwelle Date: Wednesday, 01 Mar 95 11:11:54 EST Subj: Another Prounciation Question (2) From: Dan T. M. How Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 05:13:02 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0143 Q: Prounciation of P & K (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronald Dwelle Date: Wednesday, 01 Mar 95 11:11:54 EST Subject: Another Prounciation Question I've always assumed (I guess from the iambic pentameter) that "Romeo" was pronounced as two syllables rather than three: Rome-yo as opposed to Rome-eee-o. But the last two productions of the play I've seen have used the three-syllable moniker. Expert opinion? (other than mine?) O Rome-e-o, Rome-e-o, Where-fore art thou Rome-e-o: feminine dactylic tetrameter? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan T. M. How Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 05:13:02 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0143 Q: Prounciation of P & K In response to Jim Helsinger... Pronunciation of Shakespearean English is different than the RP that your hear in England today. English during the Elizabethean and Jacobean eras sounded like a hybrid of Scottish and New Englander (eg. JFK). If you get the chance, find John Barton's "Playing Shakespeare" on video. In some of them he goes through a phrase or two in approximated period English. On Petruchio, I would assume it is "PetruKio", simply because that's the way it would have been pronounced in Italian, and they speak l'italiano, no? But that doesn't necessarily mean it's right. In R & J, "Capulet" and "Juliet" look pretty French looking, so shouldn't we assume it's "Caputay", and "Julietuh"? (Juliette is the feminine) And Romeo would probably be roMEo, with the accent on the second syllable. "roMEo, roMEo, wherefore art thou roMEo?" fits within scansion, if you alight the syllables "ME" and "o" of romeo. In AYLI, shouldn't Rowland de Boys be pronounced "Rowlan de Buwah"? de Boys is akin to old French. But lest we blow conventional scansion out of the water... I saw a production of the New Shakepeare company (if I remember right) in London of TotS, where the pronunciation, especially by the leads, was leaning toward old English, and "household Kates" was pronounced close enough to "household cats" so we all got the pun. (The fact that Petruchio was using a whip and a chair helped us get the point, too!) -dan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 08:59:55 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0148 Re: Lost Play Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0148. Thursday, 2March 1995. (1) From: Tad Davis Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995 11:45:36 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0143 Qs: Lost Play (2) From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995 12:23:37 -0600 (CST) Subj: "Lost Play" on TV (3) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Wednesday, 01 Mar 1995 15:39:29 -0500 (EST) Subj: Love's Labour's Won (4) From: Fran Teague Date: Wednesday, 01 Mar 1995 18:41:01 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0143 Q: Lost Play (5) From: Bill Grantham Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995 16:54:04 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0143 Qs: Lost Play; (6) From: Imtiaz Habib Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995 20:03:02 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0143 Q: Lost Play (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995 11:45:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0143 Qs: Lost Play Michael Field asks about the source of speculation about a play by Shakespeare called "Love's Labors Won." I believe the play was first mentioned by Francis Meres (in Palladis Tamia?, 1599?) as an example of Shakespeare's facility with comedy ("witness his Loves Labours Lost, his Loves Labours Wonne," etc.). I don't recall if it was ever mentioned elsewhere; it may appear in a Stationer's entry around the same time. One thing I do remember is watching a television interview with Samuel Schoenbaum many years ago where he described one of his most satisfying fantasies: browsing around a bookstall on the streets of Amsterdam and picking up a slim volume, opening it, and finding Loves Labours Wonne. Regarding other lost or misattributed plays by Shakespeare, there's a new book by Eric Sams, about Shakespeare's first 30 years, where he argues again for Shakespeare's authorship of "Edmund Ironsides" (as well as arguing that the stories of Shakespeare as a butcher's boy and deer-poacher may be true after all). My guess is that his arguments are not likely to win wide acceptance, but they're great fun to read. Tad Davis davist@umis.upenn.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995 12:23:37 -0600 (CST) Subject: "Lost Play" on TV I believe I know the TV detective show you seek. It was an old (late '60s early '70s) show called "The Name of the Game". It was about three men who worked for the same magazine company; two as reporters (each for a different magazine put out by the company), the third was the owner/editor. The episode in question, I believe featured Joseph Cotton as the discoverer of the lost play. I clearly remember the play being destroyed in the end by the mad housekeeper. However, I believe the play was an early version of "Hamlet". Other than that, my only recollection was that Susan St. James (a regular on the show) figured heavily in the action. I cannot remember which of the three other regulars was featured. Hope this helps. Patricia Gallagher (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Wednesday, 01 Mar 1995 15:39:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Love's Labour's Won Michael Field is thinking of Francis Meres's mention of a "Love Labour's Won" in his commonplace book _Palladis Tamia_ (1598): "As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for comedy and tragedy among the Latins, so Shakespeare among the English is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage; for comedy, witness his _Gentlemen of Verona_, his _Errors_, his _Love Labour's Lost_, his _Love Labour's Won_..." This is, I believe, the first and only contemporary mention of such a play. --Ron Macdonald (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Wednesday, 01 Mar 1995 18:41:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0143 Q: Lost Play "Love's Labour's Won" was a real play, noted by Francis Meres in "Palladis Tamia" (1598) and published in quarto by 1603, but no copy has survived. See T. W. Baldwin, "Shakespere's 'Love's Labor's Won," 1957. This info is given in The Riverside Shakespeare. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Grantham Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995 16:54:04 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0143 Qs: Lost Play; Love's Labour's Won is mentioned in Francis Meres' Palladis Tamia, Wit's Treasury in 1598, along with references to other, known Shakespeare plays (Two Gentlemen of Verona, Comedy of Errors, Midsummer Night's Dream, Merchant of Venice, Richad II, Richard II, Henry IV, King John, Titus Andronicus and Romeo and Juliet). Meres also mentions the Sonnets. People used to think Meres made a mistake, even though the other titles were accurate. But in 1953, a bookseller's catalogue from 1603 came to light listing for sale both Love's Labour's Lost and Love's Labour's Won. So, it either has to be a lost play, or an alternative title for one of Shakespeare's known works. Candidates for the latter honour, suggested by various critics, have included Taming of the Shrew, Much Ado, All's Well, and Troilus and Cressida. Bill Grantham billgra@well.sf.ca.us (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Imtiaz Habib Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995 20:03:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0143 Q: Lost Play Try Sam Schoenbaum's Shakespeare: A Documentary Life for an account of the Huntington's discovery of the spine of the Elizabethan bookseller's book list which contained a listing of Love's Labor Won. So also Francis Meres' Palladis Tamia. The "lost play" could also be As You Like It? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 09:35:16 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0149 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*; Love Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0149. Thursday, 2March 1995. (1) From: David Middleton Date: Wednesday, 01 Mar 95 12:02:54 CST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0145 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*; Love (2) From: Bruce Coggin Date: Wednesday, March 1, 1995 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0145 Re- *Romeo a (3) From: Jean Peterson Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995 14:30:38 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0145 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*; Love (4) From: David Loeb Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995 15:01:07 U Subj: Re: SHK 6.0145 Re- *Romeo a (5) From: Dan T. M. How Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 05:13:12 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0145 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*; Love (6) From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995 21:51:28 -0500 Subj: Re: Hedgehogs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Middleton Date: Wednesday, 01 Mar 95 12:02:54 CST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0145 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*; Love Romeo and Juliet discussants--I myself am less interested in the ages of the principals than in the "kind" and quality of their love and the way the narrative tests its validity. I've had notable success this semester teaching the play alongside selected scenes from "True Romance" (screenplay by Tarantino, directed by Tony Scott). Both begin with a bang that brings two young folks together in a transforming way, despite their having had no such expectations. Thereafter, it seems to me, both selections "test" the validity of the love relationships, asking, among other questions, "What will you do for love--will you die for love? Will you kill for love (Tarantino)? Will you NOT kill for love (Shakespeare's test of Romeo in Act 3)?" The comparative study has allowed the class to deductively create their own sense of genre, because slight differences in action and character produce great differences in effect. Particularly useful is the strategy of studying the chorus (and friar at the end) in contrast with the voice-over of Alabama speaking about chance and destiny and choice in "True Romance." I'd like to know if others have used this piece, if so, how, or if not, what other selections complement the classroom study of the tragedies. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Coggin Date: Wednesday, March 1, 1995 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0145 Re- *Romeo a Surely, Old Capulet is OLD. When he foolishly cries for his "long sword," his lady says he needs "A crutch! A crutch!" (I.i.81-82). As for the Nurse, she should be considered old. One of the markers of Sh's oldsters is maddening loquacity, to which she treats Juliet (I.iii.58) until she orders the old bag to hush, a command she cannot obey. This recurs (II.iv, II.v). Oldsters also are given to endless repetition, cf. Nurse's quadruple telling of her husband's joke (I.iii). They also pepper their speech with exclamations and expletives, as does the Nurse. And not least, the boys say flatly that she is old, razzing her as "ancient lady" (II.iv.151). Surely she is old--which might mean nothing more than in her forties. (My dissertation, unpublished, deals with Sh's treatment of old age. University of Texas at Austin, 1982.) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995 14:30:38 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0145 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*; Love >Since I have rattled on longer than I should have about ages, I've been trying >to figure out the approximate age of the Nurse. We know that she has a daughter >who would've been around Juliet's age had she lived. The Nurse mentions her as >"Susan" in 1.3. This idea would suggest that the Nurse is not very old. > >However, in that same scene, the Nurse remarks: "I'll lay fourteen of my >teeth/Yet to my teen be it spoken I have but four," > >This would suggest that she is pretty old if she has only four teeth, >Any thoughts. I disagree. Poor dental hygiene and crude dentistry will do a number on your teeth by your late twenties. Since the Nurse's daughter would have been Juliet's age, why not assume the Nurse was close in age to Lady Capulet? Better to lose a diamond than a tooth, says Don Quixote! Jean Peterson Bucknell University (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Loeb Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995 15:01:07 U Subject: Re: SHK 6.0145 Re- *Romeo a On the subject of whether the R&J's love would have lasted, perhaps a look at A Midsummer Night's Dream would be instructive. Even though the fairies bless the house, any student of mythology knows that Theseus is headed for disaster, with the child conceived that evening (presumably) destined to die cursing Theseus, having caused Phaedra's death etc. My students make the point that Shakespeare's view of post-marital comedy was along the lines of "Married With Children," and that comedies like MND, AYLI, and 12th Night end just in time. Dave (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan T. M. How Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 05:13:12 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0145 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*; Love In response to Frank Savukinas... The age of the nurse is an interesting question. I failed to notice "Susan" in 1.3, and that does put her age into better perspective for me. However, I think you may be paying to much respect to the hygiene of the times. Queen Elizabeth was described as having BLACK teeth. A sure sign of tooth decay, where the acids in various sugars have already eaten through the enamel of the teeth. People did not bathe much, didn't brush their teeth, threw their..."trash" out the window onto the street, burned corpses outside the city walls, didn't wash their clothes, etc, etc, etc. (I love telling this to people who "wished they lived in such a romantic era") The fact that she only has four teeth isn't as telling back then as it is today, but FOUR? She has to be a little old, I would think. The fact that her husband is deceased, along with her teeth, would seem to justify that... In the same scene ln 67: "...Were not I thine only nurse, I would say thou hadst sucked wisdom from thy teat." Could it be possible that the nurse was also Juliet's wet-nurse? If I interpret correctly, "If I hadn't breast-fed you myself, I would say you got wisdom from your mother's milk" If this is so, the Nurse could not be that old at all, unless she had a breast-pump or something. Could it be that the reference to having only four teeth is just another one of the nurse's exaggerations? -dan (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995 21:51:28 -0500 Subject: Re: Hedgehogs I thought Anne's epithet was a slighting reference to Richard's crest, a wild boar, which is pretty bristly itself and would have appeared even moreso in heraldic rampantry. Think Razorbacks. Dale ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 09:57:42 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0151 Re: Bassanio/Portia; Malvolio; Sh in Park; Chronology Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0151. Thursday, 2March 1995. (1) From: Helen Robinson Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 95 14:42:17 EST Subj: Bassanio/Portia (2) From: Patrick Venneri Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 07:22:06 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Malvolio (3) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Wednesday, 01 Mar 1995 19:19:48 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakespeare in the Park (4) From: Dan T. M. How Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 05:13:22 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0146 Re: Chronology (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Robinson Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 95 14:42:17 EST Subject: Bassanio/Portia Dan How's comments on the opening dialogue of Act 111 Scene 2 certainly clarified a number of points. There has been some conjecture that Bassanio is not really in love with Portia and that he is merely following the dictates of 'courtly love'. His conversation with Antonio about Portia 'In Belmont is a lady richly left' could be played as though Bassanio is primarily interested in the lady's money not so much the lady. To give him his due he does say she is fair. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Venneri Date: Thuursday, 02 Mar 1995 07:22:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Malvolio Dale Lyles: You may be right about Malovlio's empty laughter, but as Norman Berlin was wont to point out to us, the theaters are closed for 20 some years when Charlie II loses his head, and wouldn't it be ironic if he did not in some way get the last laugh as the religious force which was to sweep the country stopped the music and revelry. The artist as seer. Patrick Venneri The American University in Cairo (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Wednesday, 01 Mar 1995 19:19:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare in the Park Yes, Shakespeare in the Park continues, this summer with *Troilus and Cressida* and *Tempest* I believe. Bernice (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan T. M. How Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 05:13:22 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0146 Re: Chronology In response to J. H. Link... The chonology of Shakespeare's works is derived mainly through the quartros, setting, and style. An example of dating a work through quartos is finding the earliest quarto of a play. Most likely, the play was produced at around that time. Some were written down from memory, resulting in some entertaining versions of famous monologues. Another way to determine the approximate date of a play is to examine the setting. Shakespeare's acting troupe, "The King's Men" I think, moved a few times into new theatres. One such theatre was indoor, and his work reflected this, moving from pastoral into dark interiors. I can't remember, but I think some of this information is in the Riverside introduction. There is also a time-line in there. Style is also commonly used to date work. The difference between his earlier works and his later works can be seen in the structure and variety within the iambic pentameter, and the language itself. It isn't accurate to a date, but experts can determine approximately where it lies along the progression of Shakespeare's writing. Looking back on your post, I hope I didn't tell you something you already knew. If you're asking about ONLY Cymb, WT and Temp, I don't think this was very helpful. Anyway, it might be interesting reading to others... -dan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:16:30 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0152 Death of Rolf Soellner Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0152. Thursday, 2 March 1995. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, March 2, 1995 Subject: Death of Rolf Soellner Bernice Kliman has just learned from his former wife, Elise Goodman, who thought his old friends would want to know, of the recent death of Rolf Soellner, 72. He died in the middle of dancing, ballroom dancing, which he loved with a passion, a passion (along with travelling) that he devoted himself to after he retired. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 09:46:24 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0150 Re: Casting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0150. Thursday, 2March 1995. (1) From: James J. Hill, Jr. Date: Wednesday, 01 Mar 1995 16:58:42 -0500 (EST) Subj: Color Blind Casting (2) From: Patrick Venneri Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 06:58:35 +0000 (GMT) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0144 Casting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James J. Hill, Jr. Date: Wednesday, 01 Mar 1995 16:58:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Color Blind Casting Color-blind casting in *Othello* may remove one of the major visual images in the play that identifies Othello as "the Outsider." A Black Othello surrounded by a White cast is visually different--he is the outsider. And, of course, references in the play support this visual distinction. It would be interesting to see a White Othello surrounded by a Black cast, as he would still be the sole outsider [but this would not be Shakespeare's play--however interesting the "clever' casting would be: STILL THE SPIRIT OF THE PLAY WOULD BE SHAKESPEARE'S]. Jim Hill (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Venneri Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 06:58:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0144 Casting Jimmy Jung: My students in prison when I was teaching Othello said the whole cast except Othello should be black, and Othello white. And on an Army base they said any office who was not aware enough to see through Iago's duplicity was not a good officer. Patrick Venneri The American University in Cairo ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 08:44:35 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0153 Richard and Anne Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0153. Friday, 3 March 1995. (1) From: William Russell Mayes Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 09:30:20 -0500 Subj: Re: Richard and Anne (2) From: Dudley Knight Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 01:31:49 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0140 Re: Love at First Sight (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Russell Mayes Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 09:30:20 -0500 Subject: Re: Richard and Anne The seduction / wooing scene between Richard and Anne is one of my favorites, and I want to add a twist to Melissa Aaron's post about Richard as a sonnetteer. It seems to me that it is important to realize that there is a third participant in this scene, the corpse of Anne's father in law, Henry VI, whom Richard has killed. When the scene begins, Anne is playing the mourner and Richard comes in angry, playing the role of Anger as it were. During the scene, Richard offers to switch roles with Anne; he plays the emotional suppliant and gives her the chance to play the avenger. She feints a couple of times but is ultimately unable to pull it off. Richard, it turns out, is much more malleable than Anne (and most of the other characters), and it is his flexibility that makes him so creepily successful throughout the play. I think Richard also sees this scene as a challenge: picking someone up at a funeral is hardly appropriate, especially when you have killed the person in the corpse (c.f. _The Player_). In fact, Richard exults over this in his soliloquy that ends I.ii: "What? I, that kill'd her husband and his father, / To take her in her heart's extremest hate, / With curses in her mouth, tears in her eyes, / The bleeding witness of my hatred by, / Having God, her conscience, and these bars against me, / And I no friends to back my suit [at all] / But the plain devil and dissembling looks? / And yet to win her! All the world to nothing! / Hah!" (230-38). I love that "hah!" W. Russell Mayes, Jr. University of Virginia (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dudley Knight Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 01:31:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0140 Re: Love at First Sight I heartily concur with Catherine Fitzmaurice regarding Lady Anne's "Dost grant me, hedgehog?" Lady Anne is not in a terrific mood when she says this. What's more, the use of the word hedgehog surely is a diminution to a common furtive small beastie of the rather more fearsome wild hog that emblazons Richard's coat of arms, and all his standards.(As in Garrick's interpolation for Hastings "The Cat [Catesby], the Rat [Ratcliff], and Lovell the Dog/ Rule all England under the Hog" [Richard], a couplet which Olivier found juicy enough to include in his film.) But I do have to say that, having held a hedgehog once (hey, it belonged to a friend), they're not quite the "spiky little beasts" that Catherine Fitzmaurice asserts. Their spikes are fairly blunt, and they tend to roll up and sleep a lot, when they aren't ingesting grubs, their food of choice. Dudley Knight University of California--Irvine ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 08:58:29 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0154 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0154. Friday, 3 March 1995. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 09:43:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Juliet's Nurse (2) From: Laurie White Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 10:21:07 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0149 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*; Love (3) From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 08:02:27 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0149 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*; Love (4) From: Takako Nagumo Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 11:23:16 -0800 Subj: *R&J* - a tragedy of unawareness (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 09:43:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Juliet's Nurse Frank Savukinas suggests that Juliet's Nurse must have been of an advanced age because she has only four teeth left. Once again, the problem of applying current standards (in this case, of public health) to past eras rears its head. My wife, a biologist, tells me that in Colonial America, one of the health risks of child rearing was summarized in the expression, "A tooth a child." Lacting women's bodies devote their resources, especially of calcium, primarily to the production of milk and only secondly to their own well being. Before the importance of good nutrition was understood, and especially the need for increased calcium intake, women who nursed regularly suffered tooth loss from calcium deficiency. The more children, the more teeth lost. Now this would seem to have several implications. First, wealthy women (who did not know any more than their lower class wet nurses that they ought to increase calcium intake) would want to put their children out to nurse to protect their own teeth -- that is to say, their own beauty. (This is in addition, of course, to their not wanting to be bothered with raising the messy, noisy little pests.) The wet nurses -- women who extended the natural lactation period following birth by continuing to nurse other women's children -- would continue to suffer from calcium deficiency, and therefore tooth loss. Thus, the Nurse's comment that she has only four teeth left would be a sign of how long she has devoted herself to the nursing of others' children, not necessarily her age. She could, in fact, be no older than Lady Capulet, and possibly somewhat younger. Lactation on a deficient diet has another effect that may tell us something about the Nurse's character: it suppresses ovulation. The folk wisdom that a nursing mother cannot get pregnant is true -- for ill-nourished women (i.e., most women throughout history). Thus a wet nurse could be a "loose woman" without risking pregnancy (we'll ignore syphilis for the moment...). Her bawdy scene with Mercutio suggests more than a passing familiarity with the life of the flesh. Are there other examples of lusty nurses in literature? Finally, remember that fluoridation of drinking water in the U S is less than a generation old; topical treatment of children's teeth is even more recent. I have four children and step-children ranging in age from 13 to 20 and not a single one has _ever_ had a cavity. I find this staggering, since I had lost all my upper teeth by the time I was a freshman in college. Granted that my parents were on the far end of the scale in terms of lax attention paid to their children's health care, but many of my now-middle-aged peers have mouths full of silver and gold. The lower classes of Verona (not to mention London) would have fared even worse. Even George Washington had to put up with ill-fitting dentures. (Vide Stan Freberg: "That's George all right . . . talks up a storm with those wooden teeth of his; can't shut him up!) Jim Schaefer Georgetown University schaefej@guvax.georgetown.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laurie White Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 10:21:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0149 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*; Love I am teaching Romeo and Juliet now and look forward every day to this discussion. One of the things bothering my students in our survey class is the connection of true love and death. I keep bringing in Keats as a gloss. His obsession with the ideal in "Ode to a Nightingale" and "Ode on a Grecian Urn" and his knowledge that the ideal is static, dead, inhuman explains something to me about Shakespeare's portrayal of that paradox (perfection and life cancel each other; Romeo _will_ end up with egg in his beard, if the darlings make it to Mantua.) --Laurie White (whitel@steffi.uncg.edu) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 08:02:27 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0149 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*; Love The nurse is old when Shakespeare wants her to be old: "ancient lady". She is youngish when he wants her to be young: young enough to wetnurse Juliet. The same goes for Juliet's mom: she is sometimes 2 x 14, sometimes Old. La. It's a play. She's a character, not a person. Sh. has other priorities than to get such trivialities right. E. Pearlman (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Takako Nagumo Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 11:23:16 -0800 Subject: *R&J* - a tragedy of unawareness Hello, I was reading the introduction of *R&J* that appears in The Complete Pelican Shakespeare (c1969), written by John E. Hankins of the U. of Maine, which mentions a critic who "views it [*R&J*] as a tragedy of unawareness." (p. 857). I am really interested in locating this article/book/material that mentions this. If anyone has read this, or knows who wrote it, please email me directly. Thank you all for your time. Takako Nagumo tnagumo@ucla.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 09:19:05 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0155 Re: Pronunciation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0155. Friday, 3 March 1995. (1) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 10:44:02 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0147 Re: Prounciation (2) From: Ray Allen Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 12:26:39 -0600 (CST) Subj: Name Pronuncation (3) From: John Gouws Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 20:30:34 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0147 Re: Prounciation (4) From: Michael Swanson Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 13:39:23 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0147 Re: Prounciation (5) From: Don Wall Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 11:49:53 -0800 (PST) Subj: Pronunciation (6) From: Steven Gagen Date: Friday, 03 Mar 1995 16:44:35 +1100 Subj: Re: Pronuciation (7) From: Anna Cole Date: Monday, 27 Feb 1995 05:52:35 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0143 Q: Prounciation of P & K (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 10:44:02 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0147 Re: Prounciation While "Kate" sometimes forms a pun with "cat," it also is used to pun with "cate"--"for dainties are all cates, and therefore Kate." Sorry to muddy the waters. Would "cate" be pronounced like "cat?" M. Aaron (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ray Allen Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 12:26:39 -0600 (CST) Subject: Name Pronuncation For name pronunciation I use a book aimed exclusively at the question. The title: _How To Pronounce The Names In Shakespeare_ (apt, huh?) It was copyrighted in 1919 and the author is Theodora U. Irvine. ISBN 1-55888-911-6. It costs around $48. If everyone already has it on their shelves, my apologies for wasting your eyesight. Ray Allen (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Gouws Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 20:30:34 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0147 Re: Prounciation > I've always assumed (I guess from the iambic pentameter) that "Romeo" was > pronounced as two syllables rather than three: Rome-yo as opposed to > Rome-eee-o. But the last two productions of the play I've seen have used the > three-syllable moniker. Expert opinion? (other than mine?) > > O Rome-e-o, Rome-e-o, Where-fore art thou Rome-e-o: feminine dactylic > tetrameter? Surely "Romeo" is disyllabic in this instance: Rom-yo. This is supported by Helge Koekeritz, _Shakespeare's Names_. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Swanson Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 13:39:23 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0147 Re: Prounciation Scansion need not mean that every line is in absolute iambic rhythm. Iambic pentameter in Shakespeare really means that the basic rhythm is iambic, and that the basic structure is pentameter. But there are plenty of lines which don't scan in pentameter, and have 8, 9, 11, or 12 syllables. And plenty of metric feet are only possible as trochees, spondees, pyrrhics, or even dactyls or anapests. So, Romeo need not be RoMEo. Check Cecily Berry, The Actor and The Text, for more info on this. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Wall Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 11:49:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Pronunciation About the pun on "household Kates"--why not another pun on "household CATES" [choice viands, tasty morsels, nourishing delicacies]? It seems also to fit the context. Don Wall Eastern Washington University (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Gagen Date: Friday, 03 Mar 1995 16:44:35 +1100 Subject: Re: Pronuciation > In AYLI, shouldn't Rowland de Boys be pronounced "Rowlan de Buwah"? > de Boys is akin to old French. No! Old French did not have the "wah" pronunciation of "oi", neither did it have the present gutteral "r", rather Rs were rolled, as in some present-day English dialects. Loius XIV would have called himself something like "le rrroi-yee", as close as I can get it in English. I understand that the old French pronunciations are preserved to some extent in French Canada. Best Regards, Steve Gagen. (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Cole Date: Monday, 27 Feb 1995 05:52:35 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0143 Q: Prounciation of P & K Re the pronunciation of Kate. I think it unlikely that it would have been pronounced as Kat. There is some evidence of Shakespeare's partiality for the name. He gives it to Hotspur's wife Lady Percy as well as the Shrew herself. His intention it seems to me is to depict a woman of spirit, not of spitefulness which is the usual association with cats. Anna Cole ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 09:31:21 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0156 Re: Casting; Malvolio; Chronology Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0156. Friday, 3 March 1995. (1) From: Christina M. Robertson Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 16:35:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0150 Re: colorblind casting (2) From: Michael Saenger Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 14:41:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: Malvolio (3) From: Pat Buckridge Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 11:56:25 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0151 Chronology (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christina M. Robertson Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 16:35:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0150 Re: colorblind casting A production a few years ago at the Georgia Shakspeare Festival placed a very talented black actor in the role of Caliban in _The Tempest_. The play was performed entirely for comedic effect, but this angle complicated it because there are significant interpretations of Caliban as a displaced minority (black, Native American, etc.) One didn't know if we were to take it in a socio-political context, and therefore sympathize more with his enslavement, or to simply ignore his race and concentrate on him as a fine actor. I suspect the latter was the intention, but it made the part a bit painful to watch, considering the farcical atmosphere that surrounded it. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 14:41:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Malvolio On the question of Malvolio, I published a brief note in Shakespeare Newsletter 1993 (43), 67, ("Manningham on Malvolio") drawing attention to an overlooked line in the famous diary account, which I took to be a statement on Malvolio: "Quae mala cum multis patimur laeviora putantur" -- "Those evils which we suffer in the presence of many are made easier" or "...are made more foolish." Since publishing the note, it has occured to me that the line approximates a quote that is echoed numerous times in the play -- "(Malvolio) hath been most notoriously (i.e. in front of many) abused." In a subsequent SN, John Hale wrote suggesting that the line might be suspect since the diary was originally brought to light by John Payne Collier, who was at times guilty of forgery. (The obvious response is if he had forged the line, why did he not "find" it?) I merely took the line from a published transcription, so I leave it to holographic experts to sort this out (no doubt they will). What I would like to know is how are people receiving this? My note is not too long, but probably too long for this medium. I am proposing entering what is essentially new evidence into Shakespearean criticism, and I would be eager to hear positive, negative, or other feedback. Michael Baird Saenger (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Buckridge Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 11:56:25 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0151 Chronology I do hope some of you scholars out there are preparing your detailed critiques of Dan How's Handy Dating Kit for Shakespeare's plays. If the orthodoxy really wants to maintain its credibility (which I sometimes doubt) it should not be left to authorship-skeptics like myself to point out such elementary truths as the following: 1.The earliest quarto you find is not necessarily the earliest published. 2.There is no necessary correlation anyway between dates of publication and dates of composition for any of the plays. 3.Dramatic settings do not reflect theatrical environments. (On reading this handy hint my jaw - to borrow a Kathman hyperbole - hit the floor). 4.Dating by style and versification is entirely circular (hence entirely useless), except in those rare instances where external evidence gives an approximate date for a particular recognisable style - e.g. Euphuism - and even then judgments (i.e. guesses) have to be made about how much of the play it dates. And of course (as the scholars would know) it's even more complicated than that, since such styles are often only recognisable because they're parodies. How long after a style was seriously fashionable would a parody be likely to be written? On the evidence of the Euphuistic parody in _Love's Labour's Lost_ it seems we might have to allow ten to fifteen years! The Elizabethans liked their topical satire well-matured. Pat Buckridge ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 09:39:24 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0157 Qs: Barton Videos; Teaching *Macbeth* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0157. Friday, 3 March 1995. (1) From: Mark Webster Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 21:32:03 -0600 (CST) Subj: Barton videos (2) From: Jennie Johnson Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 18:12:45 +0000 (GMT) Subj: [Teaching *Macbeth*] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Webster Date: Thursday, 02 Mar 1995 21:32:03 -0600 (CST) Subject: Barton videos Does anyone on the SHAKSPER list know who (if anyone) owns the home video rights to the PLAYING SHAKESPEARE series by John Barton and the RSC? I would like to buy or rent these videos for my own use. They are available from Films for the Humanities, but since the price includes public performance rights, it is far beyond my limited grad school resources (nearly $1000 for the set). I contacted the BBC but no one there seemed to know anything about the videos. I would be most grateful if anyone can tell me where I might obtain copies of these tapes at a reasonable price without violating too many international copyright laws. Please respond on the list or directly to me at the address below. Thanks. Mark Webster mwebster@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jennie Johnson Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 18:12:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Teaching *Macbeth*] Does anyone have any good ideas on how to teach Macbeth to a group of fourteen year olds? They will be looking at character, themes, etc. Does anyone have any interesting insights into Macbeth that I have not thought of? I am a P.G.C.E. student, at the University of Hertfordshire, near London, and am 'doing' Macbeth on my teaching practice. I am looking at the theme of the supernatural, Kingship and what that meant in Shakespeare's time, sleep, nature V chaos, role reversal .....anything else? Thanks in advance..... ............Jennie. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 09:43:55 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0158 *The Tempest* at Columbia U Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0158. Friday, 3 March 1995. From: Elizabeth Nancy Olesh Date: Thursday, 2 Mar 1995 22:35:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: The Tempest According to a poster I saw today, the Oscar Hammerstein Center (Columbia U's graduate theater program) will be presenting The Tempest from March 9-11 at St. Paul's Chapel at 117th and Amsterdam on the CU campus. Tickets are $7 for the general public, $5 for students. I left the phone number for info and reservations upstairs in my bag, but if anyone is interested I will post this. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 19:32:15 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0159 Re: Pronunciation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0159. Saturday, 4 March 1995. (1) From: Ron Moyers Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 9:45:04 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0155 Re: Pronunciation (2) From: T. Fred Wharton Date: Friday, 3 Mar 95 10:46:02 EST Subj: Kate/Cat (3) From: Andre Bourassa Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 12:49:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0155 Re: Pronunciation (4) From: Carmine Dibiase Date: Friday, 03 Mar 95 12:22:33 CST Subj: re: pronunciation (5) From: Dan T. M. How Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 17:03:57 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0155 Re: Pronunciation (6) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 16:51:04 -0600 (CST) Subj: pronouncing the names (7) From: Bill Grantham Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 17:03:52 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0155 Re: Pronunciation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Moyers Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 9:45:04 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0155 Re: Pronunciation To Ronald Dwelle, From a quick skim 'n' scan, I agree with you that Romeo should be disyllabic in almost all cases--if one buys into a basically iambic pulse (& I do). Occasionally, the trisyllabic pronunciation seems likely to complete the final iamb at the end of a line (e.g., 2.2.51, 2.2.93, 3.1.172, and several others). The only trisyllabic pronunciation I note that does not fall at the end of a line is at 3.1.166: "Retorts it. Romeo, he cries aloud." Haven't taken great pains to be absolutely comprehensive, but the verse seems, quite consistently, to demand the two syllable pronunciation that would be likely in verbal expression. To Ray Allen, Theodora Irvine's handy _How to Pronounce the Names in Shakespeare_ (1919) was reissued "with recent addenda" as _A Pronouncing Dictionary of Shakespearean Proper Names_ in 1944 (a Barnes & Noble paperback with a cover price of $1!). I'm sure the B&N paperback is long out of print (fortunately, I found an inexpensive copy at a used bookseller), but does anyone know of an in-print edition of the work that costs less--a lot less--than $48? --Ron Moyer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: T. Fred Wharton Date: Friday, 3 Mar 95 10:46:02 EST Subject: Kate/Cat I concur with Anna Cole that "Kate" sounds attractive and confers a kind of warmth and charm on the wearer. Still, names are an important part of a sense of self, and "Kate" is not who she wants to be. Isn't Petruchio's diminution of her name to a household Kate - however tasty - just part and parcel of his appropriation of the woman herself? Fred Wharton. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andre Bourassa Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 12:49:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0155 Re: Pronunciation One can read "miroher" for "miroir" in Francois de Sales. In popular French, Quebecers do pronounce "moi" and "toi" as "mway" and "tway" instead of "mwah" and "twah", which is a regular colonial heritage. But the old French accent doesn't occur everytime. For example, "roi" is now pronunced regularly by everyone in Quebec, even if it surely sounded like "rway" in the time of Shakespeare. I deliberately use here Quebec instead of Canada because colonial accent in popular French has not been preserved exactly the same way in Acadia and in Quebec. I think, for example, and I may be wrong, that the rolling Rs are more frequent among Acadians. One should not forget either that the accent of the french comedians and the accent of the french court was not necessarily the same. Jean Duvignaud, a specialist of theatre and society in France, said once to my Quebec students that most comedians in Paris at that time had the accent of Normandie. Andre G. Bourassa, Departement de theatre Universite du Quebec a Montreal bourassa.andre_g@uqam.ca (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carmine Dibiase Date: Friday, 03 Mar 95 12:22:33 CST Subject: re: pronunciation A diminutive of the name "Pietro" is "Pietruccio," or "Petruccio," the last syllable of which is pronounced (according to English spelling) "cho," as in the first syllable of "chocolate." My question is this: is the name "Petruchio" an English spelling intended to preserve an Italian pronunciation, or is it an Italian spelling? If it is an Italian spelling, then of course we have the pronunciation problem (follow the Italian or anglicize?). But can pronunciation of foreign names possibly have been stable in Shakespeare's day? - Carmine Dibiase (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan T. M. How Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 17:03:57 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0155 Re: Pronunciation In response to Steven Gagen... You caught me on that one, and I apologize. I had forgotten that old French had rolled r's, and oi/oy was pronounced differently, but wouldn't "boys" be pronounced "bway"? In response to Michael Swanson... You missed my point. I have both Voice and the Actor, and The Actor and the Text, and I understand your point, but it seems you missed mine. My point was whether or not names would have been pronounced as they would in their assumed native language, not whether or not current scansion is valid. Read my post again. Scansion is a way of life for me, and I didn't want to give the impression that I didn't know what I was talking about. In response to everybody else In the production of TotS that I saw, they way "Kate" was pronounced came out as a mix between "Kate" and "cat", so both puns came across well. 2.1.269: Petruchio: "For I am he am born to tame you, Kate, / And bring you from a wild Kate to a Kate / Conformable as other household Kates." He wants to tame this wild creature to be conformable as other household creatures. This seems to justify that pronunciation of "Kate" similar to that of "Cat" Are there such things as "wild" cates, that need to be tamed to that of a "household" cate? Also a general question: would it be possible that the pronunciation of "Kate" could vary within the show? I myself have a friend of Catherine, who I call "Cat" for short. This is not as uncommon as many people seem to think. (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 16:51:04 -0600 (CST) Subject: pronouncing the names Several questions about name-pronunciation have popped up lately and also a few doubtful answers. URGENT: Ray Allen...please stop using Theodora Irvine's HOW TO PRONOUNCE THE NAMES IN SHAKESPEARE. The book is wrong more often than right. It was based exclusively on Victorian tradition and by that time knowledge of both the verse system and Elizabethan pronunciation had been lost. The book was so thoroughly discredited that it went out of print quickly. Please don't trust it. There are only three kinds of evidence by which we may reasonably determine pronunciation of words in Shakespeare: - His verse system, which is MUCH more regular than many (including John Barton and Cicely Berry) think. Both Barton and his colleague, Berry, fall into a terrible trap: they mis-define iambic pentameter and then conclude that Shakespeare doesn't really write it consistently. If you understand the system, you'll find that he does. - His rhymes, which tell what words sound alike, but not necesssarily what that sound is. - What we know of Elizabethan pronunciation. The best source for this information is the systems of spelling proposed by the orthographic reformers of the period and other compelling evidence is found in the songs of the time. Of course we can't assume that Shakespeare's pronunciation matched the standard pronunciation of the time in all cases. We surely can't assume that foreign names and words are pronounced according to the foreign standard. The English are notorious for their determination to give a proper British pronunciation to all foreign words. Please don't rely on Cicely Berry's verse chapter. It is astonishingly misinformed. (If you want to see my review of the book, which is otherwise very good, e-mail a request.) When we have studied the evidence listed above, we can make reliable judgements on the number of syllables and the relative emphasis of syllables. We are much less certain about vowel sounds. We can't be sure whether the "ch" in Petruchio is "ch" or "k" (though "k" is the runaway favorite in our theatres). But we can be certain that it is a three-syllable name (puh-TROO-kyoh). It's clear that Shakespeare's habit was to make the IO endings of the Italianate names one syllable in every case except when the name is used as the last word in a verse line, in which cases he usually provides a stronger line ending by giving the IO two syllables. This is an example of what I call the LAST-WORD VARIATION. It is one of Willy's favorite techniques. There are hundreds of words which are consistently one syllable longer when they end the line and never at other times. (Check out the ION endings, for example.) The same is true of the EO endings as in ROMEO. It offends me to the quick to hear the name consistently pronounced RO-mee=OH which destroys any verse line in which it appears. It's ROHM-yoh, except when it appears at the end of a verse line. By the way, it is JOOL-yeht in every case except at the line ends. The evidence about Kate is not so compelling but the rhymes are persuasive (and yes, cates is likely CATS). I am convinced that it must rhyme with CAT. That crucial line about household cats is just gibberish unless she is Cat. Cat, by the way, is the "logical" pronunciation; why would we have CAT-uh-REE-nuh, CAT-uh-RIHN, and CAT-rihn, and then shift to KAYT? I have used the CAT pronunciation in three productions of the show I directed and it flies beautifully. Puns jump out; the cozy familiarity, almost impudence, of Petruchio's use of it, is very winning. I've never had an audience member comment on it which I take to mean that it fits so well that it seems right to listeners. JAQUES: must be JAY-kweez. Just check the scansion. It can't be otherwise. We may love Shakespeare's use of the jakes-jokes but the availability of the pun is not evidential. Someday I'll post a list of the 50 Shakespearean names most often mispronounced. Sorry this is so long. I have a soapbox problem. Roger Gross (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Grantham Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 17:03:52 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0155 Re: Pronunciation What about Macbeth? I've long assumed -- on no particular authority, it must be added -- that the name was pronounced Macbeeth, for two reasons: 1. I take Macheath in the Beggar's Opera to be a joke at Shakespeare's expense. 2. The modern related Scottish surname, Beith, is pronounced Beeth. Does anybody have a more reliable idea of how it's pronounced? Bill Grantham billgra@well.sf.ca.us ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 19:42:27 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0160 Re: Malvolio; Richard; Lost Play Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0160. Saturday, 4 March 1995. (1) From: Sara Cave Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 10:19:57 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0156 Re: Malvolio (2) From: David Middleton Date: Friday, 03 Mar 95 09:52:27 CST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0153 Richard and Anne (3) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 03 Mar 1995 12:55 ET Subj: Love's Labours Wonne (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Cave Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 10:19:57 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0156 Re: Malvolio In a recent (September '94) production of TWELFTH NIGHT at the Atlanta Shakespeare Tavern, the character of Malvolio hissed out in great anger his revengeful last line. This stunned the other actors, and indeed the audience, into an uncomfortable silence. As Malvolio stalked his way down the ramp leading from stage to the door, he lost his footing and tripped. It was so realistic that there were gasps from the audience, then a small pause existed before the entire theatre erupted into uproarious laughter. It was a wonderfully captured moment, and one I feel encapsulated the essence of the character. Sincerely, sarah.cave@asc.scottlan.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Middleton Date: Friday, 03 Mar 95 09:52:27 CST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0153 Richard and Anne My question to William Mayes is what happens to that marvellous "flexability" of Richard's by the end of the show? All the vitality, the bustling energy appears drained from him, and he has to resort to drink to raise his spirits. He is as notably unsuccessful at wooing Elizabeth (through her mother) as he was brilliantly effective with Anne earlier. Is the difference a matter of development of character or an implicit critique of the nasty will-to-power of Machiavellianism, which,ironically, at last evolves necessarily from power to will, will to appetite, and "eats up himself." I'm intrigued by what looks like a simple question: why does Richard 3 ultimately fail? Can one explain that in terms of " flexability?" (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 03 Mar 1995 12:55 ET Subject: Love's Labours Wonne In their delightful historical spoof, _No Bed for Bacon_, Caryl Brahms and S. J. Simon (the pseudonym of S. J. Tarnowski) follow the vicissitudes of Shakespeare's life for several weeks. During this period he repeatedly sits down in some quiet corner of an otherwise busy place--theater or tavern or anteroom--and writes "Love's Labours Wonne" at the top of a page (in one instance he gets as far as the first stage direction: "The Garden of Eden. Enter Adam and Eve") only to be interrupted by Francis Bacon seeking a little editorial help (read extensive rewriting) with a set of essays he's trying to publish. The result is to interfere with the play, which never does get written. The explanation is as satisfactory as most. So is the explanation for the famous puzzle from the will referred to in the title--but I'll let you all find the book (very superior summer reading) and check that out for yourselves. Laboriously, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 19:53:53 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0161 Re: Chronology Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0161. Saturday, 4 March 1995. (1) From: Chris Bergstresser Date: Friday, 03 Mar 1995 14:13:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0156 Re: Chronology (2) From: Dan T. M. How Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 17:04:32 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0156 Re: Chronology (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Bergstresser Date: Friday, 03 Mar 1995 14:13:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0156 Re: Chronology On Pat Buckridge's rules for refuting chronology: -}1.The earliest quarto you find is not necessarily the earliest published. Granted. -}2.There is no necessary correlation anyway between dates of publication and -}dates of composition for any of the plays. I can think of one: the composition surely must predate the publication. -}3.Dramatic settings do not reflect theatrical environments. (On reading this -}handy hint my jaw - to borrow a Kathman hyperbole - hit the floor). Dramatic settings do not *necessarily* reflect theatrical enviroments. There are clear instances, however, where the dramatic setting does reflect the enviroment: the "discovery space" occasionally alluded to is evidence of some scenic convention, even if we today cannot agree on what that would be. I would scoff at any chronology based exclusively on the settings for the plays and the places one assumes they would be acted; using them to bolster a fairly strong argument is perfectly reasonable. -}4.Dating by style and versification is entirely circular (hence entirely -}useless), except in those rare instances where external evidence gives an -}approximate date for a particular recognisable style Once again, this is a broad oversimplification. One can easily tell an early work from a late work, for the most part, by the forms Shakespeare uses. Granted, trying to base a chronology on stylistic changes which occured over the course of a year or two is very questionable. As a general guide, however, style can serve rather well. The ultimate problem is deciding how reliable any of the evidence which survives is. Some is no doubt completely accurate, some is mostly accurate but slightly misleading, and some is out-and-out wrong. The whole purpose of the historian is to sift through the evidence and try and tell the difference. A healthy skepticism is required for this. But at the same time I wouldn't discount any of the evidence, either. Taken as a whole the smallest proofs may make a cohesive picture; just don't base your whole argument solely around any minor proof. Chris Bergstresser (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan T. M. How Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 17:04:32 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0156 Re: Chronology In response to Pat Buckridge... I was attempting to simplify a complicated process, but I'll agree that these methods have their short-comings. I would like to emphasis that I'm no authority on the subject, but can you suggest other ways to date material? Or, to play devil's advocate, verify that Shakespeare was the sole writer of all these plays? The first folio was printed well after Shakespeare's death, and for many of the plays, it is the sole source. The first folio derived much from the quartos. And subsequent folios were made from preceding ones, which results in a wonderful series of errors that nobody can pinpoint, and the reason that there are so many editions today. Mention of play performances in letters and publications can be used to give a rough idea of when a play was performed. Internal references to other sources or events that can be verified, language references that can be attributed to such an event, and references to other known published work can also be used as evidence. I'm curious to know what methods you use, since I wasn't taught anything beyond what I just mentioned. Personally, I notice a difference in style between, for example, CoE and Temp. Hopefully I notice this difference because it exists, not because I'm an ignorant amateur that likes to talk about things he doesn't know about. I would assume that for those that truly have a sense of history, it would be like watching "Saturday Night Fever" and dating it in the 70's, to grossly generalize. I think within the plays, if you assume that they are pretty close to the original, one can find enough references and evidence to roughly date it, if one knows what one is doing. -dan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 20:03:46 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0162 Re: *Temp* at Columbia; Sh in Park; Non-Trad. Sh Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0162. Saturday, 4 March 1995. (1) From: Julie Dubiner Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 16:30:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: The Tempest at Columbia (2) From: Charles Adler Date: Saturday, 04 Mar 1995 01:45:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0143 Q: Sh in the Park (3) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 1995 14:52:13 -0600 (CST) Subj: non-trad Shakespeare entertainments (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Dubiner Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 16:30:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: The Tempest at Columbia The Tempest will be presented at St. Paul's Chapel on the Columbia University campus. $7 admission, $5 for students. March 9, 10, 11 at 8:00 pm. You enter through the Columbia gates at 116th and Amsterdam and just go around the corner (or ask a wandering student to point you in the right direction). For reservations and information call (212) 854-6920. The production is the thesis project of one of our third year directors, and it is dramaturged, managed, etc by fellow MFA candidates. I would suggest if your interested to make a reservation, as seating is limited from what I understand. It should be interesting... (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Adler Date: Saturday, 04 Mar 1995 01:45:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0143 Q: Sh in the Park <> As a charter subsciber (paid the whole thing up front) I can assure you that, yes, they continue after JP's death although, for a time, during the reign of Joanne Akalitis, it was touch and go. Anyway, there is no information yet on the schedule. Usually, they announce quite close to the summer; May or June. As soon as recieve the information, I will post it to the list. See you there. Charles D. Adler CHARLESADLER@Delphi.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 1995 14:52:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: non-trad Shakespeare entertainments Christopher J. Madsen asks for suggestions of pseudo-Shakespeare bits he might include in his festival. Two tips: Tom Stoppard wrote a ca. 15-minute version of HAMLET called DOGG'S HAMLET (published in a Faber and Faber volume: DOGG'S HAMLET, CAHOOT'S MACBETH, 1980. As a "curtain call", it also provides a 2- or 3-minute version. I use it occasionally in my Acting Shakespeare class when I need to work on the SIZE Shakespeare asks of actors. It is wild and funny. If you can find a copy, I think you will also enjoy THE SHAKESPEAREAN BASEBALL GAME by two Canadian comedians, Wayne and Schuster. It is a mock radio broadcast of a baseball game done mostly in lines appropriated from Shakespeare. Low comedy but very funny. Samples: I pray, how doth the starting lineup go? 'Tis as it was before With Harry, Pete and Joe out in the field. Peewee! Sire? Thou the shortop spot will play. And you three, guarding your accustomed bags: Stan the First, Bill the Second, and Richard the Third. _________________ YOGI: Oh what a rogue and bush-league slob am I. Is it not monstrous that this player here But in a fiction, in a dream of passion, Should gaze upon the record book and find That he hath ten games hitless gone. Oh, cursed fate That I who led the league should now bat 208. A hit, a hit, my kingdom for a hit! ... To run from first to second, then to third And then to dig for home. To slide, slide, slide. Aye, there's the rub. There's a divinity that shapes our ends. Etcetera. Actors and audiences love it. Unfortunately, someone ripped off my copy of the record. It came out about 28 years ago (Lord!!) and also included a Mafia-style version of JULIUS CAESAR (better known as Big Juley). Roger Gross Univ. of Arkansas ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 20:16:03 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0163 Re: Barton Videos Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0163. Saturday, 4 March 1995. From: Dan T. M. How Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 17:04:16 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0157 Q: Barton Videos In response to Mark Webster... The Barton videos along with the book are an excellent resource and reference. (I even had a reference to one in a recent post) You might want to check your local library or local university library. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 20:24:13 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0164 Re: Teaching *Macbeth* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0164. Saturday, 4 March 1995. (1) From: Dan T. M. How Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 17:04:16 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0157 Q: Teaching *Macbeth* (2) From: Robert Saenger Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 23:28:43 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0157 Q: Teaching *Macbeth* (3) From: Gareth M. Euridge Date: Saturday, 04 Mar 1995 11:25:01 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0157 Q: Teaching *Macbeth* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan T. M. How Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 17:04:16 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0157 Q: Teaching *Macbeth* In response to Jennie Johnson... Good for you!! I myself didn't bother with Shakespeare until I was in college really, but I'll bet if we tackled Macbeth in high school, I would have been hooked. It looks like you have all the bases covered, but I'll tell you what I myself would want to learn as a 14 year old. Supernatural of couse, and pyrotechnics if you got 'em. Emphasis the sleep issue, and how that affects people. Neither of them do much sleeping through the play, and this fact is glossed over a lot. I'll bet I'd be seeing daggers if I haven't had any sleep for a while, too. Also, cover fate vs freedom of choice. That's a pretty dominant theme and it comes around full circle at the end. And of course, for a moral lesson, emphasis ambition and greed, and how they changed Mr and Mrs Macbeth, and caused their downfall. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Saenger Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 23:28:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0157 Q: Teaching *Macbeth* Regarding Jennie Johnson's query on teaching Macbeth- You sound like a very consciencious teacher, so the kids are lucky. I would try having them (not quite making all of them) learn a speech and perform it. That is how I learned Macbeth at 14; it was so much fun I didn't realize how much I was learning. Michael Saenger (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gareth M. Euridge Date: Saturday, 04 Mar 1995 11:25:01 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0157 Q: Teaching *Macbeth* Re. teaching of _Macbeth_. Most often, my students have a problem thinking of Macbeth as anything but an examplum of the judiciousness of the "three strikes and you're out" policy. I have found it quite useful, however, to suggest a slightly different context for the play. Without too much embarrassment, I suggest that they should regard this play, in part, from the perspective of a Klingon ideology in the various _Star Treks_. I don't press this idea too far, of course, but students seem to understand quite readily the ethos of a character such as Worf and transfer that to the play. Klingons are bloody, bold, and resolute in the battle because that is precisely what they are supposed to be. They are this also when it comes to leadership aspirations. They are not, however, as Macbeth is not, merely homicidal thugs. The same method also works very well for the Roman plays. It's not perfect, and I attempt to move away from it quite quickly, but it does make problematic many students' attempts to perceive Shakespearean drama as simple morality plays in which "what goes around comes around." . . . and then of course, there is always the joke in _Next Generation_ in which Shakespeare is said to be much better in the original Klingon . . . Gareth M. Euridge geuridge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 20:31:40 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0165 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0165. Saturday, 4 March 1995. (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 17:28:20 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0145 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (2) From: Jennie Johnson Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 1995 15:07:09 +0000 (GMT) Subj: [Re: *Romeo and Juliet*] (3) From: Marcia Hepps Date: Friday, 03 Mar 1995 11:01:31 EST Subj: [Re: *Romeo and Juliet*] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 17:28:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0145 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Hi, guys. This may seem trivial, but isn't there another interpretation of the line where the nurse talks about her teeth? "To my teen be it spoken I have but four" could mean that she has four-teen, which makes her bet a little more touching: she knows her dental situation, and is willing to bet every tooth in her head. Just a thought. Cheers, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jennie Johnson Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 1995 15:07:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Re: *Romeo and Juliet*] Does anyone have any issues or comments to raise on Romeo and Juliet, Act 1 sc.5 (Party where the lovers meet) and Act. 3 sc. 3 (Friar Lawrence's cell). These two scenes are given to English children in the new S.A.T.S. exam this summer. (Standard Attainment Targets) The kids are 13/14. Any interesting observations will be much appreciated. I am a student teacher just outside London. Thanks in advance.... .....Jennie. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcia Hepps Date: Friday, 03 Mar 1995 11:01:31 EST Subject: [Re: *Romeo and Juliet*] RE:R&J I have three questions about the final scene and I would appreciate any and all considered opinions- 1) "Tybalt, liest thou there in thu bloody sheet?" Would the Caps really have laid Tyb out without cleaning him up or is this a metaphor for shroud or what thinkst thou? 2)"Thy husband in thy bosom there lies dead" does this mean that Romeo has literally fallen on her chest and she's talking and doesnt realize this or are we talking metaphor again? 3)"A cup clos'd in my true love's hand" are we to believe that Romeo hauls in a chalice and some thing to pour liquid out of and stops the scne to mix this toddy for himself and if not why doesnt she say vial- I know cup clos'ed is better sounding than vial clos'd but I always assume Shakespeare was telling me something and maybe I'm missing it. Thanks for thinking on this-I'm stumped. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 13:31:07 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0166 Re: Music; Qs: *Macbeth* Adaptation; Teaching Acting Sh. Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0166. Sunday, 5 March 1995. (1) From: Dan T. M. How Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 17:08:04 -0800 Subj: AYLI music (2) From: Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 1995 17:15:37 -0500 Subj: Renaissance Music, and a question (3) From: Eric Grischkat Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 1995 08:58:51 -0800 (PST) Subj: Teaching Acting for Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan T. M. How Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 17:08:04 -0800 Subject: AYLI music Can anyone recommend a good recording of the music from AYLI, or just a good recording of Shakespeare music in general? -dan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 1995 17:15:37 -0500 Subject: Renaissance Music, and a question Two disks that I've found useful in my teaching are *Popular Music from the Time of Queen Elizabeth I* by the Camerata of London (Saga Classics SCD 9013), which has seven songs from the stage along with a number of others from the period, and *The Art of the Bawdy Song* by The Baltimore Consort and The Merry Companions (Dorian DOR-90155). I've been looking high and low for a film version of *Macbeth* which probably came out in the early 80s. My best memory is of a Siskel and Ebert review of the film. It was updated to modern times, and maybe even had modernized dialogue: I remember them showing a clip in which a husband and wife were trying to figure out what to do with the body of the boss, whom they'd just done to death in the kitchen. Can't remember whether the film was supposed to be good or who was in it. Not much to go on, I know, but if any of you have even slight leads, I'd appreciate hearing them. Best, Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Grischkat Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 1995 08:58:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Teaching Acting for Shakespeare I'm currently teaching a Shakepeare Performance class for professional actors in San Diego. I use Barton's and Berry's books, and exercises from six years of acting training. I always am searching for better exercises. Specifally ones that will help the actor personalize the text and exercises to activate the student. Love to hear about specific tools/ exercises that others have come across which have been successful. Eric George Grischkat egg@teetot.acusd.edu University of San Diego ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 09:10:41 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0167 Re: Teaching: Acting Shakespeare and *Macbeth* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0167. Monday, 6 March 1995. (1) From: Dan T. M. How Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 14:45:30 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0166 Q: Teaching Acting Sh. (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 04 Mar 1995 22:25:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0164 Re: Teaching the Scottish Play (3) From: Amy Ulen Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 1995 22:26:21 -0800 (PST) Subj: Teaching "Macbeth" (4) From: Mary Tyler Knowles Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 10:54:48 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0164 Re: Teaching *Macbeth* (5) From: Leslie Harris Date: Sunday, Mar 5 21:51:10 EST 1995 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0164 Re: Teaching *Macbeth* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan T. M. How Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 14:45:30 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0166 Q: Teaching Acting Sh. In response to Eric Grischkat... The most helpful things for ME were learning about word history and looking up words in the OED, learning about iambic pentameter and its foot variations, learning sonnet structure, and learning basic tools of rhetoric. Then, writting sonnets, with set foot variations; writing sonnets "on-the-spot", which forced us to think in the form. Then, studying a monologue; its structure, its irregularities, its language, its subtext and its context. Then, doing actual work for a monologue to be performed, then a scene. After this, I BEGAN to understand Shakespeare, and was able to appreciate his works more, which made me take more classes, which made me want to perform, which made me... (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 04 Mar 1995 22:25:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0164 Re: Teaching the Scottish Play If I were teaching the play to fourteen year olds, I'd emphasize the language. Some years ago when Herb Coursen was giving a teaching seminar for high school teachers and students in Akron, we all learned that high school students -- older than fourteen -- have a difficult time understanding the language. I'd have my class do a great deal of reading aloud -- in unison to begin. Then I'd have half the class read one line and have the other half of the class respond with the next line. (If this reminds you of Peggy O'Brien, it should.) I'd get them to play with the words, until they were familiar with rhythms, etc. Sadly enough I find that advanced English majors at Cincinnati have a difficult time understanding Shakespeare's language. I've tried all the suggestions that you all kindly gave me last year -- to no avail. I've just got done reading a set of papers on WT 4.4, and I am sick at heart. Yours, Bill (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Ulen Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 1995 22:26:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Teaching "Macbeth" In response to Jennie Johnson's request for teaching ideas, I suggest the Folger Library's "Shakespeare Set Free" series. The key is to get kids on their feet EXPERIENCING the language! I teach at an alternative school for kids who have previously dropped-out or have been kicked out of high school. The age range is 13-21. Thanks to the folks at Shakespeare & Company and the NEH's National Institute on Teaching Shakespeare, my kids are truly experiencing Shakespeare! So far this school year, I have taught "Midsummer," "Macbeth," "Hamlet," and "Much Ado." I didn't start any of these plays at Act I, scene i. By the end of the play, each student had memorized and performed scenes and/or monologues. Most of my students hated Shakespeare before we began the year. By experiencing the plays through "performance," they have a new appreciation for the Bard. Prime example -- yesterday (Friday) they begged me to show the movie "Henry V." I think that is pretty amazing coming from a bunch of kids who use drugs and alcohol to escape. They are starting to think! Thank you, Shakespeare! Amy Ulen Lead Teacher Moscow Alternative School Center (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Tyler Knowles Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 10:54:48 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0164 Re: Teaching *Macbeth* I've taught *Macbeth* for a very long time to our ninth graders. I cannot remember when they have not loved it. One piece of information that they find fascinating is that of the Elizabethan *chain of being* for then they are able to see disruption at every level, from the most psychological to the most cosmic, from the animal kingdom to the human kingdom. I also ask my students each to be in charge of a particular kind of image (clothing, for example) and at the end, having collected ALL the images of this type and their associated images, to produce a ten minute oral report. They become much more scrupulous readers as a result and also begin to connect image to theme. I also enjoy having them stage the banquet scene. As a preliminary step, I ask them to write directions for each speech's delivery (and for each part of each speech that needs direction) and to indicate the blocking for the scene. They must have reasons why they choose to have the characters move and speak as they do, reasons that relate to their concept of the play and concept of the characters. These reasons must also be explained. Then I devote several class periods to the *hands on* part, the actual directing of other classmates. It's interesting to watch as each one has come up with her (it's an all-girls school) own dramatic interpretation yet is asked to be part of someone else's. Hope these thoughts are helpful. I LOVE to teach *Macbeth*. -- Mary Tyler Knowles Head, English Dept. The Winsor School Boston, MA (mknowles@k12.oit.umass.edu) (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leslie Harris Date: Sunday, Mar 5 21:51:10 EST 1995 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0164 Re: Teaching *Macbeth* > Most often, my students have a problem thinking of Macbeth as anything but > an examplum of the judiciousness of the "three strikes and you're out" > policy. I have found it quite useful, however, to suggest a slightly > different context for the play. Without too much embarrassment, I suggest > that they should regard this play, in part, from the perspective of a > Klingon ideology in the various _Star Treks_. I don't press this idea too > far, of course, but students seem to understand quite readily the ethos of a > character such as Worf and transfer that to the play. Klingons are bloody, > bold, and resolute in the battle because that is precisely what they are > supposed to be. They are this also when it comes to leadership aspirations. > They are not, however, as Macbeth is not, merely homicidal thugs. The same > method also works very well for the Roman plays. Wow--and I thought I was the only eccentric who used _Star Trek_ and _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ to explain Shakespeare. I like to compare the system of feuding families in _Romeo and Juliet_ to the similar system in the Klingon world. For a Capulet and a Montague (at least until R&J hook up), as for a Klingon, personal and familial honor is everything. Any affront to that honor must be answered by a challenge to combat. Death is answered by a similar mortal challenge (as Worf challenges Duras when Worf's betrothed is killed by Duras). Both are warrior cultures and display the aggressive values of that culture. I hope these comparisons illuminate the plays for my students, although I've found (much to my chagrin) that almost none of my students have watched the original _Star Trek_, and precious few (perhaps one or two per class) were fans of the _Next Generation_. Now, either I have uninteresting students, or there's just no accounting for taste. Live long and prosper! Leslie Harris lharris@einstein.susqu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 09:18:11 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0168 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0168. Monday, 6 March 1995. (1) From: Dan T. M. How Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 1995 19:15:46 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0165 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (2) From: Frank Savukinas Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 18:52:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0165 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan T. M. How Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 1995 19:15:46 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0165 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* In response to Sean Lawrence... "teen" in this context is defined by the OED as meaning, "suffering, grief, woe". There's a definite pun possibility there, and it really depends on how you interpret the line, but I think those lines (13-14) can be interpreted as "I'd bet fourteen of my teeth, even though to my sorrow I have only four, that she's not fourteen." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Savukinas Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 18:52:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0165 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* >RE:R&J I have three questions about the final scene and I would appreciate any >and all considered opinions- 1) "Tybalt, liest thou there in thu bloody sheet?" >Would the Caps really have laid Tyb out without cleaning him up or is this a >metaphor for shroud or what thinkst thou? 2)"Thy husband in thy bosom there >lies dead" does this mean that Romeo has literally fallen on her chest and >she's talking and doesnt realize this or are we talking metaphor again? 3)"A >cup clos'd in my true love's hand" are we to believe that Romeo hauls in a >chalice and some thing to pour liquid out of and stops the scne to mix this >toddy for himself and if not why doesnt she say vial- I know cup clos'ed is >better sounding than vial clos'd but I always assume Shakespeare was telling me >something and maybe I'm missing it. In response to your first question about Tybalt and the "bloody sheet," I think that it was a metaphor for a shroud as you suggested. Secondly, I don't think Shakespeare meant for Romeo to fall "in" her bosom. Romeo would probably have fallen next to the bosom, presumably on the ground next to Juliet. Finally, I always assumed that after leaving the apothecary, Romeo found some readily available liquid like water before he and Balthasar rode back to Verona. Technically, a cup and vial are the same thing. Frank Savukinas fsavukin@ashland.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 09:24:57 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0169 Re: Pronunciation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0169. Monday, 6 March 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 04 Mar 1995 22:49:57 Subj: Pronunciation (2) From: David Glassco Date: Sunday, 05 Mar 1995 15:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0159 Re: Pronunciation (3) From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 21:41:22 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0159 Iambic pentameter (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 04 Mar 1995 22:49:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Pronunciation Bill Grantham says for clues to the pronunciation of "Macbeth." In scene one of the play, "Macbeth" is rhymed with "heath." Of course, that doesn't help much because we don't know how a Londoner in the early 17th century pronounced "heath." Would the influx of Scots have influenced the actors' pronunciation? Would they have assumed Scots accents? How did a 17th century Scot pronounce "heath"? Yours, Bill (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Glassco Date: Sunday, 05 Mar 1995 15:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0159 Re: Pronunciation May I suggest that Roger Gross would be doing us all a service if he would indeed publish his list of the fifty S'n names most often mispronounced! Thanks in advance, David Glassco Trent University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 21:41:22 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0159 Iambic pentameter OK, Roger Gross, you have aroused my curiosity: in what way does Barton misdefine iambic pentameter? He carelessly [or not?] does not include any talk of iambs or feet, but surely he's got the gist of it right? ::settling before the soapbox:: Dale Lyles ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 09:32:17 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0170 Qs: Fiennes *Ham*; *MM*; Request from Poland Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0170. Monday, 6 March 1995. (1) From: Mary M Kramm Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 10:56:09 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: Ralph Fiennes in _Hamlet_ (2) From: Warner Crocker Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 19:46:17 -0800 Subj: Measure for Measure (3) From: Jaroslaw Chudziak Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 1995 15:59:00 +0100 Subj: Request.... (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary M Kramm Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 10:56:09 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Ralph Fiennes in _Hamlet_ Does anyone know the American itinerary of the _Hamlet_ tour starring Ralph Fiennes? The show opens at the Belasco Theatre in NYC in mid-April, I understand, but where it goes after that I don't know. Thanks. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Warner Crocker Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 19:46:17 -0800 Subject: Measure for Measure I am a professional director currently guest directing Measure for Measure at the University of Illinois-Chicago. For this production we are deciding that Isabella does not accept the Duke's offer to discuss marriage. As for this famou s does she or doesn't she debate, I am most curious to know what folks feel. It certainly is a hot topic here and I would appreciate any opinions that this quer y generates. Thanks, Warner Crocker wcrocker@ix.netcom.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jaroslaw Chudziak Date: Saturday, 4 Mar 1995 15:59:00 +0100 Subject: Request.... [Please reply directly to finiak@alpha.im.pw.edu.pl in that the requester is not yet a member of SHAKSPER. --hmc] Dear Dr. Cook, I am currently a student at the English Department at the University of Warsaw and am writing my M.A. dissertation on the cabinet of wonders. The title of my work is "The strange, the exotic and the other on display in Renaissance England". Although the title includes the words "on display", I would not like to restrict the scope of my work to the theatre, as I will also be writing about prose. Shakespeare is not the only playwright of interest to me, since I will also be writing about Ben Jonson's "Bartholemew Fair". The problem, however, is that I am having problems with finding some of the necessary materials. I am aware of the fact that this is not exactly related to Shakespeare, but perhaps you will know where to find Taylor, A.M. (1957): Sights and Monsters and Gulliver's "Voyage to Brobdingnag", Tulane Studies in English, p.28-82 or Bhabha, Homi: The other Question, Screen 24 (1983) No 6, p.18-38 because so far I haven't been able to find any of these, even on the Internet. If you could also recommend any materials on Caliban or on "The Tempest" and the discourse of colonialism or any other materials related to my topic, I would be extremely grateful. Any other advice will also prove very useful. I will be waiting for an answer, because I am pressed for time and you are probably the last hope I have. If you are not able to help me, could you please suggest the names of any other University professors worldwide who could help me on this topic. I am hoping for an answer and am truly grateful for any help. Sincerely yours, Joanna Gorajewska. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 09:38:54 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0171 Re: Music; Richard; Chronology Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0171. Monday, 6 March 1995. (1) From: Dan T. M. How Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 14:45:30 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0166 Re: Music (2) From: William Russell Mayes Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 12:53:47 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0160 Re: Richard (3) From: Pat Buckridge Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 14:24:22 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0161 Re: Chronology (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan T. M. How Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 14:45:30 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0166 Re: Music In response to Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer... Thanks for the tip! I'm scoring a production of As You Like It, and am debating whether or not to use the assumed original music (the production is in a romanticized modern setting). It looks like I'll probably end up doing the music myself, but I wanted to listen or look at the "original" because I wanted an idea of what the music actually sounded like. -dan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Russell Mayes Date: Sunday, 5 Mar 1995 12:53:47 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0160 Re: Richard David Middleton asks a question about R3 that I struggle with all the time: "why does Richard 3 ultimately fail?" I think partially that we can explain it not through Richard's flexibility, but the limits of that flesibility. Richard does not take the women in this play seriously, and at the end he simply can't imagine that E's mother would lie to him in such a blatant manner--after all, that's his terrain. Is he burnt out? I think so. Is it character development? I don't think so, but that is not a can of worms I wish to re-open. W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Department of English University of Virginia (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Buckridge Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 14:24:22 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0161 Re: Chronology To Chris Bergstresser, who writes: > >-}2.There is no necessary correlation anyway between dates of publication and >-}dates of composition for any of the plays. > > I can think of one: the composition surely must predate the >publication. Granted. I suppose this is worth saying. > >-}3.Dramatic settings do not reflect theatrical environments. > > Dramatic settings do not *necessarily* reflect theatrical enviroments. > There are clear instances, however, where the dramatic setting does > reflect the enviroment: the "discovery space" occasionally alluded to > is evidence of some scenic convention, even if we today cannot agree on > what that would be. > > I would scoff at any chronology based exclusively on the settings for > the plays and the places one assumes they would be acted; using them to > bolster a fairly strong argument is perfectly reasonable. Yes, you're quite right. I regretted my omission of that word ('necessary') as soon as I'd sent off my posting. I have already replied to a private inquirer on this as follows: It's fine to speculate, on the basis of a known set of facts about where a play was first performed, that the fictional settings may have been influenced, in part, by the physical environment of the theatre. It would only ever be one of several factors anyway, and surely not one of the most important. It's quite another thing to turn it around and say: because this play has (for example) lots of indoor scenes it was probably written for performance in the private theatre. There are just too many examples in the canon (even as arranged by the most orthodox assumptions) of non-correlation between these two things (and their opposites: outdoor scenes and public theatre) for this to come close to being a useful dating test. [But this objection actually pales into insignificance beside the main one, which is that *there is no known set of facts* about where the plays were first performed. (There are some about particular performances, but there is no reason to suppose these were premieres). Furthermore there is no known order of composition. Dan How's procedures assume that there is. > >-}4.Dating by style and versification is entirely circular (hence entirely >-}useless), except in those rare instances where external evidence gives an >-}approximate date for a particular recognisable style > > Once again, this is a broad oversimplification. One can easily tell an > early work from a late work, for the most part, by the forms > Shakespeare uses. Granted, trying to base a chronology on stylistic > changes which occured over the course of a year or two is very > questionable. As a general guide, however, style can serve rather well. Saying things with confidence doesn't make them true. You haven't engaged with my point here at all. If you believe stylistic dating is *not* circular - except under the specific conditions I described - perhaps you could explain your grounds. To Dan How, who writes: >I was attempting to simplify a complicated process, but I'll agree that these >methods have their short-comings. I would like to emphasis that I'm no >authority on the subject, but can you suggest other ways to date material? Has it occurred to you that some 'material' *can't* be dated? Your whole conception of dating as a set of 'techniques' that you can simply apply and hey presto! out pops 1596 is excessively cybernetic if you don't mind my saying so. Being able to assign a date to a play depends on the existence of certain kinds of information (which, unfortunately, may not exist), to which ordinary logic is applied. >Or [can you] verify that Shakespeare was the sole writer of all >these plays? No, I can't. Other people on this list think they can. >Mention of play performances in >letters and publications can be used to give a rough idea of when a play was >performed. Only if we know it's a first performance (which in fact we never do). >Internal references to other sources or events that can be >verified, language references that can be attributed to such an event, and >references to other known published work can also be used as evidence.... I >think within the plays, if you assume that they are >pretty close to the original, one can find enough references and evidence to >roughly date it, if one knows what one is doing. A nice thought if only there were an agreed and verified context of historical referents for Shakespeare's plays. There's not. >I'm curious to know what methods you use, since I wasn't taught anything beyond >what I just mentioned. Logic and information (if available) is all there is. > Personally, I notice a difference in style between, for >example, CoE and Temp. So do I.The question is whether you think one announces itself as *early* and the other as *late*. Pat Buckridge ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 09:41:27 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0172 *What Was Shakespeare?* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0172. Monday, 6 March 1995. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 05 Mar 1995 22:47:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ed Pechter's WHAT WAS SHAKESPEARE? As I was reading through the latest NYRB (March 23, 1995) this morning, I noticed Cornell UP's ad with Ed Pechter's WHAT WAS SHAKESPEARE? RENAISSANCE PLAYS AND CHANGING CRITICAL RESPONSE ($29.95/$12.95). It just dawn on me that this sounds like an advertisement (anathema!), but my intention was simply to note the fact that the book is out -- and I look forward to reading it! Yours, Bill ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 08:04:53 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0173 CTI-TEXTUAL-STUDIES Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0173. Monday, 6 March 1995. From: Michale Popham Date: Friday, 3 Mar 1995 14:13:42 CST Subject: NEW: CTI-TEXTUAL-STUDIES - Computers and Textual Studies CTI-TEXTUAL-STUDIES on MAILBASE@MAILBASE.AC.UK CTI-TEXTUAL-STUDIES is a moderated list used by the CTI Centre for Textual Studies to disseminate information of interest to academics served by the Centre, primarily those who use computers in the teaching of literature, linguistics, philosophy and logic, religious studies and classics, film studies, theatre arts and drama. The Computers in Teaching Initiative (CTI) Centre for Textual Studies is one of twenty-three subject-specific centres based around the United Kingdom aimed at increasing and enhancing the use of computers in Higher Education. To subscribe to CTI-TEXTUAL-STUDIES, send the following command to MAILBASE@MAILBASE.AC.UK JOIN CTI-TEXTUAL-STUDIES Your Name For example: JOIN CTI-TEXTUAL-STUDIES Mike Popham The Centre for Textual Studies offers advice and support to UK higher education institutions on all computer-aided resources for the subjects covered by this mailing list. Please visit our World Wide Web page for further information: URL: http://www.ox.ac.uk/depts/humanities/cti.html Owner: Mike Popham, Centre Manager The CTI is funded by the Higher Education Funding councils of England, Scotland, and Wales, and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 08:14:42 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0174 Re: *Mac*: *Men of Respect* and Teaching Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0174. Tuesday, 7 March 1995. (1) From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 09:26:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0166 Qs: *Macbeth* Adaptation (2) From: Stephen Buhler Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 10:40:18 -0600 (CST) Subj: Approaches to Teaching *Macbeth* (3) From: Steven Metsker Date: Monday, 06 Mar 1995 09:01:00 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: Teaching *Macbeth* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 09:26:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0166 Qs: *Macbeth* Adaptation Dear Kirk Hendershott-Kraezer, Is the MACBETH modernization you're thinking about MEN OF RESPECT. USA 1991, Dir. William Reilly w. John Turturro and Katherine Borowitz? If so, probably available from your local friendly video dealer. I don't know if it was "good" but it was fun. Ken Rothwell (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Buhler Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 10:40:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: Approaches to Teaching *Macbeth* Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer asked about the updated film version of *Macbeth*. It's called *Men of Respect* and in keeping with its gangland setting has many of the usual suspects as actors: Dennis Farina, John Turturro, and Peter Boyle. Released in 1990, it got *very* mixed reviews--similar to those elicited by Peter Greenaway's exercise in contemporary Jacobean tragedy, *The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover*. Anyway, *Men of Respect* is regularly listed in the Shakespeare catalog for Commedia dell'Arte Communications. Gareth Euridge credits *Star Trek: The Next Generation* with the wry joke about Shakespeare being superior "in the original Klingon." The line actually occurs in the film *Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country*. As the title suggests, the cultural "ownership" of Shakespeare is more than just a gag in the film: quotations (deliberately marked and otherwise) abound, as do considerations of cultural identity and cultural capital involving/invoking Shakespeare. I'm attuned to all this primarily because, as previously announced on SHAKSPER, the SF journal *Extrapolation* has just published a special issue, edited by Susan C. Hines, on Shakespeare and Star Trek. (Yes, it includes articles on *ST6*--and, yes, one of them is by me.) Stephen M. Buhler Department of English University of Nebraska-Lincoln smb@unlinfo.unl.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Metsker Date: Monday, 06 Mar 1995 09:01:00 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Teaching *Macbeth* "Macbeth" offers excellent lessons in the nature of guilt, especially in contrast to law. Renegades may overwhelm the law, usurping kings may rewrite the law, and any of us may simply elude the law. Guilt, on the other hand, is not so easily conquered or outrun. In Macbeth's world, how was law different from the law in our world? Is guilt any different? [If not, do you suppose that's why we still read Shakespeare? - Steve steven_metsker@sematech.org ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 08:22:16 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0175 Re: Non-Traditional Shakespeare Pieces Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0175. Tuesday, 7 March 1995. (1) From: Timothy Reed Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 08:35:08 -0700 Subj: Dogg's Hamlet (2) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 20:36:17 -0600 (CST) Subj: more non-trad Shakes (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Timothy Reed Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 08:35:08 -0700 Subject: Dogg's Hamlet Roger Gross suggests the following for a non-traditional Shakespeare festival: "Tom Stoppard wrote a ca. 15-minute version of HAMLET called DOGG'S HAMLET (published in a Faber and Faber volume: DOGG'S HAMLET, CAHOOT'S MACBETH, 1980. As a "curtain call", it also provides a 2- or 3-minute version. I use it occasionally in my Acting Shakespeare class when I need to work on the SIZE Shakespeare asks of actors. It is wild and funny." I performed in a production of "Dogg's Hamlet, Cahoot's Macbeth" and am familiar with the conditions required for the granting of performance rights. (Off the top of my head, I can't remember whether Dramatist's Play Service or Samuel French hold the rights.) Performance rights are only granted to those who will perform both works together, in their entirety. Performance of just the Hamlet portions of "Dogg's Hamlet" is a violation of Stoppard's copyright. Although the text is Shakespeare, the particular cutting of it is under Stoppard's copyright. Either get a waiver from the holder of the copyright, or simpler still, do your own cutting of Hamlet. Timothy Reed The Upstart Crow Theatre Company, Boulder, Colorado (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 20:36:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: more non-trad Shakes Here are two amusing abuses of Shakespeare I neglected to mention in my first post on the topic. Bernard Shaw wrote two short plays "about" Shakespeare, whom he had to love but couldn't stand to hear praised so much. THE DARK LADY OF THE SONNETS, a funny, short one-act with Willy as a very sweet and simple fellow, waiting in the garden of the Palace of an evening for his Dark Lady. As he waits, several more or less famous folks pass through and we see, as William scribbles down the jewels that fall from their lips, where he got his best lines. SHAKES VERSUS SHAV, which Shaw calls a puppet play. It is probably the last script he wrote. It's very short. The two characters are Shakespeare and Shaw (plus cameos by Capt. Shotover who Shaw calls "my Lear", Macbeth, and Rob Roy). Shakespeare wins the boxing match. From there on its a "could you have written this?" match. Very short. Roger Gross Drama Univ. of Arkansas ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 08:33:21 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0176 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (*TN* Question) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0176. Tuesday, 7 March 1995. (1) From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 10:22:39 -0600 (CST) Subj: Romeo & Juliet/Twelfth Night (2) From: Michael Swanson Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 12:50:24 -0500 Subj: Re: [*Romeo and Juliet*] (3) From: S. Hampton-Reeves Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 12:30:17 +0000 (GMT) Subj: romeo and juliet (4) From: Curtis Shumaker Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 20:18:48 -0800 Subj: SHK 6.0165 Re: ROMEO AND JULIET (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 10:22:39 -0600 (CST) Subject: Romeo & Juliet/Twelfth Night Regarding question (2), is it possible that "in thy bosom" refers to the fact that the marriage was secret? Keeping something in one's bosom could mean keeping it to oneself or secret, it seems to me. Regarding question (3), it is worth noting that in Brooke's poem "Romeus and Juliet," which was the source for R&J, it is explicitly stated that the poison is in powder form. Perhaps Sh. had this in mind when he had the apothercary say "Mix this in any drink you will ...." As for Twelfth Night, I understand there's a movie version somewhere with Alec Guiness as Malvolio (made in the '50s, maybe?). I'm afraid I don't have any more information--I haven't even seen it. My mother caught it on tv unexpectedly one afternoon, and we haven't found any trace of it since then. Anyone know more about this? J.A.Y. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Swanson Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 12:50:24 -0500 Subject: Re: [*Romeo and Juliet*] 1) Benvolio was a woman, and she and Mercutio were clearly as least casual lovers. 2) Romeo's parents were African-American, while R himself was white. 3) The Prince was actually a princess -- an African-American woman. 4) The friars were lovers. I know that some will have trouble accepting these changes, but it was quite a good production, with some problems in "act II" -- they cut the lamentation scene (thereby losing some potential humor, since we know she's not dead), and substituted a death pavane -- rather too serious for me. But the changes above worked well. When Mercutio died, Benvolio's grief was much more intense and personal than I've seen it; the friars being gay seemed to allow Laurence to relate more deeply to Romeo's forbidden love; and the Princess was used more than usual to indicate the power she held in the society -- for example, when Lord Capulet tells Tybalt to lay off Romeo in the party scene, it's only because the Princess is standing nearby (though this, of course, wasn't because the Princess was female or black -- just good directing choice.) Production was good enough to go on to the American College Theatre Festival's Region III festival. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that lots of people are using Cecily Berry, and finding that she works well, and allows actors into the text and the rhythm without feeling the need for sing-song readings that "iambic pentameter" can seem to imply. Her definition of the rhythmic scheme may be slightly off, but her method -- including that on verse -- has good results, from what I've seen among actors and students. Michael Swanson, Franklin College (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: S. Hampton-Reeves Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 12:30:17 +0000 (GMT) Subject: romeo and juliet I disagree with Dan How when he says that there was nothing unusual about thirteen year olds getting married in the sixteenth century. In the first act of *Romeo and Juliet*, we learn pretty quickly that Juliet is 13 (we are told this several times), that the nurse and Lady Capulet were younger than that when they married, and all the local 13 year olds are already pregnant. If such marriages were commonplace for Shakespeare's audience, why does he go on about them so much here? After all, Anne Hathaway was twice as old as Juliet when she married. According to Joyce Youings (*Sixteenth-Century England*,1984), this was not an exception, more like the rule: "as in most of the countries of western Europe, men and women in sixteenth-century England married late, that is, in relation both to their attainment of the legal age of consent and also to their physical maturity. Men, on average, married for the first time in their middle to late twenties and women some four or five years younger ... there were few teenage marriages." (p.368). On the other hand, "upper class people on the whole married younger ... though rarely under fifteen." (p.379). It is Youings's thesis that late marriages acted as a way to control population - it was also financially convinient to delay having children for some years (life expectancy was short but not that short). Later on, Youings notes that the number of teenage marriages increased towards the end of the sixteenth century - possibly Shakespeare was writing *Romeo and Juliet* in response to these social changes? I'm no expert and possibly there is more up-to-date research refuting Youings's conclusions. It would be interesting to know if there is a debate about this, and what implications this has for readings of *Romeo and Juliet*. Another thought: why does Shakespeare change Juliet's age from the definitely uncontroversial 16 (Brooke) to 13? Stuart Reeves (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Curtis Shumaker Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 20:18:48 -0800 Subject: SHK 6.0165 Re: ROMEO AND JULIET Hello, friends, This is my first post to the conference so, hello and please have mercy. This is in reply to Marcia's about the final scene in R&J. I would agree that the lines about Tybalt and the bosom are probably metaphor. As to the question of the cup and the poison I may have an idea. I don't think you need to worry about the Apothecary's instructions in ActV sc i. He tells Romeo that the posion should be mixed with liquid. That doesn't necessarily means it has to be. The haste with which Romeo seems to be possesed with would preclude any mixing of drinks in my mind. The posion might work even faster with out diluting it. As seen in the final scene Romeo barely has time to get out his two lines before collapsing. This suggests as well as Romeo's apparent haste that he did not worry about mixing. The cup is another matter. Instead of bringing it in could it not be possible that it is already there. Give me leave while I attempt to set a stage picture for you. I am not up on the burial customs of the people of Verona so this is merely a theatrical solution not a textual one. Would it be out of place for the Scenic Designer to create a crypt that not only has people but, things as well. These are not the Pharohs but would it be to far fetched to have memorabilia of the Capulet family of the past in there as well. Say, a chalice or two of former heads of the Capulets. This would give Romeo an exciting moment when he pulls out the vial and seals his fate by taking down and drinking from the cup of his enemy. I think it would be a nice bit of irony that he uses his "new" families belongings to join them forever in eternal peace. That is how I might solve this oddity, but I am an actor and director not a scholar. I always look for the dramatic finish. Hope this is helpful, Curt ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 08:40:44 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0177 Re: *MM* Ending Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0177. Tuesday, 7 March 1995. (1) From: Michael Best Date: Monday, 06 Mar 95 10:14:19 PST Subj: Measure for Measure ending (2) From: Thomas Hall Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 15:21:53 -0600 (CST) Subj: Measure for Measure (3) From: Robert Saenger Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 23:17:45 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0170 Qs: *MM* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Monday, 06 Mar 95 10:14:19 PST Subject: Measure for Measure ending There have been a number of productions of Measure for Measurs that have ended with Isabella rejecting the Duke (I remember one at Ashland in, I think, the late seventies). Personally, I like the BBC version where Isabella is given a *very* long pause after the Duke's proposal -- time to wonder will she, won't she -- then accepts, acknowledging the artifice of comedy. Is it possible to leave the ending open (as in a way the text does)? Isabella motionless (the text leaves her silent), or shrugging, non- committal? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Hall Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 15:21:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: Measure for Measure To Warner Crocker, In a recent class on "Outsiders in Shakespeare" we decided that Isabella didn't discuss the Duke's proposal. In fact we imagined her response to be one of distaste or revulsion. The poor thing was just about to enter a nunnery, that wasn't even strict enough, when she got hit on by not just one but two powerful men. Isabella has been described as being "a vixen in her virtue." I don't think that this has changed by the play's end. Thomas Hall (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Saenger Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 23:17:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0170 Qs: *MM* In response to Warner Crocker's issue of Isabella's does-she-or-doesn't-she debate regarding the Duke's proposal-- I am convinced that Stephen Booth has the right solution, although I have never seen it onstage. The Duke and Isabella have a brisk, triumphant union and proceed offstage, together, in perfect comedic resolution. It is not until some thirty minutes after the curtain call that the audience realizes that something went horribly wrong. When modern directors slow down and deconstruct an ending like this or that of AWTEW, they are attempting to over-paint Shakespeare's irony with heavy strokes. The Bard did it better; I say, let the play itself, with all its contradictory impulses, generate its own aftermath. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 11:17:16 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0178 Re: Chronology Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0178. Tuesday, 7 March 1995. (1) From: Chris Bergstresser Date: Monday, 06 Mar 1995 14:38:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0171 Re: Chronology (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 06 Mar 1995 23:03:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0171 Re: Chronology (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Bergstresser Date: Monday, 06 Mar 1995 14:38:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0171 Re: Chronology -}>-}4.Dating by style and versification is entirely circular (hence entirely -}>-}useless), except in those rare instances where external evidence gives an -}>-}approximate date for a particular recognisable style -}> -}> Once again, this is a broad oversimplification. -} -}Saying things with confidence doesn't make them true. Sorry, I'm an English major. Force of habit. -}You haven't engaged with -}my point here at all. If you believe stylistic dating is *not* circular - -}except under the specific conditions I described - perhaps you could explain -}your grounds. All right. Granted, in the absence of all external documentation, trying to arrange the plays chronologically would be impossible. But the fact is these plays do not exist in a vaccuum -- there are many reports external to the productions which help fix certain plays to certain timeframes. Those plays that can be roughly dated can then serve as a sort of guide for dating other plays, based on stylistic similarities. For two of the plays we've been working on for my acting class, _Two Gentlemen of Verona_ and _Measure for Measure_, there is a clear stylistic difference. MfM is a much more complex work; the skill required to produce it is greater than that to produce TGoV. These things don't help when trying to determine whether MfM was written before or after _The Tempest;_ but they can provide some corraboration for an argument about the rough chronology of the plays. I find your exception far too limiting: external evidence is only needed for a handful of plays. Once there is a skeleton of a chronology in place, filling in the details isn't quite as random as you make it out to be. Just because one cannot know with certainty does not mean one cannot know at all. Chris Bergstresser (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 06 Mar 1995 23:03:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0171 Re: Chronology Pat Buckridge's comments on stylistic dating reminded me of the 18th century commentator whose name I do not remember, but whose contribution to the dating problem I do. He claimed that Shakespeare developed from the Gothic excesses of THE TEMPEST to the classical unity of THE COMEDY OF ERRORS. Thus THE TEMPEST is an early play, and THE COMEDY OF ERRORS, a late one. Yours, Bill ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 11:22:51 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0179 Re: Ghost Light; Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0179. Tuesday, 7 March 1995. (1) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 20:45:00 -0600 (CST) Subj: ghost lights again (2) From: A.G. Bennett Date: Monday, 06 Mar 1995 20:36:49 -0500 (EST) Subj: _The Winter's Tale_ (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Monday, 6 Mar 1995 20:45:00 -0600 (CST) Subject: ghost lights again I think Alice Marie Kroman has mixed GHOST LIGHT up with GHOST LOAD, another theatrical phenomenon. I'm not an electrician (as they say) but my understanding is this: when the lamp load on a theatrical light is not high enough for the capacity of the resistance device of the dimmer, a light may not completely dim out. The standard solution to this problem has been to connect another instrument to the same circuit and mount it in the basement where it won't be seen. The combined wattage draw of the two instruments is sufficient to balance with the dimming device and so the dim can be complete. The power draw created by that basement instrument is a GHOST LOAD. This phenomenon seems to be characteristic of both the older type resistance dimmers and the new electronic ones but for not-quite-the-same reason. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: A.G. Bennett Date: Monday, 06 Mar 1995 20:36:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: _The Winter's Tale_ Dear Shaksperians, Does anyone know which theatre companies (besides the RSC) performed _WT_ during their 1994 seasons? Is it a figment of my imagination, or did last year see a relative explosion in the performance of what has always struck me as one of the least performed and analysed of Shakespeare's canon? I'm doing a paper on my favourite Shakespeare play for a conference, so I'd be interested in reading what others have to say on this. Curiously, Alex Bennett (bennett@binah.cc.brandeis.edu) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 10:49:55 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0180 Re: *TN* Video Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0180. Wednesday, 8 March 1995. (1) From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 09:01:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0176 Re: *TN* Question (2) From: Matthew Henerson Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 11:12:35 -0800 Subj: Twelfth Night video (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 09:01:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0176 Re: *TN* Question Dear Juliet Youngren, The "movie"version of TN with Alec Guinness was the 1970 television version directed by John Dexter, which was made for British commercial (not BBC) television. It's available in the UK on cassette but so far as I know not in North America. Ken Rothwell (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Henerson Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 11:12:35 -0800 Subject: Twelfth Night video To whoever asked about the Alec Guinness *Twelfth Night*, I'm sorry, but I deleted the post by mistake before I could take down your name. This televised *Twelfth Night* was directed by John Dexter for the BBC in the late sixties or early seventies. Guinness is Malvolio, Ralph Richardson is Toby, and Joan Plowright is Viola and Sebastian. It was broadcast on Bravo a few years ago, but it is not generally available in the United States. The one place that I know of which carries it is The Continental Shop on Wilshire Blvd. in Santa Monica, CA (a suburb of Los Angeles for anybody who has never been out west.) This is an import shop which specializes in British video tape. They buy pal video in England, transfer it, and sell or rent the copies. In order not to violate copyright law, I believe they are allowed to make only one copy of each British tape they buy. They are expensive--you'll pay about $40.00 for the *Twelfth Night*, but they do stock material which you simply can't find elsewhere. I've seen Trevor Nunn's *Macbeth*, *Othello*, and *Comedy of Errors* there. I've also seen the complete English Shakespeare Company *Wars of the Roses*. They also stock Olivier's *Othello* (and his *Uncle Vanya*), and a recent British film of *As You Like It* in modern dress. They do not, however, stock Derek Jarman's film of *The Tempest* which I've been trying to see for years. Does anybody know where I can find a copy? Matt ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 11:11:01 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0181 Re: *MM* Ending; Fienne's *Ham*; Casting; Acting; Non-Trad. Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0181. Wednesday, 8 March 1995. (1) From: John Boni Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 08:27:06 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0177 Re: *MM* Ending (2) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 95 12:00:33 -0500 Subj: Ralph Fiennes's *Hamlet* (3) From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 95 15:11:06 -0800 Subj: Fwd: Re: Non-traditional casting (4) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 16:04:15 -0600 (CST) Subj: Berry and iambic pentameter (5) From: Michael Swanson Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 19:23:11 -0500 Subj: SHK 6.0176 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 08:27:06 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0177 Re: *MM* Ending Robert Saenger's caution about overpainting Shakespeare is well-taken. However, in the case of MM, Isabella's silence cries out for interpretation. Does she smile up at the good Duke and, in the style of a musical, walk off into the sunset with him? Hmmm, maybe not. Does she reject him? Well, that may be overpainting. Does she stiffen and keep her distance? Very possibly. Think about what this man has put her through. John M. Boni, Dean College of Arts & Sciences Northeastern Illinois University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 95 12:00:33 -0500 Subject: Ralph Fiennes's *Hamlet* Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, I have access to summaries (mostly, plus a complete review by Benedict Nightingale) of the British reviews of the recently opened production of *Hamlet,* starring Ralph Fiennes. If people are interested, I'd be happy to post them to SHAKSPER. Chris Gordon, resident Hamlet fanatic University of Minnesota (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 95 15:11:06 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Re: Non-traditional casting I thought the readers of the SHAKSPER list might find this of interest. It's from the musicals list. Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. martyj@yankeegroup.com ************************************************** My 2cents on Non-traditional, color-blind, open casting: I have seen Shakepeare's Henry V presented by The Company of Women at Shakespeare and Company in Lenox, Mass. The cast was all women playing roles of men and women. It was wonderful. There were moments when I was aware that I was watching women playing men, but I _always_ have moments when I am aware that I am watching an actor portraying a part. In Shakespeare's time, there were no women in theatre. The women were played by young men. Was that traditional or non-traditional? Does that mean casting women in women's roles is non-traditional? Should a young boy play Juliet? I also worked for 15 years at a children's theatre center, where kids played all ages of people in all kinds of roles - Shakespeare, Dickens, Dos Pasos, etc., etc. Theirs were some of the most credible performances I have seen. I am currently working on a play which has open casting. The play centers on a mid-western family in the twenties. When we first worked on the concept, the idea of open casting seemed implausible. A muti-racial family in Wisconsin in the twenties? As we got into it, showcased it and ran it, we discovered it worked! And negative responses from audience members were very rare. Free your mind - be color blind. Al Hemberger alcomposer@aol.com (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 16:04:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: Berry and iambic pentameter Michael Swanson's posting makes me fear I've been unclear about Cicely Berry's book. I think it is a fine book, very useful, should find a place in every "Acting Shakespeare" class.....with the 26 pages on verse removed or ignored. Berry and Barton are at their very best in helping us to be more sensitive to the complexity of Shakespeare's meanings and how they are embodied in his syntax and diction. That is enough to place them among the most valuable of contemporary writers on Shakespeare. Barton's work on antithesis is a tremendous contribution, enough to make me forgive, if not forget his uninformed assertions about the verse. In my vocabulary, Berry and Barton are talking mostly about poetry and rhetoric, not about verse. Verse has to do primarily with the rhythm, which is mainly a matter of number of syllables and relative emphasis. This misunderstanding of iambic pentameter which I accused these two great figures of seems to have captured Michael Swanson too. He says Berry leads actors into the text "without feeling the need for sing-song readings that 'iambic pentameter' can seem to imply." Modest generalization: if you think that iambic pentameter implies or causes a sing-song rhythm, you are using the wrong definition of iambic pentameter. It is a much more subtle system and it allows speech with all the subtlety and nuance and "familiarity" and easiness of the best conversational prose with the bonus of the power, clarity, energy, and inevitability which only good, regular verse gives. If you use the Berry/Barton definition and if you haven't studied Elizabethan pronunciation thoroughly enough, you are bound to conclude that Shakespeare didn't really write proper iambic pentameter. One of the disastrous results of all this is that we typically see the work of the greatest verse playwright of all time performed as prose, not by choice but by default. Roger Gross Drama Univ. of Arkansas (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Swanson Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 19:23:11 -0500 Subject: SHK 6.0176 My last message somehow lost its first parapgraph, which gave the rest context. I was describing an interesting production of R&J staged in December at Miami University of Ohio. The non-traditional casting choices I described were in that production. Michael Swanson, Franklin College ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 11:21:29 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0182 Re: *WT* Performances Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0182. Wednesday, 8 March 1995. (1) From: John Boni Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 12:25:34 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0179 Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 (2) From: Gavin H Witt Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 95 15:14:20 CST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0179 Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 (3) From: Juliette Cunico Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 15:47:33 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0179 Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 (4) From: Warner Crocker Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 21:30:42 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0179 Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 (5) From: Sara Cave Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 09:32:37 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0179 Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 12:25:34 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0179 Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 RE: A.G. Bennett's query: The Shakespeare Repertory in Chicago presented a very strong "Winter's Tale" in autumn 1994. They are currently finishing a run of a successful "Troilus & Cressida" and plan "As You Like It" for an April opening. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gavin H Witt Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 95 15:14:20 CST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0179 Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 Regarding Alex Bennett's inquiry about performances of _Winter's Tale_, which does indeed seem to be enjoying a relative explosion of interest in the past five years or so: Shakespeare Rep in Chicago did a production at the beginning of this season (though this fits in with their recent practice of producing the romances and more obscure Shakespeare in general). There was also a production in North Carolina done with a mixture of professional and graduate-school performers--this was over the summer. Hope this information helps, Gavin Witt University of Chicago ghwitt@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juliette Cunico Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 15:47:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0179 Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 Chicago's Shakespeare Repertory presented *WT* October 21-December 4, 1994. Juliette Cunico (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Warner Crocker Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 21:30:42 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0179 Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 I believe Chicago's Shakespeare Rep produced Winter's Tale in 1994. I don't have a number handy for them, but they are easily reached through directory info. Warner Crocker wcrocker@ix.netcom.com (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Cave Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 09:32:37 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0179 Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 Regarding THE WINTER'S TALE. TheatreEmory in Atlanta, GA performed the play in March or April of 1994. I'm sure reviews are available from at least 3 sources, should you need them. Sincerely, sarah.cave@asc.scottlan.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 11:27:17 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0183 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0183. Wednesday, 8 March 1995. (1) From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 17:51:56 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0176 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (2) From: Frank Savukinas Date: Tuesday, 07 Mar 1995 14:42:40 -0500 (EST) Subj: R & J (age and 5.3) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 17:51:56 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0176 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* S. Hampton-Reeves is certainly right when he suggests that thirteen was exceptionally young for marriage in Shakespeare's England - all authorities, Stone, McFarlane, Anne Jennalie Cook (in 'Making a Match', 1992] concur on this matter. There were, of course, exceptions - as for example the notorious marriage of Frances Howard and the Earl of Essex - but almost exclusively in the highest reaches of society. (And when that marriage collapsed, King James himself, who had played a significant part in its formation, was heard to inveigh against youthful unions] The minimum legal age for marriage was at 12 for girls, 14 for boys; perhaps the reason Shakespeare changed Juliet's age from 16 to 13 was precisely to place the issue of parental consent more squarely at the centre of the play. Though legally parental consent was not required even for very young marriages, there seems to have been some feeling then (as now in English law) that 16 marked a watershed. David Lindley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Savukinas Date: Tuesday, 07 Mar 1995 14:42:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: R & J (age and 5.3) Stuart Reeves asked why Shakespeare would change Juliet's age to 13 instead of keeping at Brooke's age of 16. I think Shakespeare wanted to have his version of the play to be focused on the idea of first love. If Shakespeare had kept Juliet's age at 16, I think the audience would've had a harder time believing that this was her first love. While Shakespeare does make other references throughout the play about Juliet being a virgin, (Ex: "Death, not Romeo take my maidenhead. 3.2), to have her at a younger age would be more convincing. We know that Lady Capulet had Juliet at a rather young age (see 1.3), and therefore married to Capulet at that same young age. This proves that the rich were married and had children at a younger age. Therefore, if Shakespeare kept Juliet at 16 and she still had not been in love, the audience might think that there is something frightfully wrong with her. Also, Juliet Youngren suggests that the poison that Romeo took might have remained in powder form instead of being diluted like the apothecary says he should do. Sorry, but I find that highly unlikely. If the poison would have remained in powder form, wouldn't it be likely that some it would have stuck to his lips? Therefore when Juliet kisses his lips, she would've ingested some of the poison. This does not happen. All Juliet says at that point is "Thy lips are warm." I was just wondering how many of you have ever seen Franco Zefferelli's 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet. Nobody I know has seen it and would like to get some feedback. Personally, It is my all time favorite movie. It would be the perfect movie if Zefferelli hadn't done so much cutting of the text. Other than that, I thought that the cinematography was great and the acting did justice to the Bard's words. Any other comments?? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 11:35:42 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0184 Qs: Black Characters on Sh's Stage; *Mac* Murder Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0184. Wednesday, 8 March 1995. (1) From: Caroline Gebhard Date: Tuesday, 07 Mar 1995 08:46:41 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Color-blind Casting & Blackface (2) From: Jennie Johnson Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 19:02:28 +0000 (GMT) Subj: [*Mac* Murder] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Caroline Gebhard Date: Tuesday, 07 Mar 1995 08:46:41 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Color-blind Casting & Blackface I teach at an historically black university, and my students wonder how characters such as Aaron in Titus Andronicus and Othello would have been played: (on Shakespeare's stage): in black face? using a mask? or just through language? How white people portray black people--what is acting black?--is still an issue. I saw Olivier's ghastly version of Othello a number of years ago and couldn't get past the grotesque blackface and attempts to talk like an African-American. From recent comments on the list, most seem to reject the idea of a "white" Othello. Has it become impossible for a white actor to portray a "black" character? My students and I would welcome your thoughts on these matters. Caroline Gebhard Tuskegee University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jennie Johnson Date: Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995 19:02:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [*Mac* Murder] Can anyone enlighten me on this vital question to do with the Scottish play. Why does Macb. leap to the conclusion that he will become King only by murdering Duncan? If the Glamis prediction came true without him batting an eyelid, why does he then TAKE action, ie. kill, to secure the second prediction, if the first fell on his plate? Another point that mystifies me; Why does he then presume that by killing Duncan he will become King, when Malcolm was pronounced hier apparent before his very eyes? Did he intend to then slaughter Malcolm and Donnalbain, the King's sons, (if they had not taken off) and get away with it? Is Shakespeare merely stretching poetic license here or have I missed a point somewhere? Jennie, the mystified. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 11:41:36 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0185 Death of Jean Fuzier Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0185. Wednesday, 8 March 1995. From: Luc Borot Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 95 15:16:51 +0100 Subject: In Memoriam Jean Fuzier The Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches sur la Renaissance Anglaise are sad to announce the death of their founder and friend Professor Jean Fuzier. Jean died yesterday afternoon at his home in Arles. He had retired last Spring. He was a remarkable scholar in the fields of Renaissance English rhetoric and prosody, best known for his edition of Shakespeare's *Sonnets* and his translation of Shakespeare's poetry into French verse. He had co-authored a translation of a selection of Donne's verse in the 1950s, which was reissued by Gallimard a few years ago. Jean's studies of Shakespeare's plays, his contributions to the theoretical study of the "play-within" phenomenon, were often very subtle, and as a teacher he contributed in preparing for a scholarly career dozens of English scholars in France, whether they were his direct pupils, or his partners in research. As a founder, and later chairman of the Societe Francaise Shakespeare, Jean Fuzier worked for the development and promotion of Elizabethan studies in France, as a frequent visitor of the German Shakespeare Society, he often had occasion to promote contacts between 'continental' Shakespeare scholars. As co-founder of the Elizabethan Research Centre in Montpellier, and of _Cahiers Elisabethains_, he contributed to the awakening of many vocations, and to the publication of research that could have otherwise remained secret or confidential. His generosity and good humour were immense. He was the special honoured guest of last year's Shakespeare Birthday celebrations in Stratford, which he attended for 25 years on the occasion of the yearly seminar of the Centre at the Shakespeare Institute, then at the Shakespeare Centre. He was a regular visitor of the International Shakespeare Conference and of the World Shakespeare Congress. As examiner for the competitive exam of the Ecole Normale Superieure, he succeeded in spotting young scholars in their early twenties, and none of us ever had to regret following his advice, even for those who did not choose the same speciality. Home address: Madame Fuzier Domaine de Margaillan 192, route de Margaillan Pont de Crau 12300 ARLES (FRANCE) Sorry to have been a messenger of sad news for those who liked him. For the CERRA, Luc Borot ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 09:32:40 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0188 Re: *TN* Video; *WT* Prods.; Non-Trad. Sh; *Mac* Murder Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0188. Thursday, 9 March 1995. (1) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 08:36:15 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0180 Re: *TN* Video (2) From: Milla Riggio Date: Thursday, 09 Mar 1995 08:08:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0182 Re: *WT* Performances (3) From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 95 12:53:41 EST Subj: [Non-Traditional Shakespeare] (4) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 19:08:07 -0500 Subj: *Mac* Murder (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 08:36:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0180 Re: *TN* Video For Juliet Youngren, What Kenneth Rothwell and Matthew Henerson did not mention is that the Twelfth Night video under discussion is AWFUL! Also, it was played on the cable channel BRAVO a few years back, with lots of commercials. So it may be out there if there's a video-recording fiend available. Cheers, Brad Berens (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Thursday, 09 Mar 1995 08:08:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0182 Re: *WT* Performances About WT productions: I'm surprised that noone has yet mentioned Ingmar Bergman's WT production. It will be in Brooklyn at the end of May, but was, I believe, produced during the 1994 season, no? We produced the play as a student show at Trinity College this last December and had the feeling that the past few years have probably quadrupled the number of productions of the play in the last 50 years. It has become much more popular. The history of nineteenth century productions is fascinating. We prepared a little historical essay, including notes on a show in which Time appeared carrying an American Flag as a "subtle" indicator of "Manifest Destiny"; if you're interested in a copy of the very short historical summary, let me know. Best, Milla Riggio (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 95 12:53:41 EST Subject: [Non-Traditional Shakespeare] A delightful instance of abused Shakespeare is Maurice Baring's "The Rehearsal," originally published in his collection of spoofs and whirligigs, _Unreliable History_ (1934), and reprinted in Dwight MacDonald's anthology, _Parodies_. It's a short play imagining a runthrough of the Hibernian tragedy, with predictable British rep. types--flustered stage manager, monstrously egocentric Burbage, long-suffering Author; we've performed it with friends and students in our living room and found it great fun. Will Pat Buckridge be happy to know that Baring dates the event 1595? Persiflagistically, Dave Evett (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 19:08:07 -0500 Subject: *Mac* Murder Macbeth never assumes that killing Duncan will mean sure-fire coronation for himself. He recognizes the Prince of Cumberland problem ("that is a step on which I must fall down or else o'erleap"), but he never formulates any o'erleaping strategy (not out of overconfidence, he's just not that organized!), and as it turns out he doesn't have to: he gets lucky and the remaining impediments remove themselves (temporarily). Like other evil schemers in Shakespeare (Iago, R3), he flies by the seat of his pants. One thing is clear after the witches' prophecy: for him to become king, the present king has to get out of the picture. His imagination arrives at a natural conclusion... As for this question, >If the Glamis prediction came true without him batting an >eyelid, why does he then TAKE action, ie. kill, to secure the second >prediction...? it is the acknowledged crux of Act I--from Macbeth's own original resolution >If chance will have me crowned, why chance may crown me >Without my stir to its final revision >I am settled, and bend up >Each corporal agent to this terrible feat --and so its answer is not an explanation of motive but the unsimple entire unfolding process of those soliloquies of indecision and those mysterious confrontations with Lady Macbeth. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 09:45:00 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0189 Re: Black Characters on Sh's Stage and Blackface Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0189. Thursday, 9 March 1995. (1) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 14:00:26 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0184 Qs: Black Characters on Sh's Stage (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 23:03:19 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0184 Qs: Black Characters on Sh's Stage (3) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 17:57:07 -0500 Subj: blackface (4) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 23:02:03 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0184 Qs: Black Characters on Sh's Stage (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 14:00:26 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0184 Qs: Black Characters on Sh's Stage Eldred Jones has some good material on the portrayal of black characters on the Renaissance stage. In the reign of Edward VI, there's a Revels Account listing that suggests the use of all-over body masking of lawn or velvet. Black, thus, literally black. The Masque of Queens, 1604, used black makeup. The drawing of *Titus* that we have shows a very black Aaron the Moor. On the other hand, what do we mean by "black" here? Turks were portrayed as "black." There seems to be a conflation of African, dark color & infidel. Had anyone seen any real Moors? Well, there were enough for Elizabeth to deport. In broad strokes, it seems as though there was a tradition of portraying Othello as very very dark, until the nineteenth-century. Suddenly, Othello blossoms out into full Arabic rig, Moorish, of course, but lightly suntanned (thus getting Orientalized and sidestepping nasty issues of miscegation and slavery at one blow.) Paul Robeson said in the 1930's, when he played the role in London, that he wasn't sure the role could be done by a black actor in America safely. When he did in 1943, it was a watershed. Now in America at least the role is reserved for African-Americans. Zadek in Germany relatively recently had a white actor playing the role in very very obvious blackface and Emperor Jones getup (when he kissed Desdemona, some of the stuff came off.) Sorry for the long post. It's a fascinating subject. Melissa Aaron University of Wisconsin-Madison (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 23:03:19 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0184 Qs: Black Characters on Sh's Stage Caroline Gebhard asks about Aaron in Titus Andronicus and how he was made black. In the drawing by Henry Peacham, from the Harley papers, of a performance of TA in 1594 (I'm looking at the reproduction in the Revels History of English Drama, Vol.3 (London: Methuen)), one of the players has a black face, legs, and hands. Assuming there were no black players (I'm confident on that one), this suggests body make-up was used. BUT only suggests, since I suppose the drawer could be realizing all-over an effect he only saw on the player's face. On the question of colour-blind casting I suggest that some metatheatrical significance is lost when a black actor plays the part of Othello because the character's references to his colour as a coating overlaid on his skin have no referent (as they do for a white player blacked-up). A similar effect holds true for women actors playing parts written for boys. Given the institutional racism and sexism that abounds in theatre-biz as much as anywhere women actors and black actors have more than enough trouble getting parts without anyone suggesting that the few roles that have been allowed them should be given to young white men, just to realize the potential significance of certain lines. But neither is there a comfortable liberal 'blindness' available to anyone who thinks about it. Active choices about casting can engage intertextually with literary works, however, and produce valuable meanings about modern and pre-modern racism and sexism. Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 17:57:07 -0500 Subject: blackface You can find Willem Dafoe and a host of other white men wearing blackface in the Wooster Group's version of Eugene O'Neill's *The Hairy Ape* (at the Performing Garage, NYC). As the show proceeds you find out that they're not black at all but covered in coal grime, so maybe it doesn't count (or maybe it's worse!), but the Wooster Group has used blackface before, in O'Neill's *Emperor Jones* (and other shows I think; see David Savran's *The Wooster Group: 1975-1985: Breaking the Rules* for the in-depth info). My inside sources quote Wooster Group director Liz LeCompte calling blackface "such a great mask", and having little else to say about it (ie, in political terms). I think their earlier experiments in blackface _did_ involve taking on its problematic implications, and then later they felt licensed to use it without dealing directly with its controversial status every time. The idea of _mask_ in the theater is a mysterious and powerful one that goes beyond disguise or costume or indicating sociohistorical data (eg, period, ethnicity). The use of a mask to give a performer access to some sort of transformed state supposedly derives from the ritual and mystic mask practices of certain "primitive" cultures. For a thorough discussion of this see the last chapter of Keith Johnstone's great great book *Impro*. The tabooness of _blackface_, which I think has mostly to do with how it was used in the old days as racist caricature, is a big ugly debatable thing. Some people condemn it unconditionally. But pretending to be something you aren't is what acting is. Dialects and voices, makeup and prosthetics, etc, there's nothing inherently dispicable in these things--they're used used all the time without objection when the very very very very touchy question of race isn't involved. As for Othello, Anthony Hopkins played him in blackface as late as 1982 in the BBC production directed by Jonathan Miller (Bob Hoskins as Iago). (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 23:02:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0184 Qs: Black Characters on Sh's Stage Regarding Caroline Gebhard's query, has anyone ever seen a reverse cask *Othello*, where all the characters were black except Othello himself? It could provide an interesting twist. A Shakespeare audience tends to be about as white as a school of aryan studies, so it might be worthwhile to see how the racism is perceived when directed differently. I heard a rumour (here, I think) about Shakespeare in the Park doing something like that. Did they? Cheerio, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 09:11:39 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0186 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*, including Zefferelli Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0186. Thursday, 9 March 1995. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Wednesday, 08 Mar 1995 13:14:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Zefferelli *R&J* (2) From: Kezia Sproat Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 00:24:05 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0183 Re: *Romeo and... (3) From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 95 12:54:10 EST Subj: [*Romeo and Juliet*] (4) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 15:19:55 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0183 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (5) From: Pat Buckridge Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 11:47:55 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0183 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Wednesday, 08 Mar 1995 13:14:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Zefferelli *R&J* I haven't seen the Zefferelli *R&J* since 1968 (late one night on the near north side of Chicago), but like a lot of other things that happened that year, it has stayed with me, vividly: its images are the ones that have remained in my head whenever I read the play. (It was certainly more memorable than the awful Guthrie Theatre production of about 15 yrs ago played on a field of dark blue plexiglass.) It and *Blow-up* (which I saw about six months later) changed my then-young mind about the possibilities for serious art in film. I learned last year that my daughter's high school regularly uses the Zefferelli in its freshman English classes; it still had the power to impress her. Jim Schaefer schaefej@guvax.georgetown.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kezia Sproat Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 00:24:05 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0183 Re: *Romeo and... Re. Frank Savukinas' request: I agree that Zefferelli's Romero & Juliet was terrific, cuts notwithstanding. By the way, the best production of any Shakespeare play I've ever seen was in about 1980 at Kenyon College, when MND was produced by a professional theatre group (endowed, as I understood, by Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward, but the theatre later folded). Carol Kane played Titania and the director (whose name I've now forgotten and would be pleased to be reminded of) also directed soaps in New York. In that production, not one word seemed lost, or unmeaningful, so religiously did he seem to treat the text. There may be something in directing those soap operas for Shakespeareans: in sharp contrast, soap actors are forced to draw half an idea across an entire half-hour, so every nuance is laid upon. Possibly the soap-inspired habit of respecting every nuance caused that great production? I saw it twice, the second time with a group of social scientist colleagues, and all adored it. Later I met Carol Kane and asked her about it. She said she played Titania pretending to be an animal, but wouldn't identify the species. Everyone in that production was great. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 95 12:54:10 EST Subject: [*Romeo and Juliet*] Suggestions on some recent R & J queries and issues: (1) The Friar's reference to "Thy husband in thy bosom" (5.3.155) seems to me likely to be a Biblical allusion, to a phrase that elsewhere takes print in the Bible of 1611, "the wife/husband of [not "in"] thy/her bosom" (Deut. 13.6, 28.56). The Jacobean translators either reflected or inaugurated a usage that became idiomatic, though OED 1.c notes that it's far more common in reference to wives than to husbands. The Vulgate version of Deut. 13.6 is closer to Friar Laurence's form: _uxor qui est in sinu tuo_, but 28.56 adds a verb, _vir[um] qui cubat in sinu ejus_. The Geveva translators hung on to _in_ but used "lieth" (Lat. _cubat_) in both verses. The context for both "wife" and "husband" in the Biblical texts seems to me potentially relevant to the dramatic moment (I quote from Geneva). Both concern keeping faith. Deut. 13.6-8 exhorts the true believer: "If thy brother . . . or the wife, that lieth in thy bosom . . . entice thee secretly, saying, let vs go out and serue other gods . . . Thou shalt not consent vnto him." 28.56 is part of a warning to the Jews that trangression of the Law will unleash a terrible enemy: "The tendre and deintie woman among you, which neuer wolde venture to set the sole of her fote vpon the ground (for her softnes and tendernes) shalbe grieued [sorrow for] at her housbonde, that lyeth in her bosome. . . ." I'm not competent to deal with the Hebrew, and do not have ready access to the other Tudor translations to know how they treat the phrase, but it looks as though _Rom_ is about halfway along the line from Geneva to King James. (2) The fatal cup (5.3.161) is not, indeed, introduced by stage direction or other explicit piece of text. T. G. B. Spencer's note on this rather modest crux observes that it's hard to sustain "stage dignity" while drinking from a little vial. It's also much easier to make the gesture read to the spectators using the larger and more visible prop. And the image of the not-exactly-shared cup has all sorts of overtones. Contriving to get the thing on stage is not a major problem. (3) Roger Gross's insight about midline/endline variations in the pronunciation of words like _variation_ and _Romeo_ is welcome if slightly overstated. Spevak lists 118 instances of the name (132 if we count possessives). 28 of these occur at the end of a line of verse; all are trisyllabic. Of those occurring elsewhere in a verse line all but one appear to me disyllabic. That one is 3.5.94: "Indeed, I never shall be satisfied / With Romeo, till I behold him--dead." I would guess that there are other instances in the canon where this rule is stretched or broken. Deuteronomically, Dave Evett (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 15:19:55 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0183 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Touching on the early marriage of Juliet, the daughter of Lord Burghley, Anne Cecil, was matched to marry Philip Sidney when she was 13 years old. For various reasons the marriage didn't come off, one reason being "...partly to the extreme youth of the parties concerned." Two years later, in 1571 when Anne was 15 years old, she married Edward de Vere, 17th Early of Oxford. Evidently then, in the higher reaches of society, a 13 year girl might readily be married if all parties were agreeable. The quotation is from B.M.Ward's *The Seventeenth Early of Oxford... from Contemporary Documents.* (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Buckridge Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 11:47:55 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0183 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Another well-known case of youthful marriage among the aristocracy was that of Edward De Vere, the Earl of Oxford, to the 15 year old Anne Cecil in 1571. (De Vere was 21). Pat Buckridge ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 09:22:52 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0187 Re: Chronology; Iambic Pentameter (Was Acting) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0187. Thursday, 9 March 1995. (1) From: Pat Buckridge Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 16:11:06 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0178 Re: Chronology (2) From: Michael Swanson Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 23:36:29 -0500 Subj: Iambic pentameter (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Buckridge Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 16:11:06 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0178 Re: Chronology To Chris Bergstresser, who writes: >Granted, in the absence of all external documentation, trying to >arrange the plays chronologically would be impossible. Grant me this and you've granted me all I want. >But the fact is these >plays do not exist in a vacuum -- there are many reports external to the >productions which help fix certain plays to certain timeframes. Correction. These plays *did* not exist in a vacuum - far from it - but in a sense they do now, since the social and theatrical contexts which have been built up around them are largely speculative in their relation to composition and first performances. The 'many reports' you refer to - and there aren't that many, actually - never have any bearing on either of these; but composition and first performances are all that matter for dating purposes. >Those plays that can be roughly dated can then serve as a sort of guide for >dating other plays, based on stylistic similarities. For two of the plays >we've been working on for my acting class, _Two Gentlemen of Verona_ and >_Measure for Measure_, there is a clear stylistic difference. MfM is a much >more complex work; the skill required to produce it is greater than that to >produce TGoV. I don't deny that we're able to judge (perhaps even measure) stylistic similarity/dissimilarity within certain parameters. I also don't deny that in the absence of complicating factors (such as generic difference) stylistic similarity probably is a reasonable indication of closeness in date of composition. But without a skeleton anchored in real time (excuse the Gothic metaphor) such clusters are not going to be of much use. And you don't have such a skeleton. >Once there >is a skeleton of a chronology in place, filling in the details isn't quite as >random as you make it out to be. Just because one cannot know with certainty >does not mean one cannot know at all. But if you just keep piling conjectures and speculations on top of one another you end up with no knowledge at all. Mere 'children of an idle brain,/Begot of nothing but vain fantasy,/Which is as thin of substance as the air'. To Bill Godshalk, who writes: > >Pat Buckridge's comments on stylistic dating reminded me of the 18th century >commentator whose name I do not remember, but whose contribution to the dating >problem I do. He claimed that Shakespeare developed from the Gothic excesses of >THE TEMPEST to the classical unity of THE COMEDY OF ERRORS. Thus THE TEMPEST is >an early play, and THE COMEDY OF ERRORS, a late one. Just goes to show the arbitrary nonsense that results from *all* attempts at stylistic dating. Substitute some unfamiliar neoclassical criteria for the more familiar post-Romantic ones and suddenly the canon does a backflip. Thanks for your support, Bill. Pat Buckridge. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Swanson Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 23:36:29 -0500 Subject: Iambic pentameter Certainly I respect the work of Roger Gross, whose work I studied as a Ph.D. candidate about 10 years ago. And I hope that in a future note he will give us the definition of iambic pentameter that he has found useful. In the meantime, I do have these observations: 1) Berry's method of iambic pentameter has certainly not mitigated the power, clarity, energy, or inevitability of my students' speaking of verse -- in fact, I believe that it has enhanced those aspects of their vocal performance, as Berrsuggests that it should; 2) Why does the study of Elizabethan pronounciation, which I am not wholly unaware of, lead one to the absolute conviction that Roger Gross implies? 3) "Proper iambic pentameter" according to who? If there is a period source, I would truly like to know of it (Marlowe, perhaps?) 4) The Shakespearean verse which I've heard spoken using Berry's ideas have notsounded like prose to me -- they have sounded like strong verse, with words and images tied together by rhyme, assonance, alliteration, rhetorical structure, and, yes, even by rhythm. While I don't wish to be disrespectful, I suspect that, as usual, there are a number of ways of looking at this, and some disagreement about what's "right" is par for the Shakespearean course. Michael Swanson, Franklin College ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 09:56:01 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0190 Re: Fiennes's *Ham.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0190. Thursday, 9 March 1995. (1) From: Ken Colston Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 18:04:31 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0181 Re: Fiennes's *Ham* (2) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 95 16:28:29 -0500 Subj: Reviews of Fiennes's *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Colston Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 18:04:31 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0181 Re: Fiennes's *Ham* I'd be interested in reading some of the reviews on Fiennes's Hamlet, and in knowing the schedule, if now planned and available, of the American tour of the production once it closes in New York in July. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 95 16:28:29 -0500 Subject: Reviews of Fiennes's *Hamlet* Fellow Shakspereans: The following review summaries are from an internet discussion group and were posted by one of its members, so some commentary is included. All reviews are excerpts, except for that by Benedict Nightingale at the very end of the post. Enjoy! DAILY MAIL: well, basically, they say it was a good reading, but not too terribly daring - i.e. he was 'okay' but not stellar. Rude comment of the day: 'Its run has been extended, so great is the clamour for sales. And no doubt when it transfers later to Broadway, New Yorkers will buy it for the real thing.' DAILY EXPRESS: Their headline is 'Ralph is destined to achieve greatness', if that gives you any clue. They say, 'His Hamlet brings all his intensity to the worlds' greatest ghost story.... Fiennes is never upstaged. His emotional power is extraordinary.' EVENING STANDARD: Their critic is well-respected and my favourite, so I was glad it got good notices from him. He says, 'Fiennes' performance... is thrillingly original and power-packed. This Prince may be too coldly self-absorbed to achieve much pathos, but it's a performance with higher emotional voltage than almost any I can remember... We are vividly reminded that Hamlet is a real revenge drama, while Fiennes's Prince luminously conveys the anguish of a man desperate for revenge but fatally ill-equipped to achieve it. THE GUARDIAN: They mostly said that it was pretty good but far too fast-paced. The writer says, 'Fiennes... has many of the right qualities for Hamlet: a Roman profile, a look of pensive sadness, a rich and resonant voice.... But although Fiennes is clearly one of nature's Hamlets, the speed of the production prevents him from reaching the heights.' THE TIMES: It actually made the editorials, of all places. Mr Editor says, 'Now we have Fiennes's Hamlet - clear and complete, credibly princely, undeniably tormented and absolutely explosive. To have seen it is to have a tale to tell. Judging by the sounds of surprise and laughter coming from the Hackney Empire balcony on opening night, it is a tale that will be told by many who have never seen the play before and might not have even thought of it ... It is no little pleasing when one who could be making millions saving Macaulay Culkin from space invaders remebers his date with the Bard.' Also - this from the Times' critic Benedict Nightingale (full review posted below) , who is pretty much the Top critic in London: 'Fiennes achieves liftoff of a more metaphoric kind in the "O, what a rogue and peasant slave" speech, filling the lines with genuine rage at a passivity he cannot explain. And the result of his frustration is a blurring of the line between the Hamlet who claims to be "mad in craft" and the Hamlet who is really a bit barking. When he carefully arranges himself on the floor, and directs selfconscious nonsense-talk at the audience arriving for The Mousetrap, he is doubtless pretending to be mad... An excessively Oedipal Hamlet is a reductive Hamlet. But I don't think Fiennes pushes the slant that far. He has not the vulnerability of Cumming, nor the dark humour of Dillane, but he has an intensity and an unpredictability of his own. He exercises a genuine grip.' THE INDEPENDENT: Ouch. They weren't too keen (gotta take the good with the bad, I suppose). The critic says, 'But in the well-nigh permanent longshot of proscenium-arched theatre, this actor's eyes look so hooded that you can't get into his face, let alone his soul. The irony is that some of Fiennes' best moments in Jonathan Kent's desperately disappointing Victorian period production come when his visage is covered by a half-mask purloined from the players' props.... Sensitivity he can project in abundance, along with patrician, head-wagging disgust; you feel there is such a lack of underlying moral fibre that it wouldn't be too unfair to dub him Hamlet, Wimp of Denmark.... It's not a case of Hamlet without the prince; more a case of him not being in full attendance.' THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Another not-so-stellar review. 'He is rarely less than competent, and there are tantalising moments when you imagine that he just might have a great Hamlet inside him. But such moments are rare.... Fiennes too often seems weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable. There are long sections when the audience is in danger of becoming bored with this usually riveting and inexhaustible character. It isn't all bad news. Fiennes is handsome and has undeniable stage presence. You genuinely believe that he is a prince. And there are sudden moments when he seems to reach the core of the character.... Fiennes is excellent too in the scene in which he violently confronts his mother with her guilt. Here his anguish is palpable, the sexual disgust and violence terrifying.... But too often Fiennes seems to be kincking tentatively at the door of the role without gaining admission. John Peter, SUNDAY TIMES: Jonathan Kent's new production of Hamlet breaks like a winter storm: harsh, bleak, unromantic, pitiless. If you have ever wondered what the first performance at the Elizabethan Globe might have been like, this production at the Hackney Empire could be as near as the modern theatre can come to it without becoming an exercise in cultural anthropology.... [He goes on about Annis' fabulous perf as Gertrude]... Ralph Fiennes' Hamlet is that paradoxical creature, a lonely loner: a man who feels safest behind some sort of protective wall and yet feels the need for the kind of close companionship he knows he is hardly fitted for.... He is certainly not a sweet prince. This is a harsh, unlyrical reading, savage and ruthless, giving no hostages to affection or romantic admiration: Fiennes reminds you how often Shakespeare arouses your feelings and awakens your moral sensibilities by engaging you with characters who are difficult, unwelcoming, sometimes even repellent.... Like all highly individual Hamlets, this one has its contradictions. Technically, Fiennes is hugely accomplished. The cascading, tumultuous passion of the production presents no problems to him: the verse is released at an immense speed, but with almost complete clarity. One difficulty with that is that you actually become aware of Fiennes' virtuosity: the technical wizardry draws attention to itself, and simply listening to this reckless outpouring of the text comes between you and the character you want to get to know.... Where Fiennes' performance and Kent's production most probably resemble their originals [at the Globe] is in their grasp of the play's essential theatricality as a work of swift, irresistible tragic action in which character and circumstance combine in destruction. This, too, is where Fiennes' performance is so eloquent and truthful: it is a portrayal of pain that cannot be shared.... Fiennes' performance is a shattering portrayal of [the waste of his soul]. He is, to quote Sartre, a useless passion. Irving Wardle, THE INDEPENDENT: With Fiennes the play again becomes the possession of a heroic actor.... I last saw Fiennes five years ago in the RSC's Troilus and Cressida, where he gave the only performance I have ever seen that makes sense of Troilus' emotionally impacted speech on Cressida's betrayal. The same capacity to articulate fast-changing and contradictory feelings reappears in his Hamlet, magnified to an Olympian scale.... "I'll call thee- Hamlet": addressing the Ghost, Fiennes charges the name with an accumulation of awe, grief, love, and expectation. He enters so fully into the moment that the words acquire their own physical weight; and the beauty of such moments is that they also intensify the rhythms of the time. Michael Coveney, THE OBSERVER: For once, the event lives up to the hype and billing. Fiennes, the Hackney Hamlet, leads an exciting, intelligent and absorbing production by Jonathan Kent for the Almeida Theatre.... Unlike Stephen Dillane in Peter Hall's recent West End revival, Ralph Fiennes exudes the appeal of a true star and the appetite of a thoroughbred. He serves the cynicism in dashes, not dollops.... On film, Fiennes' lower jaw is fragile to no purpose. In the theatre, it quivers to technical advantage, as his truly glorious voice - the most compelling and musical, perhaps, since Ian Richardson's - hangs on the air and explodes, without mannerism or tricksiness. John Gross, THE TELEGRAPH: Both Fiennes' performance and the production as a whole generate excitement; they capture the superb dynamic thrust of the play, you barely notice the time passing. Fiennes has a fine presence and piercing looks. He is a romantic Hamlet, if "romantic" means doing justice to both the sweet and the princely aspects of Hamlet's character - but not if it means blurring the edge of other, less winning aspects in a lyrical haze.... The one marked weakness is that you frequently feel that this particular Hamlet's thoughts aren't probing deeply enough. He is intelligent but not intellectual - an effect heightened by his tendency to speed up at just those moments ("To be or not to be" above all) where he ought to slow down. HEADLINE: More than kin, less than kind;Theatre PUBLICATION DATE: 02 March 1995 BY: Benedict Nightingale Hamlet, Hackney Empire Benedict Nightingale see Ralph Fiennes flirt with Oedipus but settle for controlled madness as Hamlet Is Ophelia giving an accurate character reference or simply carried away by love when she calls Hamlet the courtier's, soldier's, scholar's eye, tongue and sword, the expectancy and rose of the fair state, the glass of fashion and the mould of form, with noble reason and unmatched feature? With Alan Cumming and Stephen Dillane, the most interesting of recent Danes, she had to be besotted going on deranged. But you have only to see Ralph Fiennes's long, lean figure appear from behind his black overcoat, and hear that crystalline voice rise from that chiselled face, to know that, were you in the market for a soldier's eye or a courtier's tongue, here is your man. That, of course, is the problem. Jonathan Kent's production (sponsor: AT&T) is a highly competent affair with several decent performances among the Edwardian morning coats, among them an economical treble from Terence Rigby as a forlorn ghost, a bolshie gravedigger, and a Player King who sees himself as a cigar-puffing, fancy-waistcoated Beerbohm Tree. But it took me time to get a purchase on Fiennes himself. Was he just going to be a chap who would have proved most royal had he been put on, but never managed actually to get put on? There are hints of possibilities to come. Note the unusual emphasis he gives to the penultimate word when first Claudius, then Gertrude asks him not to go back to school at Wittenberg: ``I shall in all my best obey you, madam.'' Note, too, the bilious way he lingers over the sibilants in ``incestuous sheets'' a bit later. Maybe this Hamlet is less straightforward than he seems. Maybe there is something unformed within the mould of form, cracked in the glass of fashion, that will make it emotionally hard for him to obey even Rigby's Ghost, who reinforces his aggressive querulousness by floating in armour round the sky directing sci-fi rays at the earthlings in their grey-columned palace. So it turns out, too. Fiennes achieves liftoff of a more metaphoric kind in the ``O, what a rogue and peasant slave'' speech, filling the lines with genuine rage at a passivity he cannot explain. And the result of his frustration is a blurring of the line between the Hamlet who claims to be ``mad in craft'' and the Hamlet who really is a bit barking. When he carefully arranges himself on the floor, and directs selfconscious nonsense-talk at the audience arriving for The Mousetrap, he is doubtless pretending to be mad. When he borrows a player's half-mask and gown, and bangs about like a demented Samurai, you feel that Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz would have called him something less ambiguous than ``stark, raving sane''. Fiennes gets more in need of the washbasin and laundry as the play progresses, and transforms ``To be or not to be'' into the kind of jumble of obsessive anxiety you might hear from a tramp on a park-bench. He plays the subsequent encounter with Ophelia in what's also an unconventional way, not as a rejected suitor who angrily twigs that Polonius is spying on him, but as an unprovoked outburst of batty love-hate that ends with him spitting on his filthy shirt and using it to remove her lipstick. The bedroom scene with Gertrude has him violently shoving Francesca Annis's face into the mattress and crazily miming rear-end sex with her, by way of confirming that, yes, somewhere here is an explanation for all the unprincely ado preceding it. An excessively Oedipal Hamlet is a reductive Hamlet. But I don't think Fiennes pushes the slant that far. He has not the vulnerability of Cumming, nor the dark humour of Dillane, but he has an intensity and an unpredictability of his own. He exercises a genuine grip, as does James Laurenson's tough, edgy and finally distraught Claudius. Moreover, on opening night they maintained concentration under tricky conditions. Something creaked behind the backcloth and rattled on the ceiling. The ghost of Hamlet's grandfather, come to stick in his sepulchral oar? We never did discover. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 09:58:56 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0191 Q: *AYL* Ending Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0191. Thursday, 9 March 1995. From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 95 12:53:03 EST Subject: [*AYL* Ending] A student has wondered whether all the court party except Jaques and Frederick return to the courtly world at the end of _As You Like It_, on the basis of Oliver's resolution following his conversion: "for my father's house and all the revenue that was old Sir Rowland's will I estate upon [Orlando], and here live and die a shepherd" (bevington 5.2.10-12). The old duke seems to imply otherwise when he comments on Jaques de Boys' report of the conversion of Ferdinand: "Welcome, young man. / Thou offer'st fairly to thy brothers' wedding: To one [Oliver] his lands withheld and to the other [Orlando] / A land itself at large, a potent dukedom" (5.4.165-68). But it would be possible in performance to counter his assumption. Comments? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 10:10:58 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0192 E-Mail Censorship (Cross-Posted) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0192. Thursday, 9 March 1995. From: Michael Swanson Date: Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 23:54:53 -0500 Subject: E-mail censorship [This message appeared on ARTMGT-L --HMC] PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE AFTER MAY 1, 1995 Feb. 22, 1995 [updated Mar. 3 to include House version's bill number] Distributed by the Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw@vtw.org) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (ask@eff.org) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [In order to use the net more effectively, the following organizations have joined forces on a single Congressional net campaign to stop the Communications Decency Act, S. 314 & H.R. 1004 (in alphabetical order): the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Electronic Frontier Foundation-Austin (EFF-Austin), (Note that EFF-Austin is not a chapter of the DC-based EFF) the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Hands Off! the Net petition drive, the People for the American Way (PFAW), the Society for Electronic Access (SEA), and the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) These organizations are using the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) as a conduit for legislative feedback. When you contact Congress about the Communications Decency Act and send your feedback to vtw@vtw.org, that information is being fed back to all participating organizations. If your organization would like to signon to this campaign and receive legislative feedback, contact vtw@vtw.org. -Shabbir] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS Introduction What you can do Contact Information Background Current status of S. 314 Where can I learn more about the bill? (URL included) Where will I learn about updates to this alert? Current list of participating organizations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION Dear Net Citizens: Legislation has been introduced before the Senate which would severely restrict your freedom of speech, halt the free flow of information on the net, and require all telecommunications carriers to censor your public and private communications. The "Communications Decency Act of 1995" (S. 314), introduced in early February by Senators Exon (D-NE) and Gorton (R-WA), would place substantial criminal liability on telecommunications carriers (including traditional telephone networks, Internet service providers, commercial online services such as America Online and Compuserve, and independent BBS's) whenever their networks are used to transmit any material which is deemed indecent or harassing. In order to avoid these penalties, carriers would be forced to restrict the activities of their subscribers and censor all public and private communications. We must act quickly to stop the progress of S. 314. The bill may soon be incorporated into Senate telecommunications reform legislation, which is currently being drafted by the Senate Commerce Committee. The telecommunications reform bill may be introduced as early as mid March, and is expected to be considered on a fast track. If S. 314 is included in this bill, it will be extremely difficult to change or remove and could pass quickly. We are asking you to join us in urging key members of the Senate to prevent S. 314 from being included in Senate telecommunications reform measures and to hold open, public hearings on the issue. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT YOU CAN DO (IN ONLY FIVE MINUTES) 1. Contact Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD, Commerce Committee Chairman), Sen. Bob Packwood (R-OR) and Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC, ranking member) and urge them to keep S.314 from being incorporated into telecommunications reform legislation. You'll find their addresses, phone numbers, and fax numbers below. Also, if you live in: AK AZ HI KY LA MA ME MO MS MT ND NE NV OR SC SD TX WA WV you should also contact your own Senator from the Commerce committee. Remember, the best and most effective means of influencing a member of Congress is to write a letter in your own words. 2. Write/Fax/Email them a letter or make a phone call. Try to mention as as many of the points below (marked with a *) as you can fit politely into communication. 3. DON'T FORGET TO DROP A NOTE TO VTW@VTW.ORG to tell us who you contacted. We'll tally the results and feed them back to all participating organizations. It's crucial we have this feedback, even if you just got a form letter, or a "thank you" to your phone call. 4. Feel good about yourself. You've just participated in democracy without leaving your seat. 5. (Extra bonus activism) Reproduce this alert with the expiration date and contact information intact to other non-Usenet places. Fax it to your friends, post a copy to your local bulletin board. Please don't spam it to places like rec.pets.cats, but place it in places where people who don't read a lot of Usenet might see it. Non-net connected BBSs are great, as are physical bulletin boards. Please don't post it to email lists or newsgroups not related to politics, as this will annoy people. Most especially, try to reach people in the larger online services, such as America OnLine and Compuserve and the large PC networks, such as Fidonet. When writing a letter or making a phone call, try to include the following points in your message: * S. 314 must not be incorporated into the Senate telecommunications reform bill. * The bill would force communications service providers to limit or remove my access to file archives, discussion forums, and electronic mail. * S. 314 would dramatically restrict the free flow of information through out the online world and limit the free speech and privacy rights of individual users. * Placing criminal liability on communications service providers will force providers to censor the activities of their subscribers. * As a user of interactive communications technologies, I am capable of deciding for myself and for my children what content I wish to receive. The government should not be involved in deciding what kinds of content I may access. * Public hearings must be held to consider possible technological means and policy alternatives to government content restrictions in interactive media. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTACT INFORMATION Here are the Commerce committee members. Please contact Sen. Larry Pressler (the Committee Chairman) and Sen. Ernest Hollings at a minimum. If you see your state listed below, contact your own senator as well. All addresses are Washington, D.C. 20510 P ST Name and Address Phone Fax = == ======================== ============== ============== R SD Pressler, Larry 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1259* 243 RSOB larry_pressler@pressler.senate.gov *Note this is the Commerce Committee's fax number D SC Hollings, Ernest F. 1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293 125 RSOB R OR Packwood, Robert 1-202-224-5244 1-202-228-3576 259 RSOB D HI Inouye, Daniel K. 1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747 722 HSOB R AK Stevens, Ted 1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044 522 HSOB D KY Ford, Wendell H. 1-202-224-4343 1-202-224-0046 173A RSOB wendell_ford@ford.senate.gov R AZ McCain, John 1-202-224-2235 1-202-228-2862 111 RSOB D NE Exon, J. J. 1-202-224-4224 1-202-224-5213 528 HSOB R MT Burns, Conrad R. 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594 183 DSOB D WV Rockefeller, John D. 1-202-224-6472 1-202-224-1689 109 HSOB R WA Gorton, Slade 1-202-224-3441 1-202-224-9393 730 HSOB Senator_Gorton@gorton.senate.gov D MA Kerry, John F. 1-202-224-2742 1-202-224-8525 421 RSOB R MS Lott, Trent 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262 487 RSOB D LA Breaux, John B. 1-202-224-4623 1-202-224-2435 516 HSOB R TX Hutchison, Kay Bailey 1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776 703 HSOB senator@hutchison.senate.gov D NV Bryan, Richard H. 1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867 364 RSOB R ME Snowe, Olympia 1-202-224-5344 1-202-224-6853 176 RSOB D ND Dorgan, Byron L. 1-202-224-2551 1-202-224-1193 713 HSOB R MO Ashcroft, John 1-202-224-6154 1-202-224-7615 170 RSOB ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CURRENT STATUS OF S. 314 The bill was introduced on February 1, 1995 by Senators Exon (D-NE) and Gorton (R-WA). It is currently pending before the Senate Commerce Committee (chaired by Senator Pressler (R-SD)). No committee action has been scheduled as of February 21, 1995. It may be included in the Senate telecommunications reform legislation, expected to be introduced by mid-March. A House of Representatives version of the bill has also been introduced with almost identical text, as H.R. 1004. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND S. 314 would expand current law restricting indecency and harassment on telephone services to all telecommunications providers and expand criminal liability to all content carried by all forms of telecommunications networks. The bill would amend Section 223 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 223), which requires carriers to take steps to prevent minors from gaining access to indecent audiotext and criminalizes harassment accomplished over interstate telephone lines. If enacted, S. 314 would compel service providers to severely restrict your online activities. Your access to email, discussion lists, usenet, the world wide web, gopher, and ftp archives would be substantially reduced or cut off entirely. The bill would also force providers to closely monitor and pre-screen your electronic mail, and refuse to transmit any message or other content which may be considered to be indecent. This bill poses a significant threat to freedom of speech and the free flow of information in cyberspace. The bill also raises fundamental questions about the right of government to control content on communications networks, as well as the locus of liability for content carried in these new communications media. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BILL? (URL INCLUDED) The Voters Telecommunications Watch has set up a gopher page where you can get a copy of the bill (including analyses by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Messaging Association, and others). Here's the URL: WWW URL: gopher://gopher.panix.com/11/vtw/exon Gopher command : gopher -p 1/vtw/exon gopher.panix.com If you have difficulty getting to this gopher page, or if you don't have access to Mosaic/gopher, drop a note to: vtw@vtw.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHERE WILL I LEARN ABOUT UPDATES TO THIS ALERT? We will post updates to this alert in three places: -On the account vtw@panix.com (finger vtw@panix.com) -On Usenet (comp.org.eff.talk, comp.org.cpsr.talk, and alt.privacy) -Through our announcements mailing list, vtw-announce@vtw.org. To subscribe, simply send a message to listproc@vtw.org with the following in the message body: subscribe vtw-announce Firstname Lastname ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CURRENT LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS At this time, the following organizations have signed onto this campaign and are receiving the legislative feedback that VTW is compiling: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), infoaclu@aclu.org Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), ask@cdt.org Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ask@eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation-Austin (EFF-Austin), eff-austin@tic.com (Note that EFF-Austin is not a chapter of the DC-based EFF) Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), info@epic.org Hands Off! the Net petition drive, slowdog@wookie.net People for the American Way (PFAW), jlessern@reach.com Society for Electronic Access (SEA), sea@sea.org Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW), vtw@vtw.org Note that the Voters Telecommunications Watch does not speak for these organizations. Any opinions contained herein are those of the author, and not necessarily endorsed by participating organizations. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 19:04:27 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0193 Re: Endings: *MM* and *AYL* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0193. Friday, 10 March 1995. (1) From: Kurt Daw Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 95 09:17:13 EST Subj: Re: *MM* Ending (2) From: Naoki Sakaino Date: Friday, 10 Mar 95 00:21:06 +0900 Subj: MM ending (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 10 Mar 1995 13:39:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0191 Q: *AYL* Ending (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kurt Daw Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 95 09:17:13 EST Subject: Re: *MM* Ending As a young graduate student in 1981, I stage-managed a production of *Measure for Measure* at Southern Methodist University. Director Jack Clay gave his Isabella the option of ending the play each night according to her feelings at the moment, instructing her only that her choice to 1.) accept, 2.) reject, or 3.) refuse to respond to the Duke must be unambiguous enough that we in the booth could execute one of three different cue sequences based on her choice. Consulting my old notes, I count that in twelve performances she chose to accept him six times, reject him four, and stand mute (forcing the Lady or the Tiger ending) twice. Predictably, the audience response was very different depending on which ending was chosen. My recollection is that on nights where the Duke was unquestioningly accepted the show seemed rather glib, with Isabella's response having little connection (in the audience's mind at least) to her journey through the play. She chose to accept him so many times, not because it worked best, but because we all generally felt that was the *right* ending and kept trying to make it pay off, but it didn't. Outright rejection proved more interesting, because it received greater audience approval, but it highlighted the modernity of this pseudo-modern dress production in ways that stayed in the background all other nights. It seemed to me at the time that what was being approved was not Shakespeare, but the comment on Shakespeare. The nights where Isabella did not choose were the *best* performances. Audiences were a bit shaken by not knowing how it ended, a few members of the audience openly expressing anger, but on the whole these audiences found the play much more profound. These were the only nights on which the *production* (as opposed to the play) was clearly a critical success. This is, of course, only anecdotal evidence and personal opinion about one production, but it struck me at the time (and has stuck with me) that the ambiguity of the text, however much it cries out for resolution, cannot be resolved without seeming too quick and trivial. I respect the historical argument that the play couldn't have *just ended* in Shakespeare's time, because the stage had to be cleared without benefit of blackout, curtain or other device, but my experience tells me the firm options don't play very well. For whatever it was worth... Kurt Daw (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naoki Sakaino Date: Friday, 10 Mar 95 00:21:06 +0900 Subject: MM ending The last scene of MM is in fact impressive: all of the major characters appears almost entirely silent, which is contrasted by the excessive speech of Lucio. One unforgettable example of Isabella's rejection is produced by Jonathan Miller, which some of you could also recall. According to Martin Ingram, _Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England, 1570-1640_ (Cambridge, 1987), the rate of accusation for prenupital fornication drastically raised around the period of MM's first performance. One could also associate the Duke with James I, as quite a few scholars have pointed out. One more curious thing: William D'avenant made an adaptation in his "The Law Against Lovers", in which the Duke (to our surprise!) arranges the marriage of Isabella and Angelo, and all the surrounding characters feel gratitude to the Duke. In short, D'avenant fills the "gap" which the audience of comedies should be required by the convention of the genre. Is that, however, the way Shakespeare really intended? Or, (I'd like to know) the convention of the genre (if any) really required the contemporary audience to fill the gap? Is there any possibility that D'avenant's voice is too louder for us to listen to the Bard's implication? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 10 Mar 1995 13:39:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0191 Q: *AYL* Ending Dave Evett asks for comments on the contradictions in the play's last scene. My comment is: so many men, so many minds. But, of course, Oliver's generosity to his brother in 5.2.10-12 comes before the arrival of brother Jaques and the glad news of Duke Frederick's abdication. It's easy to give up something that is being withheld from you ANYWAY. It's not as if Oliver can go back and claim his lands at this point in the action. Perhaps when Duke Senior offers him his lands back, Oliver forgets all about shepherding. Has anyone considered that Jaques de Boys has been suborned by Duke Frederick to entrap Duke Senior and his men? That Frederick and his men are waiting at forest's edge to arrest the gullible forest dwellers? Somehow I just don't trust this Jaques de Boyes. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 19:17:02 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0194 Re: *WT* Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0194. Friday, 10 March 1995. (1) From: Christina M. Robertson Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 10:02:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: RE: Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 (2) From: Matthew Henerson Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 08:57:14 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0179 Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 (3) From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 14:48:18 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0179 Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 (4) From: A. G. Bennett Date: Thursday, 09 Mar 1995 15:08:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0188 Re: *WT* Prods. (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christina M. Robertson Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 10:02:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 Theater Emory, a small professional theater at Emory University performed _Winter's Tale_ last year. It was directed by Lou Rackoff (sp?) who runs the North Carolina Shakespeare festival. You're right; the play did suddenly materialize in various venues all last year! Christina Robertson (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Henerson Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 08:57:14 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0179 Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 To Alex Bennett: I think the California Shakespeare Festival (formerly Berkeley Shakespeare) did a production of *WT* as part of their '94 summer season, and there was a production at the Old Globe in San Diego in the summer of '92. I did not see either of these, so I'm afraid I can't tell you anything about them beyond the fact that the Globe production got mixed reviews from local papers. Matt Henerson (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 14:48:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0179 Q: *WT* Performances in 1994 Mr. Bennett: The Shakes. Rep. produced Winter's Tale in the fall of '94 at the Ruth Page Theater on N. Clark Street in Chicago. It was better than excellent! This season they have performed a sparkling *Troilus and Cressida* and in April, they present *As You Like It* which we are anticipating eagerly. Kitty Kendrick (ukkendri@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu) (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: A. G. Bennett Date: Thursday, 09 Mar 1995 15:08:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0188 Re: *WT* Prods. Dear Milla Riggio, I'd love to see a copy of your historical essay from Trinity College, if you'd be kind enough to send it along via email or snail mail. Thanks! Alex Bennett (bennett@binah.cc.brandeis.edu) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 19:43:18 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0195 Re: Black Characters on Shakespeare's Stage Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0195. Friday, 10 March 1995. (1) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 11:27:50 +0001 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0184 Qs: Black Characters on Sh's Stage (2) From: Matthew Henerson Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 09:09:20 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0184 Qs: Black Characters on Sh's Stage (3) From: David Lindley Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 18:04:10 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0189 Re: Black Characters on Sh's Stage and Blackfac (4) From: Jean Peterson Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 17:51:44 -0500 Subj: Othello & Race (5) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 09 Mar 1995 23:12:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0189 Black Characters on Sh's Stage and Blackface (6) From: Dan T. M. How Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 21:52:21 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0189 Black Characters on Sh's Stage and Blackface (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 11:27:50 +0001 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0184 Qs: Black Characters on Sh's Stage My understanding of how the black characters were played is derived from Jonson's Masque of Blackness, in which the court performers put on black face and body makeup. Helen Ostovich McMaster University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Henerson Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 09:09:20 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0184 Qs: Black Characters on Sh's Stage To Caroline Gebhard: I have never been involved with a production of *Othello*, so I've never had a chance to check the truth of this, but I have heard that American Actor's Equity will not allow a theater to hire a white actor to play Othello in blackface. I think a theater can petition the union if the artistic administration wants to tweak the play in some way (all-black cast with white Othello etc.), and I know that Chicano, Pakistani, and Native American actors have played it, but I believe the ethnicity of the role is protected by AEA. If this rule is indeed on the books, I don't know when it came into effect. Nor do I know how other acting unions in other countries deal with the question. There was a white Othello in England (Paul Scofield at the RNT) as recently as 1980, and Ben Kingsley played it for the RSC in 1989, but I think he is half-Indian. I am sorry that this information is not more reliable. Perhaps somebody else can confirm or deny some of what I've said. Matt Henerson (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 18:04:10 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0189 Re: Black Characters on Sh's Stage and Blackfac A pedantic correction to Melissa Aaron's note. 'The Masque of Queens' was performed in 1609, and did not involve black make-up; the 'Masque of Blackness', performed by Queen Anne and other noble ladies did, but it was performed in 1605, not 1604. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 17:51:44 -0500 Subject: Othello & Race One very interesting production of Othello (at one of the fringe theaters on the outskirts of London--maybe it was in Greenwhich, and around 1989?) cast black actors as both Othello and Iago (Emilia was also black). But Othello was a "white man's black man"--light-skinned and caucasian-featured, a real poster-boy for assimilation, while Iago was much darker and his features more African. The contrast emphasized the operation of internalized racism and "colonial" mentality--Othello was duped into thinking himself equal with the lily-white senate and Iago's superior (demonstrated through tone of voice and body language--he treated Iago like a lackey); Othello didn't see how he himself was being used. The population of Cyprus, for example, was dark-skinned and hostile to the Venetians, and sending Othello to calm the island down was an act of political cynicism to which Othello was oblivious. Cassio's drunk scene was used effectively to demonstrate the tensions brewing on the island and in the ranks (his sneering put-downs to Iago took on a nasty edge that the Cyprians saw and resented) And the production seemed to suggest that internalized racism was one of Iago's nameless motives as well--Othello's marriage to a white woman seemed to arouse in Iago a fearful combination of disgust, fury, envy and wish to punish... It was powerfully, effectively done. Jean Peterson Bucknell University [In 1990, The Shakespeare Theatre produced an *Othello*, directed by Harold Scott, with Avery Brooks as Othello, Andre Braugher as Iago, Fran Dorn as Emilia, and Jordan Baker as Desdemona that sounds much like the production Jean Peterson describes above. As I recall, the production was originally done for Yale Rep in 1989. --HMC] (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 09 Mar 1995 23:12:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0189 Black Characters on Sh's Stage and Blackface Gabriel Egan claims to be confident that there were no black actors on the sixteenth century English stage. May I ask why? Assuming there were no black sharers, is it impossible that there were no black hired actors? (There were black cowboys!) How confident can we be about the color barrier in, say, the 1590s? Yours, Bill Godshalk (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan T. M. How Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 21:52:21 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0189 Black Characters on Sh's Stage and Blackface Here's a thought...any chance there was an actual African-American in Shakespeare's troupe? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 19:54:38 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0196 Re: *Macbeth*: Prophecies and Duncan's Murder Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0196. Friday, 10 March 1995. (1) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Thursday, 09 Mar 1995 11:10:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Prophecies in _Macbeth_ (2) From: Jean Peterson Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 17:23:38 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0184 *Mac* Murder (3) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Friday, 10 Mar 1995 16:46:27 -0500 Subj: *Mac* murder (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Thursday, 09 Mar 1995 11:10:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Prophecies in _Macbeth_ It's interesting that Jennie Johnson (SHK 6.0184) should speak of "the Glamis prediction" and thus recapitulate a conflation I believe Macbeth himself makes. In calling Macbeth Thane of Glamis, the witches are neither predicting nor prophesying but stating the case: Macbeth is Thane of Glamis by virtue of being his father's son and having inherited the title at his father's death. "By Sinel's death I know I am Thane of Glamis" (I.iii.71), he says, "But how of Cawdor?" And how king? It would be nice if the kingship would fall on his plate, to use Jennie Johnson's phrase, with the inevitability (in a society committed to primogenitural succession) that the thaneship of Glamis has already fallen. Meanwhile, the thaneship of Cawdor has since fallen, but hardly by the usual orderly succession. This thaneship is rather Macbeth's reward for his spectacularly sanguinary service in the late rebellion. It is by the deeds of his own arm that he has become Thane of Cawdor, and it will be similarly by the deed of his arm that he will become king. But perhaps the inevitability of the first step, his inheriting of Glamis, encourages him to think of the next steps as inevitable as well, part of a "natural" progression. It's striking that in a later aside he speaks of "_Two_ truths" being told "As happy prologues to the swelling act / Of the imperial theme" (I.iii.127-29). The first truth, after all, is only one in the very pedestrian sense of a statement of fact. It hardly shows that the universe is geared up to make Macbeth king, though it's scarcely surprising that Macbeth should want to treat it as if it did. Shakespeare seems to have been thoroughly familiar with that form of self-delusion in which we conflate our own desires with the will of higher powers. Think of Malvolio on the subject of Olivia: "I have lim'd her, but it is Jove's doing, and Jove make me thankful!" --Ron Macdonald (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 17:23:38 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0184 *Mac* Murder To Jennie Johnson >Why does Macb. leap to the conclusion that he will become King only by >murdering Duncan? If the Glamis prediction came true without him batting an >eyelid, why does he then TAKE action, ie. kill, to secure the second >prediction, if the first fell on his plate? Macbeth considers just this possibility--"If chance will have me King, why, chance may crown me without my stir--" (1.3.143-4). But it just won't happen fast enough for that "vaulting ambition" that the prediction has set in motion! Lady M. worries that the damn "milk of human kindness" in her hubby won't allow him to "catch the nearest way"--not the ONLY way, maybe, but the one that leads to the most immediate gratification. Look at the play's language of speed, haste, outrushing and overreaching--once the temptation has entered their minds (and it doesn't take much--images of murder & mayhem evidently follow swiftly on the heels of "Hail, Macbeth that shalt be King hereafter!")--there's no stopping and no waiting for "time" to take its course. >Why does he then presume that by killing Duncan he will become King, when >Malcolm was pronounced hier apparent before his very eyes? Actually, doesn't the declaration of Malcolm as heir seal Duncan's fate? Now MB has two obstacles to overcome, the living king and "the step [he] must o'er leap"--his son & heir! By framing the grooms for the murder, and killing them before they can speak up,MB & Lady M point the blame for the crime on Malcolm & Donaldbain--who appear to have the most to gain by offing Duncan (thus removing all obstacles for MB!) M & D helpfully flee, which places on them the suspicion of the crime... Did MB "know" or "presume" or "intend" this to happen? There seems to me little point in asking that question: the play tells us that this is the outcome, so I think we must be satisfied with that. Further, we find out later that MB is not as slick as he thinks--Macduff is suspicious from go, and in act 3 scene 4, Lennox observes that Malcolm & Donaldbain murdering Duncan is about as plausible as Fleance killing Banquo... De-mystifyingly, Jean Peterson Bucknell University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Friday, 10 Mar 1995 16:46:27 -0500 Subject: *Mac* murder Let me amend the look-to-the-mysteries-of-the-text writeoff that ended my last post re Duncan's murder. There is more to be said. Reassembling the question: since Macbeth recognizes that assassinating the king is unnecessary (given the prophecy) and insufficient (given the king's two sons) for the fulfillment of his ambition, why does he do it? Of course it is the nature of prophecies in literature that they are themselves the catalysts of their own fulfillment, traditionally with the irony that someone acting to defy a baleful prediction precipitates the very misfortune he seeks to avoid (eg most famously the father of Oedipus). The innovation of Macbeth is that the protagonist acts not to prevent his foretold fate but to encourage it--"unnecessary" only in a limited sense, since in terms of dramatic structure the prophecy _includes_ Macbeth's response to having heard it. For a more psychological explanation it is reductive but more or less right to say that Macbeth is too much a man of action to let the future take care of itself. Anyway what is clear is that the issue of necessity disappears from his considerations after the initial determination "If chance will have me king, why chance may crown me without my stir." This sensible assessment is apparently not enough to put the idea out of his mind. (Note the dissenting opinion of Lady Macbeth: "Thou'ldst have, great Glamis, that which cries thus thou _must do_ if thou have it." Mere assertion of course, but indicative of her attitude about prophecy.) As for who's next in line for the throne, since the monarchy isn't hereditary that question isn't settled before 1.4 (knowledge of Scottish political history not required; "we will establish our estate upon our eldest Malcolm" makes the point), and curiously Macbeth's reaction is not discouragement but improved urgency. Certainly in this speech ("The Prince of Cumberland!" etc) there is none of the "come what come may" resolve that ended 1.3. But _whether or not to murder the king_ persists as the prime question of act 1, and if nonnecessity and insufficiency are not the things in Macbeth's way, what is? A _moral_ uneasiness is evident in the distaste for the affair continually expressed by Macbeth, who has unseam'd men in war without disgust, but it plays little part in his deliberations. His most conspicuous speech about the decision ("If it were done when 'tis done..."), although it makes a brief detour into a moral question ("He's here in double trust...not bear the knife myself"), is otherwise entirely concerned with the _fear of consequences_; but when Lady Macbeth confronts him he makes his argument with completely different and less relevant objections. He says 1) he wants to enjoy his recent honors first, 2) he wants to do what is "becoming", 3) he is afraid of failing. All of these are actual unfeigned worries of his, but they are clearly secondary. Why doesn't he mention the truly crucial problem which he has just identified to himself (and to us) in soliloquy? >...we but teach >Bloody instructions, which being taught return >To plague th'inventor. Lady Macbeth's persuasions, astounding as they are, can hardly counter this prophetic insight which he never points out to her. Her appeals, stripped of rhetorical force, are 1) you promised you would do this so you must, 2) you are a coward if you don't, and 3) we won't get caught. This last assertion though remarkably unconvincing does superficially address Macbeth's unspoken chief anxiety, and it is significant that this is what makes him "settled." Thus, after clearly enumerating all sorts of reasonable arguments against it, he agrees to do a thing which to imagine appals him, which he knows he shouldn't do and doesn't need to do. His foremost scruples, namely anticipated public outrage and his own exposure to assassination, he abandons upon the flimsiest assurance, as if some men are kept from doing evil only by not having it suggested to them emphatically enough. When in act 2 he is faced with carrying out his reluctant resolution, his very apparatus rejects it, falling into hallucinations, but he sternly reiterates the procedure to himself ("I go, and it is done"), and commits the crime. All this is essential to our experience of the tragedy. Macbeth's first murder like Hamlet's inaction _must be_ inexplicable and contrary to overwhelming opposite motivations--but in some way, to some part of our understanding, it _makes sense_, ie it occurs to us as authentic unforeign human behavior, perplexing and troublesome as it is. This paradox, if that's what it is, was Shakespeare's fascination, and it is ours. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 20:07:46 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0197 Re: Non-Trad Sh; Olivier's Hamlet; Chronology Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0197. Friday, 10 March 1995. (1) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 95 10:00:56 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0162 Re: non-trad Shakespeare entertainments (2) From: E. J. Duggan Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 95 16:22:22 GMT Subj: Olivier's Hamlet (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 09 Mar 1995 23:01:51 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0187 Re: Chronology (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 95 10:00:56 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0162 Re: non-trad Shakespeare entertainments The 2 Wayne and Shuster Shakesperian sketches are immortal in Canadian Memory. Frank Shuster is editing black and white versions of these and other sketches for the CBC so they will reappear on the CBC next year. Meanwhile for Shakesperians who saw the sketches on the Ed Sullivan Show or when sold to the UK et al. and who want their won copy, write to the CBC Boutique, Box 500, Station A, Toronto, M5W 1E9. They will know whether or not these videos have been released for private sale. Mary Jane Miller (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. J. Duggan Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 95 16:22:22 GMT Subject: Olivier's Hamlet John Mills writes to the list that he 'cut his teeth' on Olivier's Hamlet. As a Brit, I have great difficulty with Olivier's appearance in this film because of his strong resemblance to the camp British comic Dick Emery. Has anyone else noticed this similarity, or is it just me? Ooo-ooh you are awful! But I like it. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 09 Mar 1995 23:01:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0187 Re: Chronology Pat Buckridge wants to shake the traditional assumptions about the chronology of the canon. HAMLET provides us with an interesting case. Obviously the play was written in or around 1600. (I use the word "obviously" with irony.) Therefore any earlier reference to Hamlet must be a reference to the Ur-Hamlet written by Kyd. Although McKerrow argued that Nashe was not referring to the mythical Ur-Hamlet or to Kyd, I think most recent commentators accept both identifications. David Kathman argues vigorously for this identification. But read Q1 as an early version of HAMLET, hypothesize that HAMLET was written and rewritten beginning in the late 1580's, consider Q2 and F1 as two more versions of this oft-rewritten play, and references to HAMLET before 1600 become evidence that Shakespeare wrote a version of HAMLET before that date. Until I see the Ur-Hamlet in hard-copy, I intend to remain skeptical of its existence. My major point, however, is: once you acknowledge that the plays may have been or indeed were revised (LEAR, for example) firm dates of composition distort the historical reality. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 20:11:15 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0198 Re: Fiennes's Hamlet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0198. Friday, 10 March 1995. From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 95 10:59:43 -0500 Subject: Fiennes's *Hamlet* (continued) This is a full version of the Sunday Times review that was summarized in the earlier post. --Chris Gordon HEADLINE: Steep and thorny way to heaven; Drama PUBLICATION DATE: 05 March 1995 BY: John Peter Ralph Fiennes is powerfully effective as Hamlet in a production packed full of savagery and pain, says John Peter. Jonathan Kent's new production of Hamlet breaks like a winter storm: harsh, bleak, unromantic, pitiless. If you have ever wondered what the first performance at the Elizabethan Globe might have been like, this production at the Hackney Empire could be as near as the modern theatre can come to it without becoming an exercise in cultural anthropology. The costumes (James Acheson) are sort of Edwardian, and Peter J Davison's set, dark grey and cavernous, suggests a weather-beaten, unfriendly old edifice where eavesdropping is easy and yet a place where you could easily feel exposed and alone. From its first moment, the production unleashes a ferocious, irresistible energy. The Globe almost certainly held more than 3,000 people, standing and sitting tightly packed; whoever did what the Elizabethans meant by directing would have known that he had to grab their attention at once and hold it to the end. The result, hopefully, might have been the kind of stormy, violent drama you get at the Empire: a piece of thrilling, implacable action that overwhelms both its characters and its audience. Elsinore is clearly a relaxed, confident establishment: there is no suggestion that there might ever have been an interregnum. The court is not surprised by Claudius's announcement of his marriage: this is obviously the formal, public sealing of a contract that had been settled in private. To Claudius (James Laurenson) the marriage is a necessary component of a general political settlement: his real pre-occupation now is the looming conflict with Norway. He kisses Gertrude with what you might call a formal passion: it suggests not so much erotic happiness as the triumph of possession. Gertrude may be no longer young, but she is regally glamorous: a royal trophy wife. Francesca Annis plays her as a hard, elegant, self-possessed woman with the touch of the frivolous. Socially, she is like a superbly organised dinner-party hostess who is intolerant of anything disorganised; psychologically, she is the kind of majestically self-absorbed woman who does not like problems and gets impatient with anybody who has any. As far as she is concerned, her son has been moping and mourning quite long enough: the whole thing is clearly becoming a nuisance and getting in the way of the efficient public domesticity to which she likes to be accustomed. Not surprisingly, her relationship to Hamlet is distant, watchful and slightly uneasy. Brooding is not something she understands, and her first speech to her son is edgy with weariness, almost with annoyance. When she is shown Hamlet's love letter to Ophelia, any jealousy she might feel is clearly entirely subconscious: her broody look suggests that the whole thing is an unwelcome complication that could get out of control. There is no suggestion that she has ever shared Hamlet's grief, just as the burden of Hamlet's complaint is not so much that she has deserted him for a stepfather, but that she had been disloyal to his father. Ralph Fiennes's Hamlet is that paradoxical creature, a lonely loner: a man who feels safest behind some sort of protective wall and yet feels the need for the kind of close companionship he knows he is hardly fitted for. His anger and frustration are those of a natural misfit: his father's death and his mother's remarriage only aggravate them, and the encounter with the Ghost (Terence Rigby) simply removes the restraints of discipline that have held them under control. He is a nightwatchman of the spirit, always on the alert for disaster. He is certainly not a sweet prince. This is a harsh, unlyrical reading, savage and ruthless, giving no hostages to affection or romantic admiration: Fiennes reminds you how often Shakespeare arouses your feelings and awakens your moral sensibilities by engaging you with characters who are difficult, unwelcoming, sometimes even repellent. Morality through sympathy is easy. In Shakespeare, as in all great drama, moral values are discovered the hard way. Like all highly individual Hamlets, this one has its contradictions. Technically, Fiennes is hugely accomplished. The cascading, tumultuous passion of the production presents no problems to him: the verse is released at an immense speed, but with almost complete clarity. One difficulty with that is that you actually become aware of Fiennes's virtuosity: the technical wizardry draws attention to itself, and simply listening to this reckless outpouring of the text comes between you and the character you want to get to know. The sheer speed of the delivery also tears at the intellectual fabric of the play. It is difficult to think of these lava-like outpourings as the result of any kind of thought process. The ``To be or not to be'' soliloquy sounds, not like thought moulding itself into speech, a subtle intelligence grappling with a problem, but like an obsession that has already been rehearsed more than once: the spiritual equivalent of probing and probing an open wound. A little slowing down would make all the difference. It would bring out more of the play's lyricism and intellectual passion, adding no more than 10 minutes' playing time. This need not contradict the notion that this production might be like that first one with Shakespeare and Burbage. The Globe company is unlikely to have had a rehearsal period of several weeks. A play as rich and as densely layered as this one is unlikely to have yielded up all its secrets at the first attempt, even with the author in charge. Where Fiennes's performance and Kent's production most probably resemble their originals is in their grasp of the play's essential theatricality as a work of swift, irresistible tragic action in which character and circumstance combine in destruction. This, too, is where Fiennes's performance is so eloquent and truthful: it is a portrayal of pain that cannot be shared. In this sense, this is a deeply modern, contemporary Hamlet. He is, ultimately, entirely alone. There is no family or community to support him. This is not the loneliness of princes, but the loneliness of personal suffering, partly caused by a harsh, uncaring world and partly rooted in a deep spiritual maladjustment that nobody can understand, let alone alleviate. To us, Hamlet's suffering speaks of moral priorities, of the nature of purity, clarity, self-knowledge and action; but to Hamlet himself it is merely a waste of his soul. Fiennes's performance is a shattering portrayal of this loss and this waste. He is, to quote Sartre, a useless passion. This is the Almeida Theatre's production, sponsored by AT&T, and it recalls the Shakespearian theatre in yet another way. A few years after Hamlet was written, his company took a lease on the Blackfriars, an intimate indoor theatre seating about 500. Here the King's Men, as they were by then called, presented exactly the same plays to a smaller, more refined, perhaps more discriminating public than they did at the Globe to a mass audience. In this sense, for Shakespeare and his audiences, there was only one theatre. The Almeida company usually plays to an audience of at most 300; here at the Empire, in the urban jungle of Hackney, it plays classical drama at the same high standard of artistry, but to an audience of 900 to 1,000. Perhaps Kent and his actors will prove that today, too, there is only one theatre, and that great plays speak to everybody. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 20:14:32 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0199 Q: The Problem of Hero Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0199. Friday, 10 March 1995. From: Sara Cave Date: Thursdat, 9 Mar 1995 11:51:22 EST Subject: Re: The problem of Hero A question to all (or any) SHAKESPERians: I am currently rehearsing the role of Hero for MUCH ADO. I am trying, within the confines of the romantic ingenue, to find moments or ideas to give Hero some personality. Does anyone have comments, references, or suggestions? Also, too, there are a few unresolved questions in my mind. WHY was Hero alone the night before her wedding? And WHY doesn't she speak up for herself? If she is too stunned to speak in her own defense, why doesn't Beatrice say something? I guess that is enough for one posting. I welcome any or all comments. "Heroically," Sarah sarah.cave@asc.scottlan.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 20:24:42 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0200 Re: *Rom.*: Poison and Zefferelli Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0200. Friday, 10 March 1995. (1) From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 23:39:41 -0600 (CST) Subj: Romeo & Juliet 5.3 (2) From: Bill Dynes Date: Friday, March 10, 1995 Subj: Zefferelli's *Romeo and Juliet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 23:39:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: Romeo & Juliet 5.3 About the poison--a couple of possibilities suggest themselves. I agree that Shakespeare probably didn't intend for Romeo to eat an undiluted powder onstage. It was someone else who suggested he probably skipped the dilution part. But it does offer a possible explanation as to why he was holding a cup instead of a vial: he followed the apothecary's instructions and poured the powder into a drink. Now, I'll grant that it would be very hard to stage it that way: what's he going to carry the drink in?. My second (probably more likely) theory, and what I was thinking when I wrote the original message, was that Shakespeare wrote the bit about pouring the poison into a drink with Brooke's poem in front of him, envisioning it as a powder at that point. (Though calling it a "cordial" later in the scene does seem to suggest liquid.) Then he got to 5.3 and decided it should be a liquid after all. Juliet Youngren (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Dynes Date: Friday, March 10, 1995 Subject: Zefferelli's *Romeo and Juliet* I've used selections from the film in my undergraduate class with substantial success. *RJ* is the first of the plays I teach in the semester, and the film, after a couple of day's discussion, helps students get past some of the hurdles that the play-as-text presents. IUve also appreciated its liveliness and energy; it successfully presents the play as drama rather than a collection of lines to be recited with rhetorical flourish. BTW, I thought the film of *Hamlet* with Mel Gibson was successful in similarly limited ways, and have used scenes from that film, juxtaposed with Olivier, as well. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 08:25:19 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0201 Re: *MM* Ending Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0201. Sunday, 12 March 1995. (1) From: Diane Mountford Date: Friday, 10 Mar 1995 23:28:33 -0500 Subj: Re: *MM* Ending (2) From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Saturday, 11 Mar 1995 18:06:07 -0600 (CST) Subj: MM ending (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diane Mountford Date: Friday, 10 Mar 1995 23:28:33 -0500 Subject: Re: *MM* Ending I played Isabella last year, so this view is strictly from the actor's point of view . . . It was impossible for my Isabella to accept the Duke/Friar's offer of marriage. Even amidst the confusing onslaught of events in the final scene (being told to lie, lying for the first time in her life, being called a liar for the true parts, being sent to prison, etc.), the impression of being used became very clear when her closest ally and her second worst enemy in this situation turn out to be the same person. Althouth I agree that the full depth of the deception probably doesn't sink in for Isabella, or for the audience, until after the play ends, she's too smart to not clue in. Here is a man who has supported her through the most horrific days of her life, and it turns out that all along he has had the power to set things right. He could have told her that Claudio was still alive, but apparently didn't trust her that much . . . this is not the foundation of a happy marriage. But then I always thought she would be much happier with Angelo. He's a hypocrite and a villain, but he's relatively straightforward. What a labirynthine maze of deceipt awaits the wife of the Duke! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Saturday, 11 Mar 1995 18:06:07 -0600 (CST) Subject: MM ending For a discussion of the some of the many ways the ending to _Measure for Measure_ has been handled, you might find this book helpful: _As She Likes It: Shakespeare's Unruly Women_, by Penny Gay (Routledge, 1994). The book is a history of how 5 of Shakespeare's comedies have been performed at the RSC since the mid '40s, with special emphasis on how the heroines have been played. Juliet Youngren ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 08:32:20 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0202 Re: Hero Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0202. Sunday, 12 March 1995. (1) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Friday, 10 Mar 1995 23:59:52 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0199 Q: The Problem of Hero (2) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Saturday, 11 Mar 1995 22:55:46 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0199 Q: The Problem of Hero (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Friday, 10 Mar 1995 23:59:52 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0199 Q: The Problem of Hero The fact that she doesn't speak up for herself is a real problem. Isn't it the case that defamation trials (correct me on this, if wrong) pretty much required the woman to prove she was *not* a whore? (cf Lisa Jardine's article on Desdemona in a similar fix). A guess--just as with Desdemona, the problem with defending oneself from such a charge is that you have to understand it and talk about it too well to be really chaste. Desdemona "cannot say whore." And Hero isn't fond of bawdy jesting either (see III.iv). The problem is that Claudio catches her in a Catch-22--"Who did you speak to?" If she did know and had an answer, it would prove her unchaste. Since she doesn't know, because she didn't, she is unchaste. Beatrice speaks up for her as much as she can--she says that she was Hero's bedfellow every other night--which if anyone was paying proper attention would mean she *couldn't* have messed around with Borachio a thousand times. Claudio has leapt to conclusions before. If I had to play this for interest, I would try repressed anger as well as bewilderment--how *dare* they think this of me?--and a high-blood-pressure swoon. Melissa Aaron University of Wisconsin-Madison (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Saturday, 11 Mar 1995 22:55:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0199 Q: The Problem of Hero This won't help you any, but the problem of what would happen if Beatrice were to speak up is handled by Lewis Carroll, somewhere in his letters, who actually writes additional dialogue to end the play in this scene. Of course, if it were to be inserted, the whole play would end not with a bang but a whimper. I think the reason that we usually don't notice this in production has to do not with Hero's (okay, maybe she is a little stunned by the rejection) or Beatrice's character, but with Claudio's. He's the one whose reaction we are most interested in. In a sense, he's the one who's really on trial, not Hero at all. So I suppose the solution is to get Claudio to overact, so you don't get noticed, but that isn't much of a solution. Cheerio, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 19:43:08 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0203 Qs: Freeman's *Scripts*; *Lear*; Computers/Drama Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0203. Sunday, 12 March 1995. (1) From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 11 Mar 1995 09:36:46 -0500 Subj: Freeman's *Folio Scripts* (2) From: Michael Saenger Date: Sunday, 12 Mar 1995 00:42:29 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Lear (3) From: David Liss Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 12:26:25 -0600 Subj: drama, computers & pedagogy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 11 Mar 1995 09:36:46 -0500 Subject: Freeman's *Folio Scripts* Kristin Linklater recommends Neil Freeman's *Folio Scripts* for working scripts. I have some questions: 1. From where are they available? 2. Has *Winter's Tale* been completed? [yes, another WT...] 3. How much do they cost? 4. Has anyone used them, and are they as useful as Linklater says they are? 5. Are they better than just buying the Signet and going from there? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Sunday, 12 Mar 1995 00:42:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Lear A modern Lear -- more victimized than victimizing? Just a thought. Michael Saenger (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Liss Date: Thursday, 9 Mar 1995 12:26:25 -0600 Subject: drama, computers & pedagogy [If you wish to respond to the following, please do so directly. The question is not from a member of SHAKSPER. --HMC] Dear Theater people, I hope you don't mind this posting from a non-subscriber...at the moment my mailbox couldn't handle the traffic. I am an English graduate student at University of Texas. I am currently researching the use of computers in teaching drama. I have also done some software design of my own in this area. I am interested in hearing about any project or individual class that has used computers in any capacity for the purpose of teaching drama. If you are involved in or know of any such project, big or small, I'd love to hear about it. Please contact me by e-mail. David Liss ifbr761@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 19:52:59 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0204 Re: *TN* Video; Black Characters Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0204. Sunday, 12 March 1995. (1) From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Saturday, 11 Mar 1995 12:18:51 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0188 Re: *TN* Video; (2) From: Andre G. Bourassa Date: Saturday, 11 Mar 95 14:54:46 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0195 Re: Black Characters on Shakespeare's Stage (3) From: Milla Riggio Date: Saturday, 11 Mar 1995 22:39:29 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0195 Re: Black Characters on Shakespeare's Stage (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Saturday, 11 Mar 1995 12:18:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0188 Re: *TN* Video; Bradley Berens has a perfect right to denounce the 1970 Precision Video production of TN as "Awful," if that's what he thinks. I am a little put off, however, by his statement that I "forgot" to mention that it was "awful." I can't "forget" what I never thought in the first place. I remember happily screening it at the NFTVA in London several years ago and thinking that Alec Guinness as Malvolio and Joan Plowright as Viola and Ralph Richardson as Sir Toby were quite wonderful. Henry Raynor, the TIMES reviewer, was on July 14, 1970 also naive enough to call Plowright's Viola "magical." Perhaps, as I think Viola herself, said "O time, thou must untangle this, not I,/ It is too hard a knot for me t'untie" (TN 2.2.40). Yours for more cakes and ale, Ken Rothwell (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andre G. Bourassa Date: Saturday, 11 Mar 95 14:54:46 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0195 Re: Black Characters on Shakespeare's Stage In _Harper's Weekly_, 1st Septembre 1883, p. 556, there is a full page etching of black clowns playing what seems to be a parody of _Hamlet_. The subtitle reads: "The English Mania for Private Theatricals Invades Blackville. - Drawn by Sol Eytinge, Jun." I found that in an antique shop of Charleston and do not know where that paper is from. There is an article about a summer place called Long Branch, close to New York, on the reverse side, p. 555. I do not know either if the designer, showing what seems to be Hamlet in front of his father's ghost, is mocking white English actors, or mocking black amateurs in a parody of white actors. The scene is quite sophisticated and my American friends, to whom I showed it, couldn't tell if it was politically correct or not because, not knowing the etcher nor the paper, we couldn't see who was mocking whom. Andre G. Bourassa bourassa.andre_g@uqam.ca (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Saturday, 11 Mar 1995 22:39:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0195 Re: Black Characters on Shakespeare's Stage In response to the query about "an actual African-American in Shakespeare's troupe": I'd doubt there was an American of any ilk, African or otherwise. How political correctness can do us in now and then. Milla Riggio ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 21:20:32 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0205 Landmark and Future Move for SHAKSPER Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0205. Sunday, 12 March 1995. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Monday, March 13, 1995 Subject: Landmark and Future Move Dear SHAKSPEReans, Last week, SHAKSPER's active members passed the 1000 mark. Our membership is diverse; we are textual scholars and bibliographers, editors and critics, professors and high school teachers, undergraduate and graduate students, actors, poets, playwrights, theatre professionals, librarians, computer scientists, and interested bystanders. Our members are from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and the United States. We are indeed a global conference. SHAKSPER began on July 16, 1990, with a dozen or so members; a few of these founding members, myself included, are still with us. The Conference was given birth by Kenneth Steele, then a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Toronto. In May of 1992, I took over as SHAKSPER's editor, while Ken Steele took leave from his graduate studies. At that time, the membership was in the lows 230s. Ken now lives in London, Ontario, where he has his own computer company -- Stainless Steele Communications. There have been notable landmarks in this our six years of operation, reaching 1000 members is surely one of those. However, having such a large membership for a moderated conference brings certain challenges. SHAKSPER has increasingly been occupying more and more of my time. Some days, when the traffic is heavy, I spend two and half to three hours preparing the digests and handling other administrative tasks. I am committed to keeping SHAKSPER a moderated list, and I could supply a dozen or more reasons for this commitment. One of the major goals of my editing involves maintaining a consistent look to the digests. Here is where the membership can assist me. I generally do not include long signatures or emoticons, but I do insist on attributing postings, for which I have made a few misattributions of late. If your name is not included in the transmital information or if you are using a husband's, wife's, parent's, child's, or friend's account, please be sure to sign your submissions; for consistency, I normally only include one's name and affiliation; unless more information appears called for. You can also help me in a few other ways. First, I want to discourage cross-posting from other lists, unless the posting is of an informational nature of interest to large numbers of the members. Second, please do not use the REPLY/EDIT function; this just creates larges blocks of text that I have to delete. Use the REPLY function instead, or edit the digest you are replying to, including only the minimum of material from that posting. Quoting in length from previous posts is normally a waste of resources. Third, if you are using the REPLY function but are submitting a contribution on a subject other than the one in the SUBJECT line, please identify the subject of your post. You need not reproduce all of the material you see in your digest's headers; in fact, this too creates more work for me. I do have one other important announcement. In the very near future, SHAKSPER will be relocating to my institution -- Bowie State University. The University of Toronto has been SHAKSPER's home since its creation, but our size and activity have been contributing to the stretching of the resources of U of T's present set up. The money for the hardware and software necessary to run SHAKSPER from Bowie State has been allocated and the purchases are currently being made. I will keep everyone fully informed of future developments, but members can expect a one to two week downtime while we are making the switch. I have taught at Bowie State for the past eighteen years. I am currently an Associate Professor of English there, but I have also been working part-time for the Provost and the President for the past year and a half, including two days a week this semester while I am on sabbatical leave. I have included below my institution's History so that members can become more familiar with SHAKSPER's new home. ******************************************************************************* BOWIE STATE UNIVERSITY A HISTORY Bowie State University is an outgrowth of the first school opened in Baltimore, Maryland, on January 9, 1865, by the Baltimore Association for the Moral and Educational Improvement of Colored People, which was organized on November 28, 1864, to engage in its self-appointed mission on a state-wide basis. The first normal school classes sponsored by the Baltimore Association were held in the African Baptist Church located on the corner of Calvert and Saratoga Streets. In 1868, with the aid of a grant from the Freedmen's Bureau, the Baltimore Association purchased from the Society of Friends a building at Courtland and Saratoga Streets for the relocation of its normal school until 1883, when it was reorganized solely as a normal school to train Negro teachers. The Baltimore Normal School had received occasional financial support from the city of Baltimore since 1870 and from the State since 1872. In 1871, it received a legacy from the Nelson Wells Fund. This fund, established before Wells' death in February 1843, provided for the education of freed Negro children in the State of Maryland. On April 8, 1908, at the request of the Baltimore Normal School, which desired permanent status and funding as an institution for the education of Negro teachers, the state legislature authorized its Board of Education to assume control of the school. The same law re-designated the institution as Normal School No. 3. Subsequently, it was relocated on a 187-acre tract in Prince George's County, and by 1914 it was known as the Maryland Normal and Industrial School at Bowie. A two-year professional curriculum in teacher education, which started in 1925, was expanded to a three-year program. In 1935, a four-year program for the training of elementary school teachers began, and the school was renamed Maryland State Teachers College at Bowie. In 1951, with the approval of the State Board of Education, its governing body, Bowie State expanded its program to train teachers for junior high schools. Ten years later, permission was granted to institute a teacher training program for secondary education. In 1963, a liberal arts program was started and the name was changed to Bowie State College. In succeeding years, a graduate school and a number of innovative programs have been established to prepare students to fill a productive role in our changing society and economy. Bowie State College was authorized to grant its first graduate degree, the Master of Education, in 1970. A significant milestone in the development of graduate studies at Bowie State College was achieved with Board of Trustees' approval for the establishment of the Adler-Dreikurs Institute of Human Relations in 1975. Currently, the University offers 18 undergraduate programs and 13 graduate degree programs, including the Bachelors in Technology, Masters in Teaching, and dual-degree programs in both Engineering and Dentistry. On July 1, 1988, Bowie State College officially became Bowie State University, a change reflecting significant growth in the institution's programs, enrollment, and service to the area. On that same day, the University also became one of 11 constituent institutions of the newly-formed University of Maryland System. In Fall 1993, Bowie State University took another distinctive step into the international market by becoming the first historically black university in the nation to expand its satellite and continuing education programs overseas. In partnership with the University of Maryland (University College) and the University of Maryland (College Park), Bowie State now offers graduate programs in Management Information Systems and Administrative Management to military personnel stationed in Germany. In Spring 1994, the Maryland Higher Education Commission approved a new Mission for Bowie State University, reaffirming its heritage and special commitment to the African-American community, and identifying a special focus on computer and technology applications, as well as an enhanced role as a teaching institution. Bowie State University now serves a student population that has grown more than 50 percent in recent years. Students are technologically sophisticated, culturally diverse, and internationally sensitive. In response to these dramatic shifts, the University has recently completed construction of Alex Haley Hall, a 350-bed residence hall that provides state-of-the-art technology, safety, and comfort features. Discipline-based technology and research have been integrated throughout the academic curriculum. A host of other exciting developments over the past few years have enhanced the University's responsiveness to regional needs. The creation of a range of community-focused programs -- including the Academy for Computer Training, Violence Prevention Education Project, Entrepreneurial Development Program, Small Business Incubator Project, and the Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution -- link University expertise and resources to addressing major community and regional issues. Bowie State is enjoying national recognition for both its production of minority computer science graduates and its Summer Emerging Scholars Program. Under the leadership of Dr. Nathanael Pollard, Jr., its eighth permanent president, Bowie State recently "retreated" to provide focused attention on how it will continue to increase its levels of quality, competition, responsiveness, and cost efficiency. Today, Bowie State University is emerging as central Maryland's regional comprehensive University, and a jewel in the crown of the University of Maryland System. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 08:39:08 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0206 Re: *MM* Ending; *TN* video; *WT* Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0206. Tuesday, 14 March 1995. (1) From: Michael Saenger Date: Sunday, 12 Mar 1995 08:58:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0201 Re: *MM* Ending (2) From: Warner Crocker Date: Sunday, 12 Mar 1995 20:44:38 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0201 Re: *MM* Ending (3) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Sunday, 12 Mar 1995 17:03:50 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0204 Re: *TN* Video; (4) From: Gail Lerner Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 09:44:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: WT productions (5) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 13:58:25 -0600 (CST) Subj: Plethora of WT (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Sunday, 12 Mar 1995 08:58:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0201 Re: *MM* Ending What sort of marriage would the Duke and Isabella have? None. They are characters. Our tendency in modern times is to treat them (and Juliet's nurse) as real people with pasts, futures, and realistic emotions. Shakespeare's endings are filled with arbitrary, bad matches -- Paulina and Camillo, Hero and Claudio, or Touchstone and Audrey. I believe he is making a subtle point about the endings of comedy; after all, he entitled a play "All's well that ends well," a phrase that is obviously ironic. All is not well that ends well; Prospero and Vincentio claim that their deceptions are good, but I do not think we believe them. I believe that Shakespeare added touches of realism, which mislead modern productions into overstressing them, and modern directors have as little patience for ironic, arbitrary endings as they do for figuring out what a figure is, or how iambic pentameter works. Shakespeare's plays are elaborate fictions. We live in an unjust world, and I think most productions should comment on that. If Shakespeare were alive today, he would address modern concerns like racism, AIDS, feminism, etc. rather than those of his own time, like early marriages. But once in a while, I would like to see some awareness that these plays are plays, and to let them do their strange magic. And if a fake-ish marriage leaves the audience unsatisfied, maybe it should. Michael Saenger (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Warner Crocker Date: Sunday, 12 Mar 1995 20:44:38 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0201 Re: *MM* Ending I am execeedingly grateful for the responses to this issue so far and look forward to more arriving. This past week was our spring break and the cast participated in a week of 8 hour per day rehearsals. It was quite a journey. And wrapping up today with a run/walk through of the play. The actress playing Isabella had no specific direction from me on how to choose, but to go with what she felt at the moment. She chose agressively not to accept the offer. In discussing this after the rehearsal with the cast, she defended her choice saying that she could not forgive the Duke/Friar for lying to her about her brother's death. That incident and the Duke's immediate proposal stuck with her to the end and she couldn't get by this. I mention this because, as I stated in my initial post, my position is that she could not accept. This act of the Duke/Friar affects me this way as well. It is cruel, it is selfish. It is hard to forgive. Again, I appreciate the responses generated on this thread and look forward to more. Warner Crocker wcrocker@ix.netcom (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Sunday, 12 Mar 1995 17:03:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0204 Re: *TN* Video; Regarding the following post by Kenneth Rothwell: >Bradley Berens has a perfect right to denounce the 1970 Precision Video >production of TN as "Awful," if that's what he thinks. I am a little put off, >however, by his statement that I "forgot" to mention that it was "awful." I >can't "forget" what I never thought in the first place. I remember happily >screening it at the NFTVA in London several years ago and thinking that Alec >Guinness as Malvolio and Joan Plowright as Viola and Ralph Richardson as Sir >Toby were quite wonderful. Henry Raynor, the TIMES reviewer, was on July 14, >1970 also naive enough to call Plowright's Viola "magical." Perhaps, as I >think Viola herself, said "O time, thou must untangle this, not I,/ It is >too hard a knot for me t'untie" (TN 2.2.40). Yours for more cakes and >ale, Ken Rothwell Ken, my apologies for that slip of diction: I in no way meant to suggest that you thought the video was awful, and I am sorry if I managed to convey that. I also did not mean to suggest that the production was awful, merely that the video recording (as I experienced it) was difficult even to watch: bad camerawork and distracting costumes were, to me, a serious impediment. I also think that Twelfth Night is a hard one to put on television or screen because the intense realism of the medium makes the whole twins thing harder to believe, no matter who plays whom. The text was chopped a lot, too, but Jonathan Miller (whose Merchant also played in the series) told me that was the station and not the makers of the video. The same summer the Twelfth Night played on BRAVO the Nunn Comedy of Errors also played, but that was a taped performance with few pretensions to being a screen version, and thus was easier to accept. However, the point of this post is an apology, rather than a further discussion. Ken, once again I am sorry to have put you off. Please forgive me. Humbly yours, Brad Berens (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gail Lerner Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 09:44:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: WT productions Perhaps this information has already made its way around the net, but with the flurry of interest in recent WT's around the country, I want to mention that Ingmar Bergman is bringing his production of WT to the Brooklyn Academy of Music this summer, May 31, and June 1-3. It is supposed to be a breathtaking production, and John Lahr wrote an excellent piece on it for the New Yorker about five months ago. At last count, tickets were still available. It's being performed in Swedish, with simul-trans. available on headphone. But it is refreshing to hear Shakespeare in the original Swedish.... (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 13:58:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: Plethora of WT The sudden abundance of productions of WT (which, for many years, has been thought by many to be "unproducible") is easy to understand. It fits an old pattern in the theatre world. Though we are all disdainful of our audiences because of their "title dependence" (i.e., unless the script is certified by fame, most theatregoers are hesitant to take the risk), many of us are guilty of the same thing in our choice of scripts to produce. We doubt our ability to know which scripts can be made to work today. When a more daring producer comes along and gives us successful and highly-visible production of a neglected work, we are eager to jump on the bandwagon. It's an example of the "I can do that" syndrome. In 1992, the Royal Shakespeare Company gave us Adrian Noble's brilliant production of WT. It so cut to the heart of the script, discovered the tone and attitude of it so precisely, that WT suddenly seemed like one of Shakespeare's most speare's most interesting and producible and modern scripts. The word got around fast and directors all over the world wanted a piece of that action. (By the way, the "exit, pursued by a bear" scene, which even those daring enough to do WT before Noble certified it usually cut, was one of the most stunning moments of theatre in memory; a clear demonstration that everything, anything is producible to a director with the right imaginings. This happens all the time. FUENTE OVEJUNA returned to the repertoire (I think it was Cheek by Jowl that rediscovered this one for us). The British theatre provides more of these adventurous productions than the US, I think. Or rather, we hear more about the brilliant British productions than we do of the great ones in the US outside of NY and Los Angeles because of the lack of real national media in this country. At any rate, most of the major resident theatres in the US have been forced by funding problems to offer very conservative seasons and US university theatres have never been noted for their daring. If we need an argument for government subsidy, we might find it in the fact that the great subsidized theatres seem to doing the risky work for the rest of us, truly opening the doors and leading the theatre world. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 08:59:29 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0207 Re: Black Characters; Macbeth; Hero Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0207. Tuesday, 14 March 1995. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 10:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Black *Hamlet* (2) From: G. I. Egan Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 00:48:41 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0195 Re: Black Characters on Shakespeare's Stage (3) From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 12:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: *Macbeth*: Prophecies and Duncan's Murder (4) From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 12 Mar 1995 22:05:03 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0199 Q: The Problem of Hero (5) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 17:45:24 GMT Subj: The problem of Hero (6) From: Kenneth Meaney Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 09:34:30 +0200 Subj: Re: Hero (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 10:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Black *Hamlet* To: Andre G. Bourassa: RE: About your 1883 *Hamlet*: G.W.H. Griffin wrote a parody called "Hamlet the Dainty: An Ethiopian Burlesque on Shakespeare's Hamlet" (NY: Happy Hours Co., n.d.). It was performed by Griffin and Christy's Minstrels, and may be the comedy sketch featured in your 1883 photograph from *Harper's Weekly," which I have not seen. (I can't remember offhand when Christy's Minstrels were active; 1883 may be too early.) Griffin's parody begins with Hamlet and Horatio conversing just before the Ghost enters: HAM. The air bites shrewdly--it is very cold. HOR. I never saw a darky half so bold. The Ghost appears, "his face perfectly white with flour; he is smoking a long segar, and reading a newspaper. They fall against each other, then on the stage rolling over and doing all sorts of cominc bus." After which Hamlet remarks, "He's from the South! Oh, grace defend us!" The sketch ends with a genocidal jest by Gertrude: "It's now too late--I took too many swigs--/ He put the poison in, to kill off all you nigs." For a travesty that still has a certain charm, you might have a look at John Poole, "Hamlet Travestie in Three Acts with Burlesque Annotations after the Manner of Dr. Johnson and Geo. Steevens [etc.] (London: Sherwood, 1817). Hamlet's dying speech is fairly representative of the general tone: "HAM. You that look pale, and quiver, quirk, and quake, / And scarce know what of this sad scene to make-- / O, I could tell--for there's a great deal in it-- / I'm dead--at least, I shall be in a minute-- / But promise me, before I wish good night, / Horatio, that you'll tell my story right. / HOR. "No, I'll die too--here's poison in the cup-- / I'll play the Roman, and I'll drink it up. / HAM. "Give me the cup; you shall not have a drop-- / For here you must a little longer stop. / If e'er you loved me--live--my tale to tell.--/ And then--I care not if you go--to hell. / That last cross-buttock dish'd me--Oh!--I can't get on-- / Here goes, Horatio!--going--going--gone! [Dies]." But race isn't at issue here as in Griffin's parody. Somewhere I've got a half-written essay on these and other Hamlet parodies, an essay that I may never get back to, but they're an interesting cultural phenomenon in any case. Don Foster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. I. Egan Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 00:48:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0195 Re: Black Characters on Shakespeare's Stage >Gabriel Egan claims to be confident that there were no black actors on the >sixteenth century English stage. May I ask why? Assuming there were no black >sharers, is it impossible that there were no black hired actors? (There were >black cowboys!) > >How confident can we be about the color barrier in, say, the 1590s? > >Yours, Bill Godshalk I think there were very few black people in London at the time. Does anyone have some evidence to substantiate/refute this? If think also that only a small percentage of the population ever worked as a player. Putting these two probabilities together gives me the confidence I expressed. I did not express any confidence about a color barrier, and when I think about it I don't believe the term 'barrier' has any meaning for really tiny minorities since others have to have knowledge of a group's existence as a group in order to erect a barrier against them. My feeling is that the black population was so small that the averaging of their experiences (which is what we are doing if we try of talk of them collectively) is impossible. Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 12:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: *Macbeth*: Prophecies and Duncan's Murder On Macbeth and his determination to be king: One SHAKSPERian writes that "Macbeth never assumes that killing Duncan will mean sure-fire coronation for himself. He... gets lucky and the remaining impediments remove themselves (temporarily)." Another writes that "It would be nice if the kingship would fall on his plate, to use Jennie Johnson's phrase, with the inevitability (in a society committed to primogenitural succession) that the thaneship of Glamis has already fallen....perhaps the inevitability of the first step, his inheriting of Glamis, encourages him to think of the next steps as inevitable as well, part of a 'natural' progression." Another remarks, "Macbeth considers just this possibility--'If chance will have me King, why, chance may crown me without my stir--' (1.3.143-4). But it just won't happen fast enough for that 'vaulting ambition' that the prediction has set in motion!" All such responses assume that Macbeth wouldn't work/kill for a living if he can sit back and win the lottery: Thus, "if I'm going to be king, it's better to let time do it for (or to) me than take action to *make* myself king." But is this Macbeth's view? Macbeth's horror, as I read it, is not that he's terrified of sticking a knife in the king's body but that the witches have intimated that Macbeth may be no more than a seed of time, a kind of twig afloat on the river of Nature. To be made king is nothing if the masculine fantasy of self-fashioning is thereby nullified. For Macbeth to be made King without his stir would not answer his question, first raised by the witches, concerning whether or not he is merely Time's slave. Lady Macbeth says more than she knows when she quips that when neither time nor place adheres, Macbeth "would make both," but when "they have made themselves," their very fitness doth "unmake him." Macbeth is nothing afeard of what he makes himself (1.3.96), but only of what makes *him*. His high-faluting' soliquies on the way to Duncan's chamber are usually read as the voice of conscience--but they may also be understood as a kind of spur: Macbeth needs to convince himself that his crime is unprecedented, that his deed will have cosmic significance. If this perverse reading suits your fancy, see "*Macbeth*'s War on Time," *ELR* 16.2 (1986): 319-42, by D.Foster (Pardon me--I seem to be in a self-promotional mode this morning). I wrote the *ELR* piece on *Macbeth* as a graduate student, and it's terribly long-winded--the essay suffers a student's compulsion to quote every pertinent fragment of the text; but there are a few good moments along the way. Page 322 should read, "In the end, of course, all poets, all [texts], do belie life" and not "all tests" [sic] (which may also be true, but it's not what I had intended). Don Foster. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 12 Mar 1995 22:05:03 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0199 Q: The Problem of Hero We played Hero exactly "as written," i.e., so totally pure and innocent that she simply swooned in the face of the horrors of IV.1. Then, as her father's rage continued the calumny, the outrage became so palpable that the audience quite agreed with Beatrice's fury. Sean Lawrence is right about getting Claudio to overact to distract the audience; fortunately (?) the scene gives plenty of scope for that. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Co. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 17:45:24 GMT Subject: The problem of Hero But Hero DOES defend herself, and with considerable force. The fact that she doesn't use words to do so, indeed that, in consequence, her defence requires careful 'noting', is the central point of the Friar's observations (1V, i, 155-70). Since it's precisely the absence of that kind of 'noting' which generates so much ado, (Shakespeare's pun, not mine) you might say it's the plight of women, torn between loquacity and silence in Messina, that constitutes one of the play's central concerns. But back to the consolations of character-analysis... Terence Hawkes (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Meaney Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 09:34:30 +0200 Subject: Re: Hero Melissa Aaron's comments on Hero's silence might well be of help to the actor who is playing the part, but I think that the "problem" of Hero's silence is of our making and based on the assumption that everything in a Shakespeare play requires explaining in naturalistic terms. But Shakespeare didn't write naturalistic drama and I think that here he is simply using the convention that the calumniated is unable to clear his/her reputation. A conventional inability to say the few words that would clear everything up has been the linchpin of many a movie and soap opera depends on it. Provided Hero looks suitably appalled at her chastity being called in question (and perhaps here lies our real problem now) I don't think the audience worries about why she was alone that one night or why she is incapable of defending herself. Ken Meaney University of Joensuu, Finland. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 09:08:13 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0208 Re: Freeman's *Scripts*; Trek *Generations; Early Marriage Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0208. Tuesday, 14 March 1995. (1) From: Skip Shand Date: Sunday, 12 Mar 1995 20:30:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0203 Qs: Freeman's *Scripts* (2) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 13 Mar 95 10:18:32 -0500 Subj: Star Trek: Generations (3) From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 11:25:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: early marriage (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Shand Date: Sunday, 12 Mar 1995 20:30:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0203 Qs: Freeman's *Scripts* Freeman's Scripts: They're available directly from Freeman, at the Department of Theatre, University of British Columbia. (Actually, there's a better Vancouver address, and if no one else has posted it by Tuesday, I'll do so then.) Don't recall whether W'sT has been entered. Cost, last time I bought one, was $50 (Can.) for the disk, which includes rights to perform. These scripts, or something like them, are very useful, IF you know how to use them. They preserve (in a readable form for actors, unlike photo facsimiles of quartos and folio), Early Modern spelling, punctuation, medial capitalisation, lineation, and so on. The puncuation, in particular, is of considerable use because, of course, Early Modern punctuation is closely related to orality, often especially to breath. One can become, following Freeman's discussions of typographical and orthographical features, dangerously schematic about such evidence, and some actors (coaches, too?) are tempted to attribute the actable nature of such features to authorial intent, but if you use the material for exploration (rather than for dictation), always stressing optionality, it can be very productive indeed. I am currently working on professional productions of Lear and Measure, both using Folio scripts (the Lear has actually been prepared by the director), and I have coached actors in a production of Freeman's Macbeth script as well. A major advantage of such scripts is that they provide much less interpretive closure than do modern editions, and thus may be very useful to processes which are open and exploratory rather than prescriptive/predictive. (Caveat: Be sure to sit down and collate any Freeman script closely against, for instance, Hinman's Folio--Freeman does tend to create the very occasional typo. And be sure, before setting out, that the Folio version of your play is the one you want to produce--Freeman has not yet turned to publishing a set of Quarto texts, and so his work is currently part of a strong tendency, in the theatre, to canonise the Folio as a peculiarly privileged theatrical document.) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 13 Mar 95 10:18:32 -0500 Subject: Star Trek: Generations I don't know if anyone has posted this tidbit, but as a Shakespearean trekker, I found the final moments of *Star Trek: Generations,* which I finally saw at my budget theater this weekend, very affecting. As rescue parties search the wreckage of the Enterprise-D for survivors (including Data's cat Spot), Riker and Picard search through the Captain's quarters for something: it turns out to be (although this is never articulated on screen, but those of us who have watched the show know), his one volume (Folio reprint?) of Shakespeare. A nice touch. Chris Gordon (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 11:25:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: early marriage Re: early marriage It hasn't yet been noted that the age at which one married, if at all, had much to do with one's inheritance. By and large, older brothers married at a younger age than younger brothers. Primogeniture made it difficult for younger brothers to marry in their teens. When the principal heir married young, he generally required a young bride. Arranged marriages between children of aristocratic families were often negotiated (and sometimes formalized with a ceremony) when the betrothed individuals were only 8-12 years old, with consummation of the marriage deferred until after the bride's 14th birthday (or thereabouts). A familiar instance: when Frances Howard, countess of Essex, wished to annul her marriage in order to wed Robert Carr, her success depended on whether she could persuade the church that her marriage had never been consummated. Sometimes political and financial factors both played a role in early marriage. For example, Frances Howard's elder cousin--another Lady Frances Howard--was secretly married at age 13 to Henry Prannell, a wealthy vintner. This Frances Howard was an orphan and a cousin to the Queen, a girl whose marriage-prospects threatened Elizabeth's control over her own succession. Had Frances's relatives not arranged a match for her at age 13, Burghley at Elizabeth's behest would have forced a match upon her soon after she turned 14. This Frances Howard (later countess of Hertford by her marriage to Edward Seymour) is sometimes confused with Seymour's second wife of the same name (ob., 1598); Seymour married two Frances Howards in succession after his disastrous elopement with Katherine Grey. For more info, see D. Foster, "'Against the perjured falsehood of your tongues': Frances Howard on the Course of Love," *ELR* 24.1 (Winter 1994): 72-103. Don Foster ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 09:14:58 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0209 Study Leave; ACTER; *Theatre Record* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0209. Tuesday, 14 March 1995. (1) From: John Senczuk Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 11:53:44 +1000 Subj: Study leave request (2) From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 06:19:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: ACTER's future assured (3) From: Kenneth Meaney Date: Tueday, 14 Mar 1995 09:50:08 +0200 Subj: Theatre Record (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Senczuk Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 11:53:44 +1000 Subject: Study leave request I am an Australian academic (Renaissance and contemporary Australian drama; dramaturgy) and theatre practitioner (designer - Sydney productions of A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC, SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, SHADOWLANDS, BURN THIS, THE NORMAL HEART, BILOXI BLUES, I'M NOT RAPPAPORT, INTO THE WOODS etc; director - experimental company established eight years pursuing the dramaturgy of Renaissance texts under "Elizabethan working conditions") travelling on study leave during the latter half of 1995. I would be grateful for any generosity extended to me, in terms of invitations to visit your university or theatre company to observe the role and process of dramatury (especially in plays from the Renaissance) undertaken by your organisation specifically. In return I would be more that willing to give lectures/seminars on any facet of Australian Drama and Theatre, workshops in design or the role of dramaturg in this country etc etc! (without fee of course!) My proposed itinerary is as follows: Week beginning July 17 Los Angeles July 24 Harisonburg, Virginia Aug 7 Chicago Aug 21 Tempe, Arizona Aug 28 New York Sept 11 Rome Oct 16 Paris Oct 30 Munich/Berlin Nov 13 London Thank you in anticipation John Senczuk (Reply directly to j.senczuk@uow.edu.au) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 06:19:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: ACTER's future assured ACTER (A Center for Theatre, Education & Research), based at UNC-CH and currently directed by Alan C. Dessen, is pleased to announce that we have finally resolved our visa problems with the USIA and ACTER's future tours are assured. We are still looking for schools interested in a Spring 1996 week-long teaching/performing residency by 5 talented British actors with experience at the RSC and National Theatres as well as TV and radio. The Spring 1996 play is Macbeth and we have some late January-February dates open as well as March 4-10. ACTER will be at the SAA March 23-25 in Chicago; please stop by and say hello! For information on tours, respond off list to csdessen@email.unc.edu or call 919-929-5614. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Meaney Date: Tueday, 14 Mar 1995 09:50:08 +0200 Subject: Theatre Record The recent query about performances last year of _A Winter's Tale_ and Christine Mack Gordon's recent postings on _Hamlet_ have reminded me that I have never seen a mention on the Conference of a resource that I find invaluable: _Theatre Record_. For more than a dozen years a saint by the name of Ian Herbert has been cutting out all the theatre reviews in all the London newspapers and weeklies and publishing them in this biweekly journal, which was originally called _London Theatre Review_. As the change of name suggests there is now coverage of a great deal of theatrical activity outside London (Stratford, the Edinburgh Festival etc.). At US$240 per annum it's not cheap, but that gets you over 1500 pages of theatre history. Here's the address: Ian Herbert, 4 Cross Deep Gardens, Twickenham TW1 4QU, UK. Ken Meaney University of Joensuu, Finland ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 09:20:02 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0210 Re: Fiennes's Hamlet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0210. Tuesday, 14 March 1995. From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 13 Mar 95 10:08:25 -0500 Subject: Variety review of Fiennes's Hamlet This review by Matt Wolf (an American in London), is probably the best predictor of how the production will be received in NY. Daily Variety March 10, 1995 Friday HEADLINE: Hamlet (Hackney Empire, London; 900 seats; T17.50 ($ 28) top) An Almeida Theater Company and AT&T presentation, in association with Dodger Prods., of the play in five acts (one intermission) by Shakespeare. Directed by Jonathan Kent; sets, Peter J. Davison; costumes, James Acheson; lighting, Mark Henderson; fights, William Hobbs; sound, John A. Leonard; music, Jonathan Dove. Opened, reviewed Feb. 28, 1995. Running time: 3 hrs., 10 min. Cast: Ralph Fiennes (Hamlet), Tara FitzGerald (Ophelia), Damian Lewis (Laertes), James Laurenson (Claudius), Peter Eyre (Polonius), Francesca Annis (Gertrude), Paterson Joseph (Horatio), Terence Rigby (Ghost/Player King/Gravedigger), Andrew Scarborough, James Sinclair Wallace, Nicholas Rowe, Nicholas Palliser, Terence McGinity, David Melville, Colin Mace, James Langton, Gordon Langford-Rowe, Peter Helmer, Caroline Harris, Gilly Gilchrist, Richard Ashcroft, Lara Bobroff, Peter Carr. Broadway should prepare for an adrenalin rush with Jonathan Kent's new "Hamlet," which brings Ralph Fiennes back to the stage as the moodiest of matinee idols, and finds in Francesca Annis the best (and most beautiful) Gertrude in my experience. Is this a great "Hamlet"? Not yet. It's too impetuous and uninflected to pack much of an interpretive wallop, but for sheer narrative energy, it's in a class by itself. Those wanting an exercise in dry elocution are advised to look elsewhere. BYLINE: Matt Wolf BODY: Kent's staging has kept at least one eye on New York, where the director had a surprise hit last season with the Diana Rigg "Medea." And he's right, from the point of view of audiences on Broadway, where the production transfers in April, to remind us that the English-speaking theater's most exalted and examined play first off tells a story. From an initial moroseness at Elsinore that quickly gives way to rage, Fiennes' Hamlet is fueled by fury and a settling of scores. Those who recall Fiennes' theater work before "Schindler's List" made him a star will find the actor transformed. While he continues to speak verse fluently and well, even in the chasm-like acoustics of the Hackney Empire, he has loosened up on stage. The Gielgudian "voice beautiful" feel of his early Royal Shakespeare Company work has been discarded in favor of a contemporary, almost throwaway style that nonetheless honors the language. His is a Hamlet without set pieces, in a "Hamlet" that -- for good or ill -- makes no grand statement. Accordingly, "to be or not to be" emerges without warning as a conversational asterisk, uttered as an aside while Ophelia (Tara FitzGerald) stands nearby, unaware, in a doorway. When not grabbing at his unkempt garb, Fiennes claws about the stage in a state of chic dishevelment. If this is a Hamlet one would want to bring home to mother for a bath and a proper meal, Annis' mother is a Gertrude for all time: a sensuous and youthful woman -- gorgeously costumed by James Acheson -- who seems to recognize instantly her error in pairing up with Claudius (James Laurenson). The closet scene bristles with sexual tension, so it's a shock to see Annis freshly composed for the final duel, in which Mark Henderson's elegant lighting spotlights her dead body in a pale, ghostly wash. Peter J. Davison's high-walled geometric design glimpses numerous corridors of intrigue and guilt. Its forbidding Edwardian chill is made to order for Peter Eyre's sonorous Polonius, and inimical to the simple affections of FitzGerald's Ophelia, turned lethally inward in response to Hamlet's disgust. FitzGerald's mad scene is far less stagy than usual. The only serious casting debits: Damian Lewis' blank Laertes and a Fortinbras and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of varying degrees of silliness. They all look as if they're biding their time waiting for Hamlet to take charge in a production that never wastes time if it can hurtle bullishly on. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 09:27:04 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0211 Re: SHAKSPER Landmark Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0211. Tuesday, 14 March 1995. From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Monday, 13 Mar 1995 16:13:35 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0205 Landmark and Future Move for SHAKSPER Given both the passing of the 1000 member mark and the imminent move of SHAKSPER to Bowie State, this is perhaps an opportune time to voice my ongoing thanks and gratitude to Hardy Cook for keeping SHAKSPER up, at what cost in time, patience, and repetitive strain injury I hardly dare to think. In order not to flood SHAKSPER it might be a bad idea for us all to send in our concurrences -- so I'll just assume hubristically that I speak for everyone. Thanks and best wishes Hardy, Tom Bishop [Thank you, Tom, and all who wrote to me privately. At present, your kinds words are my greatest reward for this work. --Hardy] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 15:35:29 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0212 Re: Freeman's *Folio Scripts* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0212. Wednesday, 15 March 1995. (1) From: Skip Shand Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 09:58:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0208 Re: Freeman's *Scripts* (2) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 09:59:14 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0208 Re: Freeman's *Scripts* (3) From: David M Richman Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 10:32:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0208 Re: Freeman's *Scripts* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Shand Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 09:58:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0208 Re: Freeman's *Scripts* Re: Freeman's *Scripts* The address is: Folio Scripts 2515 Caledonia Avenue Deep Cove District of North Vancouver British Columbia Canada V7G 1T8 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 09:59:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0208 Re: Freeman's *Scripts* Since I'm taking a course with Neil Freeman at the moment, specifically on the use of early texts in acting, I thought I'd reply to the query regarding the Folio Scripts. The address at the back of my text is 2515 Caledonia Avenue, Deep Cove, District of North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V7G 1T8, or telephone 1-604-924-1401. Yes, he has done a _Winter's Tale_. The hard copy is $20.00 including tax, and a Mac disk version is $50.00, which you can edit down to a working text more easily. BTW, there's also a companion volume (also privately printed--apparently someone wanted a lot of copies in a hurry) called _Shakespeare's First Texts_ and costing $22.50. It's what we're working through in class. The study is rather intriguing, using the early punctuation, etc., as guides to pronunciation, often linking them closely with Elizabethan rhetorical style, as well as modern acting method. This may seem like a contradiction, but it works in practice, which is the acid test. The Folio text of _Hamlet_ was used for the Winnipeg production, reviewed extensively on this list a short while ago. Cheers, Sean. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 10:32:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0208 Re: Freeman's *Scripts* This is in response to Skip Shand's useful and informative posting on Freeman's *Scripts.* While I have not yet made use of these myself, I have done what is perhaps the next best thing--videlicet: I have based performances I have worked on for the last several years on the Oxford Text Archive Folio and Quarto texts. I have modernized *some* spelling, but have preserved punctuation (quite useful--with Skip Shand's caveats) capitalization, and versification. A sense of short lines, Hamlet's "no", or Helena's "Yes, faith" is enormously useful--essential, I would say. I have detected a tendency (perhaps my own paranoia) to elevate one early text over another. (Canonize the Folio over the Quarto, or vice versa.) The real usefulness of Oxford Text Archive is that it gives you both texts, Q and F. You may choose, for example, to include or cut Lear's mock trial or Hamlet's "How all occasions" soliloquy--to give the two most controversial examples. If You were consulting only the Folio texts, you would not have such choices. In sum, the early texts remain live, essential sources for performers and directors, as well as for scholars and editors. Let us be grateful that such texts are so much more readily available than they were ten or fifteen years ago. David Richman University of New Hampshire ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 15:47:20 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0213 Re: Hero; Characters (Was *MM* Ending) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0213. Wednesday, 15 March 1995. (1) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 09:12:12 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0207 Re: Hero (2) From: Diane Mountford Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 01:33:24 -0500 Subj: Re: The Problem of Hero (3) From: Al Cacicedo Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 14:04:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0206 Re: *MM* Ending; (4) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 21:52:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0206 Characters and Imagination (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 09:12:12 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0207 Re: Hero I'm not sure that a swoon is so easily read as a defense. It could just as easily be read as an admission of guilt. So is her blushing. Claudio insists that "her blush is guiltiness, not modesty," and all the other "exterior shows." (Back to Desdemona. Her chastity is an essence that's not seen.) As far as playing on the Globe stage, chances are the audience couldn't see a blush even if the actor could have called one up on command. It's not so much that the audience trusts the Friar's noting, IMHO (Friar Lawrence? The Duke as Friar?) It's that the audience heard the villains plotting. Without that simple plot directive, there is nothing *in the playtext* that Hero says or does which, theoretically, could not be interpreted to her discredit, until after the Prince and Claudio have left. Flame-proof suit on, Melissa Aaron University of Wisconsin-Madison (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diane Mountford Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 01:33:24 -0500 Subject: Re: The Problem of Hero Sarah, Here's my two cents about Hero. Hope you find it thought-provoking if not useful. I find Hero fascinating because I think she changes more than anyone else in the play. Sure Beatrice & Benedick stop lying to themselves about their feelings, but Hero really goes through fire. I once heard an interview with Laura Dern in which she described David Lynch's view of innocence. In Lynch's world, innocence has nothing to do with naivete, but rather is an outlook chosen and maintained through knowledge and against great odds. I think Hero takes Claudio back not because she's co-dependent or spineless, but because she has come to understand suffering and makes the conscious choice for innocence. As for the night before the wedding, my theory is that in the afternoon someone told her about sex for the first time, and she's terrified! She might send Beatrice away so that she can cry all night . . . or at least think it over. And as for the much-pondered-over silence at the wedding, I think shock is very playable. And indignant pride. In any case, finding words (especially if you're an objectified Renaissance woman) in the face of unmitigated rage is never easy. Best wishes in crafting your own personal interpretation. Let us know how it goes. -- Diane Mountford (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Al Cacicedo Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 14:04:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0206 Re: *MM* Ending; Of course characters in plays are mere words, words, words with no existence outside those words. To paraphrase Howard Cossell, when *MM* ends, the future is behind the characters. However, it is downright silly to suppose that an audience, certainly now and probably in 1600, will stop considering characters as soon as a play comes to its end. If there *is* an irony in the notion that "all is well that ends well," isn't the irony based at least in part on conjectures about the non-existent future of the non-people whose non-lives have been presented on stage? Just a thought, Al Cacicedo Albright College (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 21:52:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0206 Characters and Imagination Michael Saenger reminds us that the Duke and Isabella are characters in a play, and, thus, they are not real people with pasts, futures, and realistic emotions. I certainly agree -- in part. Of course characters are not real people, though the characters are played, acted by real people. But when I go to a play, I give my imagination full sway, and I pretend that I'm watching real people (as indeed I am) with real emotions. I flirt with the idea that these characters have a future beyond the script. And, believe it or not, no one can stop me from imagining a future for these imaginary people, the Duke and Isabella -- just as no one can stop Terence Hawkes from seeing these same characters in political terms. And I imagine that, when Isabella finally gets the Duke's drift, she looks at him with growing horror -- and flees back to the comfort of the poor Clares. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:49:20 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0214 Yesterday's Digests Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0214. Thursday, 16 March 1995. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, March 16, 1995 Subject: Yesterday's Digests There seems to have been a problem yesterday with the distribution of the Wednesday digests to some of you, especially members in the UK. Other lists encountered the same difficulty. I have decided to include below the two digests I mailed out yesterday for those who may have missed them. [was line of equality signs; deleted because clashes with digest separator. GIE] Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0212. Wednesday, 15 March 1995. (1) From: Skip Shand Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 09:58:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0208 Re: Freeman's *Scripts* (2) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 09:59:14 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0208 Re: Freeman's *Scripts* (3) From: David M Richman Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 10:32:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0208 Re: Freeman's *Scripts* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Shand Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 09:58:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0208 Re: Freeman's *Scripts* Re: Freeman's *Scripts* The address is: Folio Scripts 2515 Caledonia Avenue Deep Cove District of North Vancouver British Columbia Canada V7G 1T8 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 09:59:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0208 Re: Freeman's *Scripts* Since I'm taking a course with Neil Freeman at the moment, specifically on the use of early texts in acting, I thought I'd reply to the query regarding the Folio Scripts. The address at the back of my text is 2515 Caledonia Avenue, Deep Cove, District of North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V7G 1T8, or telephone 1-604-924-1401. Yes, he has done a _Winter's Tale_. The hard copy is $20.00 including tax, and a Mac disk version is $50.00, which you can edit down to a working text more easily. BTW, there's also a companion volume (also privately printed--apparently someone wanted a lot of copies in a hurry) called _Shakespeare's First Texts_ and costing $22.50. It's what we're working through in class. The study is rather intriguing, using the early punctuation, etc., as guides to pronunciation, often linking them closely with Elizabethan rhetorical style, as well as modern acting method. This may seem like a contradiction, but it works in practice, which is the acid test. The Folio text of _Hamlet_ was used for the Winnipeg production, reviewed extensively on this list a short while ago. Cheers, Sean. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 10:32:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0208 Re: Freeman's *Scripts* This is in response to Skip Shand's useful and informative posting on Freeman's *Scripts.* While I have not yet made use of these myself, I have done what is perhaps the next best thing--videlicet: I have based performances I have worked on for the last several years on the Oxford Text Archive Folio and Quarto texts. I have modernized *some* spelling, but have preserved punctuation (quite useful--with Skip Shand's caveats) capitalization, and versification. A sense of short lines, Hamlet's "no", or Helena's "Yes, faith" is enormously useful--essential, I would say. I have detected a tendency (perhaps my own paranoia) to elevate one early text over another. (Canonize the Folio over the Quarto, or vice versa.) The real usefulness of Oxford Text Archive is that it gives you both texts, Q and F. You may choose, for example, to include or cut Lear's mock trial or Hamlet's "How all occasions" soliloquy--to give the two most controversial examples. If You were consulting only the Folio texts, you would not have such choices. In sum, the early texts remain live, essential sources for performers and directors, as well as for scholars and editors. Let us be grateful that such texts are so much more readily available than they were ten or fifteen years ago. David Richman University of New Hampshire [was line of equality signs; deleted because clashes with digest separator. GIE] Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0213. Wednesday, 15 March 1995. (1) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 09:12:12 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0207 Re: Hero (2) From: Diane Mountford Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 01:33:24 -0500 Subj: Re: The Problem of Hero (3) From: Al Cacicedo Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 14:04:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0206 Re: *MM* Ending; (4) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 21:52:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0206 Characters and Imagination (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 09:12:12 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0207 Re: Hero I'm not sure that a swoon is so easily read as a defense. It could just as easily be read as an admission of guilt. So is her blushing. Claudio insists that "her blush is guiltiness, not modesty," and all the other "exterior shows." (Back to Desdemona. Her chastity is an essence that's not seen.) As far as playing on the Globe stage, chances are the audience couldn't see a blush even if the actor could have called one up on command. It's not so much that the audience trusts the Friar's noting, IMHO (Friar Lawrence? The Duke as Friar?) It's that the audience heard the villains plotting. Without that simple plot directive, there is nothing *in the playtext* that Hero says or does which, theoretically, could not be interpreted to her discredit, until after the Prince and Claudio have left. Flame-proof suit on, Melissa Aaron University of Wisconsin-Madison (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diane Mountford Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 01:33:24 -0500 Subject: Re: The Problem of Hero Sarah, Here's my two cents about Hero. Hope you find it thought-provoking if not useful. I find Hero fascinating because I think she changes more than anyone else in the play. Sure Beatrice & Benedick stop lying to themselves about their feelings, but Hero really goes through fire. I once heard an interview with Laura Dern in which she described David Lynch's view of innocence. In Lynch's world, innocence has nothing to do with naivete, but rather is an outlook chosen and maintained through knowledge and against great odds. I think Hero takes Claudio back not because she's co-dependent or spineless, but because she has come to understand suffering and makes the conscious choice for innocence. As for the night before the wedding, my theory is that in the afternoon someone told her about sex for the first time, and she's terrified! She might send Beatrice away so that she can cry all night . . . or at least think it over. And as for the much-pondered-over silence at the wedding, I think shock is very playable. And indignant pride. In any case, finding words (especially if you're an objectified Renaissance woman) in the face of unmitigated rage is never easy. Best wishes in crafting your own personal interpretation. Let us know how it goes. -- Diane Mountford (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Al Cacicedo Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 14:04:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0206 Re: *MM* Ending; Of course characters in plays are mere words, words, words with no existence outside those words. To paraphrase Howard Cossell, when *MM* ends, the future is behind the characters. However, it is downright silly to suppose that an audience, certainly now and probably in 1600, will stop considering characters as soon as a play comes to its end. If there *is* an irony in the notion that "all is well that ends well," isn't the irony based at least in part on conjectures about the non-existent future of the non-people whose non-lives have been presented on stage? Just a thought, Al Cacicedo Albright College (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 21:52:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0206 Characters and Imagination Michael Saenger reminds us that the Duke and Isabella are characters in a play, and, thus, they are not real people with pasts, futures, and realistic emotions. I certainly agree -- in part. Of course characters are not real people, though the characters are played, acted by real people. But when I go to a play, I give my imagination full sway, and I pretend that I'm watching real people (as indeed I am) with real emotions. I flirt with the idea that these characters have a future beyond the script. And, believe it or not, no one can stop me from imagining a future for these imaginary people, the Duke and Isabella -- just as no one can stop Terence Hawkes from seeing these same characters in political terms. And I imagine that, when Isabella finally gets the Duke's drift, she looks at him with growing horror -- and flees back to the comfort of the poor Clares. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 10:08:28 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0215 Marston Opportunity; South Carolina Doings Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0215. Thursday, 16 March 1995. (1) From: T. Fred Wharton Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 95 11:37:00 EST Subj: Marston opportunity (2) From: Chris Fassler Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 16:46:46 -0500 Subj: South Carolina doings (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: T. Fred Wharton Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 95 11:37:00 EST Subject: Marston opportunity Following on my book, *The Critical Fall and Rise of John Marston,* I'm now working on an edition of new essays on John Marston's plays for Cambridge University Press, timed to coincide with the fourth centenary of his debut as a dramatist. Almost all of the contributors are already set, but our CUP editor would like perhaps two more essays in the volume. If anyone is currently working on Marston's plays, particularly from a New Historicist perspective, I would be interested in hearing about your work. Responses, please, to: lngtfw@admin.ac.edu Fred Wharton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Fassler Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 16:46:46 -0500 Subject: South Carolina doings Colleagues, FYI: Today I learned (via e-mail) that 38 South Carolina legislators have co-signed a bill to prohibit public institutions from granting tenure to non-tenured faculty and to require that an alternative to tenure be devised for all tenured faculty. (I will provide a complete text of the bill, which was abundantly clear, if interest warrants it.) Whatever may ail tenure as a system of protecting intellectual freedom, this a ction seems an outrageously inappropriate treatment. Even as a non-tenured, non-tenure-track, part-time faculty member, I am distressed that a legislative body might even discuss such a radically draconian measure. Watch the skies! --Chris Fassler Winthrop University ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 10:21:05 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0216 Re: Africans in London; Picard's Sh; Hero; Characters Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0216. Thursday, 16 March 1995. (1) From: Anthony Martin Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 12:30:28 +0900 Subj: Africans in Shakespeare's London (2) From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 14:01:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: J-L Picard's Shakespeare edition (3) From: Michael Friedman Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 16:47:42 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0202 Re: Hero (4) From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 18:09:52 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Characters (Was *MM* Ending) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anthony Martin Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 12:30:28 +0900 Subject: Africans in Shakespeare's London Eldred Jones (_Othello's Countrymen_) refers to research by W. E. Miller, who found four Negroes to be living in the one parish of All Hallows in 1599, and to the state order for the expulsion of the *great number of Negars and blackamoors* in 1601. There is also some research by Leslie Hotson on this matter, but I have mislaid the reference. It is therefore possible, though still unlikely, that Africans were in some way involved with the theatre at the time. Anthony Martin Waseda University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 14:01:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: J-L Picard's Shakespeare edition My understanding is that the edition displayed in Picard's office on the Star Trek: The Next Generation show and in the movie Generations is the Globe Illustrated edition. I am told by fans that the staff took great pride in changing the pages of the edition for each show. Since inquiring minds want to know, Doug Lanier dml3@christa.unh.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 16:47:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0202 Re: Hero Just to offer an alternative that no one else has put forward yet, why not explore the possibility that Hero is marrying Claudio as much to please her father as she is because she loves the young Count? In 2.1, she acquiesces to Leonato's request that she marry Don Pedro ("If the Prince do solicit you in that kind, you know your answer"), and the text never shows her speaking her love for Claudio aloud, aside from the phrase, "my dear Claudio" in 3.1. It has always seemed significant to me that Hero faints, according to the text, right after Leonato's exclamation, "Hath no man's dagger here a point for me?" the first time that he shows that he believes the accusations against her are true. Although many productions rearrange the text to imply that Hero's faint occurs in response to Claudio's exit (and therefore as a climax to his abandonment of her), I would find it interesting to see a Hero faint in such a way that it says to us, "What? After all I've done to try to please you, Father, even you doubt my chastity?" Michael Friedman University of Scranton (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 18:09:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Characters (Was *MM* Ending) Several people responded negatively to my post regarding plays being fictions. Throughout history, lovers of Shakespeare have praised him for being like them. Now it is popular to say that he is a realist, which has much more to do with the 20th century than the 17th. Look at the play objectively; the language is byzantine, in comparison with, say, Chapman or Jonson, and much of it is in verse. The plot includes a bed-trick which, if realistic, requires that Angelo and Mariana not speak during the big night and that the two women look very much alike. I would certainly argue that Shakespeare would have acted in a performance that ended quickly and solidly. As Hero shows, silence can be haunting. But after reading the responses, I do not think we need to stage it that way now. I like the idea of the actors quickly forming a marriage arrangement. Music starts and Isabella suddenly walks off in disgust, to the shock of all, like that actor in New York who quit a play mid-scene because he was experiencing real violence with no protection from the director; he literally hopped off the stage and walked up the aisle. You see, I don't mind adding realism to Shakespeare occasionally, I just want us to be conscious that we are adding it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 10:55:13 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0217 *Hamlet* Questions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0217. Thursday, 16 March 1995. (1) From: Albert Misseldine Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 14:05:43 -0500 Subj: A Couple of *Hamlet* Questions (2) From: Shenandoah Shakespeare Express Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 12:09:10 -0500 Subj: Hamlet folk song (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Albert Misseldine Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 14:05:43 -0500 Subject: A Couple of *Hamlet* Questions There were things I liked about Mel Gibson's *Hamlet*, and the critics treated it kindly for the most part. But there was one thing that seemed really wrong to me, and I haven't seen it discussed. (Of course, I may have missed it). When Hamlet and Laertes fight at the end, they are swinging at each other with murderous intent, and with broadswords, not rapiers (bated or unbated). Anyway, the way they were swinging bated or unbated would make no difference. Might as well bate a battle-ax. And yet they say all the lines, and what a mockery the fight makes of Hamlet's "These foils have all a length?" Another question, just on *Hamlet*. Are we supposed to accept as plausible Claudius's confident assurance to Laertes that Gertrude will accept Hamlet 's death as an accident? What excuse did Claudius have in mind - Laertes (and/or Osric) didn't notice that the sword was sharp. And how explain the little matter of the poison, just in case Laertes doesn't get Hamlet through a vital part, and Hamlet dies of a scratch? Or was Claudius intending to double-cross Laertes? Or what? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shenandoah Shakespeare Express Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 12:09:10 -0500 Subject: Hamlet folk song Does anyone know who wrote the Hamlet folk song? We are performing it at the beginning of our Hamlet and we would love to know the name of the author. Here are the first lyrics: "There was a king nodding in his garden all alone when his brother in his ear poured a little bit of henbane, stole his brothers crown and his money and his widow, but the dead king walked and got his son and said listen kiddo ... Hamlet, Hamlet..." It has a fast tempo, you have to listen to it several times to understand it all. We will appreciate any help we receive on this! Thanks. [In July of 1993, I posted my transcribed lyrics of the "Three-Minute HAMLET" (below) At that time, James Schaefer reported hearing the song sung by Michael Cooney on an old *Prairie Home Companion*, and John Drakakis identified the author as Glaswegian Adam McNaughton. Normally, I would use this opportunity to praise the Database function of LISTSERV, encouraging members to use it to find the information, but for storage reasons, those logs are not currently available at the University of Toronto and will not be until our move to Bowie State. --HMC PS: Just from the lines produced, I find already one error in transcription, which I have corrected.] [was line of equality signs; deleted because clashes with digest separator. GIE] Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 422. Monday, 12 July 1993. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Monday, July 12, 1993 Subject: "The Three-Minute HAMLET" SHAKSPEReans, To brighten up the summer lull, I'm sending out a transcription of "The Three-Minute HAMLET," a song recorded by Shamus Kennedy at Washington, D.C.'s Ireland's Four Provinces. In the segue, Kennedy identifies that song as being "written by a Scottish school teacher of English." Kennedy goes on to say that the teacher "could never interest his class in Shakespeare, so he wrote this song to see if he could get the buggers' attention for at least three minutes." A student of mine gave me a tape of this song last year, so I don't have any information about the album or the name of the Scottish school teacher, both of which I would welcome. Any errors in transcribing the lyrics are clearly mine own. I would like to thank my daughter Melissa for helping me get the words down. Her ear and her ability to memorize lines are fair superior to my own, and I cheerfully acknowledge my debt to her. ******************************************************************** The Three-Minute HAMLET There was a king nodding in his garden all alone, When his brother in his ear poured a little bit of henbane, Stole his brother's crown and his money and his widow, But the dead king walked and got his son and said, "Now, listen, Kiddo. I've been killed and it's your duty to take revenge on Claudius; Kill him quick and clean; and tell the nation what a fraud he is." The kid said, "Right, I'll do it, but I'll have to play it crafty, So no one will suspect me I'll let on that I'm a dafty." So for all except Horatio, and he counts him as a friend, Hamlet, that's the kid, lets on he's round the bend; And because he's not yet willing for obligatory killing, He tries to make his uncle think he's tuppence off the shilling; Takes a rise out of Polonius; treats poor Ophelia vile; Tells Rosencrantz and Gildenstern that Denmark's "Bloody vile"; Then a troop of traveling actors, like Seven-Eighty-four, Arrived to do a special one, that gig at Elsinore. Hamlet, Hamlet, acting balmy. Hamlet, Hamlet, loves his mommy. Hamlet, Hamlet, hesitating, He wonders if the ghost's a fake, and that is why he's waiting. So Hamlet writes a scene for the players to enact, So Horatio and he could watch and see if Claudius cracked. The play was called "The Mousetrap," not the one that running now, And sure enough, the King walked out before the scene was through. Now, Hamlet's got to prove his uncle gave his dad the dose. The only trouble being now that Claudius knows he knows. So while Hamlet tells his mommy her new husband's not a fit man, Uncle Claud takes out a contract with the English King as hit-man. Hamlet, Hamlet killed Polonius and hid corpus delicti. 'Twas the King's excuse to send him for an English hempen necktie With Rosencrantz and Gildenstern to make quite sure he got there, But Hamlet jumped the boat and put the finger straight on that pair. When Laertes heard his dad's killed in the bedroom by the arras, He comes running back to Elsinore tout de suite hot-foot from Paris. And Ophelia with her dad killed by the man she was to marry, After saying it with flowers, she committed hari-kari. Hamlet, Hamlet, ain't no messin'. Hamlet, Hamlet, learned his lesson. Hamlet, Hamlet, Yorrick's trust. Convinced them all men good or bad at last must come to dust. Then Laertes lost his cool and was demanding retribution. The King said, "Keep your head, and I'll supply you with solutions." So he arranged a sword fight for the interested parties With a blunted sword for Hamlet and a sharp one for Laertes. And to make double sure that the old-belt-and-brace was limed, He arranged a poison sword tip and a poisoned cup of wine. The poison sword got Hamlet but Laertes went and fluffed it 'Cause he got stabbed himself and he confessed before he snuffed it. Now, Hamlet's mommy drank the wine, and as her face turned blue, Hamlet said, "I think this King's a baddy through and through." Well, "Incestuous, murd'rous, damned Dane," he said to be precise And made up for hesitating once by killing Claudius twice, 'Cause he stabbed him with his knife and forced the wine between his lips, And he said, "The rest is silence," and he cashed in all his chips; And they fired a volley over him that shook the top-most rafter; And Fortinbras, knee-deep in Danes, lived happy ever after. Hamlet, Hamlet, end of story. Hamlet, Hamlet, very gory. Hamlet, Hamlet, I'm on my way. And if you think that was confusing, you should read the bloody play. From: MX%"nmyers@bgnet.bgsu.edu" 15-MAR-1995 13:09:04.85 To: HMCOOK CC: Subj: Goodnight, Desdemona, Good Morning, Juliet Return-Path: Received: from vm.utcc.utoronto.ca (vm2.utcc.utoronto.ca) by boe00.minc.umd.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) with SMTP; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:09:01 EST Received: from vm.utcc.utoronto.ca by vm.utcc.utoronto.ca (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1015; Wed, 15 Mar 95 13:04:19 EST Received: from UTORONTO.BITNET by vm.utcc.utoronto.ca (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 4312; Wed, 15 Mar 95 13:04:17 EST Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by vm.utcc.utoronto.ca (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 4306; Wed, 15 Mar 95 13:02:08 EST Received: from PSUVM (NJE origin SMTP@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9654; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:02:42 -0500 Received: from falcon.bgsu.edu by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Wed, 15 Mar 95 13:02:41 EST Received: from [129.1.251.117] (M251-117.bgsu.edu [129.1.251.117]) by falcon.bgsu.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA29901 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:02:17 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:02:17 -0500 Message-ID: <199503151802.NAA29901@falcon.bgsu.edu> To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: nmyers@bgnet.bgsu.edu (Norman J. Myers) X-Sender: nmyers@andy.bgsu.edu (Unverified) Subject: Goodnight, Desdemona, Good Morning, Juliet The Bowling Green State University Theatre Department will be opening its 95-96 season with a production of GOODNIGHT DESDEMONA, GOOD MORNING JULIET by the Canadian playwright, An Marie MacDonald. I know that the play was first produced in Toronto around 1990, and I'm trying to find out if there have been any productions in the United States. The Shakespearean connection is that the main character is trapped in a time warp and is deposited in the middle of original productions of OTHELLO and R & J. Thanks in advance. You can reply directly to me unless you think other SHAKSPERians would be interested. Norman Myers Professor, Theatre Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 nmyers@andy.bgsu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 11:07:45 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0218 *Goodnight/Morning*; Violence in Sh; Wilson's Sh Bio Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0218. Thursday, 16 March 1995. (1) From: Norman J. Myers Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 13:02:17 -0500 Subj: Goodnight, Desdemona, Good Morning, Juliet (2) From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 17:33 ET Subj: Violence in Sh (3) From: David Reinheimer Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 08:10:52 -0800 (PST) Subj: Ian Wilson's Biography (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 13:02:17 -0500 Subject: Goodnight, Desdemona, Good Morning, Juliet The Bowling Green State University Theatre Department will be opening its 95-96 season with a production of GOODNIGHT DESDEMONA, GOOD MORNING JULIET by the Canadian playwright, An Marie MacDonald. I know that the play was first produced in Toronto around 1990, and I'm trying to find out if there have been any productions in the United States. The Shakespearean connection is that the main character is trapped in a time warp and is deposited in the middle of original productions of OTHELLO and R & J. Thanks in advance. You can reply directly to me unless you think other SHAKSPERians would be interested. Norman Myers Bowling Green State University nmyers@andy.bgsu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995 17:33 ET Subject: Violence in Sh Students of Shakespeare should read Robert Wright, "The Biology of Violence", New Yorker 3/13/95 68-77, surveying recent work in evolutionary biology with particular reference to the human male's disposition toward violence. The immediate focus of the article is the inner-city neighborhoods of late C20 North America, but as I read it bells kept ringing in my head--Macbeth, Richard III, Edmund, Don John; it provides a very stimulating context for "If it be man's work, I'll do it," and the other statements of that ilk, but also for hundreds of other speeches and gestures. The prime source for the articles ideas is Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, _Homicide_ (1988), which I have not read. I gather that its findings have not been universally accepted in the relevant scientific and social scientific disciplines, as might be expected, so would be interested also to hear from those of you aware of both Daly and Wilson and any relevant skeptics. Homicidally, (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Reinheimer Date: Wednesday, 15 Mar 1995 08:10:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ian Wilson's Biography My dad just sent me Robert Taylor's review of Ian Wilson's _Shakespeare: the Evidence_ (Boston Globe, 3/8/95, p. 34), a biography which apparently argues for Shakespeare the Catholic. Has anyone read the book and ha ve comments? BTW, a very interesting line in the review: "The research (unusual in a book of this sort) is up to the minute..." Hmmmm... Have a good day! Dave Reinheimer UCDavis ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 10:07:58 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0219 Re: *Goodnight Desdemona, Good Morning Juliet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0219. Friday, 17 March 1995. (1) From: Matthew Henerson Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 10:46:23 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0218 *Goodnight/Morning* (2) From: Ray Allen Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 12:44:59 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0218 *Goodnight/Morning* (3) From: Patty Kloss Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 15:42:52 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0218 *Goodnight/Morning* (4) From: Sarah Elizabeth Richardson Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 15:16:44 -0800 (PST) Subj: G-night Desdemona, G-morning Juliet (5) From: Michael Swanson Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 08:43:36 -0500 Subj: Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) (6) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, March 17, 1995 Subj: *Goodnight Desdemona, Good Morning Juliet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Henerson Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 10:46:23 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0218 *Goodnight/Morning* There was a New York production of *Goodnight Desdemona..." off Broadway starring Cherry Jones in 1992 (I think.) And the San Diego Repertory Theater is about to go into rehersal for a production which opens in late April. Matt (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ray Allen Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 12:44:59 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0218 *Goodnight/Morning* Norman, A production of GDGJ was performed by the Circuit Playhouse in Memphis, Tennessee, in either 1992 or 1993. It was the best play I've seen since. The action was non-stop, such so that--being an inveterate over-analyzer--I had a hard time keeping up with the many references. I was also completely charmed by the actress playing Constance Ledbelly, one Anna Marie Caskey. If you like, I could possibly send particulars such as director, etc. Ray Allen (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patty Kloss Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 15:42:52 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0218 *Goodnight/Morning* There was a great production of Goodnight/Good morning at UVA last Fall. What a fun show! Betsy Tucker in their Theatre Department directed. Have a good weekend Patty Kloss Shenandoah Shakespeare Express (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Elizabeth Richardson Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 15:16:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: G-night Desdemona, G-morning Juliet In response to Norman Myers inquiry about US productions of GOODNIGHT DESDEMONA (GOOD MORNING JULIET), the Mendocino Theatre Company under the artistic direction of Meg Patterson produced it not too long ago. You can read about them in this month's American Theatre Magazine in an article entitled "A Stake in Utopia: Theatre's back-to-the-land movement comes of age in Northern California." Also, I seem tro recall a production of it in Atlanta when I lived there sometime in 1992 or 1993. You might contact the Atlanta Theatre Coalition -- should be in the phonebook -- to see if they can help you. Sarah Richardson University of California at Irvine (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Swanson Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 08:43:36 -0500 Subject: Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) Shakespeareans might be interested in knowing about other productions in the US of Anne-Marie MacDonald's very good feminist view of R&J and Othello, Good Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet). I know of five US productions. Off-Broadway saw Cherry Jones play the lead in 1992. My institution, Franklin College, staged the play in January 1993. Purdue University staged the play in the spring of 1993. The Mississippi University for Women staged the play in thefall of 1994, and Sinclair Community College in Dayton, OH, staged it in Dec. 1994. Shakespeareans might be very interested in how the play creates new versions of R&J and Othello when: 1) Tybalt learns that Romeo has married his cousin, which halts his attack on Romeo; and 2) Othello learns that Iago has the hanky. Michael Swanson, Franklin College (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, March 17, 1995 Subject: *Goodnight Desdemona, Good Morning Juliet* There was a well-received production of *Goodnight Desdemona, Good Morning Juliet* in Washington, DC, last season. I just cannot remember if it was at the Source, Roundhouse, or Olney Theatre. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 10:31:45 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0220 Re: *MM* Ending; Africans in London; Characters-Imagination Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0220. Friday, 17 March 1995. (1) From: Luc Borot Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 22:14:23 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0206 Re: *MM* Ending and comedy endings (2) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 17:36:42 +0001 (EST) Subj: RE: Africans in London (3) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 12:09:54 GMT Subj: Characters and Imagination (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Luc Borot Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 22:14:23 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0206 Re: *MM* Ending and comedy endings I am following the debate from a distance as these problems are rather far from my current research preoccupations, but I was very interested in the postings reporting actresses' reactions. I have never been satisfied with the "happy-end" impression which some directors seem to feel compelled to give by imposing a marriage-decision on the audience (not on the character, as has been said, since they don't exist). Stage comedies should give one the possibility to face more complex situations than TV sitcoms and the like crap. There are more things in people's life-choices than can be dreamed of in Hollywood and other sundrie places. Why should an comedy end happily because it's called 'comedy', and why should a royal wedding be a 'happy ending' for a nun?... Is she more than a nun because she's a female character, or is she a specific kind of female character because she's a nun? Why shouldn't a nun be strong-willed in her choice of cloister life? It's true that in Shakespeare's Protestant England a religious vocation of that kind could in no way be perceived as superior to a normal matrimonial situation. To the reformers, it was even an aberration, if not a sacrilege, but at any rate a superstition. Is Isabella characterised as a nun or just as a woman who happens to live in a convent? This owes much to the choices of the director and actress, I would suppose. Yet, is she made to regret her vocation? I'm not a great expert in nunneries (of either kind) or in the text of MM, but she doesn't sound like Diderot's *Religieuse*, or does she? She has a text, and I don't consider her rhetorical talents as necessarily mundane: there is a religious oratory, talent for speech or languages is a gift of the spirit, so why should it have been a token of mundanity? I'm trying to find reasons in the character rather than in her alledged reactions as a XXth-century woman to a deceitful man. In French comedy, Moliere is reputed for the bitter endings of his (very bitter) comedies. How can Orgon's wife go on living with her husband who almost let his friend Tartuffe rape her in his presence? If the Orgon family escapes free from the political and juridical web woven by Tartuffe, the reason is that "the Prince" has spotted the bigoted crook and helps justice to triumph against the law which Tartuffe had secured for himself against his benefactor. Leviathan is the deus ex machina of the happy ending... but there is no sequence to a play, so Orgon and Madame never had to come to terms after the curtain call. These open endings are part of the convention of verisimilitude in classical comedy. To come back to the Isabella case: if the audience reacted more positively to a 'no-marriage' ending, it should not be ascribed to the important attendance of convent-school audiences on those nights, but to the fact that the absence of choice is not an accident or an omission, even less an imperfection, but the result of a profound meditation on drama. A 'no' ending can be made very spectacular when no one in a conventional modern audience expects a comedy to end on an anti-climax. Just my vingt centimes worth of dullness. Yours Luc Borot (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 17:36:42 +0001 (EST) Subject: RE: Africans in London According to Emeka Abanime, "Elizabeth I and Negroes" _Cahiers Elisabethains_ 19 (avr. 1981): 1-8, there were lots of Africans in London in the 1590s. By 1596, Elizabeth wanted to stop black immigration because the native English population was growing so rapidly; she ordered deportations based on economic considerations; and issued another proclamation in 1601 because, as a result of skirmishes with Spain, more Moors and Blacks entered England. This latter group was seen as threatening because they were _infidels_. I think both proclamations are cited in the text of this article. The article goes on to point out that Blacks are not isolated for eviction: the proclamation also ordered Europeans and white vagabonds and beggars expelled. However, she does point out that the status of blacks was at issue: were they persons or pets? Many black children were kept as decorative pages, but their fates as adults are unknown. Helen Ostovich McMaster University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 12:09:54 GMT Subject: Characters and Imagination I accept that Bill Godshalk is holier than I am. But what makes him think that when he watches a Shakespeare performance, winsomely allowing his imagination 'full play' and flirting with the idea 'that these characters have a future beyond the script', he is engaging with it in a mode that is somehow not political? Fat, as you say in the Republic, chance. T. Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 10:50:28 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0221 Re: *Hamlet* Questions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0221. Friday, 17 March 1995. (1) From: Timothy Dayne Pinnow Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 14:28:55 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0217 *Hamlet* Questions (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 11:40:09 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0217 *Hamlet* Questions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Timothy Dayne Pinnow Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 14:28:55 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0217 *Hamlet* Questions Albert Misseldine writes: >There were things I liked about Mel Gibson's *Hamlet*, and the critics treated >it kindly for the most part. But there was one thing that seemed really wrong >to me, and I haven't seen it discussed. (Of course, I may have missed it). When >Hamlet and Laertes fight at the end, they are swinging at each other with >murderous intent, and with broadswords, not rapiers (bated or unbated). Anyway, >the way they were swinging bated or unbated would make no difference. Might as >well bate a battle-ax. And yet they say all the lines, and what a mockery the >fight makes of Hamlet's "These foils have all a length?" As a stage combat teacher I'll throw in a few ideas. If you're trying to be historically accurate about the Danish weapons of Hamlet's time, the Gibson weapons are fairly accurate. Does fit well with the Elizabethan text though. Even Elizabethan rapiers were much wider than most of us imagine. The typical double wide epee rapiers most modern productions use are historically incorrect. The Elizabethan rapier was as much as 1.5 inches wide at the base. Furthermore, "bated" could simply have meant that they were not sharpened, not the typical button end we see in modern fencing equipment. For what it's worth, Timothy Dayne Pinnow St. Olaf College pinnow@stolaf.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 11:40:09 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0217 *Hamlet* Questions What I wonder is this: Cladius made the announcement to all when he dropped the poison pellet in the vessel, which was the pearl I think. In any case, suppose Hamlet would have drained it off after the first bout, and then dropped dead. It seems to me that all would know he murdered Hamlet, or what could the King have said to excuse himself? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 11:01:51 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0222 Shakespeare Portrait; Wilson Bio; Picard's Books Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0222. Friday, 17 March 1995. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 19:33:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare Portrait (2) From: David Kathman Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 22:53:48 -0600 Subj: Re: Ian Wilson's Biography (3) From: Amy Ulen Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 00:37:04 -0800 (PST) Subj: Shakespeare in ST:Generations (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 19:33:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare Portrait SHAKSPERians may find interest in the article, "The Art Historian's Computer," in the April issue of *Scientific American*. (It has arrived for subscribers, but may not be on the newsstands yet.) In her article, Lillian Schwartz provides interesting visual evidence to suggest that Martin Droeshout's engraving of Shakespeare from the First Folio was based on a tracing of George Gower's portrait of Queen Elizabeth. She also suggests that the *Mona Lisa* bears striking reseblences to da Vinci's self-portrait. While you're at it, don't missing their annual April collection of off-the-wall letters on p. 10. Jim Schaefer Georgetown University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Kathman Date: Thursday, 16 Mar 1995 22:53:48 -0600 Subject: Re: Ian Wilson's Biography With regards to David Reinheimer's query about Ian Wilson's recent biography of Shakespeare: a couple of months ago (January 23, to be exact), I posted a reviewlet of the book in response to another query. For whatever it's worth, the following is what I wrote, with some additional comments added: >With regard to Tad Davis' query on Ian Wilson's book *Shakespeare: The >Evidence*: I just finished reading this a couple of weeks ago, and I can't say >I was all that impressed. I, too, was led by the title to think he would deal >with anti-Stratfordian claims, but his one chapter on that consists mainly of a >brief summary of Baconian, Oxfordian, Derbyite, etc. claims, all of which he >dismisses without any actual arguments to speak of. The book as a whole is >basically just a biography of Shakespeare, with the underlying purpose (more or >less explicitly stated in the preface) of arguing that Shakespeare was a closet >Catholic. Thus, he dwells on John Shakespeare's Testament of Faith, but as far >as I remember he doesn't say anything that isn't in Schoenbaum's *Documentary >Life*; he also dwells on the Catholic connections of Ferdinando Stanley (Wilson >assumes, a little too easily for me, that Shakespeare started out as a member >of Strange's Men) and the Earl of Southampton. Other recent authors with less of an axe to grind (e.g. Peter Thomson in *Shakespeare's Professional Career*) have cast a more skeptical eye on the question of Strange's and Southampton's religious views. The evidence is ambiguous, but you wouldn't necessarily know it from reading Wilson. Both Strange and Southampton had lots of definite or probable Catholics in their families, but both of them were publicly very anti-Catholic; some people think they were truly staunch Protestants, others think they were overcompensating publicly for their private Catholicism, and which of these you accept depends basically on what you want to believe. > The level of scholarship is, >I'm afraid, nothing special; by his own admission, Wilson seems to have relied >mainly on the biographies of A. L. Rowse and Samuel Schoenbaum, and while these >are both fine scholars, there were many times when some variation would have >been helpful. Wilson's admiration of Rowse, and his concomitant subtle digs at >Schoenbaum, are almost embarrassing at times; his chapter on the sonnets >consists mainly of a summary of Rowse's positions on the identity of the Fair >Youth (Southampton), the Dark Lady (Emilia Bassano-Lanier), and the Rival Poet >(Marlowe), interspersed with approving comments and a rather patronizing swipe >at Schoenbaum's agnosticism in this area. Wilson also accepts Rowse's identificaton of Mr. W.H. as William Hervey or Harvey, third husband of the Countess of Southampton, though it must be admitted that Schoenbaum also calls Hervey "most plausible of all" the candidates. I might also add that the editor (whose name I unfortunately forget at the moment) of a very recent edition (within the last year) of Emilia Lanier's poems does not look very favorably on Rowse's claim that she was the Dark Lady. And although Wilson makes it sound as if Marlowe is the only possible candidate for the Rival Poet, Chapman is probably a more popular candidate these days. > There are a few morsels in the book, >such as some new (as far as I know) information about John Heminges' connection >with the Company of Grocers, though unfortunately, Wilson does not fully document this information, making it hard to determine to what extent it is, in fact, new; > but there are also lacunae (Wilson's summary of >the Elizabethan theatre scene makes no mention of the Boar's Head playhouse, >for instance). I wanted to like this book more than I did; it's not a bad >summary of a lot of issues, but it's rather one-sided as well, and Wilson's >prose style is not particularly to my liking. Any bit of evidence which supports Wilson's thesis is described as "fascinating", which becomes a little tiresome. Wilson does uncover some interesting information about the history of the Blackfriars Gatehouse which Shakespeare purchased in 1613; apparently it contained many secret doors and passages and had been suspected, several decades before, of being a hiding place for Catholic priests. He also suggests that the John Robinson who witnessed Shakespeare's will, identified by most biographers with a Stratford laborer of that name, was instead the John Robinson described in the body of the will as residing in the Gatehouse. (I find nothing that would make this identification impossible; the identification with the laborer is based on probabilities rather than unambiguous evidence, though the name John Robinson was so common that any identification is open to doubt.) As for the research being "up to the minute", well, I don't know; there are some bits of new information scattered here and there, but they do not seem to be very numerous, and large parts are basically summaries of other biographies. This is all just my opinion; I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Ulen Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 00:37:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Shakespeare in ST:Generations Picard and Riker were searching for Picard's photo album at the end of Generations. We had a tremendous discussion on the Star Trek news groups after the film was released about this oversight. Many of the fans believe that Picard would have at least mentioned the Folio. Oh well, it's just a movie! Amy Ulen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 15:07:50 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0223 Re: *Goodnight Desdemona, Good Morning Juliet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0223. Sunday, 19 March 1995. (1) From: Jean Peterson Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 12:16:52 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0219 Re: *Goodnight Desdemona, Good Morning Juliet* (2) From: Dan Kois Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 13:01:50 -0500 (EST) Subj: Goodnight Desdemona, Good Morning Juliet (3) From: Jack Hrkach Date: Saturday, 18 Mar 1995 10:43:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: G'night Desdemona (4) From: Noel Chevalier Date: Saturday, 18 Mar 95 13:04:43 CST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0219 Re: *Goodnight Desdemona, Good Morning Juliet* (5) From: Michael Field Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 16:22:00 -0500 (EST) Subj: *Goodnight Desdemona* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 12:16:52 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0219 Re: *Goodnight Desdemona, Good Morning Juliet* Another production of *Goodnight Desdemona/Good Morning Juliet*: at the New Jersey Shakespeare Festival's Other Stage in the summer of 1994. It was part of their annual Colloquium (the theme that year was Fathers and Daughters in Shakespeare. Dan La Penta at Drew University would probably be happy to answer questions about that production (or direct you to someone else): DLAPENTA@DREW.DREW.EDU Cheers, Jean Peterson Bucknell University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Kois Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 13:01:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Goodnight Desdemona, Good Morning Juliet Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) is a sensational pay by Anne-Marie Macdonald. Coach House Press publishes it; if your American bookshop won't order from them tell 'em to try consortium distributors. The DC production this past October was at the Wooly Mammoth Theatre Company and was (I believe) a revival of an earlier production they put on. What a play! Hysterically funny, witty, silly, and intelligent all at once... Dan Kois UNC (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Hrkach Date: Saturday, 18 Mar 1995 10:43:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: G'night Desdemona An addition to the growing list of productions of *Goodnight, Desdemona, (Good Morning Juliet)* in the U.S.--a fledgling professional theatre in Ithaca NY, called the Kitchen, produced the play last summer. The play was relatively well attended, possibly because it played concurrently with a production of *Othello* at the larger, more established summer theatre in Ithaca, the Hangar. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Noel Chevalier Date: Saturday, 18 Mar 95 13:04:43 CST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0219 Re: *Goodnight Desdemona, Good Morning Juliet* Question about US productions of GDGJ: Do US productions change the university from Queen's to an American one? Part of the delight of the play for me, as a Queen's graduate, was seeing the English department nicely skewered. Not that Queen's is essential to the play (except for the "Queen of Academe" line), but I hope that the Canadian references are not changed "for export." Noel Chevalier chevalie@max.cc.uregina.ca (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Field Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 16:22:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: *Goodnight Desdemona* The Washington D.C. production was at the Wolly Mamouth theater. I have a program should anyone desire additional information. Mike Field pmf@resource.ca.jhu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 15:14:01 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0224 Re: *MM* Ending Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0224. Sunday, 19 March 1995. (1) From: John Boni Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 10:31:54 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0220 Re: *MM* Ending (2) From: Piers Lewis Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 11:23:57 -0600 Subj: MM ending (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 10:31:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0220 Re: *MM* Ending I commented earlier on the "MM ending" thread. The conversation has evolved (?) somewhat to the `will Isabella return to the convent' issue. A friend of long-standing, a director and tech designer, convinced me long ago that she would/could never return the sheltered life of St. Clare. Indeed, we should recall the Duke's speech on active virtue early in the play, "if our virtues go not forth from us, it is as if we had them not" (I may be slightly off--don't have a text in front of me) Then think of Isabella's pleas for Angelo's life--against all reason, isn't that what mercy is in Shakespeare, see Portia, MV, as well as MM--in the face of all that has occurred, so much of which has been directed at her. Is it likely that she will return to the cloistered life? I don't think so. It is, then, certainly equivocal that she will accept the Duke's proposition. But perhaps I am treating her as a character. John M. Boni Northeastern Illinois University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Piers Lewis Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 11:23:57 -0600 Subject: MM ending Johnson's remarks about the conclusion of this play are worth repeating: "Angelo's crimes were such, as must sufficiently justify punishment . . . and I believe every reader feels some indignation when he finds him spared. From what extenuation of his crime can Isabel, who yet supposes her brother dead, form any plea in his favor. 'Since he was good 'till he looked on me, let him not die.' 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." But he also said: "It may be observed, that in many of his plays the latter part is evidently neglected. When he found himself near the end of his work, and, in view of the reward, he shortened the labour to snatch the profit." That certainly seems to apply to this one. I don't think Shakespeare was much interested in Isabel as a person anyway; the real interest of the play is elsewhere. This is shakespeare's most intellectual play. When Isabel's role in the play's dialectic of guilt, sin, passion and justice is finished and the ironic conclusion of the Duke's attempt to play god is at hand, he dismisses them both without a backward--or forward--glance. Piers Lewis Metropolitan State University ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 15:25:50 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0225 Re: *Hamlet* Questions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0225. Sunday, 19 March 1995. (1) From: Tad Davis Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 14:25:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0221 Re: *Hamlet* Questions (2) From: Diane Mountford Date: Saturday, 18 Mar 1995 00:29:22 -0500 Subj: Re: *Hamlet* Questions (3) From: Deanna Gregg Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 15:49:06 -0800 Subj: SHK 6.0217 *Hamlet* Questions -Reply (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 14:25:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0221 Re: *Hamlet* Questions Timothy Dayne Pinnow writes: > Even Elizabethan rapiers were much wider than most of us imagine. The > typical double wide epee rapiers most modern productions use are > historically incorrect. The Elizabethan rapier was as much as 1.5 inches > wide at the base. I did a paper once about the use of rapiers in the private lives of Elizabethan theatre folk. Ben Jonson killed the actor Gabriel Spencer in a rapier duel (Spencer wasn't the first man he'd killed). Some time before that, Spencer himself had killed a man by thrusting him between the eye and the eye-socket with a rapier that was still in its scabbard (the victim "languished" for three days before expiring). Two of the Queen's Men went after each other with rapiers in the dead of night on tour, apparently not long before arriving in Stratford in 1587; one thrust the other through the throat, fatally. (There's been speculation that this sudden opening gave Shakespeare his main chance.) Certainly Christopher Marlowe was involved in more than one brawl; one street incident involving another playwright left a third man dead. The rapier was a fearsome weapon, long, two-edged, and deadly. One playwright, Henry Porter, lamented the loss of good "sword and buckler" men since the advent of this new weapon. (Porter himself was later "spitted like a cat or a coney" on the point of a rapier.) The most dramatic was the "Affray at Norwich" involving the Queen's Men in 1583. A play was in progress at the Red Lion Inn in Norwich when a man named Wynsdon tried to crash the gate. He overturned the cash box, spilling coins on the ground. Two of the actors, including Tarlton, leaped off the stage, swords in hand -- unbated swords -- and went after him, cracking him across the head with a sword hilt and sending him reeling into the street. At that point the man's servant, George, intervened, throwing rocks at one of the actors to drive him off. One rock connected, "breaking" the actor's head. A bystander, a servant with another man's livery, drew HIS rapier, cried out, "Wilt thou murder the Queen's Man?" and slashed George across the back of the knee, hamstringing him. George lay bleeding to death in the street while the actors and the servant who'd come to their aid walked away. The Queen's Men promised their new friend protection if he got into trouble. After George the servant died, an inquest was held. Halliwell-Phillipps published the depositions as an appendix to his "Illustrations of the Life of Shakespeare." Unfortunately the disposition of the case wasn't included. I wonder if it says anything that Richard Burbage's weapon of choice was a broom? Of course a warrant was issued once for Shakespeare's arrest for threatening death and maiming of limbs during a dispute over the Swan theatre. No doubt a trumped-up charge. Tad Davis davist@umis.upenn.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diane Mountford Date: Saturday, 18 Mar 1995 00:29:22 -0500 Subject: Re: *Hamlet* Questions Changing the subject from weaponry and Claudius' excuse, but, hey, it's a question about *Hamlet!* I'm currently in rehearsal for an all-female production of *Hamlet* with the Los Angeles Women's Shakespeare Company, in which I play Horatio. Does anyone know where I can find Peter Brook's "Open Letter to Horatio?" Someone told me about it, and in my quest to find the colors and life in the guy, I thought it would be interesting to find why someone found him too colorless to strut and fret his hour on the stage. I'm also looking for a good reference on Renaissance theological beliefs about ghosts. Anyone have any suggestions? Thanks, Diane Mountford (DianeM6922@aol.com) P.S. for those of you who are interested, the show opens April 19 and plays Wed.-Sun. through May 28 at the Gascon Center Theatre. Call Theatix at (213) 466-1767 for reservations, or e-mail me for more info. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Deanna Gregg Date: Friday, 17 Mar 1995 15:49:06 -0800 Subject: SHK 6.0217 *Hamlet* Questions -Reply The song sounds very much like the mini-play acted by the Reduced Shakespeare Company. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 15:37:50 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0226 Re: Wilson Bio; Casting; Hippie *Othello* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0226. Sunday, 19 March 1995. (1) From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Saturday, 18 Mar 1995 10:27:00 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0222 Wilson Bio (2) From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Friday, 17 Mar 95 21:11:29 -0800 Subj: Fwd: Re: Non-traditional casting (3) From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Sunday, 19 Mar 95 11:17:32 -0800 Subj: Fwd: Catch My Soul (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Saturday, 18 Mar 1995 10:27:00 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0222 Wilson Bio In discussing Ian Wilson's biography, David Kathman makes mention of the recent editor of Lanyer who disputes Rowse's claims that Lanyer was Shakespeare's Dark Lady. The editor is Susanne Woods and the volume *The Poems of Aemilia Lanyer,* Women Writers in English 1350-1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). Sara Jayne Steen Montana State University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Friday, 17 Mar 95 21:11:29 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Re: Non-traditional casting I thought the following would be of interest to the folks on the SHAKSPER list. It's part of the very interesting ongoing discussion concerning non-traditional casting on the musicals list. Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. martyj@yankeegroup.com ************************************************ Howdy ... Dave@wattyler.demon.co.uk writes: > I generally agree with the above-- although whites play Othello all the > time. On film, Orson Welles played a good Othello; Olivier, on the other hand, didn't. Robeson's stage performance was legendary, but New York audiences ca. 1930 weren't able to accept the idea of a Black man playing opposite a white woman. In this current climate, when excellent Black actors have such difficulty breaking into theater (especially classical theater), casting Othello as a white actor seems a grave injustice, if not an outright insult, to the pool of Black acting talent. Ruth Cowlig (I think I've spelled the name correctly) wrote an excellent article on the stage history of the character Othello; apparently, after Shakespeare's own day, it was not until the early 1900's that audiences realized Othello was Black. Even with this realization, many literary critics such as Ripley (infamous editor of The Arden Shakespeare) tried to bleach Othello's Blackness, claiming that the character was not coarse enough to be authentically Black, that the character was a mulatto with only a small fraction of Black blood in him, that the character is best envisioned with a classical profile and an aquiline nose, ad nauseam. > I think the basic rule should be clarity. As long as the audience knows who > is supposed to be who, they can use their imagination. However, the imagination of American audiences often proves extremely limited when racial concerns come into play. > Another side to the question: I usually put color-blind casting at the top > of my cast of characters page, but it seems to be used as an excuse for > all-white casts, rather than as an incentive for racial diversity. This indeed raises a major problem in the issue of non-trad casting, best summed up with the following question: would an all-white or largely white cast of, say, Hansberry's _A Raisin in the Sun_ or Wilson's _Fences_ be conscionable? Of course not. Again, I reiterate my position: when the social construct of race is not an explicit concern of the play (and in most plays, I would argue, it is not), non-traditional casting is quite effective and should be used. But when the social construct of race is an explicit concern, casting should be handled in a manner appropriate to the issues of the play. Timothy R. Hulsey (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Sunday, 19 Mar 95 11:17:32 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Catch My Soul I thought this would be of interest to readers of the SHAKSPER list. It's from the Musicals list. Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. martyj@yankeegroup.com ******************************** I came across a recording of this oddity recently ... it's a musical version of _Othello_, made in the early '70s, with (get this) Othello as a preacher who converts an entire hippie commune and Iago angry at not being made a deacon. After one listening, the music strikes me as fairly awful, though I am prepared to allow for the possibility that it may grow on me. Iago does most of the singing. Desdemona doesn't sing at all, which seems odd to me. The album has lots of pictures which seem to have come from a film. Was this ever a stage show, or was it made as a film? Has anyone seen it? Is it available on video? Awful music or not, I'll admit to being intrigued enough to give it a look if I get the chance. J.A.Y. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 15:58:16 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0227 Q: Sonnet 129 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0227. Sunday, 19 March 1995. From: Joe Nathan Date: Saturday, 18 Mar 1995 07:55:51 -0800 Subject: Sonnet 129 Forgive me if this subject has been discussed before, or if it is unacceptable. But in a recent poetry class there was discussion of the meaning of Sonnet 129. I labelled it as openly autoerotic. " _The expense of spirit in a waste of shame is lust in action_ " strikes me as classicly onanistic. And how about "_Enjoyed no sooner, but despised straight. Past reason hunted: and no sooner had, Past reason hated, as a swallowed bait, on purpose laid to make the taker mad:_. " Is this not a description of the guilt and fear associated with masturbation? Surely I am not the first to express this view. Our poetry class discussion was somewhat inhibited, so we did not really explore this view. I would welcome your comments. Joseph Nathan, Happy Retiree joebabe@cerfnet.com wccm15a@prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 14:20:58 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0228 Announcing TDR, Spring 1995 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0228. Monday, 20 March 1995. From: Richard Schechner Date: Saturday, 18 Mar 1995 13:59:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Announcing: TDR Spring 1995 ...You probably heard of us but when is the last time you read... ______________________________________________________________________ ______ ______ ______ ######| ######\ ######\ ##| ##| ##\ ##|__##| ##| ##| ##| ######/ ##| ##|__##/ ##| ##\ ___________________ ##| ######/ ##| ##\_______________________ -- The Journal of Performance Studies - T145 (Spring 1995) -- TDR is the only journal that explores the diverse world of performance with an emphasis on the intercultural, interdisciplinary and experimental. It covers theatre, music, dance, entertainment, media, sports, politics, aesthetics of everyday life, games, plays and ritual. The journal is edited by Richard Schechner of the Department of Performance Studies, New York University, and is published quarterly by The MIT Press. Although TDR is not yet an electronic journal, you can browse through sample articles available on-line through the Electronic Newsstand and order via e-mail from The MIT Press (see directions below). Check out our table of contents! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- // In this issue (T145, Spring 1995) \\ -------------------------------------- //TDR Comment -------------- Problemitizing Jargon - by Richard Schechner //Letters, Announcements, Etc. -------------- //Articles -------------- Forum: Disciplines of the Text/Sites of Performance - by W.B. Worthen Responses to "Disciplines of the Text/Sites of Performance" - by Jill Dolan, Joseph Roach, Richard Schechner, Phillip B. Zarrilli W.B. Worthen Replies Morphing Borders: The Remanence of MTV - by Williams Sonnega Ngarnna Taikurra in the Land of the Dreamtime: Report on the 3rd International Women Playwrights Conference - by Gabrielle Cody Jack Warner and Teatro la Fragua: Popular Theatre in Honduras - by Deborah J. Cohen and Kenton V. Stone Coming Home: The New Ecology of the Gardzienice Theatre Association of Poland - Paul Allain Demythologizing Polish Theatre - by Halina Filipowicz The Tradition, Reformation, and Innovation of Huaguxi: Hunan Flower Drum Opera - by Shi-Zheng Chen //Book Reviews --------------- Marginal Sights: Staging the Chinese in America, by james S. Moy - book review by Wang Ping On Edge: Performance at the End of the Twentieth Century, by C. Carr - book review by Rebecca Schneider Drama and the Market in of the Age Shakespeare, by Douglas Bruster Shakespearean Pragmatism: Market of His Time, by Lars Engle Shakespear's Festive World: Elizabethan Seasonal Entertainment and the Professional Stage, by Francois Laroque - book reviews by Sidney Sondergard Ira Aldridge: The Negro Tragedian, by Herbert Marshall and Mildred Stock Sorrow is the Only Faithful One: The Life of Owen Dodson, by James V. Hatch - book reviews by Annemarie Bean ------------------------ Each TDR issue is filled with photographs, artwork, and scripts that illustrate every article. The journal, founded in 1955, is 7 x 10 and a 184 pages per issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- // To browse and subscribe \\ ----------------------------- 1. For subscription prices and ordering information, contact the publisher: MIT Press Journals 55 Hayward Street Cambridge, MA 02142 Tel: 617-253-2889 Fax: 617-258-6779 Email: journals-orders@mit.edu Or, access the MIT Press Online Catalog: telnet techinfo.mit.edu, under Around MIT/MIT Press/Journals/Arts/ or via gopher by typing "gopher gopher.mit.edu". 2. To browse through an article from one of our issues, logon to the The Electronic Newsstand: via telnet: gopher.internet.com (login name: enews). via gopher: gopher.internet.com (port 2100). Via the gopher menu, go to: North America/USA/general/ The Electronic Newsstand/all titles/TDR:The Drama Review ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 14:25:29 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0229 Re: Sonnet 129 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0229. Monday, 20 March 1995. (1) From: Robert Montgomery Date: Sunday, 19 Mar 95 16:24:51 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0227 Q: Sonnet 129 (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 00:19:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0227 Q: Sonnet 129 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Montgomery Date: Sunday, 19 Mar 95 16:24:51 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0227 Q: Sonnet 129 I suppose one can read sonnet 129 as "auto-erotic," but I see nothing in it that so limits the poem. In any case, the thematic issue is not the particular kind of lust involved, but rather the psychological experience of lust in general. Also, the images of heaven and hell (face and genitals) with which the poem concludes might very well exclude the auto-erotic reading, or at least suggest that one has to reach to acommodate it. R.L. Montgomery (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 00:19:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0227 Q: Sonnet 129 Joe Nathan's question about Sonnet 129 reminded me of a conversation that Skip Delany (SF novelist) and I had about ten years ago. Skip wanted to read "spirit" as spirits (booze), and interpret "expense of spirit" as pouring out your spirits (drink) when you were in a wasteland -- a pretty dumb thing to do. But this poem is not usually read as a warning against masturbation. Many people see a pun in "waste"/waist, and read "waste of shame" as "whore," who as soon as she's "Enjoyed" (5) is "despised straight" (5). In other words, this is a sonnet about copulation which is both necessary and detested -- when it's with a waist of shame. The sonnet is obviously from a male point of view, but I've talked with women who have expressed similar feelings after making love with a male waist of shame. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 14:35:32 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0230 Re; *Catch My Soul* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0230. Monday, 20 March 1995. (1) From: Louis Scheeder Date: Sunday, 19 Mar 1995 23:42:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: Catch My Soul (2) From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 09:40:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0226 Re: Hippie *Othello* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Scheeder Date: Sunday, 19 Mar 1995 23:42:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Catch My Soul I saw *Catch My Soul* in July of 1971 in the West End. (A very hot summer by English standards.) It was a *rock* Othello - taking off from previous *rock* productions of the period - *Your Own Thing* and the other Twelfth Night musical from the same late sixties (67-68) period of off-Broadway. CMS was set in the Louisiana bayous. Summer of 71 was towards the end of its run and my memory recalls a fairly tatty production, with a dancing chorus woefully inadequate, even for the West End at that time. Much hearfelt emotion. British views of American racism - towards both African-Americans and Asians - played a large role in the reception of the piece. The actor playing * Othello * performed a curtain speech in which he thanked the British audiences for allowing him both a stage and a voice. Other period details - there were ashtrays on the back of the seats and everyone seemed to be smoking (myself included) during the performance. Britain was going metric that summer and both shillings and pence were circulating. Nixon abandoned the gold standard and currencies were allowed to float. Memories of Olivier's Shylock at the OldVic/National and Anthony Hopkins in *Woman Killed with Kindness* are more fresh. thanks. had almost forgotten the CMS experience. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 09:40:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0226 Re: Hippie *Othello* Dear J.A.Y., Quite possibly the "rock" OTHELLO you're searching for is CATCH MY SOUL: SANTA FE SATAN. USA 1973. Dir. Patrick McGoohan. Originally it was on stage in the 60's in London's West End, where I first saw it and was quite amazed. In truth I didn't know what to make of it. Santa Fe Satan of course turns out to be none other than Iago and Othello smothers Desdemona to pulsating rock rhythms. It's a kind of Shakespearean JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR. McGoohan earlier appeared in ALL NIGHT LONG GB 1962, dir. Basil Dearden, which did for jazz what CATCH MY SOUL did for rock. Johnny Dankworth and David Brubeck appear among other musicians in this intriguing version. Ken Rothwell ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 14:42:12 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0231 Re: *MM* Ending; Fiennes's Hamlet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0231. Monday, 20 March 1995. (1) From: John Owens Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 09:15:37 -0800 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0224 Re: *MM* Ending (2) From: Mary M Kramm Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 11:29:01 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0224 Re: *MM* Ending (3) From: Anna Cole Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 07:47:47 GMT Subj: Re: Fiennes's Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owens Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 09:15:37 -0800 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0224 Re: *MM* Ending In the face of all this discussion about MM Act V, I am surprised (unless I have missed it) that no reference has been made to the popular theory that MM is an incomplete revision of an earlier play. Either that or a play that received irregular attention from its author. Clearly, MM is a wildly uneven work, the quality of the seduction scenes with Angelo/Isabella far outpacing the finale, with its signs of haste and untidiness. Is it possible that the virtues of MM-revised lead us into a bewildered search for purpose in MM-original? Deliberation that doesn't exist? John Owen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary M Kramm Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 11:29:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0224 Re: *MM* Ending In support of John Boni's comments on the ending of *MM*, I would add that Isabella's religious vocation might well be questioned. As far as we can see, she is entering the convent--at least in part--out of a disgust for the sordidness of worldly life in this Vienna, and not necessarily because of a spiritual temperament that requires a monastic life in order for it to develop. It is telling that the initial view we have of Isabella in her new religious home shows her concerning herself with the rules of the order. The prohibitions of this ascetic order are not enough for her--she wishes a more strict restraint applied. In this she sounds more like Angelo than any other character in the play. Isabella has talents that would do a corrupt city like Vienna a lot of good--talents that would go to waste in an already ascetic convent but that would be a great spur to a ruler who has an unfortunate tendency to laxness. And Isabella is not the only character who is being encouraged or pressured to leave the "safety" of a retreat from society. Note that Barnadine is rousted out of prison when he neither fears execution nor desires freedom--all he wants is drunken oblivion. Lucio, similarly, is forced to give up his own egoism and fulfill the socially accountable role of husband to Kate Keepdown and father to his bastard. Mariana is recalled from her isolation and Angelo, who in his shame craves death more willingly than life, must enter into ordinary, wedded life whether or not he'd prefer his former, aloof privacy. And one supposes that henceforth the Duke of dark corners will be more likely or obliged to fulfill *his* civic duties than he has in the past. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Cole Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 07:47:47 GMT Subject: Re: Fiennes's Hamlet Have just seen on today's midday news that the Hackney Empire are putting on a free performance for the people who were unable to buy tickets. I was one of them, but unfortunately am unable to take advantage of this handsome offer! However, it is such a charming gesture that I thought I would share it with all 1000+ other Shakespeareans on the Net. Anna Cole ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 14:45:29 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0232 Q: Staging *Pilgrim's Progress* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0232. Monday, 20 March 1995. From: Gail Burns Date: Sunday, 19 Mar 1995 16:01:15 -0500 Subject: [Staging *Pilgrim's Progress*] Although this request isn't about Shakespeare, I thought some kind SHAKESPERean with a broader literary or theatrical background could help me. I have been asked to stage John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". My question is: do any decent stage versions exist of Bunyan's work, or do I have to reinvent the wheel and write one myself? Any help would be greatly appreciated Reply to: GailMBurns@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 10:14:09 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0233 Re: *Catch*; Africans; *Pilgrims Progress*; *MM* Ending Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0233. Tuesday, 21 March 1995. (1) From: Robert Cohen Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 12:59:12 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0226 Re: Hippie *Othello* (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 23:00:41 GMT Subj: Africans in London (3) From: Luc Borot Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 95 08:59:56 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0232 Q: Staging *Pilgrim's Progress* (4) From: Milla Riggio Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 1995 08:30:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0231 Re: *MM* Ending (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Cohen Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 12:59:12 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0226 Re: Hippie *Othello* "Catch My Soul" was an early rock musical version of "Othello" with the famous R&B pianist/singer Jerry Lee Lewis as Iago (which is why Iago had most of the songs). Lewis stood playing an onstage piano - as he did in his concerts - for much of the show. The work premiered in Los Angeles at the Ahmonson Theatre in the late 60s, and was trashed by Cecil Smith, the critic for the *LA Times," then the only serious reviewer in town. A few years later, Smith wrote an apology, saying in retrospect that it was one of the most memorable things he had ever seen. The show was later done with some success in London, I understand. As for myself, I thought it was one of the most exciting stage productions I've seen in nearly fifty years of theatregoing, and it remains vivid in my memory. Robert Cohen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 23:00:41 GMT Subject: Africans in London I thought this silly subject was dead, but Helen Ostovich writes: >According to Emeka Abanime, "Elizabeth I and Negroes" _Cahiers Elisabethains_ >19 (avr. 1981): 1-8, there were lots of Africans in London in the 1590s. According to ELIZABETH I "there are already here too manie consideryng howe God hath blessed this land with great increase of people of our nation as anie countrie in the world" (Abanime, p1). The proclamations claim to be defending the right of the bona fide English poor to receive relief by limiting the number of foreigners receiving the relief. But Abanime does not accept the proclamations at face value. Most of the blacks in England were slaves who made great servants because their 'employment' was "more permanent, more reliable and cheaper" than employment of a white (p3). Elizabeth's proclamation lets slip the de facto slavery by prescribing punishments for: "any person or persons which shall be possessed of any such blackamoors that refuse to deliver them in sort aforesaid" (Jan 1601 proclamation, qtd. in Abanime p2) Abanime comments: "It is therefore to be supposed that the expulsion order was not motivated by the need to maintain indigent blacks with public funds, but by the belief that blacks helped to aggravate unemployment in the indigenous servant-class by being themselves popular as servants." (Abanime p3) That a proclamation claims to being dealing with a problem does not tell us that the problem exists, only that the proclaimer wants to appear to be dealing with a perceived problem. Contrary to Ostovich's assertion, Abanime does not show that there were "lots of Africans in London", indeed Abanime does not even speculate about the size of the black population. In an off-list exchange Anna Cole pointed out to me that the need to read lines further reduces the likelihood of a black person being a player. Gabriel Egan g.i.egan@bham.ac.uk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Luc Borot Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 95 08:59:56 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0232 Q: Staging *Pilgrim's Progress* Gail Burns comes with a request that would have given many a Puritan a heart shock! Staging a Puritanical work! Yet, in biographies of Oliver Cromwell, one reads that the very orthodox minister who was preceptor to him and his brothers and sisters staged play-versions of Fox's Acts and Monuments, for the education and edification of the children; the Jesuits did the same in their own continental institutions. Have there been stage versions of PP in the early 17th c.? I'd be very interested to hear about it. Did the Dissenting educational movement resort to the same kind of techniques? Food for thought (sorry this won't help Gail very much, but it may start a new thread) Luc (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 1995 08:30:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0231 Re: *MM* Ending About the ending of MM: With all the talk about ISABELLA'S attitude toward her vocation, I'm surprised that none has spoken of Shakespeare's probable attitude toward it. Isabella, after all, as many of us have admitted, does not exist. The writer of the play did, and there is no real indication that (whatever his own religion may or may not have been) Shakespeare would have presented for his protestant audience in the early seventeenth century the idea of a Catholic religious vocation for a woman as a better ending than marriage with a Duke. (What's love got to do with it?) On similar issues, I have just completed an essay on teaching Shakespeare that focuses consistently on issues of cultural identity and deviance in his plays, broadly considered, and which touches on many of the issues we've been discussing here in the past few weeks. I'm hoping it will soon be published. I'll keep you updated. There are ways, I think, to introduce these topics to students and also allow them to explore them in acting exercises for themselves. I have invented a little game I call "The Playing Game" (described in this essay), which helps with such a focus. Best, Milla Riggio ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 10:16:40 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0234 CFP: CATH '95 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0234. Tuesday, 21 March 1995. From: Stuart Lee Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 11:47:54 +0000 Subject: CFP: CATH '95 (Reminder) *************************************************** CATH '95 (Computers and Teaching in the Humanities) ADVANCE NOTICE and CALL for PAPERS The CATH '95 conference will be held at Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, from 5th-7th September 1995. The conference is organized by the Office for Humanities Communication and the Computers in Teaching Initiative Centre for Textual Studies (both at the University of Oxford), and the English Department, Royal Holloway. The theme of this year's conference is Computers and the Changing Curriculum. We would like to encourage proposals which include practical experiences of the use of computers in teaching, and approaches taken by the teacher in integrating computing into courses, describing problems as well as successes, plus examples of student feedback. Experiences are sought from a wide mix of humanities disciplines. Contemporary topics and new developments are always welcome, for example, use of resources on the Internet. Contributions are invited for individual formal papers (30 minutes inclusive of 10 minute question time), panel sessions comprising three related papers, or workshops. Workshops should be about 2-hours in length and should involve hands-on tuition as well as time for discussion; the level of experience aimed at should be indicated (and may be from novice to more experienced). For individual papers, please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words (500 for each paper in a panel session) no later than April 14th. This should include a summary paragraph of the main points covered in your paper which will be used in the programme to describe the session. For workshops, a descriptive paragraph of aims and means will suffice. The proposals will be refereed by a programme committee and all authors will be notified of the outcome by early May. We are also interested in proposals for other forms of presentation such as poster sessions, and demonstrations at the software fair. Further information including a draft programme and costs is expected to be available in May. All participants at the CATH '94 conference will be sent these details. Please submit your proposal by April 14th (also any enquiries) to: Christine Mullings Office for Humanities Communication Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 6NN Tel: 01865-273221 Fax: 01865-273221 email: cath95@oucs.ox.ac.uk Format for submission: paper copy plus copy on 3.5" disk (standard wordprocessor files or plain ASCII files will be accepted). Electronic submissions are welcome (plain ASCII files please). Details should include title of contribution, your full name and contact address, and telephone, fax, and email address. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 10:19:38 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0235 Shakespearean Anagrams Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0235. Tuesday, 21 March 1995. From: Dave Beenken Date: Monday, 20 Mar 1995 19:51:27 -0600 (CST) Subject: Shakespearean anagrams! --Maybe not appropriate for this prestigious list, but these *anagrams* of 'William Shakespeare' appeared in the _Minneaoplis Star Tribune_ (in I forget what context) not long ago. I thought them not only enjoyable, but quite good! WE ALL MAKE HIS PRAISE. I SWEAR HE'S LIKE A LAMP. "HAS WILL A PEER?" I ASK ME. AH, I SPEAK A SWELL RIME. Ciao, Dave ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 10:37:29 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0236 Re: Shakespearean Anagrams Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0236. Wednesday, 22 March 1995. (1) From: Ton Hoenselaars Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 1995 20:34:28 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0235 Shakespearean Anagrams (2) From: David Kathman Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 1995 18:16:13 -0600 Subj: Re: Shakespearean Anagrams (3) From: Alistair Scott Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 1995 15:35:52 +0100 Subj: Shakespearean Anagrams (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ton Hoenselaars Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 1995 20:34:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0235 Shakespearean Anagrams I much enjoyed Dave Beenken's contribution on the Shakespearean Anagrams. Although I am not Lacanian enough to appreciate the true seriousness of the results, I would be interested to know if further Anagram lists exist for the Complete Works. Also, I hope that most (if not all) of the renderings *dans le desordre* will at least be of the Telmah Hawkes calibre. Sincerely, Ton Hoenselaars (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Kathman Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 1995 18:16:13 -0600 Subject: Re: Shakespearean Anagrams >--Maybe not appropriate for this prestigious list, but these *anagrams* >of 'William Shakespeare' appeared in the _Minneaoplis Star Tribune_ >(in I forget what context) not long ago. I thought them not only >enjoyable, but quite good! > > WE ALL MAKE HIS PRAISE. > I SWEAR HE'S LIKE A LAMP. > "HAS WILL A PEER?" I ASK ME. > AH, I SPEAK A SWELL RIME. Those are pretty good; I've seen variants of several of them. Another is: ME, LEAR? SPEAK SWAHILI? Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alistair Scott Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 1995 15:35:52 +0100 Subject: Shakespearean Anagrams Is this well known by Shakespeare scholars? Probably, but here goes anyway ... The last two lines of the Epilogue in 'The Tempest': As you for crimes would pardon'd be, Let your indulgence set me free. with the addition of the first and last letters of the word 'anagram' (and taking 'u' = 'v' twice) can be re-arranged to read: 'Tempest' of Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam. Do ye ne'er divulge me ye words. However, I believe that Bacon was not created Lord Verulam until 1618, some years after The Tempest was written. Amusing nonetheless. Cheers, Alistair Scott (alistair.scott@itu.ch) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 10:44:44 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0237 Re: Killing Duncan; Africans in London: *MM* Ending Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0237. Wednesday, 22 March 1995. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 1995 12:05:30 -0500 Subj: Killing Duncan (2) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 1995 15:23:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0233. Africans in London (3) From: Milla Riggio Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 1995 01:03:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0231 Re: *MM* Ending (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 1995 12:05:30 -0500 Subject: Killing Duncan Did Don Foster really mean it, that "sticking a knife in the king's body" is a noningredient in Macbeth's horror? What happened to >that suggestion >whose horrid image doth unfix my hair >and makes my seated heart knock at my ribs >against the use of nature and >let that be >which the eye fears, when it is done, to see not to mention "the horrid deed" and "this terrible feat"? These I guess he overlooked in pursuit of his particular interpretation. A Macbeth wriggling in Time's fist, appalled to find himself the plaything of ordained destiny, such a Macbeth materializes sometime after the king is killed, but if you look for him too insistently in act 1 where he only embryonically exists, you escort yourself toward preposterous conclusions like this one: the dagger soliloquy (if I understand Don Foster right) is Macbeth assuring himself that the assassination is his own doing, not fate's. Precisely the reverse is true! He does nothing in that speech but shift the responsibility to external forces--to the dagger, to night, to nature itself, and to the bell that invites him to his crime and summons his victim to death. The entire cosmos marshalling his way, _that_ notion encourages him to act. Which of course exactly contradicts Mr Foster's main premise. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 1995 15:23:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0233. Africans in London Probably Gabriel Egan and Anna Cole do not wish to suggest that sixteenth and early seventeenth century Africans in London could not learn to read. But the implication seems to be there -- to my eye. How do people who have had little or no formal education learn to read? Why not Africans? In fact, if you had an African servant in Renaissance London, it might be in your best interest to teach him how to read -- depending on what services he was performing for you. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 1995 01:03:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0231 Re: *MM* Ending A follow-up note: I should mention that Scott Crider, University of Dallas, has written a paper entitled "Performing Silence: Interpreting Isabella in Act 5 of MEASURE FOR MEASURE" for my SAA seminar. We will be discussing Scott's paper along with others this coming Saturday at 3:30 p.m. at the Drake Hotel in Chicago. The seminar is entitled "From Page to Stage and Back Again: Teaching and Interpreting Shakespeare through Performance." The seminar will be preceded by a panel entitled "A Director's Forum," in which Mark Lamos, artistic director of the Hartford Stage Company, and Joanne Akalaitis will discuss their experiences as directors of Shakespeare All are invited to the panel and interested persons welcomed as auditors at the seminar. (The panel is an open panel, provided as a plenary panel for the conference, not limited in any way to the seminar, though organized in conjunction with it. Please do come to the panel if you're in Chicago for the SAA.) Milla Riggio ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 10:49:15 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0238 Shenandoah Shakespeare Express; Q: Hamlet's "I could . . ." Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0238. Wednesday, 22 March 1995. (1) From: Patty Kloss Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 1995 14:45:40 -0500 Subj: Shenandoah Shakespeare Express!! (2) From: Antoine Goulem Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 1995 07:55:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patty Kloss Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 1995 14:45:40 -0500 Subject: Shenandoah Shakespeare Express!! The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express will be touring throughout the Mid-West and New England during Fall of '95. I still have some dates available for performances and workshops and will send booking info (or tour schedules) to whomever requests. Dates available include: Sept. 19-26 Mid-West (WI,IL,IN,OH) and Oct 2-5 and 9-10 New England (NY State, VT, NH, ME, ONT-CAN) We are touring Hamlet,The Tempest, Twelfth Night and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. You and/or your school would choose any (or all). Sound like fun? It is! E-mail or call me at (703) 434-3366 Patty Kloss Booking Coordinator Shenandoah Shakespeare Express (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Antoine Goulem Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 1995 07:55:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hamlet I would very much appreciate any information that anyone might have concerning Hamlet's line "I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself king of infinite space were it not that I have dreams". I'm citing from memory, so I may have made some mistakes, but I think the line is recognizable. I'm particularily interested in relating that line to philosophical views of Shakespeare's day, concerning space, the infinite and subjectivity. Antoine Goulem goua@alcor.concordia.ca ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 10:54:57 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0239 Joint Conference: ACH/ALLC Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0239. Wednesday, 22 March 1995. From: Eric Dahlin Date: Tuesday, 21 Mar 95 13:03:57 PST Subject: Joint Conference: ACH/ALLC ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTERS AND THE HUMANITIES ASSOCIATION FOR LITERARY AND LINGUISTIC COMPUTING 1995 JOINT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ACH-ALLC 95 JULY 11-15, 1995 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA BARBARA, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA ************************************************************************ IMPORTANT CONFERENCE INFORMATION *** IMPORTANT CONFERENCE INFORMATION ************************************************************************ Those of you who have submitted abstracts for this year's ACH/ALLC Joint International Conference will be aware that the announced date for notifying applicants was March 15, 1995. Due to unforeseen circumstances, however, we are obliged to move the this date ahead to APRIL 20, 1995. The Association for Computers and the Humanities, as primary organizer of this year's conference, apologizes for the delay. We understand that some potential contributors to the conference program may need to be notified earlier than April 20, in order to secure travel funds, etc. If for such a reason you must know as soon as possible, we ask that you contact hcf1dahl@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu so that we may expedite the processing of your abstract. Please do not contact us unless your need is serious. We received a strong response to this year's call for papers, and we have every expectation that the conference program will be excellent. I look forward to seeing you in Santa Barbara this summer, and thank you for your patience and understanding. Nancy Ide, President Association for Computers and the Humanities ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 12:07:57 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0240 Hayes Awards: *Goodnight* and Congratulations Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0240. Thursday, 23 March 1995. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, March 22, 1995 Subject: Hayes Awards: *Goodnight* and Congratulations to Edward Gero SHAKSPEReans, Tuesday's *Washington Post* announces the 1995 Helen Hayes Award Nominees. The awards will be presented on May 8 at the National Theatre in a ceremony hosted by Tyne Daly. Of interest in light of our recent conversation, Woolly Mammoth's (Thanks to all for the correction.) production of *Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet)* received nominations for best Play, Director, Lead Actress in a Play, and Supporting Actress in a Play. Also, SHAKSPERean Edward Gero received a nomination for best Supporting Actor in the Shakespeare Theatre's *Henry IV* for his Hotspur. Congratulations, Ed. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 09:48:23 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0241 Re: Hamlet's Nutshell and Bartlett's Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0241. Friday, 24 March 1995. (1) From: Peter Scott Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 1995 09:59:29 -0600 (CST) Subj: Bartlett's (2) From: John Cox Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 1995 12:43:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0238 Q: Hamlet's "I could . . ." (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Scott Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 1995 09:59:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: Bartlett's You might want to look at this. Has a Shakespeare section. Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 9th Ed. Columbia University, New York, NY, US This is the original classic scholarly collection of quotations by the great editor John Bartlett. Browse or search 9,000 quotations and 2,000 footnotes by over 400 authors. Published by Columbia University's Project Bartleby. http://www.columbia.edu/~svl2/bartlett/ (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 1995 12:43:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0238 Q: Hamlet's "I could . . ." Regarding Antoine Goulem's question about Hamlet's being bounded by a nutshell (etc), I can't think of a specific reference or analogue for that image, but it might be helpful to know that what Hamlet himself is glossing (namely, "for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so") is not a statement of despairing relativism--or not necessarily so. It has a possible precedent in Boethius's *Consolation of Philosophy* II.Prose iv: "Nothing is miserable unless you think it so." Chaucer's "no man is wreched but himself it wene" ("Ballade of Fortune") almost certainly comes from Boethius. John Cox Hope College ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 10:01:43 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0242 Africans in London; *Ado* in Atlanta; Q: Blood in *Titus* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0242. Friday, 24 March 1995. (1) From: G. I. Egan Date: Thursday, 23 Mar 1995 21:22:12 +0000 (GMT) Subj: RE: Africans in London (2) From: Sarah Cave Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 1995 11:09:36 EST Subj: Re: Much Ado Performance (3) From: Michael Field Date: Thursday, 23 Mar 1995 16:58:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: Blood in *Titus* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. I. Egan Date: Thursday, 23 Mar 1995 21:22:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: RE: Africans in London Bill Godshalk writes >Probably Gabriel Egan and Anna Cole do not wish to suggest that sixteenth and >early seventeenth century Africans in London could not learn to read. But the >implication seems to be there -- to my eye. How do people who have had little >or no formal education learn to read? Why not Africans? No one is saying they could not. Actually no one is asking "could they?", because it is a patently stupid question, the obvious answer being "yes, anyone CAN learn to read". The implied question answered by Anna Cole and myself was "did they?" to which we responded: "Probably not as much as other people unhampered by enslavement", the corrolary of which is "well probably fewer of them became players then!" Any attempt to divert this thread into a discussion of literacy in the period will get my full, under-informed, support. Gabriel Egan g.i.egan@bham.ac.uk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Cave Date: Wednesday, 22 Mar 1995 11:09:36 EST Subject: Re: Much Ado Performance The Soul-Stice Repertory Theatre in Atlanta, GA is opening MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING Thursday, March 23 at the back door theatre at 7 Stages in Little 5 Points. It will run in repertory with Anton Chekhov's THE SEAGULL through April 16th. Performances are Wednesday - Sunday at 8:00 p.m. Ticket prices range from $9 - 12. sarah.cave@asc.scottlan.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Field Date: Thursday, 23 Mar 1995 16:58:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Blood in *Titus* I recently came across the comment that Shakespeare "didn't intend authentic portrayal" of the most bloody scenes in *Titus Andronicus*. This notion floored me, for I have been raised on the "buckets of blood" image of ultra-realistic presentation in Elizabethian theater. I assumed, in other words, that Lavinia enters with two bloody stumps and real (stage) blood oozing from her lips: Alas, a crimson river of warm blood, Like to a bubbling fountain stirred with wind, Doth rise and fall between thy rosed lips, Coming and going with thy honey breath. Was I mistaken? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 14:45:32 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0243 Re: Blood in *Titus* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0243. Saturday, 25 March 1995. (1) From: Nicola Winstanley Date: Friday, 24 Mar 1995 10:51:08 -0500 Subj: Titus and blood (2) From: Sarah Cave Date: Friday, 24 Mar 1995 11:40:35 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0242 Blood in Titus (3) From: Cindy Moravec Date: Friday, 24 Mar 1995 13:58:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0242 Blood in *Titus* (4) From: David Knauer Date: Saturday, 25 Mar 95 12:50:13 EST Subj: Bloody _Titus_ (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicola Winstanley Date: Friday, 24 Mar 1995 10:51:08 -0500 Subject: Titus and blood Michael Field writes: "I recently came across the comment that Shakespeare 'didn't intend authentic portrayl of the most bloody scenes in *Titus Andronicus*." I would be very interested to know where this comment came from, and how it is substantiated. Also, two related, but more general questions (which may well have been discussed already, but I'm new to this!): is it really possible to know what Shakespeare *intended*? And even if it is, should we aim to be faithful to this intention in performances today? Nicola Winstanley University of Toronto (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Cave Date: Friday, 24 Mar 1995 11:40:35 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0242 Blood in Titus Mike-- Strangely enough, I recently played Lavinia in TITUS. I entered the stage spattered with blood, with soaked bloody gauze covering my stumps, and holding a mouthful of blood in until the moment Marcus bid me speak, at which point I let it flow out all over my chin and my dress. It was always an incredible shock to the audience (we had at least 2 people leave and one pass out during the run), but I believe it brought the true horror of her ravagement home to them. Likewise, there was blood on Titus' stump when his hand was lopped, and we rigged an elaborate system to spew blood from Demetrius' neck as he hung by his heels while Titus slashed his throat. It was a messy, grueling experience, but I cannot imagine making the same impact without using blood. Yours, sarah.cave@asc.scottlan.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cindy Moravec Date: Friday, 24 Mar 1995 13:58:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0242 Blood in *Titus* In response to Michael Field's comments regarding *Titus* and the portrayal of blood, I was always under the notion that the violent scenes in the play were overdone so as to be a satire. The fact that Lavinia's uncle is praising her honey breath while she spews blood seems to underline that fact. I have not see a production of *Titus*, but when I read the play, I always imagine it as being a bit campy. Cynthia Moravec (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Knauer Date: Saturday, 25 Mar 95 12:50:13 EST Subject: Bloody _Titus_ Michael Field asks about the probability of naturalistic gore in a Shakespearean production of _Titus_. Although I don't think there is any direct evidence of such in the text of _Titus_, there are plenty of other examples from the theatre of the period. Henslowe's Diary mentions among its properties a severed head, while Peele's 1589 _Battle of Alcazar_ has three characters executed and disemboweled onstage using "3 violls of blood & a sheeps gather." In his edition of _Titus_, Eugene Waith reprints a stunning scheme for portraying a decapitation from Reginald Scot's _Discovery of Witchcraft_, 1584. Amaze your friends. David Knauer djknauer@sage.cc.purdue.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 14:54:27 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0244 Ha Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0244. Saturday, 25 March 1995. (1) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Friday, 24 Mar 1995 10:54:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Hamlet, Boethius (2) From: Eric Grischkat Date: Friday, 24 Mar 1995 06:56:53 -0800 (PST) Subj: Phrasing, Caesura, and Run-on Lines (3) From: Frank Savukinas Date: Friday, 24 Mar 1995 12:41:30 -0500 (EST) Subj: Edmund and Richard III (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Friday, 24 Mar 1995 10:54:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hamlet, Boethius Thanks to John Cox for his plausible suggestion concerning a Boethean source for Hamlet's "nothing either bad or good but thinking makes it so." Perhaps the same background informs Gaunt's consolatory advice to the just-banished Bullingbrook, _RII_, I.iii.227ff.: "Teach thy necessity to reason thus: / There is no virtue like necessity." Coming from the aging Gaunt to the pragmatic and Machiavellian Bullingbrook, it has in this context a distinctly old-fashioned ring. I am reminded, at least I think I am, that my graduate Chaucer professor, the late Talbot Donaldson, once mentioned a stage tradition that designated the _Consolation of Philosophy_ as the book Hamlet is carrying when he encounters Polonius in II.ii, the one in which he finds "words, words, words." It's not clear to me how (or if?) the title of the book would be made clear to an audience. Anyone ever heard about this? Ron Macdonald (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Grischkat Date: Friday, 24 Mar 1995 06:56:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Phrasing, Caesura, and Run-on Lines A number of us on the theatre-theory list (Harry Hill, Paul Kassel,Sean Lawrence, and Michael Faulkner) have been discussing the clues an actor can receives from the verse, run-on lines, and mid stops in Shakespeare. Camillo's speech from *Winter's Tale* has a number of interesting examples in it. I'm interested to read Shakespeare list response. Here is an interesting passage from Act1 sc 1 WT I took the script from the complete Shakespeare on ALEX have added on the side some changes/differences from the Folio (Applause Books edition). CAMILLO O miserable lady! But, for me, F: But for me, What case stand I in? I must be the poisoner Of good Polixenes; and my ground to do't F:Of good Polixenes, to do't, Is the obedience to a master, one F: one, Who in rebellion with himself, will have All that are his, so too. To do this deed, Promotion follows. If I could find example F: Promotion follows: Of thousands that had struck anointed kings F:Kings, And flourish'd after, I'ld not do't; but since F: do't: Nor brass, nor stone, nor parchment, bears not one, Nor Brass,.Stone.Parchmnet Let villany itself forswear't. I must F: Villiany Forsake the court: to do't, or no, is certain F: Court To me a break-neck. Happy star, reign now! Here comes Bohemia. I think many of the run-ons make sense as upward inflection/continuation of thoughts, some, perhaps, are more interesting as breking of the verse to show a racing mind--someone searching for an answer beyond the form of the verse. I'm also curious of what people make of the colon and period caesura. Is it simply a shift in the mind, or is a pause called for? Some say colons, because they are surronded by space in the folio editions by spaces imply a pause - but a pause in the middle of a verse line. I'm curious to hear people's opinions. Of this piece in performance and what clues the caesuras, verse, and run-ons offer to the actor. Eric George Grischkat egg@teetot.acusd.edu University of San Diego (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Savukinas Date: Friday, 24 Mar 1995 12:41:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Edmund and Richard III I just finished my first reading of King Lear and I found it to be truly remarkable, albeit depressing, especially the scene where Lear dies. Anyway, I find that the character of Edmund is quite similar to that of Richard III. First, they both manipulate people to gain material wealth. Secondly, they have no reason to do it other than sheer greed. Finally, they both have "deformities" While Richard's is physical, Edmund's deformities arises in his status (i.e Bastard). Upon suggesting this to one of my professors, she just shrugged it off, disagreeing with me. She gave no reason. She thought that Edmund can be more comparable to Iago in *Othello*. While I see the similarities there too, I think Iago has a genuine reason to do what he does. Am I completely wrong or have I actually said something intelligent?? Just an opinion, Frank Savukinas fsavukin@ashland.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 13:34:49 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0245 Re: Blood in *Titus*] Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0245. Sunday, 26 March 1995. (1) From: William Russell Mayes Date: Saturday, 25 Mar 1995 18:06:33 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0243 Re: Blood in *Titus* (2) From: William Proctor Williams Date: Saturday, 25 Mar 95 18:11 CST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0243 Re: Blood in *Titus* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Russell Mayes Date: Saturday, 25 Mar 1995 18:06:33 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0243 Re: Blood in *Titus* Cynthia Moravec brings up the possibility of satire--or the more modern campiness--in Titus Andronicus. I think there might be satire, but not because the violence is overdone. It seems to me that the play shows a horrific realization of Petrarchan imagery. Shakespeare shows the violence of these images and refuses to let us forget. As far as performance, I have no idea what Shakespeare intended or what the stage would have shown (though I suspect it was quite vivid, from evidence I've seen), but it would be a shame to remove the violence from the play for a modern audience. Students at the University of Virginia did a bloody version of the play about two years ago, and since the blood was not wiped up between scenes, it accumulated as the play progressed. It was quite memorable, and several of my students who saw it really liked the play. _Titus_ is often called one of Shakespeare's lesser achievements, but I think if all of his plays were turned into movies (and there was no such thing as "Shakespeare"), Titus might well be one of his most popular (not to say greatest). If Jonson's complaint about audience's taste is indicative, than Titus and Kyd's Spanish Tragedy were quite popular. W. Russell Mayes Jr Dept. of English University of Virginia (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Saturday, 25 Mar 95 18:11 CST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0243 Re: Blood in *Titus* Both David Knauer and Sarah Cave are right. Blood was a very good thing for the Elizabethan theatre (and we must remember that Q1 +Titus+ is about our only +pure+ Rose Theatre play, look at the dates in Henslowe, SR, RSTC, etc.) I have never had any problem with the blood in +Titus+, but what has always bothered me, aside from Lavinia's apparent lack of knowlege about her engagement to Bassianus (I have an essay on this in Philip Kolin's new collection on +Titus+ from Garland), is the SD, enter Lavinia, her tongue cut out, her hands cut off, and +ravished+ I have asked any number of classes what this means--none have given me an answer. However, the points made by both Knauer and Cave are correct, in their circumstances. It may also be of interest to know that the "third" Arden has been recently reviewed in the Saturday "Independent" of 18 March by Frank Kermode who was one of the "second" Arden editors and had to find a way to make changes in sterotype plates which replaced "I well remember when I was a boy in Warwickshire. . . ." with exactly the same letters. and also Jonathan Bate's description of the Arden project in the +Indepedent on Sunday+ of 19 March 1995--a nice return from his illiberal abberation to the +Telegraph+ In any case, +Titus+ contains just about as much blood as you can imagine, and perhaps more than of us can! William Proctor Williams Department of English Northern Illinois University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 00:57:16 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0246 Re: Reading Clues in the Verse Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0246. Monday, 27 March 1995. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 26 Mar 1995 19:19:40 +0100 Subj: RE: Phrasing, Caesura, and Run-on Lines (2) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Sunday, 26 Mar 1995 13:27:55 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0244 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 26 Mar 1995 19:19:40 +0100 Subject: RE: Phrasing, Caesura, and Run-on Lines I don't think much can be determined of Shakespeare's intention concerning the speaking of lines from the punctuation in a play like WT. The King's Men's scribe Ralph Crane, when preparing copy for the printers of the Folio, changed punctuation quite freely and idiosyncratically. T H Howard Hill showed the Crane frequently altered commas in his source to colons, and one of the compositors occasionally changed them back whilst the other did not. Gabriel Egan g.i.egan@bham.ac.uk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Sunday, 26 Mar 1995 13:27:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0244 About caesurae. I've noticed an awful lot in Shakespeare's verse as well. Do you think it might have to do with the tradition from which he's writing? I mean, caesurae are extremely important in OE, and have a resurgence in middle English, as well. They're among the few peices of punctuation in Chaucer manuscripts, for instance. Paul Fussell, somewhere or other, comments that iambic pentameter continues to influence experimental efforts at quantitative verse. Might the heavy importance of caesurae in Shakespeare show the continuing influence of an OE (or ME) alliterative line? In other words, could the older half-line be as important to Shakespeare as the newer Marlovian iambic pentameter? Just a thought. I'm interested in what others might think. Cheers, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 01:15:26 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0247 Re: *Goodnight*; Killing Duncan; Hamlet's Book; Musicals Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0247. Monday, 27 March 1995. (1) From: David Skeele Date: Sunday, 26 Mar 95 21:19:23 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0218 *Goodnight/Morning* (2) From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 27 Mar 1995 11:54:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0237 Re: Killing Duncan (3) From: Pat Buckridge Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995 12:23:52 +1000 Subj: Hamlet's Book (4) From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Friday, 24 Mar 95 15:01:28 -0800 Subj: Fwd: Shakespeare Musicals (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Sunday, 26 Mar 95 21:19:23 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0218 *Goodnight/Morning* A brief reply to Norman Myers' query regarding American productions of Goodnight Desdemona/Good Morning Juliet. There was an excellent production at the Three Rivers Shakespeare Festival in Pittsburgh in 1991. It was performed by their second company (called the Young Company) in a tiny performance space called the Pit. The mainstage was simultaneously doing Othello, and the cast of Good Morning attended numerous rehearsals and managed some very funny parodies of the leads. I also remember reading about a production in New York, though I can't remember where. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 27 Mar 1995 11:54:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0237 Re: Killing Duncan Scott Shepherd: "Did Don Foster really mean it, that 'sticking a knife in the king's body' is a noningredient in Macbeth's horror?" A: No, of course not, nor did I say that it was a "noningredient." Mystification of the king's body was not invented by Shakespeare or Macbeth, nor can Macbeth escape it. That much is a "given" of the culture. What's at stake here is the oppositional thinking displayed so richly in Scott Shepherd's note--a critical dialectic that insistently casts *Macbeth* into a simple morality play. (note Shepherd's own language: "noningredient".... "Precisely the reverse is true!" ... "[Macbeth] does nothing in that speech but..." Is there still room in Shakespeare studies for such reductive thinking? To hear in Macbeth's horrorific soliloquies only the voice of conscience is to hear only what any provincial vicar could have said in writing a *Macbeth* narrative. Precisely because regicide is a kind of cosmic crime, Macbeth's ambition invests the deed with tragic sublimity at the very moment when self-creation comes into doubt. In Kenneth Burke's terms, murder (more intensively here, regicide) is a crime that "smokes God out" of the woodwork, dares the metaphysical order to assert itself. In the end, of course, Macbeth is not unlike Zarathustra's pale criminal. He isn't big enough for his deed. As a "bad" man, Macbeth isn't bad enough to live with his crime. But one tires of these arguments about "why doesn't he just sit around and wait to become king, it would be, like, so much *easier.*" A *Macbeth* for the herd. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Buckridge Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995 12:23:52 +1000 Subject: Hamlet's Book The book Hamlet is reading when Polonius greets him was first identified, with great plausibility, as long ago as 1845 by one Joseph Hunter, and the identification has since been confirmed by Lily B. Campbell and Hardin Craig, among others of lesser fame. The case rests on numerous close verbal parallels between this book and Shakespeare's plays, especially *Hamlet*, including one quite remarkably long and detailed parallel with the 'To be or not to be' soliloquy, and a satirical passage on the unpleasantness of old men's company, to which Hamlet surely refers in his banter with Polonius (re plumtree gum, plentiful lack of wit, most weak hams, etc). The book is not Boethius' *Consolation of Philosophy* but a sixteenth-century work, *De Consolatione* by the Venetian mathematician Jerome Cardan, Englished in 1573 by Thomas Bedingfield as *Cardanus Comfort* (with - as it happens - a Dedication to the Earl of Oxford and a lengthy prefatory epistle by him to the translator). Pat Buckridge (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marty Jukovsky Date: Friday, 24 Mar 95 15:01:28 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Shakespeare Musicals Some more cross-postings from the musicals list. Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. martyj@yankeegroup.com **************************************************** Did anyone mention "Music Is"? I believe this was an adaptation of "Twelfth Night" produced in the early 1980's....featuring the last score by Richard Adler (Pajama Game/Damn Yankees)...It only ran for a few performances on Broadway. ************************************************ "Rockabye Hamlet" had a very shortlived run on Broadway back in the 70's. It did however feature Meatloaf, Beverly DeAngelo and some other's who have made a pretty good name for themselves. The show was directed by Gower Champion. "Boys From Syracuse" is a great show. Did anyone mention "West Side Story". Not a bad little adaptation. "Kiss Me Kate", a big Cole Porter show. There was a little show called "Sensations" that was based on Romeo and Juliet. It was produced in NY in the early Seventies. "Two Gentlemen of Verona" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 01:23:44 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0248 Q: Early Modern Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0248. Monday, 27 March 1995. From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 26 Mar 1995 21:29:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Early Modern Subjectivity Recently I've been troubled by the word "subjectivity." I asked several people at the SAA meeting what precisely "subjectivity" means. I got several different answers, and I remain honestly puzzled. When someone talks about "early modern subjectivity," what are they talking about? Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 01:32:35 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0249 Re: *Titus* and Stage Blood Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0249. Monday, 27 March 1995. (1) From: Pat Buckridge Date: Monday, 27 Mar 1995 14:01:50 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0243 Re: Blood in *Titus* (2) From: Eddie Duggan Date: Monday, 27 Mar 95 14:37 :37 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0245 Re: Blood in *Titus* (3) From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 27 Mar 1995 11:22:21 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Stage blood (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Buckridge Date: Monday, 27 Mar 1995 14:01:50 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0243 Re: Blood in *Titus* I too would love to know the provenance of the comment Michael Field quotes. Reports on whether explicit staging 'works' or not on the modern stage are of course beside the point, and contemporaneous evidence (e.g. from Henslowe) is not conclusive. What the comment brings to our attention about *Titus* is that whether or not the violence and gore were visibly staged, it's all there in the language anyway - to a much greater extent than in, say, *The Spanish Tragedy* or *Macbeth*. As historical interpreters of the play (not just re-stagers of it), what are we to make of this strange doubling of the horror? Many commentators, and some current respondents, have felt, understandably, that it must have had a numbing or even comic effect. Believe that if you will; I don't. Others have supposed that this is Shakespeare learning how to do Senecan tragedy, and doing it rather badly. Well, maybe. But I must say *Titus* seems to me about as raw and unsophisticated as *Venus and Adonis* and the *Rape of Lucrece* - i.e. not very. Perhaps the fundamental error is in supposing that TA was originally written as a play for the popular theatre. The very sophisticated Ovidian descriptions are exactly what one might expect for a closet drama or a court performance with minimal staging. Subsequent release of the script to the public theatre, whose functionaries might well have added whatever 'grand guignol' props they had on hand without going to the trouble of modifying the text, would produce a play very much like the one we have today. That's one scenario anyway. Pat Buckridge (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eddie Duggan Date: Monday, 27 Mar 95 14:37:37 BST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0245 Re: Blood in *Titus* On the subject of the new Arden _Titus A._, there was a review on a UK radio arts programme (Kaleidoscope [?] BBC Radio 4) recently. Contributors were Terry Hawkes and A. N. Other (sorry). The gist of the review is that the text portrays bloody matter and, while we can never (obviously) recover the text's original meaning, the new Arden is well presented, scholarly annotated edition. Eddie Duggan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 27 Mar 1995 11:22:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Stage blood Somewhere (though I've forgotten where) there's an Elizabethan or Jacobean reference to the players' practice of making fatal stabs more realistic by puncturing a pig's bladder concealed in the actor's clothing. One can't imagine this being done on a regular basis, what with the cost of clothing and the lack of a good biodegradable laundry detergent, but perhaps the stained costumes were paid for by improved box office receipts. There may be a metadramatic reference to this practice in *The Revenger's Tragedy* ("Nay, / And he were once puffed out, here is a pin / Should quickly prick your bladder")-- but the more likely reading here is the conventional one, that of a wind-filled bladder [cf. John Ford's *Golden Mean*: "[A] Bladder that is blown up will (being fast tied) many days continue full if laid aside, and not unbound, but with the least prick of a needle, how little soever, loseth both his fullness and strength..."]. If I come across the pig's bladder reference, I'll pass it along. Chambers may mention it in *E.S.*, or it may be in *Peele's Jests.* Don Foster ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 18:48:22 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0250 Re: Stage Blood Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0250. Tuesday, 28 March 1995. (1) From: Michael Best Date: Monday, 27 Mar 95 22:44:19 PST Subj: Blood and Guts (2) From: Skip Shand Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995 09:33:36 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0249 Re: *Titus* and Stage Blood (3) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995 09:31:23 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0249 Re: Stage Blood and Stain Removers (4) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995 14:42:24 +0001 (EST) Subj: Re: Q: Blood in *Titus* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Monday, 27 Mar 95 22:44:19 PST Subject: Blood and Guts The early _Cambyses, King of Persia_ ("A lamentable tragedy mixed full of pleasant mirth . . .") has some useful stage directions: Cruelty and Murder (having entered "with bloody hands") kill Cambyses' brother: Even now I strike, his body to wound. _Strike him in divers places._ Behold, now his blood springs out on the ground. _A little bladder of vinegar pricked._ Red wine vinegar, perhaps? The ending is particularly fine: _Enter the King, without a gown, a sword thrust up into his side, bleeding,_ His final speech ends Thus, gasping, here on ground I lie; for nothing I do care, A just reward for my misdeeds my death doth plain declare. _Here let him quake and stir._ Lots of blood and no awkward moral ambiguity. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Shand Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995 09:33:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0249 Re: *Titus* and Stage Blood The stage direction Don Foster refers to is from *Cambises*. Murder and Cruelty stab Lord Smirdis 'in divers places,' and Cruelty says, 'Beholde, now his blood springs out on the ground!' This is followed by the direction: 'A little bladder of vinegar prickt.' The directions in this text are a goldmine, of course, especially for folks interested in the borderlines between mimetic behaviors and the real thing. A number of them stress the pretend nature of the actions they encode, as if concerned that performers might otherwise forget pretense and embark on the act itself: 'Smite him in the neck with a sword to signifie his death.' 'Flea him with a false skin.' The stress on the mechanics of make-believe in these directions may bode ill for the Cambises-actor himself, however: 'Enter the King, without a gowne, a swoord thrust up into his side, bleeding.'(! (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995 09:31:23 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0249 Re: Stage Blood and Stain Removers It's still not unusual to provide two costumes in productions--the "nice" one and the cheaper "gross" version in which the person gets stabbed or otherwise bleeds a lot. I suppose I have always assumed that the Renaissance stage used real blood, but that smells very bad in a hurry. Does anyone know if fake blood was ever used and/or how it was made? 1 bottle light Karo syrup to one part reddening agent--sticky, but it works-- Melissa Aaron (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995 14:42:24 +0001 (EST) Subject: Re: Q: Blood in *Titus* Certainly there were ways of using blood hidden in a pig's bladder, to be spilled at the appropriate moment, but _acting_ does not require blood being spilled, especially if the blood will wreck the costumes. Blood on a shirt is one thing: blood on less easily laundered material is another. The words of the description can replace actual blood, and the combination of stage action and audience's imaginative participation will do the rest. There's always the old medieval trick of using ribbons to suggest a cascade of blood. Helen Ostovich McMaster University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 18:57:21 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0251 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0251. Tuesday, 28 March 1995. (1) From: Michael J. Prince Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995 10:45:03 +0200 (MET DST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0248 Q: Early Modern Subjectivity (2) From: Daniel F. Pigg Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 95 10:06:54 CST Subj: RE: Early Modern Subjectivity (3) From: Wes Folkerth Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 95 13:33:25 EST Subj: Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael J. Prince Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995 10:45:03 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0248 Q: Early Modern Subjectivity Bill: As long as we're talking about "small m" modern subjectity, I may be able to cloud the issue even further. In some of the more "esoteric" discussions of WS and his world I've participated in, there has been an assumption that "the way we feel about ourselves as individuals" somehow came into being around the beginning of the modern period of history, around 1500. Evidence for this, I am told, is to be found in medieval paintings where the "subject" does not have its feet firmly planted on the ground; later paintings are more realistic and do have people standing on the ground. Another example is the fact that art work is signed; someone is saying "*I* did this." In literature, I could imagine the nascent stirrings of real characterization evident in the works of the Wakefield Master, who it is said ". . . is unquestionably the . . . most accesible for the modern reader because he offers and individual's view" (English Mystery Plays. ed. Peter Happe, PENGUIN 1975, page33), as a sign of modern subjectivity. Personally, this notion of "individual identity" may well be considered as "consructed" much the same way that Foucault explains the phenomena of romantic love. Other ideas out there?? Cheers, Michael Prince (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel F. Pigg Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 95 10:06:54 CST Subject: RE: Early Modern Subjectivity Bill, I think the notion of "early modern subjectivity" in some way grows out of the notion that the early modern period saw a developing concept of the individual, but puts additional twist on it. I have done a good deal of work as a medievalist with the notion of subjectivity in the late Middle Ages. The term "subject" should I think refer to the notion of a person as a site through which various forces pass, and thus a person--if we could use this term--is always under construction, always developing, and also always "subject to" various forces both conscious and unconscious. I have come to see the subject as the recognition that people are not free normal autonomous agents, but are themselves caught up in their own discursive webs that have created them. I am oversimplifying here some will say, but it certainly gives a new way of looking at characters like Hamlet and Dr. Faustus Daniel Pigg The University of Tennessee at Martin IVAD@UTMARTN.BITNET or danielp@utm.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wes Folkerth Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 95 13:33:25 EST Subject: Subjectivity I'll take a stab at Bill Godshalk's question concerning subjectivity. Whenever I come across the term (which is fairly often here at McGill, home to the philosopher Charles Taylor, who has recently written a book on the topic titled "Sources of the Self"), it seems to be used to refer to a definition of individual personhood and identity that takes into account the fact that conceptions of personhood are culturally specific and historically contingent. The term is usually used in opposition to 'essentialist' versions of the self that posit a transhistorical notion of humanity or human-ness. As the word 'subject' in the term implies, studies of subjectivity tend to highlight the importance of factors external to the construction of personal identity; that is, we are all subject to our cultural environments. In contrast to this is the term 'individual,' which implies a degree of autonomy, of unproblematic or undivided allegiance to a particular culture, social class, etc. That said, defining subjectivity is probably far easier than defining early modern subjectivity. A good place to start is the tenth chapter of Jonathan Dollimore's "Radical Tragedy." Thank you for asking this question. It has direct bearing on my own work at this time, and I'm very interested in discovering what others have to say on the topic. Yours, Wes ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 19:07:33 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0252 Cahiers on WWW; Caesurae; Hamlet's Book Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0252. Tuesday, 28 March 1995. (1) From: Luc Borot Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 95 16:13:02 +0200 Subj: Cahiers Elisabethains WWW pages (2) From: Don Foster Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995 08:51:22 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Query about caesurae (3) From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995 09:32:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0247 Re: Hamlet's Book (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Luc Borot Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 95 16:13:02 +0200 Subject: Cahiers Elisabethains WWW pages _Cahiers Elisabethains_ are pleased to announce the availability of new Web pages on the server of the Computer service for research of Universite Paul Valery. You will find information about the editorial board, our editorial policy, the contents of the 1994 numbers and of the next number (n.47, April 1995,in the press), with the abstracts in French and in English. The URL is: http://serinf2.univ-montp3.fr/cahiers.html To visit the pages of other Centres, just type: http://serinf2.univ-montp3.fr for the home page. The general index to CE should soon be available. A presentation of the library of the CERRA is under construction. The pages and server are still under construction, but please visit the place. Looking forward to your visit, For the editors, Luc Borot (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995 08:51:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Query about caesurae For Sean Lawrence: The best study of caesurae in Shakespeare's verse is George T. Wright's book on *Shakespeare's Metrical Art* (Univ. California Press, 1988). --Don Foster (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 1995 09:32:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0247 Re: Hamlet's Book Pat Buckridge is quite right to identify "Hamlet's Book" as Girolamo Cardano's COMFORTE since the heavy weight of scholarship lies behind the attribution. Hardin Craig and Alice Harmon wrote learnedly on this subject sixty years ago. For what it's worth, though, Philippe du Plessis du Mornay's >Excellens traitez et discours de la vie et de la mort< (Laussane 1576) also offers a grabbag of Hamlet-like musings. And there may be other treatises that do so as well that I know not of. The point is that Hamlet's deliberations are steeped in the faddish neostoic "topics" of the times. Senecan discourses turn out to be intricate exercises in intertextuality. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 09:50:55 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0253 Re: Stage Blood Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0253. Thursday, 30 March 1995. (1) From: Brian Corrigan Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 95 19:02:41 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0250 Re: Stage Blood (2) From: Timothy Dayne Pinnow Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 1995 09:35:14 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0250 Re: Stage Blood (3) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, March 30, 1995 Subj: Stage Blood (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Corrigan Date: Tuesday, 28 Mar 95 19:02:41 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0250 Re: Stage Blood In response to Melissa Aaron's stage blood recipe, "one part light Karo syrup to one part reddening agent--sticky, but it works--", might I add that a bit of liquid detergent added to the mix makes later cleanup much simpler (from stage floor and costume). Sorry for being so pragmatic here. Brian Corrigan North Georgia College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Timothy Dayne Pinnow Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 1995 09:35:14 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0250 Re: Stage Blood In response to Melissa Aaron: Only using the reddening agent will make your stage blood generally look wrong under lights. Add the the tiniest drop of blue food coloring to give it a more realistic appearance. Most of us stage combat types also use some peanut butter (chunky for some real gore) to add texture. And by the way, is you're using it on clothing only, substitute Woolite for the Karo syrup and it will wash away easily. Just something to brighten up your morning. Timothy Dayne Pinnow St. Olaf College pinnow@stolaf.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, March 30, 1995 Subject: Stage Blood The blood of the shower scene in *Psycho* was reportedly chocolate syrup, which reminds me of an elevator conversation between my then nine-year-old daughter Melissa and members of the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express after their *JC* at the Philadephia SAA meeting in 1990. I thought I remember hearing their blood was Karo syrup, chocolate syrup, red food coloring, and Pert Plus. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 10:44:49 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0254 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0254. Thursday, 30 March 1995. (1) From: Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 1995 11:38:56 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0251 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (2) From: Michael Friedman Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 1995 19:18:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0251 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (3) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, March 30, 1995 Subj: Early Modern Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 1995 11:38:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0251 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Wes Folkerth recommends Jonathan Dollimore's _Radical Tragedy_ on early modern subjectivity. Dollimore's anti-essentialist reading of the period now seems to be widely accepted as axiomatic. Wes may be interested in a forthcoming article by Tom McAlindon challenging Dollimore's evidence and assumptions ('Cultural Materialism and the Ethics of Reading: or, the Radicalizing of Jacobean Tragedy', _MLR_, 90 (1995), Part IV (October). Dollimore's evidence is also discussed in my own _Elizabethan Mythologies_, Cambridge University Press, 1994 (Introduction, chap 5 and conclusion). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 1995 19:18:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0251 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Bill, Having been honored to be asked by you at the SAA about the concept of subjectivity and not having done a very good job of answering, I'll follow up by pointing you towards Alan Sinfield's chapter entitled "When Is a Character Not a Character? Desdemona, Olivia, Lady Macbeth, and Subjectivity" in his *Faultlines: Cultural Materialism and the Politics of Dissident Reading*. I just finished reading it again and found that it cleared up the issue very effectively for me. Michael Friedman University of Scranton (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, March 30, 1995 Subject: Early Modern Subjectivity Making no claims whatsoever to expertise on this topic, nevertheless, whenever I think of the issue of Early Modern Subjectivity, I recall one of the most interesting cultural exchanges of my life. About twenty years ago, between one of my various incarnations as a graduate student, I had the privilege of tutoring a visiting Japanese scientist in English. She was born in the late thirties, being eight or nine during the American occupation after the war. She was a professor at the University of Tokyo and a leading expert in a particular form of liver cancer endemic to Japan, yet she was thoroughly traditional: I learned that she husband did not address her by her first name and that a "bad" wife leaves tea leaves in the sink drain. However, what struck me the most from our conversations was our completely different notions of personal autonomy -- subjectivity if you will. She was intrigued that I would see a psychiatrist. No, not intrigued -- she apparently had no concept of my need to devote such attention to myself. In turn, I learned about her deep, abiding sense of duty to her family, her society, her group identity. These conversations have made a lifelong impression on me. I learned first hand that my -- and by extention my culture's -- sense of self was only one of many ways of perceiving one's self and one's relations to others. There were alternatives to my childhood images of John Wayne sitting on a split rail fence and smoking a Camel cigarette, my emblem for "western" individualism. The developing of this "western" sense of self constitutes part of my understanding of what is meant by the development Early Modern Subjectivity, the changing, substituting, transforming one concept of self with another. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 10:54:44 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0255 Re: Killing Duncan Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0255. Thursday, 30 March 1995. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 1995 00:29:05 -0500 Subj: Killing Duncan (2) From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 1995 09:17:18 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Killing Duncan (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 1995 00:29:05 -0500 Subject: Killing Duncan Who said anything about a morality play? Don Foster has pitted himself against the "conscience" interpretation, which is fine, but he will have to admit I never mentioned it. I agree! Macbeth's cosmic predicament and his attitude about it comprise a manifest paramount forefront concern of the play. Now let's concentrate on the actual contention: in the richly metaphysical speech that includes and follows the dagger hallucination, isn't it true that Macbeth is working up his courage for the looming event, and isn't it true that he does it by attributing responsibility to anything at hand, in fact the universe itself? How does that fit into a theory that says the universe being responsible is exactly what Macbeth is afraid of? And what do we do with these observations: that he explicitly invokes the cosmos to assist him ("stars hide your fires" "thou sure and firm-set earth hear not my steps" et al); that he eventually abandons his human accomplice in favor of supernatural alliance; and that he believes and hopes his life is charmed until his last seconds onstage? What Foster says (with a nod to Kenneth Burke) is true: >...murder...is a crime that...dares the metaphysical order to assert itself but this dare takes a different (less willful) shape in a man who thinks the metaphysical order is on his side. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 1995 09:17:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Killing Duncan A quick p.s. to my last posting on *Macbeth* (which was a rejoinder to Scott Shepherd): I seem there to imply that Scott's reading of *Macbeth* represents "reductive thinking" (Sorry, Scott!). Those who have read Scott's work know that his work is richly nuanced. It is not Scott's remarks, but a whole tradition of oppositional thinking re: *Macbeth* that I find inadequate to account for Macbeth's layered and conflicted subjectivity. It has been tempting to read the tragedy as a simple morality play in which Lady Macbeth plays the evil angel and Macbeth's Christian conscience the good angel, struggling for his soul. Don Foster ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 13:07:36 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0256 Re: Blacks in London; Clues in the Verse Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0256. Thursday, 30 March 1995. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 1995 08:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Blacks in London (2) From: Frances Helphinstine Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 95 14:48:35 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0246 Re: Reading Clues in the Verse (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 1995 08:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Blacks in London A follow-up to the recent discussion of blacks in London: My Vassar colleague, Gretchen Gerzina, has written a book not to be missed. *Black England* will be published this September in the UK by John Murray Publishers. *Black London* (same book, re-titled) will be published by Rutgers University Press about Feb. 1996, with a paperback edition in '97. For inquiries contact Gretchen Holbrook Gerzina Vassar College, Maildrop 466 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 grgerzina@vaxsar.vassar.edu Don Foster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frances Helphinstine Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 95 14:48:35 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0246 Re: Reading Clues in the Verse 30 Mar. l995 Last Thursday, at the Shakespeare Association of America, in Chicago, at the ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA rehearsal demonstration, the director says that caesura ends speed up the movement to the next statement in contrast to emphatic pause for end of line closure. Fran Helphinstine ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 13:16:24 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0257 Qs: Shakespeare and Company; Polish Question RE: Devil Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0257. Thursday, 30 March 1995. (1) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 95 09:55:13 -0500 Subj: Shakespeare & Co Training (2) From: Pawel Rutkowski Date: Sunday, 26 Mar 1995 23:16:51 +0200 Subj: Devil (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 95 09:55:13 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare & Co Training Dear fellow SHAKSPEReans: I'm going to be a participant in Shakespeare & Company's month-long intensive training program for theater professionals this May-June. Despite the fact that I haven't done any theater work since high school (except a bit of dramaturgy), my statement was persuasive enough to the director of training that he called to talk with me and admitted me on the basis of our conversation. I just wondered if any of you have participated in this program. It's _very_ intense: 6 days a week, 13 hours a day, and covers multiple aspects of text analysis, perfomance (voice, movement, stage combat, dance, etc.), the place of theater in the contemporary world, and on. I'm very excited about going, but would love to hear from anyone who has worked with this group in a training program like this or any of their other programs. Post to me directly (gordo003@maroon.tc.umn.edu) unless you think the information would be of interest to the rest of the list. Many thanks, Chris Gordon University of Minnesota (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pawel Rutkowski Date: Sunday, 26 Mar 1995 23:16:51 +0200 Subject: Devil [SHAKSPEReans, Requests like the one below arrive every now and again. If anyone feels so moved as to respond, please do so directly to Pawel Rutkowski at . --HMC] Dear Dr. Cook, I am currently writing my M.A. thesis on "The Devil's Metamorphosis in English Renaissance Drama". My work is well under way, but I thought that perhaps you might have some interesting comments or suggestions concerning the topic in general or a good choice of reading materials. The thesis is, among other things, concerned with changing attitudes towards the Devil (or rather Satan) himself; from Satan feared to Satan admired and, eventually, ridiculed. I will be grateful for any help you can give. Best regards, Pawel Rutkowski. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 13:25:51 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0258 Re: Virginia Woolf and the Renaissance Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0258. Thursday, 30 March 1995. From: Sally Greene Date: Wednesday, 29 Mar 1995 22:34:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Woolf & Renaissance: Call for Essays *Virginia Woolf: Renaissance Woman* As a follow-up to a special session on Virginia Woolf and the Renaissance at the 1994 Modern Language Association conference, I am editing a collection of essays on Woolf and any aspect of the Renaissance, English or Continental. That all three MLA panelists are primarily Renaissance scholars reflects the fact that Woolf studies have expanded beyond twentieth-century British and American specialization. To complete the collection, I am searching for the best of the new work being done in this emerging area. Send detailed abstracts or completed essays to me by September 15, 1995, together with a brief biography emphasizing relevant work. If you'd like to chat about the project before then, please do so! sally_greene@unc.edu Sally Greene Department of English CB 3520 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599-3520 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 07:03:30 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0259 Re: Stage Blood; Early Modern Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0259. Saturday, 1 April 1995. (1) From: Sarah Cave Date: Thursday, 30 Mar 1995 10:57:45 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0253 Re: Stage Blood (2) From: Jenise Williamson Date: Thursday, 30 Mar 1995 14:20:40 EST Subj: Early Modern Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Cave Date: Thursday, 30 Mar 1995 10:57:45 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0253 Re: Stage Blood As one who has had to hold stage blood in my mouth, I agree with the Karo syrup, red AND blue food coloring idea, but adding a drop of peppermint oil certainly made it more pleasant! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jenise Williamson Date: Thursday, 30 Mar 1995 14:20:40 EST Subject: Early Modern Subjectivity I hope this gets to you all as this is my first response to an conference inquiry. An article published in 1993 entitled "Holy Hatred..." deals with subjectivity of early Modern England as background to a understanding the works of Lady Eleanor Davies Douglas who self-published between 1625 and 1652. This author has become my small corner although I can't remember the author of the article. With the title and some variation of Eleanor's name, anyone could easily locate an exact reference through the MLA bibliography. Basically, the article deals with the struggle of individual versus societal responsibility as depicted in Calvinist writings by men and Lady Eleanor, one of the few women Calvinist writers. She's got a fascinating twist on the writer as persona/narrator and subject for her own texts. Additionally, Eleanor addresses the place of the individual within governmental and religious regulation. Best, Jenise jenise@boe00.minc.umd.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 13:27:34 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0260 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0260. Sunday, 2 April 1995. (1) From: John Drakakis Date: Saturday, 01 Apr 95 14:24:00 GMT Subj: SHK 6.0248 Q: Early Modern Subjectivity (2) From: Milla Riggio Date: Saturday, 01 Apr 1995 08:44:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0259 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 01 Apr 1995 11:46:16 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Saturday, 01 Apr 95 14:24:00 GMT Subject: SHK 6.0248 Q: Early Modern Subjectivity Hard luck Bill, Sounds like you asked the wrong people! When I've slept off my jet lag I'll put you in the picture. Best wishes, John Drakakis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Saturday, 01 Apr 1995 08:44:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0259 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity I believe the article to which Jenise Williamson referred is the following: Megan Matchinske "Holy Hatred: Formations of the Gendered Subject in English Apocalyptic Writing, 1625-1651," ELH 60.2 (summer 1993), 349-378. Best, Milla Riggio (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 01 Apr 1995 11:46:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Constructivism seems to be the name of our game, and I wish to thank all those who responded generously, promptly, and completely. I gather that the position outlined is a strong one, and we are not merely talking about the idea that one cannot transcend one's historical moment. Constructivism, I take it, is cultural determinism. May I ask a few more questions? (1) What is the relationship of constructivism to the Cognitive Revolution? On the surface, constructivism seems Skinnerian. (2) How does constructivism studies like Norman Holland's THE I? Holland, if you will, is an essentialist since he seems to believe that all normally-functioning human brains work in the same way. George Lakoff's WOMEN, FIRE, AND DANGEROUS THINGS is another trans-cultural study that seems to suggest (in passing) that all human cultures create categories in similar ways. (3) Are other mammals subject to cultural construction? (When I ask this question around the department my colleagues look at me as if I've lost it!) But I don't think I'm asking a trivial or frivolous question. By claiming to be culturally constructed, are we claiming that we have transcend the mammalian world (if I may put it that way)? Or are we merely claiming that environment is more important than genes, and that other mammals are also environmentally-constructed? I'm genuinely interested in these questions, and I hope that some of you are too. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 19:58:29 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0261 CFP: Cultural Studies; Medieval Performance Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0261. Monday, 3 April 1995. (1) From: Marko Valo Date: Sunday, 2 Apr 1995 18:38:03 +0300 (EET DST) Subj: Call for Papers (2) From: Louis Scheeder Date: Sunday, 2 Apr 1995 16:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: CALL FOR PAPERS (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marko Valo Date: Sunday, 2 Apr 1995 18:38:03 +0300 (EET DST) Subject: Call for Papers *********************************************************************** CROSSROADS IN CULTURAL STUDIES An International Conference July 1-4, 1996, Tampere, Finland *********************************************************************** FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS Cultural studies is not a one-way street between the centre and peripheries. Rather, it is a crossroads, a meeting point in between different centres, disciplines and intellectual movements. People in many countries and with different backgrounds have worked their way to the crossroads independently. They have made contacts, exchanged views and gained inspiration from each other in pursuing their goals. The vitality of cultural studies depends on a continuous traffic through this crossroads. Therefore the conference organizers invite people with different geographical, disciplinary and theoretical backgrounds together to share their ideas. We encourage international participation from a wide range of research areas. The conference is organized by the Department of Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Tampere, and Network Cultural Studies. The organizing committee represents several universities and disciplines. Organizing committee International advisory board Pertti Alasuutari (chair) Ien Ang (Australia) Marko Valo (secretary) Jostein Gripsrud (Norway) Pirkkoliisa Ahponen Lawrence Grossberg (USA) Katarina Eskola Kim Schroder (Denmark) Pasi Falk Marja-Liisa Honkasalo Eeva Jokinen Mikko Lehtonen Kaisu Rattya Matti Savolainen Annika Suoninen Soile Veijola SPEAKERS WILL INCLUDE: Ien Ang * Pasi Falk * Paul Gilroy * Jostein Gripsrud * Jaber F. Gubrium * Lawrence Grossberg * Eeva Jokinen * Sonia Livingstone * Anssi Perakyla * Kim Schroder * Soile Veijola CALL FOR PAPERS AND COORDINATORS As you will see below, many people have already volunteered to organize sessions on a wide variety of topics, but there is still the opportunity to add to the list. So please complete the preliminary abstract form if you would like to give a paper or offer to organize a session. There will also be a book exhibition, and publishers are requested to contact the organizers. The second announcement and invitation programme, including more information about the conference, its side-events, and a registration form will be available in September. At this stage we assume that the conference fee - including lunch and coffee - will be about 1000 FIM ($210) and hotel accommodation double $70 and single $60 (with breakfast included). The Conference will be held in Tampere Hall that is the largest congress and concert centre in the Scandinavia. Opposite to the University of Tampere, Tampere Hall is within easy walking distance from the centre of the city and its many services. The unique architecture clearly reflects the activities for which the building was built: conferences, exhibitions, concerts and ballet. LIST OF SESSIONS: Anthropology and Cultural Studies: Influences and Differences Body in Society Cultural Studies and Space Cultural Encounters in Mediterranean Cultural Approaches to Education Diaries and Everyday Life Encountering with Otherness in Cultural Border-Crossings Ethnography and Reception: Dilemmas in Qualitative Audience Studies Feminist and Cultural Approaches to Tourism History and Theory of Cultural Studies (Inter)Net Cultures and New Information Technology Life Stories in European Comparative Perspective Media Culture in the Everyday Life of Children and Youth New Genders: The Decay of Heterosexuality Post-Socialism and Cultural Reorganization Risk and Culture Social Theory and Semiotics Study of Institutional Discourse The Culture of Cities The Narrative Construction of Life Stories Voluntary Associations as Cultures Youth Culture _______________________________________________________________ REPLY FORM To make sure you will receive the Invitation Programme and the registation form and to ascertain a speedy decision on your proposed paper, would you kindly return the reply form before August 31, 1995. Name: Organization: Address: Country: Tel: Fax: E-mail: Please send me the Invitation Programme I would like to organize a session on: I would like to present a paper at the session on: Preliminary Abstract (No more than 100 words, please type, or send a separate sheet): _____________________________________________________________ Please complete and return to: Crossroads in Cultural Studies, University of Tampere, Department of Sociology and Social Psychology, P.O. Box 607, FIN-33101, Tampere, Finland; tel: +358 31 2156949, +358 31 368 1848; fax: +358 31 2156 080; e-mail: iscsmail@uta.fi. NOTE: This document is also made available in gopher and WWW (World Wide Web) -systems. You can always find the updated version from the following addresses: * with WWW-browser (for example Lynx, Mosaic, NetScape) use the following URL (Universal Resource Locator): http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/sosio/culture/ * with GOPHER you can execute the following command: gopher -p 1/information_in_english/university/Departments/sosio_sosiopsyk/ culture vuokko.uta.fi 70 or if the command above fails, connect your gopher to address: vuokko.uta.fi 70 and follow the path starting by: "16. Information in English/" (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Scheeder Date: Sunday, 2 Apr 1995 16:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS For those with an interest in Performance and/or The Middle Ages, I post the following: Announcing the sixth annual Columbia Medieval Guild Conference: PERFORMANCE, RITUAL & SPECTACLE IN THE MIDDLE AGES Saturday, October 14, 1995 Philosophy Hall, Columbia University, New York City Keynote Address: DR. MIRI RUBIN, Pembroke College, Oxford Roundtable Moderator: PROF. ROBERT HANNING, Columbia University Performance: The Digby KILLING OF THE CHILDREN *****CALL FOR PAPERS***** This conference will investigate definitions and theories of performance, ritual and spectacle as they have been developed, borrowed and adapted by scholars in all disciplines of medieval studies. It will address if and how these categories are relevant, both singularly and plurally, to the study of medieval texts, art, religious and secular artifacts, and historical documents. Possible topics include: drama, Latin and vernacular lyric traditions, political arenas, narrative and issues of orality, magic and miracles, liturgy and liturgical procession, gladiators and gore, rituals of daily life, torture and punishment, minstrels and troubadours, preaching, religious ceremonies and cermonies of race, class and gender. Please submit a 250-word abstract and a brief biography by June 2, 1995 to: Medieval Guild Dept. of English and Comparative Literature 602 Philosophy Hall Columbia University New York, NY 10027 For further information, please contact Karen Bezella Julie Crosby kjb5@columbia.edu jlc47@columbia.edu (212)663-6077 (212)355-3382 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 20:29:04 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0262 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0262. Monday, 3 April 1995. (1) From: John Drakakis Date: Sunday, 02 Apr 95 20:30:00 BST Subj: SHK 6.0260 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (2) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Sunday, 2 Apr 1995 16:13:05 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0260 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 02 Apr 1995 20:14:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0260 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (4) From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Monday, 3 Apr 1995 10:59:07 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0260 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Sunday, 02 Apr 95 20:30:00 BST Subject: SHK 6.0260 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Dear Bill, Now I've slept off the jet lag... I think you seem to me to be starting from a very curious position in that you want to link subjectivity to the physiological operations of the human brain. Physically human brains may function in the same way no matter what culture we are talking about, but the sticking point here is "culture". Cultures are historically specific and we can't collapse that into universalist categories of the kind that you seem to want to hang on to. The issue with regard to subjectivity concerns two related questions (a) human agency acting upon the world, adopting a position of autonomy in relation to what it acts upon. You can see how this harmonizes with the notion of "individualism", but you can also see, I'm sure how it also separates thought from substance. (b) subjection: as in to be subject to another. You might like to take a look at Althusser's essay on Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses to see how this latter process operates. I think also that you are rushing to impose a crude determinism on the whole process (what I take you to mean when you talk about "constructivism"). The term you really want is "overdetermination" and that addresses a convergence of forces operating upon a given historically constituted human subject at any one conjuncture. The alternative to the liberal position that you want to sustain is NOT NECESSARILY a crude determinism in which human beings don't make choices. The position is even more complicated since Saussure, since from that point onwards we need to take account of the constitutive function of language. That is, we ned to look much more closely at precisely HOW the "subject" is addressed in language. The work of Benveniste: Problems in General Linguistics is what you need to look at here. And to complicate the matter even further, the long debate within Marxism about the historic role of class identity needs to be taken into account. Here the best book I've read recently to address these issues is Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's Towards a Radical Socialist Hegemony (1985). Basically we are taking about the construction of historically specific notions of identity where the qustion of identity is deeply imbricated in networks of political power. It is not simply a question of autonomous subjects working on the material of the world (the historical realium, as Valentine Cunningham puts it in his recent book The Reading Gaol). Or as Marx puts it: human beings make history but they do not do so in conditions of their own making. It is that interaction between the two that is the space where subjectivity is constructed. What I think you seem to be talking about is "character". The two are not the same thing. Best wishes, John Drakakis PS Bill, Animals CAN'T be culturally constructed because they have no CULTURE. If you say they do, thn you are simply humanizing them. Culture is much more complex than your reductive term "environment" would suggest. I can see how when you get to this poiunt you reach for your Skinner. Environment may be a necessary part of the definition of culture, but it is by no means sufficient. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Sunday, 2 Apr 1995 16:13:05 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0260 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity >(3) Are other mammals subject to cultural construction? (When I ask this >question around the department my colleagues look at me as if I've lost it!) >But I don't think I'm asking a trivial or frivolous question. By claiming to be >culturally constructed, are we claiming that we have transcend the mammalian >world (if I may put it that way)? Or are we merely claiming that environment is >more important than genes, and that other mammals are also >environmentally-constructed? I am no specialist in animal beghaviour, but I did see a tv show recently on language acquistion in orangetans. The scientists have been teaching them how to use sign language for years, and apparently they become unruly after (during?) adolescence (around 2 or 3 yrs) and so the scientists stop working with them. When the adults then have children and teach the children sign-language, it seems to be that they are very strongly affected by their environment and changing their "culture". BTW... The program then went on to ask the question, since orangetans have the intelligence of a 3 or 4 yr old, and seem to be developping the ability to talk, what really was the "cultural" difference between humans, especially mentally handicapped humans, and these "apes". What must happen before they deserve "human rights?" Eric Armstrong (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 02 Apr 1995 20:14:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0260 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity My second question should read something like this: (2) How does constructivism relate to (or respond to) studies like Norman Holland's THE I? Holland, if you will, is an essentialist since he seems to believe that all normally-functioning human brains work in the same way. George Lakoff's WOMEN, FIRE, AND DANGEROUS THINGS is another trans-cultural study that seems to suggest (in passing) that all human cultures create categories in similar ways. Apparently I dropped out a few words in revision! Sorry. I look forward to John Drakakis's description of early modern subjectivity. Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Monday, 3 Apr 1995 10:59:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0260 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Bill Godshalk asks, > (3) Are other mammals subject to cultural construction? Anyone who has ever raised a dog knows the answer to this one. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 20:34:58 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0263 Stage Blood; *Othello*s on BRAVO Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0263. Monday, 3 April 1995. (1) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Saturday, 1 Apr 1995 19:12:06 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0259 Re: Stage Blood (2) From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Monday, 3 Apr 1995 15:17:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Othello showings (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Saturday, 1 Apr 1995 19:12:06 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0259 Re: Stage Blood >As one who has had to hold stage blood in my mouth, I agree with the Karo >syrup, red AND blue food coloring idea, but adding a drop of peppermint oil >certainly made it more pleasant! I came into this just now - the first message I have ever got -so I may have missed something this late in the game - but is Karo a brand name for Corn Syrup? This is what is used in Canada - or so I was taught in my makeup for Stage Combat class. You may be able to get some "lube gel" (y'know, for safe sex...) that is EDIBLE these days. I imagine it would be less sweet than syrup (which might be a good thing), though it probably won't drip as well. After all we do need to SEE the stuff. I knew people who used CloseUp toothpaste externally, but that would foam in your mouth - and it smells like cinnamon, which the audience picks up on. Finally, some people find that the food colour in the blood stains their skin (not to mention those great white cozzies). Nothing worse than going home after lying in a pool of blood with the left side of your face all red. Solution: a solvent sold to get hair dye off the forehead of hairdressing clients. Call a hair salon or supplier for info. Gothically, Eric Armstrong voxpro@interlog.com (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Monday, 3 Apr 1995 15:17:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Othello showings The TV network BRAVO will be showing Olivier's and Welles's *Othello*s. In my area of the country, the Olivier *Othello* will be shown on Saturday, April 8, 1995, at 9:35 PM and Sunday, April 9, 1995 at 2:35 AM; Welles's *Othello* will be shown on Saturday, April 8, 1995 at 8 PM, and again on Sunday, April 9, 1995 at 1 AM. Since the Olivier *Othello* is (as far as I know) not available, this might be a double-feature you'll want to tape. Cheers, Doug Lanier dml3@christa.unh.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 11:52:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0265 Qs: Fools; Sh Texts for TACT; Welsh for 1H4; *Lr.* Ending Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0265. Wednesday, 5 April 1995. (1) From: Todd Davis Date: Monday, 3 Apr 1995 18:13:07 +0800 (PST) Subj: Fools (2) From: Robert Burke Date: Tuesday, 04 Apr 1995 13:20:32 -0500 (CDT) Subj: TACT (3) From: Peter John Still Date: Tuesday, 4 Apr 95 15:16:28 CST Subj: Welsh for 1 Henry IV (4) From: James J. Hill, Jr. Date: Tuesday, 04 Apr 1995 19:09:40 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ending of *Lear* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Todd Davis Date: Monday, 3 Apr 1995 18:13:07 +0800 (PST) Subject: Fools Hi Everyone: My name is Todd Davis and I'm new to this list. I'm currently a student at California State University Northridge, and I'm studying Shakespeare under the direction of Dr. Suzanne Collier. I have received the previous messages, and I'm thrilled to be a part of this conference. I'm currently working on a project for my class entitled "The Wit and Wisdom of Fools". I have four texts currently: *Shakespearean Subversions: The trickster and the play-text* by Richard Hillman, *Shakespeare's Wit and Humour* by William Lawson, *Wise Fools in Shakespeare* by Robert Hillis Goldsmith, and *Shakespeare's Motley* by Leslie Hotson. If anyone has any other sources that I should try and acquire, please let me know. Thank you! Todd (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Burke Date: Tuesday, 04 Apr 1995 13:20:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: TACT Would anyone there be able to furnish me with a list of Shakespeare plays on TACT? I received the _Hamlet_ several years ago, and would like to try more now. Thank you. Please send an responses directly to me, Robert Burke at Burke@vax1.rockhurst.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter John Still Date: Tuesday, 4 Apr 95 15:16:28 CST Subject: Welsh for 1 Henry IV Um - I'm almost embarrassed to ask - but does anyone out there in SHAKSPER land have Welsh written for III.i of 1 Henry IV? Just written words would be great - I do have a very basic grasp of the language - but with translation and tape would be even better! I'm also pursuing this though some Welsh contacts of my own, but it's not the most tactful request an Englishman can make of a Welsh nationalist. Many thanks for any help anyone might have - PeterJohn Still (various theaters, including the Idaho Shakespeare Festival, CTC in Minneapolis, the Guthrie (occasionally!), the Yvonne Arnaud in Guildford.) (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James J. Hill, Jr. Date: Tuesday, 04 Apr 1995 19:09:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ending of *Lear* A recent class discussion surprised me when some of students asserted that Albany had abdicated when he said to Kent & Edgar: "Friends of my soul, you twain,/Rule in the realm, and the gored state sustain." Kent replies "I have a journey, sir, shortly to go./My master calls me, I must not say no." Edgar gives a more generalized statement that recognizes the "weight of this sad time." Neither seems even to consider that Albany is giving up the throne. I have always assumed that Albany was merely telling them to direct the closure of the military/political matters following the battle between the French and the English, while he took care of the many funerals of the noble dead: "Our present business/Is general woe." I can not imagine that Shakespeare would end the tragedy caused by the division of the kingdom with yet another [intended] division of the kingdom! Is it King Edgar or King Albany? [Certainly Cordelia's husband--King of France--is not a factor to be considered.] J.J.Hill ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 10:59:23 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0264 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0264. Wednesday, 5 April 1995. (1) From: Janis Lull Date: Monday, 03 Apr 1995 17:30:24 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0260 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (2) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 3 Apr 95 23:17:26 EST Subj: [Early Modern Subjectivity] (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 04 Apr 1995 18:31:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Early Modern Subjectivity (4) From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 1995 10:37:37 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0262 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Janis Lull Date: Monday, 03 Apr 1995 17:30:24 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0260 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Bill Godshalk asks, "What is the relationship of constructivism to the Cognitive Revolution? On the surface, constructivism seems Skinnerian." "By claiming to be culturally constructed, are we claiming that we have transcend the mammalian world (if I may put it that way)? Or are we merely claiming that environment is more important than genes, and that other mammals are also environmentally-constructed?" The latter is what Skinner explicitly did claim. He was not concerned to divide humans from animals in any fundamental way. I have always suspected this as the root of the animosity Skinner aroused in Chomsky and other "humanists." As I understand it, constructivism is precisely--or rather imprecisely--Skinnerian, and could benefit from some of the technical distinctions Skinner and the behaviorists developed. Insofar as it is about milieu and moment, constructivism, like behaviorism, has no relation at all to the Cognitive Revolution. This is not to say that either ism necessarily excludes ideas about the inner hardware, genetics, or as Taine would have called it, "race," but only that they are not about these things. They are about the interaction between organism and environment. Janis Lull (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 3 Apr 95 23:17:26 EST Subject: [Early Modern Subjectivity] Bill Godshalk wonders whether "other mammals are subject to cultural construction." It's certainly true for dogs. At the level of species and variety, human beings, one at a time or in groups, have genetically selected individual animals for useful and/or desirable characteristics--hence poodles, Newfoundlands, chihuahuas, etc. (see Steven Jay Gould's essay on neoteny). At the level of individuals or small groups, humans train particular animals in particular patterns of behavior--to heel, stay, fetch, keep those sheep in a nice tight group, sit on that hillside and watch for predators, urinate or defecate outdoors rather than in the house. To a considerable degree, the training involves assigning the animal to a particular place in a pack that involves humans as well as dogs. It is instructive to watch the adjustments that occur when the pack changes, as I have done this past year when two additional adults, two small children, and two other large dogs got added to a pack that had consisted of my wife, our 7-year old yellow Lab, our two cats, and me. In the present context the systematic or casual human intervention required to sort things into a workable new order--to persuade the incoming Rottweiler, for instance, that the local cats, at least, are not agents of the devil, and to persuade our dog Bert, who had always spent most of the dinner hour under the dining room table, that because there is n room for three big dogs under there no dogs are allowed to be under there--were noteworthy. But so were the things the animals did among themselves, to insure that nowadays it is the visiting golden retriever, the largest and strongest of the three, who mostly sleeps in the cozy spot under my desk. I'm sure treatments of other social mammals--primates, seals, hyenas--will describe similar interactions. I am not so sure about whether the changes that have gone on in the dogs constitute a change in subjectivity--whether, for instance, when the interlopers lope out again in a few months Bert's sense of his place in the scheme of things will have changed permanently, or return rapidly and completely to the old one, assuming that we humans resume the old ways of doing things. It seems to be the case that the sentences Bert knows how to produce are pretty much the same ones as before: "I [Bert? this dog? dogs? beings similar to this one under similar circumstances?] need to go out"; "I want my dinner"; "Get away from our house, stranger." The narrow relevance of this for Shakespeare studies seems to me most apparent when we consider those moments in the plays when, so to speak, the nature of the pack changes. At the end of Act 4 of _Mer_ Shylock is caused to construct a kind of sentence such as we have not heard him utter previously, a sentence that he would not previously utter because do to so would be to misrepresent his state: "I am content"--discontent having been, it seems to me, one of the dominant elements in the construction of this dramatic personage. We can note that when Rosalind reappears in woman's weeds at the end of _AYL_ she stops constructing sentences at all. (Even as I write I remember with some confusion the imagery of dogs and other animals so prominent in both these plays--see esp. _Mer_ 1.3.106 ff.) The issue more generally, however, is about the subjectivity of whole cultures--whole varieties of dogs, if you will, not (so far as we know) as controlled by some more powerful species, but as internally modulated by complex social and linguistic changes--in a way, whether Shakespeare was able to construct the apparent change in the subjectivity of Shylock because his own was differently constructed than that of, say, Chaucer. I'm sure others out there can talk about that better than I. Doggedly, Dave Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 04 Apr 1995 18:31:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Early Modern Subjectivity Actually, I'm not talking about character. I'm interested in the human brain and its limited capabilities. It seems to me that the talk about "culture" without understanding something about how the human brain functions in terms of learning and categorization, is to fantasize. Althusser's essay on ideology and ISAs is an example of baseless speculation. Is there one fact in that essay? Have yopu been "hailed" by ideology lately? No, Althusser appeals to our fantasy and our paranoia. One might compare Jules Henry's CULTURE AGAINST MAN (NY: Random House, 1963) which proclaims that "the noise is the message." I gather that the relationship of subjectivity to the Cognitive Revolution is that there is no relationship. Noam Chomsky is bypassed for Saussure, and George Lakoff, Steven Pinker, et al., are of no account. Norman Holland's account of human learning has apparently no relevance to cultural hegemony. How do historically specific notions of identity come about? What is the agency? Is culture an independent agent? Should Kultur be seen as the driving force behind history? (Does anyone have a snapshot of Kultur so I can recognize her the next time she's here?) "Animals CAN'T be culturally constructed because they have no CULTURE." What an uncivil thing to say about ourselves! But the fat is in the fire. KULTUR has helped us to transcend the animal world. Homo sapiens is NOT an animal. As Brigid O'Shaughnessy says, "How perfectly fascinating." But both Eric Armstrong and Phyllis Rackin seem to disagree with John Drakakis's position on animals. My students sometimes ask me where they can buy a copy of THE WESTERN CANON. I'd like to buy a definition of culture. One of my colleagues told me with a straight face: "Where two or three humans are, there is Culture." Hmmmm. Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------F rom: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 1995 10:37:37 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0262 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 1995 10:37:37 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0262 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Phyllis Rackin notes, > Bill Godshalk asks, > > > (3) Are other mammals subject to cultural construction? > > Anyone who has ever raised a dog knows the answer to this one. Here! Here! - Humans have the ability to historically record their omissions and errors while animals don't have that capability - yet, I have met many sensitive, intelligent and sympathetic dogs. Of course, if animals are studied at all, one can see a culturality and heirarchy to their system of behavior. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 13:44:49 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0266 Re: *Othello*s on BRAVO Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0266. Wednesday, 5 April 1995. (1) From: Jim Swan Date: Monday, 03 Apr 1995 22:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0263 *Othello*s on BRAVO (2) From: Mike Young Date: Tuesday, 04 Apr 1995 09:39:40 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0263 Othellos on BRAVO (3) From: Robert Knapp Date: Tuesday, 04 Apr 95 12:30:31 PDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0263 *Othello*s on BRAVO (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Swan Date: Monday, 03 Apr 1995 22:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0263 *Othello*s on BRAVO I would really like to see the two _Othello_ films but, unhappily, my local cable system doesn't offer BRAVO. (I've tried, but they're not interested--not yet.) I would appreciate hearing privately from any member of SHAKSPER who might be able to help me to see the films. Thanks. Jim Swan SUNY/Buffalo projim@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Young Date: Tuesday, 04 Apr 1995 09:39:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0263 Othellos on BRAVO Thanks to Douglas Lanier for word on the _Othellos_ on BRAVO. With April 23rd coming up, does anyone have any listing of other BRAVO Shakespeares? It's on our cable system but not in any of the TV listings. Thanks, Michael Young (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Knapp Date: Tuesday, 04 Apr 95 12:30:31 PDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0263 *Othello*s on BRAVO For what it's worth, the Olivier Othello can be obtained (at least our library has it) from British Home Entertainment video, but only in PAL format, which requires a special machine. Robert Knapp ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 12:18:12 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0267. Thursday, 6 April 1995. (1) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 1995 14:45:50 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0260 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (2) From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 06 Apr 95 00:44:00 BST Subj: SHK 6.0264 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (3) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 06 Apr 1995 08:38:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Early Modern Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 1995 14:45:50 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0260 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity We seem to have several related words for discussing "mental functioning in relation to the world" and the distinctions between them are not always entirely clear: consciousness, mentalite (Fr.), subjectivity, habitus, character come to mind straight off. Each of these seems to me to have a different nuance, and also to produce rather different accounts of the past when used as a tool to open it up. Some of the differences can perhaps be pointed up by asking questions like: "Is color vision an aspect of consciousness? (I would say yes); of mentalite? (perhaps not); of subjectivity? (I would say no). Current uses of "subjectivity" seem to want to be about the network of characteristic assumptions, habits, emotions, attitudes and expectations, both conscious and unconscious, that human beings, in particular as members of social groups, exhibit. At some level, such an account does, it seems to me, overlap with the Skinnerian -- perhaps at the level of "emotional training" (see for instance Dorothy Allison's remarkable short essay "A Question of Class"; Phyllis Rackin's response about raising dogs seems to fit here). Insofar as "subjectivity" fires up its internal pun on "subjects", it wants to be about the way minds are more or less trained to think and work in certain ways rather than others, politically trained. Yet cultures are very complex things, and they always offer more opportunities for making connections than are properly licensed at any one time (see "The Cheese and the Worms -- did the miller have an "early modern subjectivity"? in what sense?). A problem for me arises in relation to reading complex figurative texts like plays, where critics or historians start making general claims for "early modern subjectivity" as if such a thing actually existed. I've gotten used to seeing announcements about shifts in this nebulous category and I've found they often evaporate under pressure. Often the claims are supported through a kind of Tillyardism of representative texts purporting to exhibit in some clear form the thing itself, against which some more complex text can then be measured. But if subjectivity means anything useful, it needs to be specified quite closely as the property only ever of particular persons, in particular niches, with particular habits, beliefs, desires, etc. Some of these are shared and some not. (Here the notion seems to overlap with "character", esp if we bear in mind the etymology of "impressure" in the latter). Pierre Bourdieu's concept of "habitus" (I assume taken over from Aquinas) has been useful to me here, as it insists on the variability within a "field" of the ways individuals may jump as they pays their monies and makes their choices. And for some those choices are more limited than for others. Plays (not alone) seem to me often to be about pushing "the limits of language" (and hence of "mind") and thus extending the possibilities of "subjectivity" among the subjects who attend them. Passing thoughts. Thanks for raising the question Bill. Tom Bishop Case Western Reserve University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 06 Apr 95 00:44:00 BST Subject: SHK 6.0264 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Ah, now we have it... Godshalk is REALLY interested in biologism, and I suppose his argument would be that humans are just a little further along the line of development than animals....and that some humans are further along that line than other humans, and that in this Darwinian universe those with the biggest guns win. I suppose also that without any theoretical tools to examine this allegedly "scientific" data, or the details of actual experience, that's all that there is to say. We can discuss whether dogs have culture till we're blue in the face, but I doubt whether we'll ever get the dog lovers to agree that they are projecting their own "human" meanings onto the behaviour of animals. Unlike humans animals do not reproduce the conditions of their own relations of production; it is THIS that produces "culture" (Maybe Godshalk should add Raymond Williams's Culture and Society to his reading list). It's within culture that "subject positions" are taken up. The reason why Godshalk will never be "hailed" by ideology is because ideology is able to disguise its workings...."the imaginary way in which human beings live real relations". This has nothing to do with either fantasy or paranoia. It has a lot to do with the ways in which, under determinate conditions, certain social relations are produced and reproduced. In fact, if Godshalk thinks that the operations of any social formation, and of one based on capital in particular, are transparent, then he is the fantasist. He also knows more about paranoia than I do. Now if he's SERIOUSLY interested in "subjectivity", as he claims to be, then he might like to try to offer us what he perceives to be a workable distinction between "subjectivity" and the category of "character", without retreating into a crass biologism. So long as he persists in the childishly negative practice of insisting what these categories are not, and stamping his feet when we don't give him what he perceives to be the "right" answer, then he's simply inviting us all to be adjuncts to his own power trip. Or, perhaps it's because he can't reduce the problem to an -ism, and so can't pigeon-hole it, that has him worried. Tell us Bill! Enquiring minds want to know. Cheers John Drakakis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 06 Apr 1995 08:38:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Early Modern Subjectivity Behind our discussion of subjectivity is, I think, the question: how alien from me or you is any given early modern person? You will excuse me, of course, if I do not refer to people as "subjects." If, as Stephen Jay Gould points out, our species has not evolved significantly in many millenia (I can't remember how many millenia), then it would seem to me that an early modern person and a contemporary person would react similarly to the same external stimulus. In other words, we have a firm biological basis for understanding people from the recent past. And in terms of evolution, four hundred years is very recent. My point is that recent attempts to describe early modern people (including Shakespeare) as "other," different, and alien may be misguided. For example, we may understand early modern reactions to the Henrician despotism in terms of reactions to 20th century despotisms, "show trials," "confessions," and all. Dave Evett doggedly refers to "the subjectivity of whole cultures." Does this reference mean that the early modern period had a unified "subjectivity"? Can a "culture" have a "subjectivity"? If so, perhaps we need to go back and redefine "subjectivity." From the earlier definitions given by Michael Prince, Daniel Pigg, and Wes Folkerth (SHK 6.0251), I assume that subjectivity can be experienced only by an individual. Do we all really share a subjectivity? Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 12:33:10 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0268 Re: Ending of *Lear* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0268. Thursday, 6 April 1995. (1) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 95 16:30:37 -0500 Subj: Ending of *Lear* (2) From: John Owen Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 1995 15:52:44 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0265 Q: *Lr.* Ending (3) From: Cliff Ronan Date: Wednesday, 05 Apr 1995 17:09:41 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0265 Q: *Lr.* Ending (4) From: Diane Mountford Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 1995 20:23:44 -0400 Subj: Re: *Lr.* Ending (5) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 1995 11:05:45 +0059 (EDT) Subj: Re: *Lr.* Ending (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 95 16:30:37 -0500 Subject: Ending of *Lear* I always thought that no one at the end of *Lear* was really ready to pick up and move on. I do think, however, that Albany is abdicating and that Kent is saying I'm not going to be alive much longer, so I pass. Edgar's statement is more general, but implicit in what he says (to my mind, at least) is the recognition that as one of the "young," it is his obligation to take on the kingship. His experiences as poor Tom, with Lear and with his father, have been the necessary preparation for that role, as has--in another role--his defeat of Edmund in one-on-one combat and their susequent reconciliation. I'd be delighted to hear other perspectives. Chris Gordon (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 1995 15:52:44 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0265 Q: *Lr.* Ending Regarding the end of Lear, I had always assumed that Albany WAS in fact offering the split crown to Kent and Edgar. Why assume otherwise? That is what he says, and there seems to be no strings attached. Besides, recall that Albany is ineffectual, almost feeble-minded, during most of the play. He might well doubt his own ability to govern properly. I certainly do. Kent's reply is a direct answer -- "No, I am dying". Edgar's reply is not so much general as it is indirect. He seems to be saying that the area littered with corpses is not a fitting place for the discussion of who will succeed to the throne. There can be no doubt that Edgar is in real control, like Octavian at the end of JC, and that it is he, and not Duke Dimwit, who will reign. BTW Edgar, by defeating Edmund single-handedly, has redeemed his own sagging reputation. John Owen (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cliff Ronan Date: Wednesday, 05 Apr 1995 17:09:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0265 Q: *Lr.* Ending Dear James Hill, I think the conventional wisdom is that King Edgar (a name with a finely English Anglo-SAXON ring) will now reign, but for a few seconds there has indeed been a sovereign status for the Duke of Albany and the Earl of Kent. The issue of divided rule, with which the play starts does indeed appear to be coming back into the play at the end. So too of course does the issue of whether one should speak one's heart and mind, as Cordelia did at the start and Edgar now says he will at the end. Perhaps the point of these supposed examples of how `no one seems to have learned anything!' is that the new situation differs from the old in being suffused with true good will. That supposes that we should note an element of angry pride in Cordelia's initial truth-telling, just as we see an element of wilful ignorance in Lear's questionable generosity in awarding Cornwall and wife a third of the kingdom, and vicious Regan another third. Actually the thought of sovereignty for Albany may have surprised fewer in the original audience than in today's. For one meaning of Albany seems to have been "Scotland," whose king had obviously just acceded to the English throne and was trying to redefine it as the British throne. Cliff Ronan, Southwest Texas SU (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diane Mountford Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 1995 20:23:44 -0400 Subject: Re: *Lr.* Ending I vote for King Edgar. I've always thought that Albany indeed abdicates, then Kent abdicates, leaving Edgar. A little game of 'hot potato' with the English crown? Cheers Diane Mountford (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 1995 11:05:45 +0059 (EDT) Subject: Re: *Lr.* Ending I always assumed Albany was looking for someone to rule the whole kingdom: he tried to give it back to Lear, but Lear wouldn't pay attention. It seems to me the point is that when you break something you can't always glue it back together again. Albany has no real right to the throne, since his contact with it is through marriage. Kent has no further interest in political life, and Edgar (whose only claim is that he's Lear's godson) expresses no interest in anything but mourning. So yes, Shakespeare did create a play in which order is not reestablished, and no rightful claimant appears. If you see Albany as perpetuating Lear's error of dividing the kingdom by passing on the divisions to Kent and Edgar, I see no problem with that. But the final fact seems to be that no one wants to pick up the pieces. Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 15:12:08 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0269 Qs: Child Parts; Sh in Bush; *King John*; Directing Sh Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0269. Thursday, 6 April 1995. (1) From: Gabriella C. Marino Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 95 23:40:54 GMT Subj: Child actors (2) From: John Mills Date: Wednesday, 05 Apr 1995 14:53:48 -0700 (MST) Subj: [Shakespeare in the Bush] (3) From: Ray Allen Date: Wednesday, 05 Apr 1995 18:44:00 -0600 (CST) Subj: Arthur's Blinding in *King John* (4) From: Lurana OMalley Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 1995 06:38:41 -1000 Subj: Directing Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriella C. Marino Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 95 23:40:54 GMT Subject: Child actors Hello all, I'm a student at the second university of Rome and I'm currently studying Winter's Tale and The Tempest. My question is this: who played the children's parts in Shakespeare's plays? My professor doesn't know. This question came to my mind reading Mamillius' part in Act II Scene I which would be grotesque, IMHO, if spoken by an adult dressed up as a seven-year-old. Also, how did the actors manage to dress up as women who then disguised themselves as men? Did they wear a man's disguise on top of their disguise as a woman? Thank you very much for your help, Gabriella C. Marino Seconda Universita' di Roma, Tor Vergata Rome, Italy ga.marino@agora.stm.it (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mills Date: Wednesday, 05 Apr 1995 14:53:48 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Shakespeare in the Bush] [Editor's Note: We have discussed this essay in the past and at this point I I would normally recommend the Database Function. However, because of disk space problem and because the move to Bowie State has not yet happened, we only have access to this year's logs and not those of the first five years. Soon everything will be available, but in the meantime this question goes out to everyone. --HMC] A student has asked me to help him track down something called "Shakespeare in the Bush." To the best of his recollection it is an account, possibly fictional, possibly factual of responses to *Hamlet* by a group of African bushmen. I remember such a title from many years ago, early 60s perhaps, and remember it as a factual account of an adaptation/production of the play, in Swahili, by African students with tribal backgrounds. But I have no idea where I saw it. I would appreciate any information anyone might have on such a topic, by that title or another.--John Mills, English, Univ. of Arizona. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ray Allen Date: Wednesday, 05 Apr 1995 18:44:00 -0600 (CST) Subject: Arthur's Blinding in *King John* I just finished reading King John, and, despite it's being criticized for being uneven and poorly ended, I enjoyed it for the verse and prose while trying to ignore the storyline. In act III John persuades Hubert to kill Arthur, the true heir to the throne of England. In Act IV, it turns out that John wants Arthur blinded with hot irons before being killed. Why? Up to this point in the story, John hasn't evinced any particular hatred for Arthur. I understand, of course, that John wants no rivals for the throne fomenting rebellion in the land or whipping France into sanctimonious frenzy--but blinding? Is this another flaw? Was it some sort of tradition? Did I miss a line somewhere? Your comments, answers, speculations will be appreciated. Ray Allen (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lurana OMalley Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 1995 06:38:41 -1000 Subject: Directing Shakespeare Directing Teachers and others: I am currently putting together a theatre course in directing that deals with directing period ("classic") plays as well as non-realistic drama of the 20th century. The course is an intermediate directing course which will take the students beyond the proscenium realism of our department's Beginning Directing course. One section of the course will deal specificlly with strategies for directing Shakespeare. Does anyone on the list have pedagogical resource material to suggest on this topic? I am looking for textbooks in particular but am also interested in articles, or videos, or other resources. Please post any ideas to the list or to my e-mail below. Many thanks, Lurana Donnels O'Malley Assistant Professor Department of Theatre and Dance 1770 East-West Road University of Hawai'i at Manoa Honolulu, HI 96822 Tel# 808-956-9609 FAX# 808-956-4234 omalley@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 16:08:48 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0270 Re: Sh on TACT; Sh on BRAVO; 1H4 Welsh Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0270. Thursday, 6 April 1995. (1) From: Ian Lancashire Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 1995 10:24:04 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakespeare for TACT (2) From: Patricia Gallagher Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 1995 23:36:10 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Shakespeare on BRAVO (3) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 1995 18:36:18 -0500 (CDT) Subj: 1H4 Welsh (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Lancashire Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 1995 10:24:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare for TACT The Oxford University Press electronic Shakespeare, encoded with COCOA markup, will run with TACT. Just identify the COCOA tags when you run Makebase on each play. All folio and many quarto texts prepared by Trevor Howard-Hill for his series of individual Shakespeare concordances in the late 60s can also be converted into TACT databases. TACT is available freely by Gopher at gopher.epas.utoronto.ca and on the World Wide Web at URL http://www.cch.epas.utoronto.ca:8080/cch/tact.html Version 2.1.4 will be released at the end of this month at this site. The Renaissance Electronic Texts edition of Sonnets by Hardy Cook and myself nears publication. For COCOA encoding guidelines with TACT, see the RET Web site at http:/library.utoronto.ca/www/utel/ret/ret.html The MLA TACT manual is in the last stages of copyediting and will be released with a large number of TACT-encoded texts, including some by Shakespeare. TACT can make a textual database of any ASCII text and its tags. To do so, remove the default declaration of angle brackets as tag delimiters when you run Makebase on a file. Ian Lancashire Dept. of English, New College Director, Centre for Computing in the Humanities Univ. of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. M5S 1A1, CANADA E-mail: ian @ epas.utoronto.ca (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia Gallagher Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 1995 23:36:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Shakespeare on BRAVO For those interested in the Shakespeare films airing on BRAVO this month, here is a list of dates: Henry V (1945) [Olivier] - 4/15, 26, 27 Henry V (1989) [Branagh] - 4/15, 23 Macbeth (1948) [Welles] - 4/9, 10, 23, 24 Macbeth (1971) [Polanski] - 4/23 Othello (1965) [Olivier] - 4/8, 29 Othello (1966) [Welles] - 4/8, 23, 24, 27 If anyone needs more specific information, please feel free to email me directly. Patricia Gallagher pgallagh@life.jsc.nasa.gov (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 1995 18:36:18 -0500 (CDT) Subject: 1H4 Welsh Peter John Still asks for the Welsh from 1H4, 3.1. Here it is (with elipses to save space) MORTIMER: Good father; tell her that she and my aunt Percy Shall follow in your conduct speedily. GLENDOWER: Na wyla, fy mhlant i. Ddof gyda thi, pan ddychwela'r Boneddiges Perci. [trans: Weep not my child. I'll speedily conduct you when with my Lady Percy, I go thither.] LADY MORT.: Ni arhosaf i, ar-ol fynediad f'annwylaf Arglwydd. [trans: I will not stay behind my beloved lord.] GLENDOWER: She's desp'rate here, a peevish self-will'd harlotry, One that no persuasion can do good upon. LADY MORT.: [to Mortimer] Cariad; oes rhaid i mi aros yma? [trans: Why must my lord leave me behind, forlorn?] MORTIMER: ...In such a parley would I answer thee. LADY MORT.: Doed a ddelo; mi a ddof gyda thi. [trans: I will come with thee. Do not deny me!] MORTIMER: ... GLENDOWER: Nay, if you melt, then will she run mad. LADY MORT.: F'arglwydd. Gorwedd dy ben ar fy gliniau, yma ar y llawr; a ganaf wrthyt dy hoff-gan ac wedyn rhodiwn ni yn araf i mewn trwy'r ddrysau cwsg. [trans: If my lord will upon the rushes lie And lay his noble head upon my lap, I'll sing the song I know he loves to hear And on his eyelids crown the god of sleep.] MORTIMER: ... GLENDOWER: ... MORTIMER: ... GLENDOWER: ... HOTSPUR: ... LADY HOTSPUR: Go, ye giddy goose. GLENDOWER: O ysbrydion. Chwi syn hedfan mewn cerbyd y cymylau, Deuwch mewn brys o'ch trigfannau nefol A chenwch yn swynus cerddoriaeth hedd. [trans: O, ye spirits that ride uupon the bosom of the clouds, Come from your airy mansions in all haste And charm our ears with music passing sweet.] _________ This is thanks to my favorite Welshman, David Jones, Univ. of Utah. I used it in my last production of 1H4 and I promise you it is worth the trouble to learn to speak these lines. They make the scene pure magic. I have a tape of the lines spoken by an authentic Welsh speaker. It is in the old reel-to-reel format. I'll see if it is still usable and try to get it transferred to cassette so that I might make copies for those of you who need them. Share the rare goodies. I also have a version of the song with melody, the Welsh lyric, and a translation. I'll send a photocopy to anyone who requests it by direct e-mail. It is called "Dafyddy Garreg Wen" It works wonderfully. Roger Gross Univ. of Arkansas PS Sorry I've been so long without an answer to Michael Swanson re. iambic pentameter and without the list of most often mispronounced names. I have had trouble figuring out how to reduce the answer to a size appropriate for this forum. One tidbit in hopes of keeping interest alive: GLENDOWER is a two-syllable name (GLEN-dar) except for the four times when it appears as the last word in a verse line (an example of my "last-word variation") in which cases it is a three-syllable name (glen-DOW-er). OWER is normally a one-syllable unit (as in FLOWER=FLAR; POWER=PAR; TOWER-TAR). There are exceptions. When Shakespeare needs an extra syllable for rhythm, he uses them. Audiences never consciously note it but they do respond to the rhythm. Roger ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 11:38:14 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0271 Re: Ending of *King Lear* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0271. Friday, 7 April 1995. (1) From: Tad Davis Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 1995 15:01:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0268 Re: Ending of *Lear* (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 00:39:55 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0265 *Lr.* Ending (3) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Friday, 7 Apr 95 09:25:01 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0268 Re: Ending of *Lear* (4) From: John Boni Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 08:30:06 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0268 Re: Ending of *Lear* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 1995 15:01:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0268 Re: Ending of *Lear* Is there a possibility that Edgar, when he says, "The weight of this sad time we must obey," is using the royal "we"? Tad Davis (davist@umis.upenn.edu) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 00:39:55 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0265 *Lr.* Ending > Is it King >Edgar or King Albany? [Certainly Cordelia's husband--King of France--is not a >factor to be considered.] J.J.Hill Doesn't it depend on who you give the last line to? Shakespeare appears to have changed his mind when revising the play and, presumably thinking along similar lines to J J Hill and his students, gave the last lines to Edgar to make him more clearly the successor, rather than Albany who had the last lines in earlier version. The role of Albany overall is reduced in the later version. I am, of course, assuming the acceptance of the revision argument made by Wells, Taylor et al. I note with surprise that none of the first five responses touch on this crucial textual issue. Gabriel Egan g.i.egan@bham.ac.uk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Friday, 7 Apr 95 09:25:01 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0268 Re: Ending of *Lear* I also think that Albany is speaking out of shock -- too much has happened too fast and that Edgar will pick up the pieces -- in Act VI. It seems to me of a piece that the obsessions of Act I -- who gets the kingdom, who loves me most, I'm geting old [you'd better laugh, courtiers], prove it etc.-- all fade away in act V well before Cordelia is murdered. But while we are on the ending of King Lear would anyone like to comment on what I see as a staging problem. Shakespeare as he so often does carefully writes the deaths of Regan and Goneril off-stage so that he has two less bodies to contend with at the end -- which would have left the good guys to come to life right after Edgar's lines to take a bow -- something of an anti-climax. He then pulls the two daughters back on stage to show us how irrelevant their deaths now are to Lear (with all that this implies) and to create the shattering stage metaphor of the four dead as ironic echo to the four living father/daughters of Act I. A modern blackout or 19th century curtain eliminates what I see as a problem for the Globe or Blackfriars -- the anticlimax of all those bodies getting up to take their applause after Edgar's four short lines have pointed out that there is nothing left to say. Or was it just assumed that they would all be gathered up by spare soldiers and processed off -- also an anti-climax it seeems to me, unlike Hamlet. I have always felt that in this one instance, Shakespeare wrote not for his own stage but for a stageraft not then invented, a theatre which would some day provide the conventions needed to bridge the moment by hiding the dead from view. Mary Jane Miller Dept. of Film Studies, Dramatic and Visual Arts Brock University (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 08:30:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0268 Re: Ending of *Lear* At the end of "Lear," Albany undergoes what I like to call his `nervous breakdown.' Throughout the play, if one examines his language, one notices the extent to which he speaks in sententiae, attempting to frame the horror in inadequate language. He is attempting to do the same at the end, speaking of rewards and punshments, when the corpses of Lear and Cordelia are brought onstage. At that point, he stops. His decision to have Edgar and Kent rule reflects, to me, the fact that Albany has learned nothing through the events of the play--he is willing to replace division with division. A friend once quipped that Albany keeps trying to end the play but no one will listen to him. It is up to Edgar to end the play, saying what *can* be said. (And, yes, I am aware of the textual variant which ascribes the final lines to Albany; I am unable to accept that on dramatic grounds.) John M. Boni Northeastern Illinois University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 16:15:35 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0273 Re: "Shakespeare in the Bush" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0273. Friday, 7 April 1995. (1) From: Dave Collins Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 1995 21:01:36 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0269 Q: Sh in Bush (2) From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 09:20:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakespeare in the Bush(2) (3) From: Naomi Liebler Date: Friday, 7 Apr 95 10:00:00 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0269 Q: Sh in Bush (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Collins Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 1995 21:01:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0269 Q: Sh in Bush The article "Shakespeare in the Bush" is by Laura Bohannan, a cultural anthropologist who tells of her attempt to relate the story of _Hamlet_ to the Tiv people in West Africa. We and they definitely belong to different "interpretive communities"! The article appeared in _Natural History_, the August/September issue in 1966. --Dave Collins Westminster College, Fulton, MO (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 09:20:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare in the Bush Laura Bohannon's "Shakespeare in the Bush" is anthologized in *Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology,* eds. James P. Spradley and David W. McCurdy (Boston: Little Brown, 1980), fourth edition, pp. 21-31. I'm not sure whether the essay appears in other editions of this standard intro anthropology collection. The essay first appeared in *Natural History Magazine*, August/September 1966 (according to the note in my copy of the book). I found out about this article from SHAKSPERians about two years ago, and I've used it ever since in my Shakespeare classes to great effect. It's a wonderful way to raise, early in the class, questions about Shakespearean "essentialism" and cultural embeddedness. And it's awfully entertaining. Cheers, Doug Lanier (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Friday, 7 Apr 95 10:00:00 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0269 Q: Sh in Bush John Mills seeks the text of the essay sometimes known as "Shakespeare in the Bush." That is the title used occasionally when the essay is reprinted in freshman anthologies. The original title is "Miching Mallecho: That Means Witchcraft." The essay was written by Laura Bohannon, an American anthropologist studying at Oxford who went off to do her fieldwork among the Tiv of West Africa. This wonderful account of her experience (not a play, not a school exercise, not an adaptation of anything) was originally published in *From the Third Programme,* ed. John Morris, London: Nonesuch Press, 1956. Happy reading! Naomi C. Liebler ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 14:34:50 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0272 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0272. Friday, 7 April 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 06 Apr 1995 15:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 01:25:13 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (3) From: William Russell Mayes Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 1995 20:44:29 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (4) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 08:45:02 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (5) From: Antoine Goulem Date: Friday, 07 Apr 1995 08:15:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (6) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 06 Apr 1995 22:24:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 06 Apr 1995 15:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity This debate between Drakakis and Godshalk (bracketting the question of ideology for the time being) seems most profound when it centers on the tendency of various "schools" of criticism to tend to REDUCE the subjectivity of Shakespeare's time to more of a monolith than the subjectivity of our time. Not having any "hard evidence" on either side of the debate, it seems more interesting to acknowledge that the kind of societal thinking we find in Shakespeare and the way it intersects with more 'individual, lyrical, personal' modes of thought is an achievement that could be useful in understanding TODAY'S "world"--especially when the gap between say "Marx" and "Freud" or "newspapaers" and "poetry" often seems unbridgable -- specialists, of course, flaunt this "variety" and use it to claim how much more sophisticated and free we are today than they were "back in Shakespeare time..." Chris Stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 01:25:13 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Bill Godshalk writes: >Behind our discussion of subjectivity is, I think, the question: how alien from >me or you is any given early modern person? You will excuse me, of course, if >I do not refer to people as "subjects." If, as Stephen Jay Gould points out, >our species has not evolved significantly in many millenia (I can't remember >how many millenia), then it would seem to me that an early modern person and a >contemporary person would react similarly to the same external stimulus. In >other words, we have a firm biological basis for understanding people from the >recent past. And in terms of evolution, four hundred years is very recent. Everyone on this list has a conceptual category 'homosexual'. It has been argued (I think by Alan Bray in _Homosexuality in Renaissance England_ but I could be mistaken) that this conceptual category did not exist four hundred years ago and that the same practices were not organized into the groups we now use such as "one's sexuality". What I understand by this is that the dominant Western Renaissance ideology was quite different from the dominant late C20 Western ideology. I understand by 'subjectivity' the way that the dominant ideology presents the world to me in digestible form by making available categories like "homosexual". The idea of hegemony within competing ideologies (specifically the terms dominant, emergent, and residual) I get from Raymond Williams's _Marxism and Literature_. The term 'Culture' I DO have a problem with and admit to a feeling that I don't really know what people mean when they use it. I like Williams's "a tending of natural growth" (last couple of pages of _Culture and Society_) but find that the whole of this book proves that the term is now too debased to be useful. Gabriel Egan g.i.egan@bham.ac.uk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Russell Mayes Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 1995 20:44:29 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity I hesitate to enter into this interesting, if acrimonious, discussion, but when Bill Godshalk avers that an early modern person and a contemporary person would react to the same external stimulus in the same way, I have to wonder what he means. He illustrates his point by referring to despotism, but that is hardly a "stimulus" in a biological sense. The sound of a car engine or the beating of hoofs--those are stimuli. I use these because it is clear that someone from the sixteenth century could not react to an automobile the same way we do--that much is almost too simple to mention. But I don't think we would react to the sound of hoofs in the same way either. For most of us, this is a fairly unusual sound that has all sorts of "cultural" connotations (whether it be cowboys, the country or the dancing horses of Vienna), and those connotations would be different for a person of the 16th C. I would even go so far to say that the sound of hoofs has a different connotation for contemporary people in India than they do for us of the western industrialized world. I would have to agree with Godshalk regarding the implication of his closing question, "Do we all share a subjectivity?" No, we share a culture, though we all react to it (dare I say it) subjectively. My two cents in an interesting discussion, W. Russell Mayes Jr. Department of English University of Virginia wrm2b@faraday.clas.virginia.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 08:45:02 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity O, wot the hey, I'll get involved. . . One of my old anthro profs used to say that when humans started to use culture to fill in physical needs, several things happened (I am simplifying here)-- 1) Human evolved physically very little 2) The more culture, the less evolution (diff ways of dealing w/ environment) AND 3) cultural development, drift, etc has to be measured differently. Physically, there have been some changes since the early Modern era (I won't bore you all with third-molar aphasia) but cultural change seems to be different, faster, predicated on local pressures and local needs. Culturally yours, Melissa Anthroparon (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Antoine Goulem Date: Friday, 07 Apr 1995 08:15:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Bravo to John Drakakis. A question for Bill G.: granting that there are no biological barriers to understanding people from the past, then how do you account for our difficulty in achieving that understanding. In fact, how do you explain the difficulty that we have of understanding one another. The point that I granted above is it seems to me totally meaningless. How could biological factors interefere with understanding? They might interefere with hearing, seeing and so on. It seems to me that it's inportant to distinguish between biology (and psychology, i.e.Skinner) as a discourse, and that aspect of our experience to which biological discourse is directed. Antoine Goulem goua@alcor.concordia (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 06 Apr 1995 22:24:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity John Drakakis demands an answer -- quick and in a word! Actually, I thought that Drakakis (rather than Godshalk) was driven by an ism (i.e., Marxism, Althusserism). And I genuinely resent the Freudian strategy of "damned if you do or damned if you don't." You're sick whether you admit it or not; if you don't admit it, you're sick. If you admit it, you're sick. No matter what, I'm jerked around by ideology. If I admit to be jerked around, I'm jerked around by ideology. If I don't admit to be jerked around by ideology, I'm jerked around by ideology. Well, no, Newt does not jerk ME around with his ideological statements, nor am I jerked around by the deeper, unseen, unknown ideology -- the mystical ideology of the Foucaultians. Individuals -- people, persons -- are free agents. I do not HAVE to be a Marxist. You may not have a choice; I do. In asking the question of subjectivity, I had no set answer I was looking for. I think Tom Bishop's response was the kind of intelligent, informed, skeptical discussion I was hoping to read. Pierre Bourdieu's approach is, for me, congenial. I find John Drakakis's inability to admit that homo sapiens is an animal, well, astounding! Stephen Jay Gould makes the point over and over again that biology is not reductive. It's quite adaptive -- within limits. We mammals will never grow wheels. My references to brain and gene are attempts to ground our discussion in something material. It seems to me that unresearched assertions about sociology and historical subjectivity are fantasy, fun to read, but not factual. I could, of course, read Raymond Williams's definition of "culture," or ask one of my anthropology colleagues to give me the latest definitions. But what I'm interested in is how we Shakespeareans use the term. We use "culture" recurrently. But what do we mean when we speak of "early modern culture"? Do we all agree on what culture is? Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 07:18:19 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0274 ANNOUNCEMENTS: CFP; Bard on Beach; SW Regional Ren Conf Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0274. Saturday, 8 April 1995. (1) From: Alexis Weedon Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 1995 Subj: CALL FOR PAPERS (2) From: Peter Scott Date: Friday, 07 Apr 1995 07:12:30 -0600 (CST) Subj: ENTERTAINMENT: Bard on the Beach (Vancouver Theatre Company) (3) From: Renee Pigeon Date: Friday, 07 Apr 1995 12:29:36 -0700 Subj: Southwest Regional Renaissance Conference (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alexis Weedon Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 1995 12:16:00 BST Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS Call for papers for the second and third issues of *Convergence: The Journal of Research into New Media Technologies* Interactivity For the second issue of Convergence we are seeking research papers which address the issues surrounding forms of *interactivity* in any area of the new media from cable and telecommunications to electronic publishing, multimedia and VR. The Internet For the third issue of the Journal we are seeking papers relating to research projects or case studies which explore the use and potential of the *internet* as a new media delivery system. Papers in any of the following areas are welcome: control and censorship, copyright, media policy, internet and education, gender and technology. The first issue will be available from mid May. Send your subscription to John Libbey & Co. Ltd., Journal Subscriptions, 13 Smiths Yard, Summerley Street, London. SW18 4HR. Tel +44 181 947 2777. Fax +44 181 947 2664. Institutional subscription rates: all countries (except N. America) surface mail #40; air mail #45. N. America surface mail USA$80, air mail USA$90. Private subscription rates: all countries (except N. America) surface mail #18, air mail #23. N. America surface mail USA$32, airmail USA$40. ISSN 1354-8565. _________________________________________________________________________ Convergence is a refereed academic journal which addresses the creative, social, political and pedagogical issues raised by the advent of new media technologies. Published biannually in paper form and adopting an inter- disciplinary approach Convergence will develop this area into an entirely new research field. The principal aims of Convergence are: o to develop critical frameworks and methodologies which enable the reception, consumption and impact of new technologies to be evaluated in their domestic, public and educational contexts o to contextualise the study of those new technologies within existing debates in media studies, and to address the specific implications of the increasing convergence of media forms o to monitor the conditions of emergence of new media technologies, their subsequent mass production and the development of new cultural forms o to promote discussion and analysis of the creative and educational potentials of those technologies, and to contextualise those cultural practices within wider cultural and political debates. Submission details: Two hard copies and where possible one disk copy (Macintosh Word5 compatible) of all articles should be sent to the editors with the following information attached separately: name, institution and address for correspondence, telephone, fax and email address. Papers should be typed on one side of the sheet with endnotes in accordance with the MLA style sheet (abbreviated form available on request). Authors should also enclose a 50 word biography and an abstract. Submission deadline for the second issue is 30th May 1995 for the third issue it is 30th September 1995. Proposals for articles or completed papers should be sent to: Julia Knight or Alexis Weedon, Editors, Convergence, School of Media Arts, University of Luton, 75 Castle Street, Luton, LU1 3AJ, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1582 34111, fax: + 44 1582 489014, email: Convergence @vax2.luton.ac.uk. Convergence is published by the University of Luton, School of Media Arts and John Libbey & Co. Ltd. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Scott Date: Friday, 07 Apr 1995 07:12:30 -0600 (CST) Subject: ENTERTAINMENT: Bard on the Beach (Vancouver Theatre Company) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 6 APR 1995 19:34:44 -0700 From: George Pajari Announcing "Bard on the Web" :-) Bard on the Beach is a professional summer Shakespeare Festival in Vancouver, BC, Canada which this year presents Hamlet, The Comedy of Errors, a Chamber Concert Series, and other events. Located near the beach on beautiful English Bay, plays are presented in our 450 seat tent from June until September. The irresistible magic of the city, sea and mountains provides the magnificent backdrop to our productions. Most evenings are sold-out, please order your tickets early. This WWW server contains complete information and pictures on this year's plays! Coming soon: sound bites from the rehearsals. ("To be, or not to be...") (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Renee Pigeon Date: Friday, 07 Apr 1995 12:29:36 -0700 Subject: Southwest Regional Renaissance Conference 1995 SOUTHWEST REGIONAL RENAISSANCE CONFERENCE MAY 12-13, THE HUNTINGTON LIBRARY, SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA The 1995 Southwest Regional Renaissance Conference, hosted by the Renaissance Conference of Southern California, will take place on May 12-13, 1995, at the Huntington Library, San Marino, California. The Tenth Annual RCSC Lecture will be delivered by Professor Richard Helgerson, UC Santa Barbara, at 11 a.m. on Saturday, May 13. Professor Helgerson's lecture is entitled "Murder in Faversham." Other sessions planned scheduled include "Propaganda, Treason and Slander in Tudor-Stuart Literature," "Conflicting Voices in Closet Drama," "Women Writers and the Female Subject," "Religious and Comic Themes in Renaissance Art," "Poetic Practices," "The Italian Connection in Elizabethan Fiction, " "Shakespearean Contexts, " "Spenser and Tasso: Sources and Commentary," and "Theology, Polemics and Censorship." A session entitled "Renaissance Fashioning" will feature a presentation on "Jewels in the Age of Elizabeth: Images of Power, Implements of Policy." REGISTRATION DEADLINE: MAY 5, 1995 Conference registration fee: Regular $35 Graduate Student (with a copy of current student i.d. or other verification of status) $5 Lunches: Friday lunch $13 Saturday lunch $13 Complimentary coffee and pastries will be available each morning. A reception hosted by the Renaissance Conference of Southern California, to which all participants are invited, will be held at 3:30 pm, Saturday, May 13, on the Garden Terrace. For further information and a registration form, please contact: Renee Pigeon, RCSC President, Dept. of English, CSU San Bernardino, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407. Telephone: (909) 880- 5896. E-mail: rpigeon@wiley.csusb.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 07:26:51 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0275 Qs: Hypertext and CDs; Burial Customs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0275. Saturday, 8 April 1995. (1) From: Bradford Carpenter Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 09:29:28 -0400 Subj: [Hypertext CD] (2) From: Gloria R. Wilson Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 12:12:22 CST6 Subj: Burial customs/Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradford Carpenter Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 09:29:28 -0400 Subject: [Hypertext CD] I have developed, with a partner, Walter Tyree, a multi-media, hypertext for "Hamlet" on CD-ROM; the CD is Macintosh compatible and HyperCard based. Both a colleague of mine here at Choate, and fellow list-server member, David Loeb (), and I have used this CD to supplement our teaching of "Hamlet." We have found it to be a useful and successful tool in teaching basic and advanced concepts of staging, directing, blocking, and performance criticism. The CD also proves to be very useful with the weaker students who struggle with the text sans the spectacle that should carry the language. Keep in mind, the CD was created specifically for secondary school students, though, in my mind, it would work well with any introductory Shakespeare class that included "Hamlet" (could one not?) in its curriculum. I would be happy to hear from any of you who would like to hear more about the work and continue discussions about hypertext and its effect on pedagogy, methodology, the teaching of Shakespeare, and other thoughts about how the computer can be best used as a tool to educate. Respectfully, Bradford Carpenter Choate Rosemary Hall, Wallingford CT English Department (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gloria R. Wilson Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 12:12:22 CST6 Subject: Burial customs/Hamlet Can anyone clarify the practice of digging up old graves to make new ones as evidenced in the preparation of Ophelia's grave in Hamlet? I have done no research on the subject, but have read somewhere that it was customary to do this in London in Shakespeare's time due to the lack of Christian burial space in churchyards. My students questioned the apparent lack of respect for one's ancestors, etc. Thanks, Gloria Wilson ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 07:32:16 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0276 Re: Shakespeare and Company Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0276. Saturday, 8 April 1995. From: David Meyer Date: Friday, 7 Apr 1995 12:40:47 +0059 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0257 Qs: Shakespeare and Company; Three actors of my acquaintance have been through Shakespeare & Co's intensive: two were very pleased with their progress, one dropped out part way through, from stress. I have seen the work of the company: I could dig out some of the reviews I wrote, if requested. The senior company members are VERY good. Tina Packer's WOMEN OF WILL and the Bare Bones small-cast JULIUS CEASAR are among the best Shakespeare I've seen -- and I have seen the Royal Shakes and productions at the National, as well as Stratford, Ontario and dozens of the Papp productions. The student company is more of a mixed bag, but I have enjoyed the student productions I've seen, and intend to see them again this summer. I think that the Company's approach, a multipronged one that attacks from politics, psychology, poetry, etc, and then synthesizes, is admirable. Have you seen the book about the Company's methods? I'm sorry I can't remeber the name of it. It was available in the bookstores here about 3-5 years ago, at least that's when I read it. It may have been called something like "the Company She Keeps" --I believe the focus was on Packer's vision -- and a data search using her name should turn it up. G. L. Horton ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 09:33:36 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0279 Re: "Shakespeare in the Bush" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0279. Sunday, 9 April 1995. (1) From: John Mills Date: Saturday, 08 Apr 1995 08:47:45 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0273 Re: "Shakespeare in the Bush" (2) From: Barrett Fisher Date: Saturday, 08 Apr 1995 11:13:55 -0500 Subj: Re: Sh in Bush (3) From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 9 Apr 1995 08:34:58 -0400 Subj: More African Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mills Date: Saturday, 08 Apr 1995 08:47:45 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0273 Re: "Shakespeare in the Bush" Dave: Many thanks. I am new to the group and I must say this is the most impressive and gratifying desmonstration I have so far had of its worth! Nothing like instant gratification I always say. Douglas: Many thanks. I know my student will be impressed at how quickly I get back to him with an answer. A great advertisement for SHAKSPER. Naomi: Many thanks for the info on "Bush". I got three replys, each with somewhat different and useful (but non-conflicting) information. I am impressed. (It suddenly occurs to me that I have not gone about these replys properly; should have sent one collective thank you I suppose. Sorry. I am still a tyro. Thanks again to you all.--John Mills (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barrett Fisher Date: Saturday, 08 Apr 1995 11:13:55 -0500 Subject: Re: Sh in Bush John Mills asked about *Shakespeare in the Bush.* This is an essay by anthropologist Laura Bohannan. It was orginally published in Natural History, August-September 1966 (I don't have the page numbers handy). It has been reprinted several times; I ran across it in the 5th edition of *Readings for Writers" by Winkler and McCuen. The basic point of the essay is to challenge as well as to confirm our notion of great literature's "universal" meaning. Bohannan spends several months the Tiv in West Africa; like many tribal cultures, oral narrative is an important social ritual, so she was invited to join in and tell a story that was significant for her culture. Not only did the tribal elders listen to the story of *Hamlet*, but they provided her with the TRUE interpretation. What is interesting is that, given the assumptions of their culture, their interpretation is perfectly coherent, though it runs contrary to any of the meanings we would traditionally assign to the play. Again, this suggests that great literature is not universal in a naive sense because their Hamlet (both the play and the character) is so different from ours, but the literature is universal in a more sophisticated sense, because the story of the play communicates so powerfully to them in their own cultural terms. Of course, at another level altogether, one may draw a lesson about the power of interpretation being the real point; it is the interpreter's metanarrative, not Shakespeare's play, which is really "universal." I sometimes read portions of this aloud to my students on our last day of discussion of Hamlet. Incidentally, I do a similar exercise with James Thurber's wonderful litte story "The Macbeth Murder Mystery," which illustrates the power of genre to guide interpretation. What happens if someone accustomed to reading Agathie Christie picks up Macbeth and reads it with the conventions of a detective story in mind? The results are both amusing and instructive. Barrett Fisher Bethel College (MN) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 9 Apr 1995 08:34:58 -0400 Subject: More African Hamlet Laura Bohannon's article was also anthologized as "Prince Hamlet in Africa" in the 3rd edition of *The Norton Reader: an anthology of expository prose.* A very amusing caveat to all of us, I've always thought. Dale ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 09:13:10 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0277 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0277. Sunday, 9 April 1995. (1) From: Pat Buckridge Date: Saturday, 8 Apr 1995 10:55:57 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (2) From: John Drakakis Date: Saturday, 08 Apr 95 14:19:00 BST Subj: SHK 6.0272 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (3) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 08 Apr 1995 16:28:45 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0272 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Buckridge Date: Saturday, 8 Apr 1995 10:55:57 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0267 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Many thanks to Tom Bishop for a genuinely clarifying series of reflections on this topic. I think Bourdieu gets 'habitus' most immediately from the anthropologist Marcel Mauss. I didn't realise Aquinas had used it first. John Drakakis advises Bill Godshalk to read Raymond Williams' *Culture and Society*, confident in the belief, I take it, that Williams would endorse his clanking Althusserian abstractions. Well, not on my reading of Williams he wouldn't. The key category in Williams' early work, as even so-called Cultural Materialists must know, is 'structure of feeling' - not ideology, and certainly not 'subjectivity'. The great virtue of that concept ('structure of feeling') is that it's an open-weave kind of thing. Certain loosely-defined regularities and correlations are acknowledged, and a certain determining or predisposing effect on the thought and behaviour individuals living inside it, but there's no lunatic pretence of 'totality' such as we find in Althusser's notion of ideology. (How anyone can continue to find Althusser useful in 1995 is beyond me, but that's another argument). Above all, structures of feeling are not impervious to change. Not only do they themselves change with the passage of time, but our historical understanding of them can and often does change as we find out more about the cultures of particular periods, and develop a more nuanced sense of the power (and other) relations operating within them. Williams is at great pains (in *The Long Revolution*, I think) to distinguish 'structures of feeling' from more determinate and describable entities like 'class consciousness'. He does this because he realises that there are some things about the mental life of a particular place and time that can be described in terms of conscious and formulated ideas and attitudes, and others that can't be described in that way because they haven't fully emerged yet, or have virtually disappeared. These half-formed attitudes and contradictory residues are are often detectable in literature as nowhere else, which is one reason (I suppose) why Williams spent as much time as he did analysing literary texts. John Drakakis seems to think you can simplify matters enormously by saying it's all down to 'ideology', which includes everything from quantum theory to how we tie our shoelaces. The magic word is 'interpellation', which turns experience into 'experience', and reality into 'reality'. Naively empiricist notions like 'structure of feeling' are then seen to be irrelevant except as part of the interpellating machinery of capitalist ideology. I've never quite understood how people achieve the state of non-experiential contemplation needed to describe ideology from within (since, as Eagleton said in his Macherey-mouthpiece phase, there is nothing outside ideology), but presumably John Drakakis could tell me. It can't be easy. The other plausible characteristic of structures of feeling is that they don't exist as seamless wholes (like Capitalist Ideology or Early Modern Subjectivity); they're modular entities. This doesn't mean they can't and don't *function* as unitary structures in certain circumstances, but it means there's no reason to suppose you wouldn't run into isolated components (or modules) of, say, a late 20th century western structure of feeling in ancient Rome. This should ease the cognitive dissonance John Drakakis and his Althusserian friends must surely feel when they read Ovid's advice to young women to fake orgasms in the *Art of Love*. Patrick Buckridge Griffith University Brisbane, Australia (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Saturday, 08 Apr 95 14:19:00 BST Subject: SHK 6.0272 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity "My references to brain and gene are attempts to ground our discussion in something material" So speaks Godshalk. He also claims that he isn't "jerked around" by Newt's "ideology", though he insists that he is, himself, a completely free agent having every "choice" at his disposal. This is the posiiton from which Godshalk seeks to pose the question of how as students of the Renaissance we perceive questions of early modern subjectivity. No surprisingly he comes to the conclusion that these are universal and timeless matters, untouched by history, and that there is essentially NO DIFFERENCE between an Elizabethan and a late 20th century British or American person. Since human bodies have functioned the same through time, so he seems to be suggesting, then things are the same now as they were then. [though it's a little out of date, he might like to try Peter Laslett's book The World We Have Lost, which will disabuse him of such fantasies] But there's something even more disturbing about Godshalk's stated argument: His first statement is worthy of a card-carrying member of the Klu Klux Klan. I guess that he would account for his social and professional position and status as a consequence of his "brain" and "genes". I think we all know where such a crudely Darwinist argument leads, and I trust we are all horrified at its implications. The material of "culture" is, surely REPRESENTATIONS, and our obligation as students of Renaissance culture is to investigate these. It's no accident that I'm interested in the way in which Godshalk REPRESENTS his case. He lives under the delusion that language is transparently referential in its unproblematical gesturing towards things. That's why he thinks that he's completely in control of all he surveys. We only have to look at what he says on the question of "choice". He believes that choice is absolute and free! I don't know where he gets his fantasies from but there should be a health warning on the bottle! Let me play Mephistopheles and tell this disingenous Faustus that "This is ideology nor are we out of it". The question of how we perceive early modern subjectivity is, I think, more interesting. There are two problems (i) the historical problem of reconstruction and (ii)the position from which we begin as historically constituted subjects ourselves. Our own conceptions of subjectivity and our own subject positions overdetermine (a term which Godshalk refuses to pick up because it would force him to relinquish his extraordinarily simple-minded definition of "materialism") our analysis of Renaissance culture. I'm not convinced by the view that posits a homology between the Renaissance and the modern world, since what is at issue here is our interrogation of various historical representations in a way that they almost cdertainly did not/could not do themelves. When WE think of "subjectivity" we are thinking, surely of identity within a symbolic order. At this point we may disagree on the constituent features of that symbolic order, but it is within that order that an imaginary unity is conferred upon identity. In the modern world even that has become more complex. We might establish identity through DIFFERENCE, which will give us a structural account of the status quo, but that does not offer us a theoretical model for political action, which comes about, as Laclau and Mouffe indicate provocatively, through antagonisms- and these antagonisms cannot be, any longer mapped across CLASS affiliations [hic jacet Marx, Godshalk pay attention and please note]. It is only when a DIFFRERENCE perceives itself as a form of subordination that the possibility of antagonism, and hence, a politics, arises. This moves us some way towards dealing with the problem of agency and those factors which overdetermine action. My problem is that I don't think that these were the coordinates which clearly explain for us early modern subjectivity. WE might use terms like "symbolic order" to define what it is that grounds the Renaissance subject, but we need to be very careful about what it is that we are representing here. Let's see if we can't crack this one. Cheers, John Drakakis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 08 Apr 1995 16:28:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0272 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Since I will be responding to Russell Mayes's argument in particular, I would like to quote his response in full: >I hesitate to enter into this interesting, if acrimonious, discussion, but when >Bill Godshalk avers that an early modern person and a contemporary person would >react to the same external stimulus in the same way, I have to wonder what he >means. He illustrates his point by referring to despotism, but that is hardly >a "stimulus" in a biological sense. The sound of a car engine or the beating >of hoofs--those are stimuli. I use these because it is clear that someone from >the sixteenth century could not react to an automobile the same way we do--that >much is almost too simple to mention. But I don't think we would react to the >sound of hoofs in the same way either. For most of us, this is a fairly >unusual sound that has all sorts of "cultural" connotations (whether it be >cowboys, the country or the dancing horses of Vienna), and those connotations >would be different for a person of the 16th C. I would even go so far to say >that the sound of hoofs has a different connotation for contemporary people in >India than they do for us of the western industrialized world. I would have to >agree with Godshalk regarding the implication of his closing question, "Do we >all share a subjectivity?" No, we share a culture, though we all react to it >(dare I say it) subjectively. > >My two cents in an interesting discussion, > >W. Russell Mayes Jr. My comparison of Tudor despotism with modern despotism is and was misleading. I was off on a new thought, and did not begin a new paragraph. Sorry. Yes, a contemporary person and an early modern person would react to the same external stimulus "in the same way." That is, with the same brain mechanisms. I am here thinking of a brain model like that of Norman Holland (THE I, Chapter 6, pp. 128-155), based on work by Gregory Bateson, Herbert Simon, Heinz Lichtenstein, and others. The brain responds to external stimuli by means of a complex system of feedback loops. Of course, an early modern person could not respond to a taxi racing through the streets of New York. As I said earlier, we are all trapped in our historical moment. Make no mistake. But a contemporary baby and an early modern baby experiencing horses' hooves for the first time in their lives would deal with the sound in the same way, i.e., using the same brain mechanisms: hypothesis, experiment, feedback; revision of first hypothesis, experiment, feedback, and so on. "Culture" (whatever that word means) has nothing to do with how the human brain works. Environment, obviously, has a great deal to do with WHAT we learn, but not HOW we learn. Obviously, early moderns did not drive cars to work, and very few of us (I'll bet!) ride horses to work. I know a whole lot more about how my little Toyota works than how to saddle a horse. Basically, I think the quarrel centers on where to put the emphasis. Do we emphasize the individual's ability to learn, to adjust, to understand, and to participate in various "cultures," or do we emphasize the power of the "culture" to mold the subject to its all powerful requirements? You all know where I'd put my money! But I would like to ask Melissa Aaron to get back to us with a good anthropological definition of "culture" so that we can figure out what we're fighting about! Yours, Bill Godshalk P.S. I'm not sure what the "implication" of my last question is: "Do we all share a subjectivity?" Dave Evett seemed to suggest that we do share a subjectivity, and I was asking him what he meant. So Mayes' assertion that we share a culture, not a subjectivity, is aimed at my old Nemesis, Dave Evett. Dave, the ball's in your court! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 09:25:37 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0278 Re: Burial Customs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0278. Sunday, 9 April 1995. (1) From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Saturday, 8 Apr 1995 10:07:19 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0275 Q: Burial Customs (2) From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Saturday, 8 Apr 1995 12:24:27 -0500 Subj: Burial customs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Saturday, 8 Apr 1995 10:07:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0275 Q: Burial Customs Dear Gloria Wilson, Macabre as it seems, owing to the short supply of consecrated ground, one's tenure in a churchyard could be limited. John Donne's "The Relique" brings it home sharply: "When my grave is broke up againe/Some second ghest to entertaine,/ (For graves have learn'd that woman-head/To be to more than one a Bed)." Presumably that's why the better off (including Will Shakespeare himself) got themselves entombed nicely inside the church. Years ago on a sentimental journey to Rothwell, England, near Cambridge, the local vicar kindly took us down into the crypt to look at the stored bones of our ancestors. Sobering. Yours for fewer momenti mori. Ken Rothwell (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Saturday, 8 Apr 1995 12:24:27 -0500 Subject: Burial customs Regarding Gloria Wilson's query about the practice of digging up old graves to make new ones in Shakespeare's time: this was in fact not an uncommon thing, both in London and in towns like Stratford, where Shakespeare is buried. This is the reason for the famous curse on Shakespeare's gravestone: "Good frend for Jesus sake forbeare, To digg the dust encloased heare: Bleste be the man tht spares thes stones, And curst be he tht moves my bones." The curse was meant to dissuade sextons, a notoriously superstitious lot, from digging up Shakespeare's bones to make new graves; there used to be a charnel house adjacent to Holy Trinity Church containing all the bones which had been dug up (according to a 1694 letter, "so many that they would load a great number of wagons.") The curse achieved its purpose, as no one has (deliberately) disturbed Shakespeare's grave; however, when an adjacent grave was being dug in the early 1800s, someone accidentally broke through into Shakespeare's, but the hole was quickly covered up for fear of the curse. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 07:43:08 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0280 Re: "Shakespeare in the Bush" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0280. Monday, 10 April 1995. (1) From: Daniel P. Tompkins Date: Sunday, 9 Apr 1995 15:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Bohannan caveat (2) From: Naomi Liebler Date: Sunday, 9 Apr 95 17:54:00 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0279 Re: "Shakespeare in the Bush" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel P. Tompkins Date: Sunday, 9 Apr 1995 15:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Bohannan caveat The Bohannan essay is very interesting and useful, but it is essential to teach it without condescending to or demeaning the Tiv and playing into Americans' (and Canadians'?) racial stereotypes. Dan Tompkins (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Sunday, 9 Apr 95 17:54:00 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0279 Re: "Shakespeare in the Bush" In view of renewed interest in Laura Bohannon's essay and its multicultural implications/applications, I thought it might be appropriate to put in a plug for the most brilliant production of *Julius Caesar* I have ever seen, Rome Neal's *Julius Caesar Set in Africa,* with which I am in no way associated except to claim the distinction of being its most vocal fan. Rome Neal, an extraordinarily gifted director/performer, adapted Shakespeare's play nearly verbatim to a setting in 13th-century Ghana and Mali, adumbrating the play's inherent ritual elements with dance and drum and all sorts of good stuff. I spent nearly two years persuading my university to spring for the cost of bringing the production to our campus--where it was enormously successful fr an audience of not only the university community but jr-high-school kids from nearby inner-city neighborhoods (university funding meant that we were able to offer the production free to the audience). Rome's company also provided a half-day workshop on African dance and drumming techniques, and got the kids to read some Shakespeare as well. SHAKSPER colleagues located within commuting distance of the NYC-metropolitan area who would like to see their campus communities transformed by this gifted crew can contact Rome Neal at the Nuyorican Poets Cafe, P.O. Box 20794, 236 E. 3rd St, NY, NY 10009. For a more elaborate paean to this production, see my review in *SHakespeare Bulletin* 9:4 (Fall 1991): 39-40. Still awed-- Naomi C. Liebler ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 09:06:49 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0281 Re: Burial Customs; Shakespeare & Company Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0281. Monday, 10 April 1995. (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Sunday, 09 Apr 1995 10:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Burial customs/Hamlet (2) From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Sunday, 9 Apr 1995 14:52:48 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0275 Q: Burial Customs (3) From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Sunday, 9 Apr 1995 13:12:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0276 Re: Shakespeare and Company (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Sunday, 09 Apr 1995 10:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Burial customs/Hamlet Re Gloria Wilson's query, note also that the Gravedigger's riddle is clearly false: "the houses he [a gravedigger] makes lasts till Doomesday." Bernice W. Kliman (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Sunday, 9 Apr 1995 14:52:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0275 Q: Burial Customs To Gloria R. Wilson re Burial customs - It is still the custom today in Holland to bury one deceased family member over another due to the lack of cemetery space. I can only assume that customs, geography and local ethnic ideologies would influence variations on burial all over the world. New Orleans has some impressive above-ground cemeteries which have to be seen to be appreciated. The reasoning is the sea level is too high to bury below ground. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Sunday, 9 Apr 1995 13:12:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0276 Re: Shakespeare and Company I visited Shakespeare and Company's summer institute for high school teachers last summer, and I thought it was terrific. More important, the teachers who were attending also thought it was great, and those who had been there before spoke eloquently and convincingly about the many ways the approaches they learned had enhanced and invigorated their teaching. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 09:25:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0282 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0282. Monday, 10 April 1995. (1) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Sunday, 9 Apr 1995 17:52:00 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0277 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 09 Apr 1995 20:52:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0277 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (3) From: David Lindley Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 09:47:43 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0277 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (4) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 10:59:28 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0272 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Sunday, 9 Apr 1995 17:52:00 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0277 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity In response to a request for an anthropological definition of "culture" here we go, from Feder & Parks *Human Antiquity*-- "Anthropology assumes that all facets of the organism's [human's] anatomy, physiology, behavior, environment and evolution are interrelated and can only be fully understood in terms of those interrelationships. . . In its most gneral definition culture is the sum total of those things people have invented or developed and passed down. It includes how people survive; their religion, art, and technology; their social relations and political organization." Caveat--there has been a movement in anthropology, a philosophical shift, from "all cultures have a lot in common and are basically the same" to "all cultures are radically different." And the question quickly arises, how much emphasis does one wish to place on the biological raw material, given that humans are domesticated animals and have domesticated (and been domesticated by) other animals such as the chicken, the dog and the pig? Well,I have to go feed my cats now. Hope this is useful. Melissa Aaron University of Wisconsin-Madison (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 09 Apr 1995 20:52:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0277 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity I figure my insistence on my complete autonomy is as non-rational as John Drakakis's apparent insistence on his being overdetermined. I can no more prove that I am a free agent than he can prove that he is controlled by Althusser's ISAs. Our environment is, of course, not completely of our making, and I cannot shatter this world "to bits -- and then / Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's desire!" But surely I have choices -- though limited -- inside this given environment. Surely you'll grant this old naive materialist that much. Surely I do not have to believe what you believe, nor, God save the mark!, do you have to believe what I believe! Subjectivity is "identity within a symbolic order," according to Drakakis. As a naive materialist, I am a bit puzzled by the phrase "symbolic order." Could I ask for a definition and an example, please? As an individual who has the mentality of a KKK member and who believes that "language is transparently referential" (according to John Drakakis), I'll need all the help I can get in understanding this reification. Also, John Drakakis tells us that the "material of 'culture' is, surely REPRESENTATIONS." Does "REPRESENTATIONS" mean something like "artefacts"? I gather that "representations" is cult-historicist jargon, and as such has a tendency to drift. And since this word is not "transparently referential," and since no language is transparently referential, perhaps a definition is again in order -- if we can trust words to define anything. John Drakakis claims that "it is within . . . [a symbolic order] that an imaginary unity is conferred upon identity. In the modern world even that has become more complex." Although I'm not sure what "that" (untransparently) refers to, isn't it the sign of the true naif to believe that his "world" is "more complex" than, say, Shakespeare's world? By the way, all of us with healthy brains are born with a unified identity. If we had no unified identity, we would be incapable of learning which is not a passive pursuit, but an active engagement with our environment. How could a schizoid identity create a unified map of her world? "It is only when a DIFFRERENCE [Derridian spelling?] perceives itself as a form of subordination that the possibility of antagonism, and hence, a politics, arises. This moves us some way towards dealing with the problem of agency and those factors which overdetermine action." So saith Drakakis. I don't see how a disembodied "DIFFRERENCE" can "perceive itself." And I don't see how these statements can lead to a satisfactory account of agency and overdetermination. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 09:47:43 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0277 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity The increasingly acrimonious debate on the topic of 'Early Modern Subjectivity' provides a fascinating case-study in the culture of the contemporary academic community. I find it remarkable that amongst the proliferating citations of 'authorities' (a phenomenon itself comparable, one might suggest, to the manner of theological debate in post-Reformation England) hardly anyone has bothered to adduce evidence from Early Modern texts themselves. Yet, surely, if one wants to build up a properly complex picture of the ways in which people understood themselves, explained themselves and their actions to themselves and to others, and of the location of their sense of identity within the larger parameters of their culture (and this, I take it, is what we are about), it might be relevant, for example, to think what is implied when Richard III asserts desperately 'Richard loves Richard; that is I am I' (RIII, V.v.137), or to consider what is signified by Montaigne's assertion in the preface to the Essays that 'I myself am the subject of my book'. I'm not for a minute suggesting that we can simply short-circuit the real problems that derive both from the situation of the modern reader, and from the contemplation of the possibility that one can 'know' a culture with the benefit of historical distance more fully than that culture can ever know itself - but it does seem to me a necessary scholarly precondition for sensible debate. For what it's worth, I think that at the heart of the problem, then and now (and at all points in between) is the negotiation between determinism and individual agency; whether in the theological debates of the Early Modern period, the political anxieties of the modern, or current fears about the degree to which we are genetically progammed. How that negotiation is figured is, of course, culturally determined, but the possibility of our responding to its figuration in different periods rests upon our fundamental emotional identity with the problem itself. Perhaps Donne's 'Satire 3' offers useful advice to the combatants in this particular debate - his question: 'must every he / Which cries not "Goddess!" to thy mistress, draw, / Or eat thy poisonous words?' might give mannerly pause, and his observation: 'To adore, or scorn an image, or protest, / May all be bad; doubt wisely; in strange way / To stand inquiring right, is not to stray' could serve as a cautionary motto? For as this debate has continued it has become increasingly apparent that it isn't really 'about' Early Modern Subjectivity, but about the power-plays and anxieties of the contemporary academic world - and I'm not sure I want to genuflect before Althusser, Williams, Foucault or any other, useful and stimulating though I find some of their ideas. Isn't it central to our discipline that we permit the texts of the past to speak back to, and to challenge our own certainties? Sorry to go on at such length - but I'm getting a bit weary of academic battles whose sub-text is 'whose side are you on?'. David Lindley (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 10:59:28 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0272 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Is it just possible that Bill Godshalk is being jerked around a tiny bit by the neologism 'early modern'? It's a fine example of ideology in action. T. Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 09:28:17 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0283 Q: "The Rape of Lucrece" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0283. Monday, 10 April 1995. From: John Ammerman Date: Sunday, 9 Apr 1995 21:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: The Rape of Lucrece" Shakespeare's narrative poem *The Rape of Lucrece* has never been unanimously lauded by literary critics. Generations of reviewers have found in its lines nothing more than mere rhetorical ornamentation. It is easy to accept the authority of these experts who have come to such a broad consensus as to the mediocrity of Shakespeare's "graver labor," a consensus that is only reinforced after comparing Shakespeare's long rhetorical enlargement to the simple elegance of the originals by Livy and Ovid which, we are told, are the primary sources for Shakespeare's narrative poem. I am currently working on a project to uncover some deeper meaning which may have been overlooked by critics who, while accepting the influence of Livy and Ovid, overlooked the influence St. Augustine and Chaucer. To Augustine Lucrece was guilty of murder. Her fear of scandal and subsequent suicide illustrate the moral contradictions inherent in the Roman's holding her story up as an ideal of chastity (City of God 1:19). Later, in *The Legend of Good Women* Chaucer cites what he calls Augustine's "greet compassion/ Of this Lucresse"(1690) leaving us to wonder if Chaucer simply got his facts wrong or is attempting some irony. Any ideas on this subject would be greatly appreciated. John Ammerman, ammermaj@evergreen.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 10:31:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0284 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0284. Tuesday, 11 April 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 12:52:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0282 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 21:38:30 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0277 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (3) From: Imtiaz Habib Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0282 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (4) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 22:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0282 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (5) From: Bob Gingher Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 04:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0282 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 12:52:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0282 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity I think we should thank Melissa Aaron for giving us a definition of culture, and David Lindley for getting us back on track. Calling each other mildly opprobrious names isn't very fruitful. But perhaps we can salvage something from our debates, and take a close look at RICHARD II which seems to utilize (or perhaps "use") the tensions between internal identity and social identity. Although John Drakakis has not had time to define "symbolic order," the concept of symbolic order does seem to have a prominent place in R2. Richard seems to believe that he has an assured place in an assumed social order. "Not all the water in the rough rude sea / Can wash the balm off from an anointed king" (Riverside III.ii.54-55). But the action of the play seems to deny that assurance: "With mine own tears I wash away the balm" (IV.i.207). And the looking glass episode (IV.i.275ff) seems to draw attention to an inner identity: "my grief lies all within" (295), which has nothing to do with social identity. Richard's final assertion of his former social identity: "Exton, thy fierce hand / Hath with the King's blood stain'd the King's own land" (V.v.109-10), is denied by the political realities of the play. Does the play as a whole indicate that "symbolic order" crumbles when confronted by a political strongman like Bolingbroke? The play also uses another identity question: who killed Gloucester? Several characters are identified as the murderer -- including Richard. But somehow the identification of the murderer reflects on the identification of the king. Is the murderer always the king? Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 21:38:30 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0277 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Bill Godshalk quietly announced a breakthrough in neurology which ends our discussion once and for all: > The brain responds to external stimuli by means of a complex system of > feedback loops. I shall throw away my Freud, Klein, et al and pick up some books on plumbing. > ...a contemporary baby and an early modern baby experiencing horses' hooves > for the first time in their lives would deal with the sound in the same way, > i.e., using the same brain mechanisms: hypothesis, experiment, feedback; > revision of first hypothesis, experiment, feedback, and so on. "Culture" > (whatever that word means) has nothing to do with how the human brain works. Whenever someone refers to what babies do I can be sure they are on the run. The premise is that by reference to what babies do we can remove the effect of environment and study what 'Man' really is. By this means we can discover that 'Man' really is: a starved-to-death baby. The infant brain works only if the infant stomach is filled, and that requires that somebody other than the baby gets it together to supply food. And that requires organization of some kind. And that requires 'culture'. "A tending of natural growth" I think Raymond Williams said. Very apt. Gabriel Egan g.i.egan@bham.ac.uk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Imtiaz Habib Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0282 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Does Bill Godshalk wish to suggest that there is no such thing as subjectivity or that it is not anything that could be considered historically significant? It's interesting to speculate why he or Pat Buckridge would like to argue such a position--to preserve the status quo of a particular Eurocentric world view and all the privileges that such a world view affords to certain groups and their particular ideological constructions? The apparent plea for a serene universalist sameness across history that Bill Godshalk has been articulating (over the last several years (!) on SHAKSPER), is a transparent attempt to preserve the power relations of a dominant ideology. If subjectivism is the site of the individual's resistence to the writing of his/her dominant history, it is understandable why Bill Godshalk is unhappy with such a hermeneutic modality. For him to insist that people (early modern or non-European, i.e. in different times or in different places) feel the same way about the same phenomena is to FIX people in one one way. Feelings are life, subjectivity is the terrain of history, it is what allows history to be contestable, i.e. to be open to everbody. We don't live in our bodies, we live in our feelings about our bodies. We understand the world through our feelings, and as we understand the world so we do well in it. Those who privilege difference and subjectivity in effect privilege freedom. I will insist on my right to feel/describe/ memorialize/inscribe hunger subjectively and differently from my community or my world. Imtiaz Habib English Department UNLV, Las Vegas. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 22:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0282 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity I'm with David Lindley on this one. The whole debate is moving increasingly into the abstract. I can't help but find the movement to theory in the modern university rather regrettable, since it means that we (English) have no real advantage over philosophy anymore. Anyone who would enjoy a modern English department would enjoy a modern philosophy department even more. Furthermore, the whole debate seems to be taking on the ugly shape of the religious disputes to which David alludes. Two discourses refuse to communicate, or even honour each other with the assumption of comprehendibility. The differences between the disputants seem to be essentially matters of faith: just as Augustine explains all loves in terms of the gravity of logos, Drakakis wants to explain all urges in terms of culturally conditioned ideology, Godshalk wants to explain decisions in terms of free agents, Marx in terms of economics, Freud in terms of sex, and Plato in terms of the eternal yearning for the Good. These are not issues we are likely to settle soon in the realm of literary criticism, or perhaps ever on the face of the earth. I'm going back to reading Shakespeare. Cheerio, Sean. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Gingher Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 04:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0282 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity What David Lindley calls "our fundamental emotional identity with the problem itself" (or lack thereof) interests me most in this debate. Isn't--this side of Conrad's grandiloquent, hollow Kurz or Swift's unmoored Laputans--the issue of fellow feeling (author's, reader's, AND commentator's) crucial to this discussion? Is shared inquiry into "early modern subjectivity" possible via smoke-and-mirrors rhetoric or the changing "wisdoms" of fashionable criticism? (Nope.) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 10:49:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Shows; John; R3; Oth; Bear; Line; Youth Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0285. Tuesday, 11 April 1995. (1) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 10:39:10 -0500 (CDT) Subj: London theatre (2) From: Alexander D. Smith Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 12:28:19 -0500 Subj: Don John has an incy-weency part (3) From: John Ammerman Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 12:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Richard III's Sexuality (4) From: Deanna Gregg Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 15:48:12 -0800 Subj: SHK 6.0275 Qs: Hypertext and CDs (5) From: Colin Campbell Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 01:43:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: TN and bear-baiting (6) From: Anna Cole Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 12:17:33 GMT Subj: Macbeth Act3 Sc4 (7) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 07:53:36 -0700 Subj: the fair youth (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 10:39:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: London theatre I'll be in London for the "Within This Wooden O" conference from 4/15 -4/20 and I'd like to see some good theatre. Since there is always more good theatre in London than one can possibly see, I will appreciate any advice SHAKSPEReans can give me on which shows are not to be missed. Thanks for your help. Roger Gross Univ. of Arkansas (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alexander D. Smith Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 12:28:19 -0500 Subject: Don John has an incy-weency part We are doing Much Aabout Nothing here at Northwestern and I have just again realized how small Don John's (the bastard brother of Don Pedro) part is. He's on for only about three scenes and then flees Messina not to return for the rest of the play. Yhe one thing that struck me about reading this is that it doesn't seem right. It almost seems like Shakepeare just wanted to get Don John the hell out of the play so that he could work on all of the confusion and screwy love that was going on. All Don John is is a catalyst to start the confusion and through everything into disorder and then he falls out of the picture. Iago was caught and brought back at the end of Othello to explain why he did what he did. We hear that Don John is brought back by armed guards in the next to last line of the play, but he is never questioned. Did Shakespeare just give up writing this part? Did he worry that this would make the play too dark? And why did Don John make Hero be seen as a whore? Just to hurt his brother Don pedro? What is his motivation for doing this, are all bastard brothers assumed to want to kill their natural brother? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Ammerman Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 12:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Richard III's Sexuality I am working on a thesis on the externalization of Richard's sublimated sexuality, seen in the landscape (ie, Tower of London as phallic symbol), and women, (ie, marginalization of women to point of merely embittered observer). Longer replys may be made to me directly Cypup@aol.com Thanks from Phil at The Evergreen State College (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Deanna Gregg Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 15:48:12 -0800 Subject: SHK 6.0275 Qs: Hypertext and CDs Does anyone know about a CD-ROM presentation of "Othello?" Thanking you. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Colin Campbell Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 01:43:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: TN and bear-baiting I have a question for you SHAKSPERians. I'm working on a production of Twelfth Night in which I'm examining the `gulling' of Malvolio through the lense or metaphor of bear-baiting (Malvolio being the bear, Feste the dog, and Sir Toby, Sir Andrew and Maria the gamblers). Unfortunately I'm having a hard time finding leads on the practice of bear-baiting in Elizabethan London. Any ideas? Wasn't the Swan originally a bear-baiting pit? Thanks so much for any references, Colin Campbell (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Cole Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 12:17:33 GMT Subject: Macbeth Act3 Sc4 I would be very grateful for help in understanding precisely what is meant by a particular line of Macbeth's. It occurs in Act 3.iv, after Macbeth enquires of Lady Macbeth: "How sayst thou that Macduff denies his person/At our great bidding?" To which she replies: "Did you send to him, sir?" Then he says: "I hear it by the way, but I will send." The speech continues but this is a complete sentence and I am unable to make sense of it. With such an excellence of Shakespeareans (surely there is no better collective noun!), I feel confident enough to give my sincere thanks in advance. Anna Cole (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 07:53:36 -0700 Subject: the fair youth Was Shakespeare gay? If the first 17 sonnets are written to a man, you'd certainly think so. Pluck a handful out and read them to someone innocent of Shakespeare, and ask, "are these poems written to a man or to a woman?" If the first 17 are to a man, then Shakespeare was writing romantic poetry to some other guy. If to a woman, they might almost be taken as a proposal of marriage. The first 17 sonnets are generally taken to be written to Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. It seems to me that if this is the right identification, there was some homoerotic interest between the two men. Can anyone help this out? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 10:59:34 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0286 Re: Burial Customs; Sh. & Co., etc.; Spanish Tragedy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0286. Tuesday, 11 April 1995. (1) From: John E. Perry Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 14:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Burial customs (2) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 95 09:48:11 -0500 Subj: Shakespeare & Co, subjectivity, etc. (3) From: Ed Gieskes Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 09:33:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: The Spanish Tragedy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John E. Perry Date: Monday, 10 Apr 1995 14:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Burial customs To Gloria R. Wilson and others: It is still the custom in rural southern Italy that ordinary people are buried temporarily. There is simply no room for permanent graves for everyone. My wife's aunt was dug up last year after spending ten years in her grave and moved to a family vault (her family is quite wealthy for southern Italy). Most people are moved to a community vault, where hundreds of skeletons can rest in the same space that would be filled by half a dozen American-style graves. I suppose this is what was happening to Yorick. Only the very richest or most highly respected leaders can afford permanent individual burial. My wife's wealthy family has a set of family vaults in which older family members are pushed further back into the chamber as younger members die. Fervently hoping that my insensitive American brashness is not violating any European sensitivity, john perry jperry@cebaf.gov (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 95 09:48:11 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare & Co, subjectivity, etc. Thanks to Phyllis Rackin and G.L. Horton (via David Meyer) for their information and comments on Shakespeare and Company. Due to the wonders of the Internet, I tracked down the book G.L. Horton mentioned about Tina Packer; it's called *The Companies She Keeps* by Helen Epstein. It was published by Plunkett Lake Press in Cambridge, Mass. in 1985. ISBN is 0-96146960-9; LC #PN2287.P2E67. My local public library has a copy which should soon arrive at my local branch. I've been enjoying the "discussion" of early modern subjectivity. This morning I came across this paragraph about Einstein from a book (*Recovering the Soul*) by Larry Dossey which may (or may not) be relevant: "Where did the individual begin and end for Einstein? The boundaries of the person were seemingly far-flung. We get a hint of this view in his attitude about freedom of the will, in which he reveals his belief that we have unseverable ties with all the things and events of the world--an affinity which is so intimate that the entire question of individual freedom is nonsensical. Our concept of freedom of the will in one sense is very limited, implying an isolated individual situated in the here-and-now who can exercise it. Einstein does not share this local concept. For him, freedom of the will is tied to an endless chain of events extending far into the past in an indefinitely large expansion." For what it's worth! --Chris Gordon (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Gieskes Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 09:33:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Spanish Tragedy To all SHAKSPEReans-- Willing Suspension Productions, in association with Boston University's Humanities Foundation, is presenting Thomas Kyd's _The Spanish Tragedy_ directed by Andrew Hartley April 21, 22, and 23. Showtimes are: April 21-- 7:30pm, April 22-- 7:30pm, April 23-- 2:30 and 7:30pm. All performances take place on the Boston University campus in the College of Liberal Arts Building (725 Commonwealth Avenue) Room 522. Ticket prices are $5 for students and $6 general admission. Willing Suspension is an amateur theatre group composed primarily of graduate students in BU's English Department and is dedicated to producing seldom performed early modern plays. In past years, Willing Suspension has produced Ben Jonson's _The Alchemist_ and Thomas Middleton's _The Revenger's Tragedy_. For further information contact: via email: Ed Gieskes via regular mail: Andrew Hartley or Lauren Kehoe Department of English 236 Bay State Road Boston MA 02215 via telephone: 617-353-2506 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 09:39:22 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0287 Re: The Fair Youth Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0287. Wednesday, 12 April 1995. (1) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 95 13:19:45 -0500 Subj: SHK 6.0285 the fair youth (2) From: Alexander D. Smith Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 13:31:47 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Youth (3) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 18:04:20 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Sweet William? (4) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 00:17:47 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Youth (5) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, April 12, 1995 Subj: Pequigney's *Such Is My Love* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 95 13:19:45 -0500 Subject: SHK 6.0285 the fair youth Richard Kennedy might want to look at Joseph Pequigney's *Such Is My Love: A Study of Shakespeare's Sonnets* (U of Chicago Press, 1985) and Bruce Smith's *Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare's England: A Cultural Poetics* (U of Chicago Press, 1991, 1994). Smith's final chapter focuses on the sonnets. I found both books interesting, helpful, and extremely well written, though I tend to be somewhat skeptical of Pequigney's overly Freudian readings. --Chris Gordon (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alexander D. Smith Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 13:31:47 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Youth Richard J. Kennedy asks 'Was Shakespeare Gay?' and I have to say 'maybe, but the sonnets don't prove a thing.' We have discussed in class the differences between writing dramatically and writing autobiographically. Always, there is an element of autobiography in anything that a writer writes, but we have tended to read the sonnets not as something proclaimed by Shakespeare, but by some dramatic character created by him. Look at the Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer. He as Chaucer the writer is wondefully creative, but he as a character (he comes in to tell his own story at some point in the journey) is as boring as a brick. He is so boring, in fact, that the other characters don't even let him finish his tale. They cut him off because he is too boring. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 18:04:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Sweet William? Richard Kennedy asks "Was Shakespeare gay?" This issue is as old as the authorship controversy and has been pursued with the same rigor, enthusiasm, and futility. We don't know if Shakespeare was gay. Nothing in his work or our knowledge of him justifies our believing one way or the other. Most of the things in his work (words or behaviors) which provoke the question are things which have very different meanings in our time from what they did in Shakespeare's. No doubt, as Richard says, if we "Pluck a handful out and read them to someone innocent of Shakespeare" they might seem homoerotic. But of course we don't make significant interpretive decisions on the basis of plucked-out lines. All meaning is context sensitive. I am reminded of a strange experience on the campus of Santa Clara University, a Jesuit school,therefore academically rich and resolutely macho. Lest we be thought homosexual(and therefore taboo), we all kept a proper distance from each other. Men touch women and vice versa...exclusively. Then an Italian priest came to spend a year with us. He was as heterosexual as may be but he had the familiar Italian habit of non-discrimination in his touching behavior. He would embrace men at the least provocation, stroke their hair, walk arm in arm or hand in hand down the street with them. Of course all of this was interpreted as unmistakably homoesexual courting behavior. How many silent screams there were from male students who knew his real intent but knew that their reputations were at stake. The majority could not be convinced that the Italian priest's behavior was non-sexual. They were "normal"; they knew what was masculine and what wasn't. They knew what was gay and what wasn't. Plucked-out words are roughly equivalent to Rorschach ink blots: we see in them whatever our Post-Modern Subjectivities condemn (oops; how about "encourage") us to see. The profound fact that no Sign "has" meaning, that all meaning derives from the RELATIONSHIP between the Sign and the perceiver, is a hard fact to sell. "Sweet" and "love" addressed to a man by a man seems unmistakably sexual to those in the thrall of Word Magic. But not to Shakespeare. As I read the first sonnets, they seem to have one persuasive goal which contradicts the homoerotic interpretation: to get the young man to marry and beget children. Doesn't sound gay to me no matter how outrageously he flatters the young man's vanity. Or, as we so often say to the Oxfordians, who cares? (Lord, I hope my invocation of that name doesn't conjure them up again.) Roger Gross Univ. of Arkansas (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 00:17:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Youth As to Richard Kennedy's post about whether Shakespeare was gay, personally I find it a question I'm willing to consider in my teaching but I certainly don't think it "Really matters" whether he was gay or straight (or more likey? bi)--But there's a book on the sonnets, called SUCH IS MY LOVE by Joseph Pequiney that does some interesting readings on the sonnets as gay--though at times he goes too far and gets quite graphic in "pen" means the penis is being inserted in a male orifice, etc. Pequiney also has, in an ELR (U-Mass-Amherst), an interesting article on the Antonio from 12N and MV as gay, if you're interested. Chris Stroffolino (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, April 12, 1995 Subject: Pequigney's *Such Is My Love* To me, genetic issues of "Was he" or "Wasn't he" have little interest in and of themselves; therefore, I have absolutely nothing to say in regards to Richard Kennedy's question. I passionately believe that Stephen Booth should receive an award of some sort for his marvelously trenchant -- "William Shakespeare was almost certainly homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. The sonnets provide no evidence on the matter." Nevertheless, I am interested in the character of the poet in the Sonnets and find some of Pequigney's points compelling, such as his treatment of the episode of Sonnets 33-35. However, in a work whose arguments are "(1) that the friendship treated in Sonnets 1-126 is decidedly amorous -- passionate to a degree and in ways not dreamed of in the published philology, the interaction between the friends being sexual in both orientation and practice; (2) that verbal data are clear and copious in detailing physical intimacies between them; (3) that the psychological dynamics of the poet's relations with the friend comply in large measure with those expounded in Freud's authoritative discussions of homosexuality; and (4) that Shakespeare produced not only extraordinary amatory verse but the grand masterpiece of homoerotic poetry," I am astounded, surprised, confused, disconcerted, and so on at Pequigney's appeal to Freudian authority. One example will suffice: "The poet is not one of these [an "absolute invert"], for he can be aroused by women and has the passionate affair with the mistress in Part II." Instead, we learn that he is an "amphigenic invert" (81). Am I the only reader to find these Freudian terms at the least dated if not offensive? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 09:46:02 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0288 Re: *Mac.* 3.4; Another *Mac.* Question Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0288. Wednesday, 12 April 1995. (1) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 17:08:33 -0500 (CDT) Subj: MAC. 3.4 (2) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 22:50:38 -0400 Subj: Macbeth Act3 Sc4 (3) From: Dave Laing Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 21:22:49 EDT Subj: Macbeth question (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 17:08:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: MAC. 3.4 Re: Anna Cole's question on MAC, 3.4, here's my reading: Lady Mac doesn't know of Macduff's murder, though she would have to be pretty slow not to make a few guesses based on Mac's strange party behavior. Mac is making a feeble attempt to cover for his strangeness and asks her what she thinks of Macduff's REFUSAL to come. Oops (an early version of the detective saying "how did you know he was strangled? I just said he was dead?") She says, in effect, "Refused? I didn't know that (though I knew he was absent). How do you know he refused? Did you send to him and get that refusal in return?" Mac: "Well, no; I just heard a rumor. But I'll send someone for his excuse and we'll see if he 'denied' his person." There might be many reasons Macduff missed but a refusal to attend would be very serious business indeed. It's a pretty clumsy cover-up. Does this make sense to you? Roger Gross Univ. of Arkansas (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 22:50:38 -0400 Subject: Macbeth Act3 Sc4 > How sayst thou that Macduff denies his person > At our great bidding? > > Did you send to him sir? > > I hear it by the way, but I will send. I think "Did you send to him" means did you send to find out why he didn't come (not did you invite him), and what Macbeth hears by the way is that Macduff has no excuse but simply refuses to attend the tyrant's feast (ie, "it" = "that Macduff denies his person"). By the way, what about this > Here had we now our country's honor roof'd > Were the grac'd person of our Banquo present which pretty clearly says Banquo is the only top player missing, when actually Macduff is absent too? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Laing Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 21:22:49 EDT Subject: Macbeth question I have a little textual puzzle that I can't figure out and I'm looking for help. Does anyone know where the (mis)-quotation-- "Lead on Macduff"--originates from? The original reads "Lay on Macduff" and then Macbeth and Macduff exit fighting. I have checked both acting and literary editions and can find no 'authoritative' source for this error. Can anyone help? Are there others out there who have heard this quote or is it just me? D. Laing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 09:57:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0289 Re: London Theatre; Burial Customs; Don John Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0289. Wednesday, 12 April 1995. (1) From: David Meyer Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 16:36:45 +0059 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Shows (2) From: Jerry Bangham Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 15:16:24 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0275 Burial Customs (3) From: Lonnie Durham Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 95 02:28:36 CST Subj: Don John and other Cacodemons (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Meyer Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 16:36:45 +0059 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Shows Re: London Theatre My theatre friends say, always see whatever the National and the Royal Shakespeare are doing. Even if they are failures, they will fail in an interesting and fashionable way, using the best actors, directors, and designers. I can endorse that: I saw MERRY WIVES, at the National, a traditional rendering suffused with beauty and charm, and low comedy that was truly funny; THE TROJAN WOMEN, in a visually awe-inspiring production stuffed with the latest in post-modern reference, including Menelaus as an admiral from the American South, and Helen costumed as Marilyn Monroe. The press I saw was quite hostile to this production, and there were many empty seats, but it is well worth seeing -- a far better integration of the latest "ideas" about the classics than the very similar staging of The Orestia at the Am. Rep here in Boston. The RSC's Barbicon was dark while I was in London, but I caught their Romeo and Juliet in Stratford. R&J are very young in it, and Romeo, though a good actor, somewhat lacking in the charisma that makes deathless-love-at-first-sight plausible, but the whole company is so good that one is left with a renewed conviction of the validity of this play. When the smallest-parted character is acted fully, the structure emerges so clearly.The RSC's costuming is 1860's Italian, and the grown-ups seem firmly of their particular distant time and place -- but the young people are painfully like the ones who burst into tears in my office, or clown around in the quad. Beyond these, I delighted in Stoppard's ARCADIA -- it is as good people have said it is, and much less "difficult". INDIAN INK is, I think, less accessible to Americans, but still worth seeing. Also, the drama schools seem to be doing their semester-end projects, demonstrating why the main companies are able to cast so impressively. I saw A CHASTE MAID IN CHEAPSIDE at the Guildhall, and DR. FAUSTUS. RADA was doing MIDSUMMER. Cheap, and very well-done. The Irish play at the Tricycle, AN EVENING IN NOVEMBER< AN AFTERNOON... may not be a piece for the ages, but it deals with the political situation current in Northern Ireland in a way that is brave and funny and moving and hopeful. The solo actor is brilliant. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 15:16:24 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0275 Burial Customs >Can anyone clarify the practice of digging up old graves to make new ones as >evidenced in the preparation of Ophelia's grave in Hamlet? I have done no >research on the subject, but have read somewhere that it was customary to do >this in London in Shakespeare's time due to the lack of Christian burial space >in churchyards. My students questioned the apparent lack of respect for one's >ancestors, etc. I'm sure that it is still done all over the world. By Dickens' time, the need for new graves in churchyards was so great that bodies were disinterred after a few months! This lead to the development of private for-profit cemetaries. Kesnel Green was the first, Higate, perhaps the most famous. I'm not sure how widespread the practice is in the United States, but certainly the famous New Orleans cemetaries recycle burial space. I remember visiting the cemetary island in Venice and seeing one section being prepared for now occupants with a backhoe. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lonnie Durham Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 95 02:28:36 CST Subject: Don John and other Cacodemons I think Lawrence Spivack had it right in *Shakespeare and the Allegory of Evil*. We ought to stop looking for novelistic interiority for these characters. They are all, to one extent or another, variations upon the Vice figure. As such, they are ratios of the unacknowledged envies, grudges, lusts, etc. of the other members of the community. (I almost wrote "repressed motives," but I've been following Fred Cruise in the NYRB.) Their (the Vice figures') function is to tickle those motives to the surface so that they might be expressed and exorcised. Richard, Duke of Gloster, runs out of energy simply because he exhausts the supply of rancor that has been so rife in the earlier part of the play. It is his JOB to purge the kingdom of its baser passions so that the new (Tudor) era may begin without the buden of those old enmities. One of the best examples of the type that I know of is Diccon in *Gammer Gurton*. If you want to know what Don J. is up to, look for signs of sexual envy and suspicion in the other characters. If it weren't there, the Vice could not practice upon it. Notice the immunity of Cassio to Iago's attempts to suggest the riggishness of Desdemona to him. Unfortunately, he does turn out to have that little problem with liquor. Greetings to all, Lonnie Durham ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 10:04:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0290 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0290. Wednesday, 12 April 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 18:13:45 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0284 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (2) From: Skip Shand Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 20:48:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0284 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 18:13:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0284 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Although I would like to end this extremely abstract debate, I feel the perhaps misguided need to defend myself against the attacks of Gabriel Egan and Imtiaz Habib. First, the position I take is absolutely counter to the position, say, taken in THE BELL CURVE. My argument emphasizes not only the individuality of persons, but also their extreme similarity. I take the position that there is absolutely NO significant genetic difference among the peoples of this world. May I point out that that is an egalitarian position? I do not emphasize cultural difference, or non-rational hatreds based on these supposed differences. Second, I am not in favor of starving babies. I am not in favor of ethnic cleansing or culture wars. Why would someone who emphasizes human unity be seen as a racist? Or racialist, if you will? Third, my account of the learning process takes into account Habib's concept that "we live in our feelings," but not just "about our bodies." We would not know our world if we had no feelings. Montaigne, as you know, has an extended essay on this topic. And, without our bodies, we would have no feelings. Fourth, I am not a megalomaniac. Nothing I can or may do will "preserve the power relations of a dominant ideology" or any "particular Eurocentric world view." Fifth, Eurocentric world views emphasize cultural diversity, with the submerged implication that any culture not European is inferior. If you indeed have read and understood my postings "over the last several years," this position is the very position I have been arguing AGAINST!!! Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Shand Date: Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 20:48:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0284 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Back there a bit, I recall, John D. said 'symbolic order,' and Bill G. wondered what he could possibly mean by it, and I either missed the mass replies of the group or I am the only one out here who didn't recognise that Bill G. was being a touch naughty/disingenuous, and didn't really need an answer to his query. Fools rush (belatedly) in, I guess, so here's a bit of Lacanian/Belseian grist for the Godshalk mill, from Belsey's latest: By its attention to the signifier, and to the primacy of the symbolic in the construction of the world of meaning and difference, Lacan goes on to argue in 'The Signification of the Phallus', psychoanalysis gives a new account of the human condition, 'in that it is not only man who speaks, but that in man and through man *it* speaks (*ca parle*)' (p.284). 'It' here represents language, the symbolic order, the word as Law, which forms the human subject in its own image. (*Desire*, p.56) The book is hot (well, fairly warm) off the press--the phrase is not quite so recent. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 09:53:59 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0291 *Mac.*: 3.4; Lead on; More Questions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0291. Thursday, 13 April 1995. (1) From: Dom Saliani Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 09:25:38 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Line (2) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 13:56:34 -0400 Subj: Re: *Mac.* 3.4 (3) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 17:31:09 -0500 (CDT) Subj: brain failure (4) From: Christine Couche Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 13:12:18 +0800 (WST) Subj: Re: Lead On Macduff? (5) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 07:45:40 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0288 Re: Another *Mac.* Question (6) From: E. Duggan Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 95 18:47:49 BST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0288 Re: *Macbeth: prophecy & truth* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dom Saliani Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 09:25:38 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Line Anna Cole is right in identifying this particular speech in Act 3,iv as posing a problem. We learn here that Macbeth has sent messengers to Macduff and that they have been rebuffed. The matter is raised again in Act 3,vi where Lenox and the Lord converse on matters which have not yet occurred and of which Macbeth was ignorant until informed by Lenox at the end of Act 4,i. Lord. Thither Macduff Is gone to pray the holy King, upon his aid 30 To wake Northumberland, and warlike Siward; that by the help of these (with him above To ratify the work), we may again Give to our tables meat, sleep to our nights, Free from our feasts and banquets bloody knives, Do faithful homage, and receive free honours, All which we pine for now. * And this report Hath so exasperate the King, that he Prepares for some attempt of war.* Lenox. Sent he to Macduff? Lord. He did; and with an absolute 'Sir, not I,' 40 The cloudy messenger turns me his back, And hums as who would say, 'You'll rue the time That clogs me with this answer.' (Act 3, Scene iv, lines 29-43) Should not this scene in Act 3 follow Act IV, i where the following conversation occurs? Lenox. 'Tis two or three my Lord, that bring you word, Macduff is fled to England. Macbeth. Fled to England? Lenox. Ay, my good Lord. Macbeth. (Aside.) Time, thou anticipat'st my dread exploits; The flighty purpose never is o'ertook ... 145 This is one of many problems in the play that suggest that *Macbeth* as it first appeared in the First Folio had a bad editor. I suspect that the Ur-Macbeth written by Shakespeare made more sense. Dom Saliani < dsaliani@cbe.ab.ca > (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 13:56:34 -0400 Subject: Re: *Mac.* 3.4 I'm not sure what Roger Gross means by "Macduff's murder." Macduff survives the play. At the end of the banquet scene, which is what we're talking about, the attack on his family hasn't happened yet. Maybe he means Banquo's murder. Whether Lady Macbeth "doesn't know of" that is disputable I guess, but after > O full of scorpions is my mind dear wife! > Thou know'st that Banquo and his Fleance live. > > But in them nature's copy's not eterne. > > There's comfort yet, they are assailable. > Then be thou jocund.... > ...there shall be done > A deed of dreadful note. plus Banquo's conspicuous overemphasized absence at the feast, she would have to be slow indeed not to get it. Who does she think Macbeth sees in the chair? Duncan? Surely not. When she says > This is the very painting of your fear. > This is the air-drawn dagger which you said > Led you to Duncan. the force of the rebuke is "This is the same thing that happened the OTHER time", ie when you killed that other person. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 17:31:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: brain failure Dear, Patient Souls, Have you ever had that experience where your brain goes to sleep but you keep on typing and transmitting the output? It happened to me on my Macbeth note. Not only did I murder Macduff when I meant to kill Banquo but I also dropped a few lines which might have made what I said sound more like rational discourse. Moral: proofread. Now that I read the parts I accidentally left out, they don't really seem worth bothering you with. Please consider my interp of the line in question and ignore the rest. Thanks to those who have sent advice on London theatregoing. Roger Gross U. of Ark. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Couche Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 13:12:18 +0800 (WST) Subject: Re: Lead On Macduff? I too am familiar with this version. My father, a man of many platitudes and sayings (most of Goon origin), has always said "Lead on Macduff" which I thought to be the real thing until I actually read Macbeth. Since then I have assumed he was simply misquoting. (The inevitable collapse of patriarchal authority I guess, but at least "I've got my feet to keep me warm") Eccles (alias Chris Couche) (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 07:45:40 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0288 Re: Another *Mac.* Question >I have a little textual puzzle that I can't figure out and I'm looking for >help. Does anyone know where the (mis)-quotation-- "Lead on >Macduff"--originates from? The original reads "Lay on Macduff" and then >Macbeth and Macduff exit fighting. I have checked both acting and literary >editions and can find no 'authoritative' source for this error. Can anyone >help? Are there others out there who have heard this quote or is it just me? > >D. Laing. For those who don't know this common misquote, it is used primarily in playing cards, i.e. poker. I imagine that theatricals sitting around backstage would distort the famous words on the nights when "The Ghost Walked". Actually that is a question I meant to ask - The expression "The Ghost Walks Tonight" means that the actors are being paid that night - or so I have been told. The reason for this colourful expression arises from the great touring companies of the Actor-Managers, where a week of rep would conclude with Shakespeare's greatest box-office draw, The Scottish Play. But in that case, why isn't it the GhostS walk tonight. The singular ghost makes me think that they got paid on nights when Hamlet played. Anyone know the true history of this ?? Eric Armstrong. (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. Duggan Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 95 18:47:49 BST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0288 Re: *Macbeth: prophecy & truth* Hi, I'd like to float some questions to the list. Is it generally agreed that _ALL_ the prophecies come true? Is it accepted that they all come true in unexpected ways? (eg Burnham wood, untimely ripped, ect., and that the _unexpectedness_ is what makes the play fun?) OK, I'd like to suggest that the propechy re Banquo comes true too, in an unexcpected way. Banquo is told 'you won't be king but will get kings' or words to that effect. At the end of the play Fleance is forgotten. However, the person coming to take the crown is Malcolm. For the propechy to be true (and all ther others are) the father of Malcolm must be Banquo. Any takers? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 10:04:21 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0292 Bear-Baiting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0292. Thursday, 13 April 1995. (1) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 11:35:00 +0059 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Bear (2) From: Karen Krebser Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 95 13:12:35 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Bear; (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 11:35:00 +0059 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Bear The Swan was never used for bear-baiting, but the Hope was built in 1614 to serve a dual purpose of bear-baiting and theatrical performances. There is not much information about bears, although the bear-baiting or other bear motifs appear in many plays, notably _The Old Wives Tale_, _Macbeth_, _Mucedorus_, _Epicoene_, _Bartholomew Fair_, and of course _The Winter's Tale_. Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 (905) 525-9140 x24496 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 95 13:12:35 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Bear; Mr. Campbell, Although I don't have the full bibliographic record (the book's at home), there's a biography of Shakespeare's life by Dennis Kay that mentions bear-baiting extensively in the first few chapters. Basically, the author is setting the 16th-century-London scene: what the place would have looked, sounded, and smelled like; how the people lived, what they did for fun (that's where the bear-baiting comes in), and how the bear-baiting pits developed naturally into theaters. I apologize for not having the complete information; if there's interest, I will bring the book in and post it (the info, not the book... :) ). The book itself is written in an easy and engaging style. I'm enjoying it quite a bit. I think it's called "Shakespeare: His Life and Times" or something like that. Karen Krebser krebser@erg.sri.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 10:19:05 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0293 The Fair Youth (Freud and Sonnets): Early Mod. Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0293. Thursday, 13 April 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 13:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0287 Re: The Fair Youth (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 23:01:57 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0290 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 13:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0287 Re: The Fair Youth If we are to reject the Freudianism of Peguiney as outdated, then what of other (more heterosexual) Freudian approaches--be they Janet Adelman's SUFFOCATING MOTHERS (1992) or William "Shakespeare hated the vagina" Kerrigan (who has a recent book on Hamlet and the virgin whore split). Whatever the failings of a psychoanalytic "approach" (or at least jargon), it at least engages the text in a way allegedly more "up to date" theories such as Greenblatt do not. As for myself, I'm more interested in how the early sonnets in which Shakespeare is ostensibly exhorting the fair youth to be fruitful and multiply exist also on a self-referential level and question the humanist "lyric 'I" in the process. Though the chronology of Shakespeare's sonnets "and their time relation to the plays" is not known. It does seem in some of these sonnets (I'm thinking in particular of Sonnet #8--Has anybody on this list done any work on that particular sonnet? If so maybe we could compare notes---), the author (construct?) can be read as telling himself that the self is a fiction (a la Donne's NO MAN IS AN ISLAND) and thus writing plays may actually serve an ontological function---I.e. Shakespeare didn't just turn to drama for money and to make a "motley of the few" but to allow for a more dramatic subjectivity that manages to break down the distinction between "self-expression" and commercial theatre....I have more to say about this, and can say it clearer no doubt---but I wanted to throw this out in hopes someone jumps down my throat to make me argue more clearly, etc, etc. Chris Stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 23:01:57 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0290 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Bill Godshalk's 'defence' invites point-by-point refutation, so here goes... >First, the position I take is absolutely counter to the position, say, taken in >THE BELL CURVE. My argument emphasizes not only the individuality of persons, >but also their extreme similarity. I take the position that there is absolutely >NO significant genetic difference among the peoples of this world. May I point >out that that is an egalitarian position? I do not emphasize cultural >difference, or non-rational hatreds based on these supposed differences. To assert that everybody is basically the same is not 'egalitarian' but rather a method of denying that real difference is the means by which real oppression has been done to real people. It represents oppression as merely atavistic fear of difference which has no rational basis in under-the-skin genetic formation. I hope Bill Godshalk would acknowledge that the genetic difference between male and female is highly significant and is used to oppress millions of women. >Second, I am not in favor of starving babies. I am not in favor of ethnic >cleansing or culture wars. Why would someone who emphasizes human unity be seen >as a racist? Or racialist, if you will? The starved baby was my 'reductio ad absurdum' of the vain attempt to consider man stripped of social relations, since, without social relations, and hence culture, babies do not get fed. Nobody suggested Bill Godshalk was in favour of starving babies. >Third, my account of the learning process takes into account Habib's concept >that "we live in our feelings," but not just "about our bodies." We would not >know our world if we had no feelings. Montaigne, as you know, has an extended >essay on this topic. And, without our bodies, we would have no feelings. PASS - I don't think anything is said by this point. >Fourth, I am not a megalomaniac. Nothing I can or may do will "preserve the >power relations of a dominant ideology" or any "particular Eurocentric world >view." I have long assumed that Bill Godshalk is employed as lecturer. If so, he necessarily will influence his students by his conservative opinions, and so "preserve the power relations of the dominant ideology". That is what he is employed to do. Some people manage to subvert, perhaps only slightly, the dominant ideology by teaching English studies in an overtly political (as opposed to Godshalk's covertly political) way. Their employers have the desire, but not the resources or the intelligence, to prevent such subversion. >Fifth, Eurocentric world views emphasize cultural diversity, with the submerged >implication that any culture not European is inferior. If you indeed have read >and understood my postings "over the last several years," this position is the >very position I have been arguing AGAINST!!! By emphasizing similarity over difference Bill Godshalk is not suggesting that his response to, say, _Richard II_, is like that of an Eskimo. Rather he is asserting that an Eskimo's response is like his. This 'egalitarianism' does not celebrate difference but effaces it. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 07:21:37 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0294 Re: Bear-Baiting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0294. Friday, 14 April 1995. (1) From: Brian Altom Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 95 12:55:38 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0292 Bear-Baiting (2) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 15:12:23 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Bear (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 18:12:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Bearbaiting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Altom Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 95 12:55:38 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0292 Bear-Baiting With all the talk about Bear-baiting, and the evidence of connections between the bear pits and theatres, I have to wonder if a real bear was used in *Winter's Tale*. One of my favorite professors said that "Exit, pursued by bear" was one of her favorite stage directions in Shakespeare, and this line of discussion seems to suggest that a real bear would have been available (maybe from right next door!). On the other hand, I don't suppose that the bears being bated were the tame type you find in the circus or at roadside tourist traps in American backwaters. *WT*'s bear was more likely a man in a bear suit or some such, I suppose. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 15:12:23 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Bear There's this little exchange in Wives 1.1: SLENDER. Why do your dogs bark so? Be there bears i' th' town? ANNE. I think there are, sir; I heard them talk'd of. SLENDER. I love the sport well; but I shall as soon quarrel at it as any man in England. You are afraid, if you see the bear loose, are you not? ANNE. Ay, indeed, sir. SLENDER. That's meat and drink to me now. I have seen Sackerson loose twenty times, and have taken him by the chain; but I warrant you, the women have so cried and shriek'd at it that it pass'd; but women, indeed, cannot abide 'em; they are very ill-favour'd rough things. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 18:12:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Bearbaiting Henslowe's Papers, ed. W. W. Greg, which I have never consulted for the topic of bearbaiting, does seem to contain material on that subject -- if my computer is not lying to me. Has anyone noted this yet? Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 07:30:53 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0295 Assorted *Mac.* Responses Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0295. Friday, 14 April 1995. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thuursday, 13 Apr 1995 12:40:25 -0400 Subj: Re: the ghost(s) walk tonight (2) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 13:00:52 -0400 Subj: Re: *Macbeth: prophecy & truth* (3) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 13:07:13 -0400 Subj: Re: *Mac.* 3.4 (4) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 13:24:24 -0400 Subj: Re: *Mac* (5) From: Ron Shields Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 14:01:09 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0291 *Mac.*: 3.4; Lead on; More Questions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thuursday, 13 Apr 1995 12:40:25 -0400 Subject: Re: the ghost(s) walk tonight There's only one ghost in Macbeth. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 13:00:52 -0400 Subject: Re: *Macbeth: prophecy & truth* "...the father of Malcolm must be Banquo." No way. The Banquo prophecy comes true not in the play but in Scottish history. Descendants of Fleance take the throne a few generations later. One such descendant is King James I, king also of England and of Shakespeare, who had James and his pleasure in mind (we presume) when he wrote about the Scottish monarchy. Probably Shakespeare's audience knew about these things, and recognized the Banquo procession in scene 4.1 as a parade of their king's ancestors. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 13:07:13 -0400 Subject: Re: *Mac.* 3.4 Roger Gross, I'm still confused by the cover-up interpretation. If Macbeth sent an invitation to Macduff and got a refusal, why would he have to hide that from Lady M? (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 13:24:24 -0400 Subject: Re: *Mac* It's true. 3.6 and 4.1 are in the wrong order. But not because of a "bad editor." The problem is 3.5, a bogus scene thrown in by somebody who thought there should be more spooky witch musical numbers. Now, the cauldron scene (4.1) couldn't come right after this new 3.5 because that's two witch scenes in a row. So they, whoever they were, put the little rebel meeting (3.6) in between, figuring nobody would notice. But they overlooked the giveaway line that Dom Saliani has pointed out. 4.1 used to be 3.5, 3.6 used to be 4.1, 3.5 used to not exist. (BTW, "they" might have been Shakespeare, but I don't think so.) (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Shields Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 14:01:09 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0291 *Mac.*: 3.4; Lead on; More Questions History solves this problem. King James (don't forget Shakespeare wrote this play for him) saw his connection to the throne through Fleance--not Malcom. The witches say may not be true to Malcom in the world of the play--but King James saw and valued these words in his own way. Ron Shields Bowling Green State Unversity ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 07:44:34 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0296 Literature and Ideology (Was Early Modern Subjectivity) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0296. Friday, 14 April 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 16:12:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0293 Early Modern Subjectivity (2) From: Lonnie Durham Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 95 20:30:13 CST Subj: Literature and Ideology (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 16:12:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0293 Early Modern Subjectivity Apparently Gabriel Egan does not know the uses to which conservatives have put "difference." And this amazes me. He passes over my reference to The Bell Curve as if we does not realize that that very conservative book claims, as Gabriel Egan claims, that the "races" (read "cultures" if you will) are different, and that some races are definitely inferior. Now, I ask you, what races do you think the authors of The Bell Curve find inferior? My reference to scientific facts is apparently conservative since, as we all know, "science is the handmaid of capitalism." So we must disregard any evidence found by scientists that we humans are genetically the same (or very similar). By the way, the Germans in the 1930s diregarded evidence of similarity, and built up elaborate systems of difference. "Difference" is not just a tool used by Cultural Materialists. The fact that we humans are a single species does not at all affect cultural difference. The English have always known that other cultures were (and are) different. The English knew that Indian cultures were different when they established the Raj. "Difference" was not at that time a liberating tool -- to the Indians in any case. Gabriel Egan accepts the dogmas of Cultural Materialism without question. Anyway who questions these dogmas (e.g., all human acts are political) is a conservative. Anyone who argues that we humans have agency and responsibility for our acts is a conservative. Anyone who believes that she speaks the language (i.e., has the power to subvert) rather than the language speaks her is a conservative. Well, in that case, the radical revolution will be preached, fought, and won by conservatives. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lonnie Durham Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 95 20:30:13 CST Subject: Literature and Ideology I haven't been particularly a partisan of Wm. Godshalk's position on Early Modern Subjectivity, but I must say that some of his recent critics have wildly misrepresented him, perhaps on purpose, in order to wrap themselves in a moral smugness that is most unattractive and uncharitable. I only WISH literature were as effective a means of social control as Gabriel Egan seems to believe. I'm sure the vast majority of us have been stressing love, peace, and justice for all we are worth, any time the text gives us the least opening for it. It isn't only you folks who are parading this latest version of the doctrine of "false consciousness" who are horrified by the avalanche of commercialism and greed that informs every aspect of the culture, but to pretend, as Catherine Belsey does, that you have somehow reinvented youselves OUTSIDE culture is, given your own arguments, ludicrous. Your attempts to culturally cleanse your students' minds are based as much upon prejudice as anyone else's. Please, a little more humility. Why, even *I* in one of my recent postings spelled Fred. Crews's name C-r-u-i-s-e. Can you imagine! Love to all, Lonnie Durham ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 07:55:22 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0297 Qs: *R2*; Productions of *Rom.*; *Lucrece* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0297. Friday, 14 April 1995. (1) From: Zoltan Abraham Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 12:49:38 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Richard II (2) From: Milla Riggio Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 01:31:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: [Productions of *Rom.*] (3) From: John Ammerman Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 18:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Subj: The Rape of Lucrece and me (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Zoltan Abraham Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 12:49:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Richard II I was wondering about different approaches that have been taken while staging V, iii of _Richard II_, the scene where Aumerle and the Duchess beg Bolingbroke to pardon Aumerle, whereas York demands that he condemn him. The rhymes seem really to have misfired in this scene. How can you get around them, especially considering that most (if not all) of the lines are end-stopped? From what I gather, the scene is supposed to be serious; in fact this is a key scene for the character of Bolingbroke, who demonstrates his merciful side and his ability to be a judicious king -- unlike Richard, who didn't hesitate to betray his closest allies and would probably never have pardoned a conspirator. However, the rhymes are so ineffective in this scene -- especially for today's audiences who do not seem to like this degree of formality -- that if the rhymes are allowed to be followed by the audience, the effect is likely to be comic. Nevertheless, I have a fundamental disagreement with cutting this scene. Any thoughts? Zoltan (Abraham) Undergrad student Seattle University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 01:31:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: A request prefaced by a plea: First, the plea: Lonnie Durham suggests that the villains of Sh. plays are, following BERNARD Spivack, all "vice figures," like Diccon of Gammer Gurton's Needle. May I suggest that Spivack by levelling all plays with moral plots into one category of drama and in so doing inventing a somewhat specious history for the character he calls the "vice" has constructed one big garden path, which I do not recommend we meander along. Even for characters, like Richard III and Falstaff, who are alluded to as "vice" characters in the plays themselves, the term is finally inadequate even if somewhat meaningful. Richard III does more than "run out of steam" after he's steamrolled over everyone in his path. He develops a conscience of his own, has bad dreams, is haunted by those he's murdered and dies in a different vein than that in which he merrily murdered! Iago belongs to a different tradition altogether, and he - like Richard - radically alters the tradition from which he emerges! Now, the request: I'm beginning to accumulate sources and good reading matter as part of my assignment as dramaturg for an upcoming production of Romeo and Juliet. I'd love to hear from those who have worked extensively on this play, either in production or not, about what you might regard as the best half-dozen sources (essays or books) on the play. What should I definitely not leave off the reading list I'm compiling for the director? You may reply to me at the address below, and as usual, thanks. Milla.Riggio@Mail.Trincoll.Edu Gratefully, Milla Riggio (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Ammerman Date: Thursday, 13 Apr 1995 18:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Rape of Lucrece and me Shakespeare's narrative poem *The Rape of Lucrece* has never been unanimously praised by literary critics. Generations of reviewers have found in its lines nothing more than mere rhetorical ornamentation. Several examples of this attitude can be found by simply flipping randomly through various introductions found on the library shelves. It is easy to accept the authority of these experts who have come to such a broad consensus as to the mediocrity of Shakespeare's *graver labor,* consensus that is only reinforced after comparing Shakespeare's long rhetorical enlargement to the simple elegance of the originals by Livy and Ovid which, we are told, are the primary sources for Shakespeare. Yet the above unanimity of opinion ignores one thousand years of Christian reinterpretation of the Lucretia tale by such writers such as St. Augustine (City of God 1:19), and Chaucer (The Legend of Good Women) which when taken into account, enriches Shakespeare=D5s poem with a tragic irony and provide an additional layer of meaning to his *excess* rhetoric. This meaning was no doubt taken for granted by the original audience but has been overlooked as a result of the subsequent secularization of Western thought. I am currently working on a paper concerning this tragic irony in Lucrece. What I am looking for specifically are instances of irony within the poem. I have made quite a bit of progress in this but have recently started experiencing writer's block. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, John Ammerman The Evergreen State College ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 07:05:04 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0298 Re: Shakespeare and Company Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0298. Saturday, 15 April 1995. (1) From: Sharon Beth Cinnamon Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 00:00:24 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0276 Re: Shakespeare and Company (2) From: Steven Urkowitz Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 95 07:02:10 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0276 Re: Shakespeare and Company (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sharon Beth Cinnamon Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 00:00:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0276 Re: Shakespeare and Company I trained with Shakespeare & Co.the summer of '93. Their teaching methods and their attention to voice (Linklater) and text are wonderful, especially for teachers. But the program is not for everyone -- a fact they make clear during the audition/screening process. It's emotionally and physically challenging. I'm currently swamped in the last two weeks of the semester, like many of you, so I have no time to elaborate. However, if anyone has specific questions I'd love to answer them. --Sharon Cinnamon (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Urkowitz Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 95 07:02:10 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0276 Re: Shakespeare and Company A cautionary tale about Shakespeare and Company's training and its stresses: some years ago at a demonstration of their methods, a participant wrenched a shoulder during one of the physical exercises. Rather than sending for help, the leader encouraged the participant to "tough it out." This was supposed to be part of the benefit (and seems to have been drawn from or modeled on what was then fashionable "est" training-indoctrination). Only after repeated requests and the insistence of other participants was medical help called, and the participant was found to have dislocated the joint. Many kinds of training can lead to benefits; intense physical dedication and mental stress can also warp or wound. "True believers" seem to be among the many folk that W. Shakespeare warns us about. Gardening in the minefield, Steve Urkowitz ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 07:15:51 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0299 Re: The Ending of *King Lear* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0299. Saturday, 15 April 1995. (1) From: Steven Urkowitz Date: Friday, 14 Apr 95 08:35:45 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0271 Re: Ending of *King Lear* (2) From: Steven Urkowitz Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 95 06:13:34 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0271 Re: Ending of *King Lear* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Urkowitz Date: Friday, 14 Apr 95 08:35:45 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0271 Re: Ending of *King Lear* (Sorry about the poor timing, stepping into this discussion weeks after it took off . . . I've been a little punch-drunk recently from chairing in a particularly battering spring semester. Now the daffodils are fully sprouted, I can turnto SHAKSPER . . . gardening in a minefield has its frisson of horticultural grace in the face of imminent dismemberment.) The idea of neat closure at the end of a play certainly has its appeal, but many play and many other forms of art quite happily end with troubling irresolution. As I mentioned earlier, OEDIPUS AT COLONOS has a very nasty jar after Oedipus takes off for heaven. Daughter says she's going home to solve theproblems between her brothers. Rather like ending a romantic comedy with the couple sailing away for a honeymoon cruise on the HMS Titanic. (A bit of possibly relevant theatre history: Scheduled to open on Broadway, December 8, 1941, was a romantic comedy set in the idyllic US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor. It didn't.) I refer readers to my SHAKESPEARE'S REVISION OF KING LEAR for extended discussion of the action and densely textured variants in the last scene. And I invite all to look at Richard Knowles' shabby exercise in misrepresentation in everybody's favorite source of textual authority, SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY, soon to appear in your mailboxes. I got mine yesterday. Silly season in the bibliographic wards (meant to write "wars" there, allowing instead the typo to stand). My cardiologist says I shouldn't post stuff like this. Off to the minefield to plant this year's annuals. Incineratingly, Steve the Gardener Urkowitz (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Urkowitz Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 95 06:13:34 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0271 Re: Ending of *King Lear* About the bodies of Goneril and Regan at the end of LEAR: They do not have to be "real" players. Indeed, the players could be the anonymous bearers of their own supposed corpses, since a rolled blanket or a faked stuff-manniken could be used. There aren't any references that I remember about players taking bows after performances; I recall they came onstage to dance. Just what kind of music and steps would be chosen to follow the stately exits of the dead (and their simulacra, perhaps) I've not been able to imagine. Anyone have any ideas? reference? Could this be an experiment to be tried out at the new Globe? (Such an experiment would violate our conventions, but that would already be built into the Globe's project, with its efforts at reconstructing the imagined environment of the 1600s.) Steve Urkowitz, SURCC@cunyvm.cuny.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 07:25:03 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0300 Re: Bear-Baiting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0300. Saturday, 15 April 1995. (1) From: S. P. Cerasano Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 09:22:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: Bearbaiting (2) From: Frank Whigham Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 09:55:55 -0500 Subj: bear-baiting (3) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 11:52:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0294 Re: Bear-Baiting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: S. P. Cerasano Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 09:22:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Bearbaiting It is highly unlikely that live bears were used on stage during performances of 'A Winter's Tale.' Bears are notoriously unpredictable in their behaviour, and they are even difficult to train. Those used at the Bear Garden were imported from Germany (what the Elizabethans called 'brown bears') and Russia (what they termed 'white bears,' i. e., polar bears). By Shakespeare's day bears were scarce in England and Scotland; but also, the German and Russian bears were larger than others and therefore made for a better show. E. K. Chambers mentions one notorious incident from the 1580s when the scaffolding collapsed in the Bear Garden and several people were killed. (Thus, God had made a statement on the evils of bearbaiting.) I wrote an article entitled 'The Master of the Bears in Art and Enterprise,' in MARDIE, 5(1991), 195-209, which discusses various aspects of bearbaiting, as financial enterprise and entertainment. It might be useful for those interested in pursuing this topic. S. P. Cerasanp (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Whigham Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 09:55:55 -0500 Subject: bear-baiting A student of mine, Joe Beaird, just wrote a seminar paper for me on early modern baiting (bear, bull, even pony!). If anyone is interested in consulting him on this topic (he's not a list member), his address is js.beaird@mail.utexas.edu. He produced lots of interesting history and bibliography. Frank Whigham University of Texas at Austin (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 11:52:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0294 Re: Bear-Baiting Bearward seems to have been a legitimate career option in the 16th and 17th century. The passages cited in the OED indicate that the bearward also kept apes, and had these animals do "tricks." So when Brian Altom asks about the possibility of a real bear in The Winter's Tale, he may be right on target. Bears were, apparently, valuable commodities in the 16th-17th centuries, and, even if some were used for bearbaiting (where the dogs were the real losers), bears were generally well cared for (or so I'm led to believe). Disclaimer: I find blood-sports, animal teasing, bull and bear-baiting, and so on obnoxious. Yours, Bill Godshalk P.S. Some enterprising scholar should write the definitive study of bears in the 16th-17th centuries. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 07:35:53 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0301 Re: Aumerle Scene Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0301. Saturday, 15 April 1995. (1) From: Fran Teague Date: Friday, 14 Apr 95 10:39:45 EDT Subj: Aumerle Scene (2) From: Milla Riggio Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 16:39:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0297 Qs: *R2* (3) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 21:58:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0297 Qs: *R2* (4) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 23:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0297 Qs: *R2*; (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Friday, 14 Apr 95 10:39:45 EDT Subject: Aumerle Scene Zoltan Abraham asks about the Aumerle scene in _Richard II_. As I remember, Joan Hartwig's discussion of how comedy and history operate in that scene is excellent and illuminating. The book is _Shakespeare's Analogical Scene: Parody as Structural Syntax_ (1983). Fran Teague (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 16:39:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0297 Qs: *R2* I do not actually recall the scene to which you allude in the most recent productin of Richard II which I've seen, that at The Shakespeare Theatre at the Landsberg in Washington (Michael Kahn's production). But you should probably notice that the text itself parks the scene on a generic sidetrack, taking it off the serious path and heading it into comedy when H. IV says "our scene is altered from a serious thing/ And now changed to The Beggar and the King." And then begin the virtually doggerel rhymes, to further mark the comedy, which is effectively the comedy of the unruly woman, who here wins her son's life. I think the generic change is clearly marked by the text. And I have some explanations of why, about which I've written in a short paper, should you be interested. Let me know directly. In any case, were I directing the playm, I would never consider playing this farcical interlude "seriously," despite its important role in the plot of the play. You can turn Sh. scenes very quickly in production, and this one ANNOUNCES itself as comedy! Best, Milla Riggio Milla.Riggio@Mail.Trincoll.Edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 21:58:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0297 Qs: *R2* To Zolton (Abraham)--The only time I saw Richard 2nd was at The Tina Packer "Edith Warton House" production--they did the whole play with only 3 characters and cut out the Aumerle scene to focus more on the character of Richard--The play started with his prison soliloquy and worked as a flashback (I've TAUGHT The play that way actually--but in performance it had problems). I think you're right to point out the irony in the rhymes, etc, of the scene and perhaps they are meant to actually show that BULLINGBROKE ISN'T necessarily going to be a better king than Richard (which really comes up in Henry the fourth) By this point, any possible "dichotomy" between Richard and Bull is severely undercut...RIchard has effectively cursed Bull and told him you'll be like I was...and at this point in the play our mind is probably more interested in Richard than in Bullingbroke....Yet, at the same time, the "fourteeners" in CYMBELINE's vision/theophany do NOT necessarily undercut the possibility of a non-skeptical reading of this. I attribute the difference to the "later Shakespeare." I have to think more about this though...thanks for the insight. Chris Stroffolino (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 23:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0297 Qs: *R2*; Why can't the scene be both serious and comic simultaneously? A former professor of mine liked to argue that the end of *King Lear* should be played for laughs, for instance. Something which is silly can leave us with mixed emotions of frustration, humour and even sadness (like some Chaplin). If you don't try to exclude one response or another, you might find yourself producing a witches' brew indeed. Cheerio, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 11:49:06 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0302 Q: Stratford Festivals and Teaching Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0302. Saturday, 15 April 1995. From: Bill Dynes Date: Friday, April 14, 1995 Subject: Straford, Ontario's Festival Season In May, I'll be teaching a small class that will be attending *Macbeth* and *Merry Wives of Windsor,* among other plays, at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in June. Instead of my usual close-reading style, I'm hoping to take a more performance-oriented approach to these plays in class, allowing us to talk about staging issues and the process of bringing life to the text. Since neither of these plays are in my usual survey syllabus, I'd appreciate any thoughts or suggestions that list members might have. Please feel free to contact me directly at my e-mail address: DYNES@Gandlf.uindy.edu. Thanks, Bill Dynes English Department University of Indianapolis 1400 East Hanna Ave. Indianapolis, IN 46220 317 / 788-3512 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 12:06:16 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0303 More *Mac.* Responses Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0303. Saturday, 15 April 1995. (1) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 08:43:36 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0291 *Mac.*: 3.4; Lead on; More Questions (2) From: Dom Saliani Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 08:42:18 -0700 (MST) Subj: *Mac* problems (3) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 22:21:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0295 Assorted *Mac.* Responses (4) From: Pete Callahan Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 21:33:50 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0288 Re: *Mac.* 3.4; Another *Mac.* Question (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 08:43:36 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0291 *Mac.*: 3.4; Lead on; More Questions >OK, I'd like to suggest that the propechy re Banquo comes true too, in an >unexcpected way. Banquo is told 'you won't be king but will get kings' or words >to that effect. At the end of the play Fleance is forgotten. However, the >person coming to take the crown is Malcolm. For the propechy to be true (and >all ther others are) the father of Malcolm must be Banquo. The Malcolm line is going to die out--there are a couple of his sons that reign (including David I) and then a different dynasty, tracing its way back to Fleance, takes over via Marjory Bruce (Robert the Bruce). Viz James V's words about his daughter Mary--"It came with a lass and it will pass with a lass." Melissa Aaron University of Wisconsin-Madison (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dom Saliani Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 08:42:18 -0700 (MST) Subject: *Mac* problems > It's true. 3.6 and 4.1 are in the wrong order. But not because of a "bad > editor." If this isn't bad editing, what is? The editors could be forgiven this one gaffe if this were the only one. However, such is not the case with *Macbeth*. The First Folio text of *Macbeth* was branded by the Cambridge editors as "one of the worst printed of the plays." As suggested in my previous posting, I believe that the play was heavily (and crudely) edited because of censoring - to make it less offensive to the king. Perhaps even to overcome a previous banning of the play. The question remains, however, why would *Macbeth* be banned. Could it be that the play contained anti-Scottish sentiments which were out of vogue at this time considering the likelihood of James' succession? Could this tie in with the fact that in April 1595, the English Agent in Edinburgh wrote to Lord Burghley how ill King James took it "that the comedians in London should scorn the King and people of Scotland in their play"? Could the play mentioned above be an earlier version of *Macbeth*? Here are some other examples of "bad editing" In Act 1, 2, we hear of two battles. The second took place in the area of Fife - far distant from the site of the first battle. We are expected to believe that Macbeth had a major hand in both. Ross reports that Assisted by that most disloyall Traytor, The Thane of Cawdor, began a dismall Conflict, 65 Till that Belona's Bridegroome, lapt in proofe, Confronted him with selfe-comparisons Point against Point, rebellious Arme 'gainst Arme, Curbing his lavish spirit: It seems obvious that Belona's bridegroom confronted Cawdor face to face in this conflict. And yet, if Macbeth were Belona's bridegroom, why does his express surprise when he hears in Act 1,3 of Cawdor's treason? Could it be that someone other that Macbeth is Belona's Bridegroom. There is a note in the Variorum *Macbeth* suggesting that Macduff is the more likely candidate for the title. If so, this would suggest further evidence of cutting. > (BTW, "they" might have been Shakespeare, but I don't think so.) I agree. Ron Shields writes: > King James (don't forget Shakespeare wrote this play for him) saw his > connection to the throne through Fleance--not Malcolm. I have difficulty accepting the baseless legend that Shakespeare wrote this play to please James. There is very little in the play that would appeal to the King - including the use of the witches. What James has to say about witches is quite different from what is suggested in the play. The play deals too closely with the murder of James' father Lord Darnley for it to be pleasing to the King. In my defence I offer the following from Oscar James Campbell's *The Reader's Encyclopedia of Shakespeare*: Since Shakespeare probably designed the play partly to please King James 1, he may have substituted Donwald's crime for Macbeth's in order to make Duncan's murder more like Bothwell's murder of Darnley, King James' father. Thus he could involve more securely the king's horror and loathing of Duncan's murder. Is this not a classic example of cognitive dissonance on the part of Campbell? How could he for one minute believe that seeing the reenactment of his father's murder could be in any way pleasing to James is beyond me. This would not be complimentary to the king - it would serve to recall all too vividly affairs that he was only too anxious to forget. There is absolutely no evidence that the play was performed at Hampton Court on the 7th of August 1606 before James and King Christian of Denmark. This is mere conjecture. Christian by the way could not speak English. We have a record that he was entertained in Latin at Oxford during this trip. As for the belief that James would be flattered with the presence of his ancient ancestor Banquo in the play, even my 11th grade students laugh at this suggestion. There is nothing commendable in Banquo's character. Holinshed speaks directly on this issue. As for his characterization in the play, the great Shakespeare scholar :) Isaac Asimov has the following to say: If Macduff, with no knowledge of the weird sisters, can suspect Macbeth so actively as to refuse his presence at the coronation, then for Banquo, with his knowledge, to have nothing more than a vague fear is for him to be naive almost to the point of imbecility." (*Guide to Shakespeare, Vol. II,177) Please help me out here. There was an article (book?) written that dealt directly with the proposition that *Macbeth* would not have been complimentary to King James. I have lost the bibliographic info on this. Does anyone know of such a work? Dom Saliani < dsaliani@cbe.ab.ca > (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 22:21:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0295 Assorted *Mac.* Responses Scott Shepherd makes some interesting conjectures about the revision of MACBETH. The Oxford editors, in the case of this play, Wells and Taylor assign the revision to Middleton, and in their edition print a scene from Middleton's THE WITCH (which doesn't fit well). But as Scott admits, the reviser of MACBETH may have been Shakespeare, and that identification might go over better now than 40 years ago. Many of us now believe that Shakespeare fairly routinely revised his plays, and perhaps Eric Sams pushes this to the limit, arguing that plays that used to be identified as "sources" are really "early attempts." One thing to remember is that the two witch scenes after Banquo's murder balance the two witch scenes at the beginning of the play. The witches' initial all-hails have got Macbeth to the center of the play. The next series of prophecies get him to the end. Of course, this structuralist argument is not terribly strong, but the play does seem to have a balance of scenes as somebody or other pointed out many years ago. Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Callahan Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 21:33:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0288 Re: *Mac.* 3.4; Another *Mac.* Question Perhaps it is the same as "Play it again Sam", which also was never said. Pete Callahan SH377413 WVNET ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 12:09:11 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0304 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0304. Saturday, 15 April 1995. From: Norman J. Myers Date: Friday, 14 Apr 1995 11:36:19 -0400 Subject: Re: Early Modern Subjectivity I certainly don't want to enter into the "early modern subjectivity" fray (which seems to have become the world vs. Godshalk). I'd just like to see us turn our attention more to "early modern" works to explore this question. Accordingly, folks, have a look (again) at COMEDY OF ERRORS. If that ain't about Self hood, I don't know what it's about. In fact, the Folio is consistent in separating "thy" and "my" from "self." Thus: S. ANT. So I, to find a Mother and a Brother In quest of them (unhappy) loose my self. I,ii,39-40 or ADRIANA How comes it now, my Husband. O how comes it That thou art then estranged from thy self? Thy self I call it, being strange to me' That undividable incoporate Am better than thy dear self's better part. Ah do not tear away thy self from me, etc. II, ii, 125-130 Next step, I suppose, would be to find out just when printers joined thy and my to self. I leave that to those who are far beyond me in editorial questions. I haven't the foggiest notion what this has to do with Cultural Materialism. Norman Myers Theatre Bowling Green State University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 07:21:42 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0305 Re: Bear-Baiting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0305. Monday, 17 April 1995. (1) From: Karen Krebser Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 95 10:30:58 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0300 Re: Bear-Baiting (2) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 08:25:48 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0300 Re: Bear-Baiting (3) From: Jerry Bangham Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 13:31:42 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0300 Re: Bear-Baiting (4) From: Michael Friedman Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 16:51:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0292 Bear-Baiting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 95 10:30:58 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0300 Re: Bear-Baiting I spoke earlier in the week of a biography of Shakespeare by Dennis Kay. Here's the reference: Kay, Dennis. Shakespeare: His Life, Work, and Era. Great Britain: Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd. New York: William Morrow, Quill Editions. 1992. Regarding bear-baiting, I quote from Chapter 4, "From the Country to the City": On the southy bank of the Thames, for example, citizens could disport themselves in brothels or at the bear-baiting stadium. Bear- baiting by dogs was a pastime in which the English took some considerable pride, a sport in which they regarded themselves as superior to their effete continental cousins. In 1506, Erasmus commented on the great herds of bears maintained to supply the ring. From the reign of Henry VIII onward, the office of Master of the Royal Game was a significant court position. In 1526 a substantial amphitheater or circus (the classical precedent added to the dignity of these celebrations in New Troy) was constructed in the Paris Garden on the Bankside in Southwark. The building could hold about a thousand spectators, with admission later fixed at a penny for the cheap places and twice as much for the upper galleries. Both bulls and bears were baited by mastiffs in this building until in 1570 a second circus was constructed in an adjoining field and the bullfights were transferred there, leaving the bears in the older ring. And so they continued until they were suppressed by the Long Parliament in 1642, leaving behind a folk memory of the bulldog as the embodiment of indomitable patriotism. (84) [There's much more in this chapter. a very interesting story, I think. Karen Krebser] (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 08:25:48 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0300 Re: Bear-Baiting Caveat on real bears in WT: Earlier that same year, two white bears were used to pull the Prince of Wales' chariot in *Oberon*. I find it difficult to believe that live bears were allowed so close to the Prince of Wales. And polar bears are notoriously fierce and impossible to train. This suggests to me some kind of fabulous costume. Upon which, seeing it backstage as the King's Men prepared to go on as the Satyrs, a certain playwright noticed the costume and said "Uhh. . .you're not going to be using this again--are you?" and a famous stage direction is born. I've got a fuller paper on this plus some good bibliography if anyone is interested--but I would strongly recommend the articles by George Reynolds and Michael Hattaway. Melissa Aaron (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 13:31:42 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0300 Re: Bear-Baiting While we may be glad that Bear-Baiting is no longer with us, performing bears very much are. The only thing that I didn't particularly like about the amazing Moscow Circus was the rather pathetic assortment of performing bears. At least one of the bears had the chance to be self-assertive when it had an altercation with another bear and then made a quick excursion into the audience. Much more in the spirit of Elizabethan popular entertainment are the bears that appear as street entertainers in many countries. I remember, years ago, coming up into the market in Mexico City from the subway and suddenly being jostled. I turned and found myself looking up at a very large bear. I've also seen performing bears on the streets of Istanbul. I can't imagine street bears in the US, but there was a fuss about a wrestling bear in Mississippi a few years ago. So, it appears that man's fascination with bears has continued over the ages, if in a somewhat more humane form. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 16:51:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0292 Bear-Baiting Colin, One of the most interesting pieces I ever read about bear baiting is Stephen Dickey's "Shakespeare's Mastiff Comedy" in *Shakespeare Quarterly* volume 42 issue 3 (Fall, 1991): 255-75. Michael Friedman University of Scranton ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 07:33:55 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0306 Re: *Macbeth*: Prophecy & Middleton Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0306. Monday, 17 April 1995. (1) From: Eddie Duggan Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 95 19:02:25 BST Subj: Parentage & Prophecy in _Macbeth_ (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 20:55:38 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0303 More *Mac.* Responses (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eddie Duggan Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 95 19:02:25 BST Subject: Parentage & Prophecy in _Macbeth_ Parentage and Prophecy in Macbeth I'm currently working on a paper with the above title. It was this which prompted me to mail some ideas on the subject to the list. I've had some response and would like to take the opportunity to answer the replies publicly, via the list, rather than email, in the hope of stimulating some further debate. J. R. Nelson writes in a email reply [have you cc'd this to the list, JR?]: >I agree that all prophesy in Macbeth must come true, but I disagree >that Malcolm is Banquo's father. Try this idea. > >I am not an English historian so I don't know the ancestry >of the British throne, but I have assumed that there must be some >relationship between Banquo and King James. It appears that there >are several scenes written in the play specifically to compliment the >king (healing scrofula--earth itself mourning death of Duncan etc). >This may be another compliment. > [...] >I maintain Banquo somehow is father to the line of kings coming out >of the caldron. You are quite right, albeit in the conventional sense. The reading I propose, however, is one that eschews the conventional for what we might descibe as one in which 'nothing is / But what is not'. In a similarly conventional vein is Scott Shepherd. In reply to: >> "...the father of Malcolm must be Banquo." Scott writes: >No way. The Banquo prophecy comes true not in the play but in >Scottish history. >Descendants of Fleance take the throne a few generations later. >One such descendant is King James I, king also of England and of >Shakespeare, who had James and his pleasure in mind (we presume) >when he wrote about the Scottish monarchy. > >Probably Shakespeare's audience knew about these things, and recognized >the Banquo procession in scene 4.1 as a parade of their king's ancestors. I would answer Scott in two ways: First, the play isn't able to read history, Scots or otherwise. The logic of the play and the prophecies is contained within its narrative time (ie all the prophecies, to maintain narrative coherence, must be contained within the time of the telling). Further, to agree with the 'unexpected' aspect of the other prophecies, there can be no explanation other than the one I propose: at the end of the play the crown falls to Malcolm; ergal, for the condition <:all prophecies are fulfilled within the time span of the play:> to be true, Banquo MUST be the father of Malcolm. Second, Scots history--the combination of legend (viz. Hector Boece's _Scotorum Historiae_ which provided the source for Ralph Holinshed's _Chronicles_ in which Shakespeare found the material for _Macbeth_) and history, combined with Shakespeare's flattery for his patron--which amounts to what was 'known' by James, Shakespeare and the seventeenth-century audience, that James was descended from Banquo, has been subsequently revised. It is now accepted, I believe, that the 'historical' Banquo was not the ancestor of James. [In fact Siward is more closely related to James than Banquo.] It is also accepted that Fleance has no historical equivalent and was merely taken from Holinshed by Shakespeare, even though he is 'forgotten' after _Macbeth_ 3.3. So, to Scott's assertion that 'The Banquo prophecy comes true not in the play but in Scottish history', I must reply that it is in fact the case that Banquo and Fleance play no part in Scottish history. Rather, the historical line of descent is as follows: Duncan I (d. 1040) | | [Macbeth (ca 1005-1057): | rules 1040-1057 | (d. 1057, slain by Malcolm)] | Malcolm III (Canmore) (d. 1093) Son of Duncan I rules 1057-1093. | | Donald Ban, Malcolm's | brother, uncle to Duncan II, | usurps crown, 1093. | Duncan II (d. 1094) Eldest son of Malcolm Canmore, by his first wife. | | Donald Ban restored 1095. | Edgar, son of Malcolm by his second wife, installed on Scots throne by William Rufus, 1097. | | Alexander I, son of Malcolm by his second wife. | | David I [= Matilda (Siward's daughter)] son of Malcolm Canmore (ruled 1124-1153). | [... some 400 years] | James Stuart (1567, VI of Scotland) (and 1603, I of England) [And as to the suggestion that Shakespeare 'had James and his pleasure in mind', I think that may be dealt with more adequately in the discussion of the Sonnets ;) ] Eddie Duggan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 20:55:38 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0303 More *Mac.* Responses _Macbeth_ will, I understand, be included in the Oxford Complete Works of Thomas Middleton. The Oxford Complete Shakespeare Electronic edition gives the following to Middleton: 1.2, 1.3.37-45 (maybe - uncertain authorship), 3.5, 4.1.38-60, 4.1.141-148. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 07:46:42 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0307 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0307. Monday, 17 April 1995. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 19:04:54 +0100 Subj: Re: Literature and Ideology (Was Early Modern Subjectivity) (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 22:09:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0304 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 19:04:54 +0100 Subject: Re: Literature and Ideology (Was Early Modern Subjectivity) I am very pleased to see that the name of this thread has changed. Terry Hawkes mentioned, and no-one followed up, the fact that we are being jerked around by the term 'early modern'. The term suggests that something happened in the late medieval period that changed everything, including subjectivity. The big change I see is the emergence of proto-capitalism in the accumulation of wealth in the wool trade in Britain in the fourteenth-century. As a Marxist I call this change in subjectivity that we perceive a superstructural corrolary of the change in the economic structure. Note my 'that we perceive'. I am much less certain that there WAS a change in subjectivity than I am certain that we perceive it because we live towards the end (I hope!) of the same capitalist era. I spot a contradiction in Bill Godshalk's last posting: > That very conservative book [The Bell Curve] claims, as Gabriel Egan claims, that the "races" (read "cultures" if you will) are different. Okay, I'll read 'cultures', what then?... > The English have always known that other cultures were (and are) > different. The English knew that Indian cultures were different when they > established the Raj. So you, me, and the authors of the Bell Curve agree on cultural difference, Bill? I am glad, but from what you tell me of the authors of that book ("very conservative") I think we three shall ne'er meet again. I don't generally take 'race' and 'culture' as synomymous. I am not so scared of the uses other people have made of difference that I have to pretend it doesn't exist. I really want Bill Godshalk to acknowledge that when he said: "I take the position that there is absolutely NO significant genetic difference among the peoples of this world" in an earlier posting, he was taking 'people' as synonymous with 'men' and forgot that the XX/XY difference is the primary genetic distinction by which oppression has operated. To Lonnie Durham: I like "love, peace, and justice" too. If only there was 'understanding' also, we would not have to argue about how to bring about more of the first three. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 22:09:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0304 Re: Early Modern Subjectivity Norman Myers invites us to look at THE COMEDY OF ERRORS to explore the problem of subjectivity. I'm not sure the separation of "my" and "thy" from "self" is important, but a brief cruise through Hinman's PRINTING AND PROOFREADING should suggest an answer. In any case, the play certainly poses problems of identity. First, Antipholus of Syracuse (the traveling Antipholus) feels that he's losing himself since he's lost his family. For him, personal identity seems linked to family identity. Adriana feels that her identity is closely linked to Antipholus of Ephesus. But she, ironically, makes this claim to a man she has never seen before -- her husband's twin. The situation must have some influence on the way an auditor takes her assertion. Antipholus of Syracuse begins to unconsciously displace his brother and assume his social identity, while, at the same time, feeling that his inner identity is in tact. He doesn't seem to question the integrity of his identity -- merely the integrity of the Ephesians. Antipholus of Ephesus begins to experience certain changes: he's locked out from his house when he returns for dinner. He's next given the identity of a debtor and then a madman. When he and Dromio finally free themselves, both are pretty violent. Like his Syracusan brother, Ephesus does not seem to feel that his inner identity is in question. He doesn't accept Pinch's diagnosis of madness. Of course, Luciana at the beginning of Act II gives the stereotypical description of males as masters of the universe (and their wives). I gather that this description is what the "implied culture" of the play holds up as the ideal. And the action of the play undercuts that description. The males of the play are masters of nothing, and the identity questions are solved by the Abbess at play's end. What any of this has to do with "subjectivity" -- if anything -- I leave to others. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 07:55:32 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0308 Qs: Fighting Words; Oral Stage Tradition Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0308. Monday, 17 April 1995. (1) From: Daniel L. Colvin Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 14:46:00 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Fighting words (2) From: Ken Colston Date: Sunday, 16 Apr 1995 18:46:17 -0400 Subj: Oral Stage Tradition (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel L. Colvin Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 14:46:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Fighting words The fight director for our production of Macbeth has asked me to come up with some "ad libs" for characters to say at various parts of the play, especially big fights. I could use help from SHAKSPEReans in two ways: 1. If you have any wonderful words/phrases/insults/etc. to suggest, please let me know. 2. I seem to recall seeing an advertisement for a book (I think published by a British press) which dealt with Shakespearean curses and similar matters -- a kind of collection from the plays. Do any of you know of such a book? Thanks for any help you can give. Dan Colvin Western Illinois University DL-Colvin@bgu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Colston Date: Sunday, 16 Apr 1995 18:46:17 -0400 Subject: Oral Stage Tradition Does an oral stagecraft tradition for any of Shakespeare's plays (passed on from generation to generation of theater types) exist that might reach back to his time and thus shed light on original/early interpretation? Or have there been too many interruptions lasting several generations? Is there any scholarship in this area? For example, I understand that by tradition Act I Scene ii of Henry IV, Part 1 is set in an Eastcheap apartment belonging to Prince Hal. Nothing in the text confirms this. Where would such a tradition originate? This is only one simple example from a play I'm reading with a high-school class. I'd be interested to hear what SHAKSPERians know about the oral tradition. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 08:04:19 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0309 Re: *Lr.* Ending; Staging *Rom.*; Teaching/Performance Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0309. Monday, 17 April 1995. (1) From: Peter J. Callahan Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 18:01:31 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0299 Re: The Ending of *King Lear* (2) From: Milla Riggio Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 18:10:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: [Staging *Rom.*] (3) From: Frances Helphinstine Date: Monday, 17 Apr 95 7:23:26 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0302 Q: Stratford Festival and Teaching (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter J. Callahan Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 18:01:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0299 Re: The Ending of *King Lear* I was at a lecture at the Folger Library in D.C. last year, I believe that the lecturer said that in the end of the 18th or 19th Century that the ending of *King Lear* was so depressing that most theaters performed the ending as a comedy. This practice has stopped in this century, (thank God). Has anyone else heard this, or do I have the wrong production in mind? Peter J. Callahan SH377413@scvax Shepherd College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 18:10:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Staging *Rom.*] Thanks to those who have written with suggestions about Romeo and Juliet. I have a clarification and another question: the clarification is that I'm not looking for information on productions, but the best sources possible on the play, scholarly, cultural, the whole schmear. And, another question: what text would you recommend if you were staging the play. Roger Gross and others who have staged it, what text did you use? Thanks once more. Again, private responses are probably most appropriate. Milla Riggio - Milla.Riggio@Mail.Trincoll.Edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frances Helphinstine Date: Monday, 17 Apr 95 7:23:26 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0302 Q: Stratford Festival and Teaching A Wonderful Resource is Professor Ken Davis right there at IUPUI. He wrote REHEARSING THE AUDIENCE: WAYS TO DEVELOP STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THEATRE. (NCTE, L988). His home address is 7856 N. Clarendon Road, Indianapolis, IN 46260-3513. Fran H. Morehead State ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 10:10:48 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0310 Re: Sh. and Company; The National Voice Intensive Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0310. Monday, 17 April 1995. (1) From: Amy Ulen Date: Sunday, 16 Apr 1995 02:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Shakespeare & Company (2) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Sunday, 16 Apr 1995 08:19:12 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0298 Shakes&Co. vs. The National Voice Intensive ((1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Ulen Date: Sunday, 16 Apr 1995 02:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Shakespeare & Company I attended the 1994 Shakespeare & Company teachers Institute. I was extremely impressed with Shakespeare & Company, and have used almost everything I learned at the Institute in my class room this year. As an alternative school teacher, I have not been able to use much of the scholarly work we did at the Institute with my students. Because of Shakespeare & Company, my students are now learning about voice and movement. Shakespeare is now something active and alive for them. This year alone, I was able to teach five of Shakespeare's plays instead of my usual one. I would say that Shakespeare & Company is definitely doing something right for teachers! I have even set up a Shakespeare mailing list for teachers who have attended the Institute. Amy Ulen Moscow Alternative School Center (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Sunday, 16 Apr 1995 08:19:12 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0298 Shakes&Co. vs. The National Voice Intensive Many US readers familiar with Shakespeare and Company may not know that Canadians have a somewhat similar program just outside Vancouver at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby. The National Voice Intensive also combines intensive voice work, with roots in the work of Iris Warren & Kristen Linklater, and text work on Shakespeare. This five week program runs each May/June up on top of Burnaby Mountain and differs from Shakes&Co in that it is affordable. It seems to me (having never been to Shakespeare and Company) that the Voice Intensive never became as invasive, nor was it affected by the passion for "est" mentioned in the other posts. Yes, some people have difficulties with the emotional and physical demands at the Voice Intensive, but I cannot imagine a teacher telling someone to "tough it out". The most delightful part for me, having been an assistant to the faculty for the past two years and returning this year as a faculty member, is the skepticism that some of us have for the "dogma" of some Shakespeare studies. I look forward to my 5 weeks on the mountain. If anyone has questions about this program, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks, Eric Armstrong. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 10:18:47 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0311 New 1st Folio Facsimile; DC Birthday Party Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0311. Monday, 17 April 1995. (1) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Sunday, 16 Apr 1995 17:05:02 -0400 Subj: The new first folio facsimile (2) From: Blair Kelly III Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 21:54:09 -0400 Subj: Shakespeare Birthday Party in Washington, DC (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Sunday, 16 Apr 1995 17:05:02 -0400 Subject: The new first folio facsimile I am not sure whether people have heard about this new publication which is a revelation to me. As I am sure most people know, the remarkable Norton Facsimile went out of print in 1990 and weighed A TON. Finding a second hand copy has had me stumped. Yesterday, while in TheatreBooks (in Toronto) I found a new edition, published by Applause, prepared and introduced by Doug Moston. ISBN 155783184X for the soft cover edition, though there seems to be a hard cover edition available for $250. (ouch) The softcover is listed at US$45, and I got mine in Canada for CDN$62.95. The page size is apparently 90% of the real thing and so it is a little easier to hold and lug around. The "greatest hits" method of taking the best pages available has gone a bit further in this edition, using some pages from the New York Public Library. The introduction covers the basic concepts developed by Patrick Tucker and those presented by Neil Freeman. It seems that the academics still find this methodology a little absurd, but actors all over the English speaking world seem to have embraced. I don't believe that this First Texts mode of rehearsal/performance will go much further than a means to actor research, but as such it has made a very large impression on the acting community. I would love to hear comments on these theories (if they are well known). I have found that it helps actors to make choices as they learn to study as Shakespearean role and to learn what really helps them make contact with a character. I look forward to reading a few plays solely from the facsimile and see what the difference is. Eric. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Blair Kelly III Date: Saturday, 15 Apr 1995 21:54:09 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare Birthday Party in Washington, DC Fellow SHAKSPEReans, You have always been kind enough to answer questions that members of the Washington Shakespeare Reading Group pose (and that I post) that we consider you honorary members of our group. If any of you will be in the Washington, DC area the evening of 22 April, please join us in our annual birthday bash for Bill (Shakespeare - not Clinton). (The formal invitation is below.) And if any of you can suggest some embarrassing scenes (embarrassing for the person saying the lines), I would like to hear your suggestions. Blair Kelly III Secretary, Washington Shakespeare Reading Group bfkelly@afterlife.ncsc.mil The Washington Shakespeare Reading Group cordially invites you and a friend to attend our 1995 Shakespeare Birthday party to be held in Memorial Hall of the Palisades Community Church The Palisades Community Church 5200 Cathedral Avenue NW Washington, DC 20016 on Saturday 22 April beginning at 6:30 pm. Dinner, the toast to William Shakespeare, and Shakespearean entertainment (including Members Choice Readings) will be the order of the evening. Dr. Kenneth Adelman of the Institute for Contemporary Studies and the Georgetown School for Continuing Education will give the toast to William Shakespeare at the party. Members are requested to bring a dish to share for the dinner. Members are also reminded to choose something to read for the Members Choice portion of the evening. As always, members without something to read will be assigned the most embarrassing scene that the Entertainment Director can find! Dress is formal, informal, casual, costume, or what you will. Blair Kelly III Secretary, Washington Shakespeare Reading Group 1309 Beltram Court Odenton, MD 21113-2102 (410) 674-5968 Home (301) 688-0331 Work ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 06:59:22 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0312 Re: *Mac.* Discussions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0312. Tuesday, 18 April 1995. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 10:34:30 -0400 Subj: Re: *Mac*: bad editing (2) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 13:32:54 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0306 Re: *Mac*: Prophecy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 10:34:30 -0400 Subject: Re: *Mac*: bad editing Macbeth never faced Cawdor on the battlefield in Fife. He fought Norway. It's perfectly clear if you start your quote at the beginning of the sentence: > Norway himself with terrible numbers, > Assisted by that most disloyal traitor > The thane of Cawdor, began a dismal conflict > Till that Bellona's bridegroom lapp'd in proof > Confronted him... Cawdor probably wasn't even at that battle. What kind of assistance did he give? We never find out. Later it's explicitly ambiguous: > Whether he was combin'd > With those of Norway or did line the rebel > With hidden help and vantage, or that with both > He labor'd in his country's wrack, I know not, > But treasons capital, confess'd and prov'd, > Have overthrown him. But "hidden help and vantage" is enough to explain Macbeth's knowing nothing about it. It's significant that the treasons have to be "confess'd and prov'd." As for Macbeth getting from one battle to the next in the same day, Shakespeare plays that kind of geography trick all the time. See *Othello* for plenty of impossibly fast sea travel. Better examples of bad editing than this will have to be found. Besides, if you make Macduff Bellona's bridegroom and give him the Cawdor thaneship, out the window goes almost all of act 1, which depends on 1) Macbeth's unusual military success, 2) Duncan's bestowing advancement on him, and 3) ubiquitous iterations of the Glamis-Cawdor-king formula. Dom Saliani is talking about a major rewrite, not cuts and revisions. The blunders of a bad editor (or censor) can't account for that. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 13:32:54 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0306 Re: *Mac*: Prophecy I said "Scottish history" when I meant the legends English theatergoers of the early 17th century knew as Scottish history. Oops. But to the purpose: Eddie Duggan says Malcolm MUST be the son of Banquo. He comes to that by a little logical equation. But the foundations of his syllogism, 1) All the prophecies are fulfilled in an unexpected way 2) All the prophecies are fulfilled within the time span of the play are only assertions of his. (1) is manifestly wrong. The Cawdor thing comes true straightforwardly enough: one man gets fired, somebody else gets his job. This is straightforward too: kill the king, take the throne. (By "straightforward" I mean there's no "fiend that lies like truth" involved. Of course Macbeth doesn't _expect_ to become Cawdor, but that's not the kind of "unexpected" we get with Birnham Wood and of-woman-born, where the predictions are themselves deceitful.) "Beware Macduff" fulfills exactly as one would expect it to. The only trick prophecies are the ones designed to give Macbeth a false assurance. That's not what the Banquo prophecy is. (2), a kind of Aristotelian unity insistence, is harder to dismiss because it's usually true. But the Banquo prophecy is (sort of) an exception. The witches predict something that _can't_ happen during the play because it's scheduled for several decades in the future. Conventional wisdom says Shakespeare got away with that because his audience "knew" the prediction came true in "history". For example, a contemporary play with a prophecy of Kennedy's assassination or Hitler's rise to power wouldn't need to contain those events in its action. But even without extratextual knowledge it's obvious (and repeatedly expressed by Macbeth) what Fleance represents. What can Eddie Duggan say about Fleance? Why make such a point of him and his escape from the ambush? Why include him in the story at all? But here's my real answer to the problem, let's see if it flies: There _is_ fulfillment within the action of the play. Shakespeare, also more or less a believer in (2), wasn't content to leave the "line of kings" unshown. So he showed them. The procession of Banquo's progeny in 4.1 is a fulfillment of the prediction in 1.3. That's how Macbeth takes it: "Now I see 'tis true" he says, and gives up on doing anything about it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 07:12:53 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0313 *Lear* Ending and Question Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0313. Tuesday, 18 April 1995. (1) From: Charles Baldwin Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 14:47:09 -0400 (EDT) Subj: RE: The Ending of *King Lear* (2) From: Diane Mountford Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 19:38:18 -0400 Subj: Re: Happy-Ending Lear (3) From: Peggy Galbraith Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 01:46:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0309 Re: *Lr.* Ending (4) From: Peggy Galbraith Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 01:52:57 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Christianity vs. Paganism in Lear and Cymb (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Baldwin Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 14:47:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RE: The Ending of *King Lear* Peter Callahan asked: > I was at a lecture at the Folger Library in D.C. last year, I > believe that the lecturer said that in the end of the 18th or 19th > Century that the ending of *King Lear* was so depressing that most > theaters performed the ending as a comedy. This practice has stopped in > this century, (thank God). Has anyone else heard this, or do I have > the wrong production in mind? Possibly, the reference is to Tate's adaptation of *King Lear*, late 17th-c. Whether it's a comedy or not may be debatable, but his adaptation gives *KL* a happing ending: Edgar and Cordelia marry. Tate's adaptation, I believe, was influential through the 18th and (early) 19th-c. Charles Baldwin English - Kent State University Institute for Bibliography & Editing (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diane Mountford Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 19:38:18 -0400 Subject: Re: Happy-Ending Lear For a *Lear* with a happy-ending, check out Nahum Tate's *The History of King Lear* (1681). It's still called a tragedy, but the ending finds Lear & Kent going off for a life of quite contemplation and Gloster beaming as Edgar and Cordelia become engaged. The bad guys all die, but at the end, Edgar proclaims: "Thy [Cordelia's] bright example shall convince the world (Whatever storms of Fortune are decreed) That truth and virtue shall at last succeed." For a wonderful look at this an other Restoration re-writes of Shakespeare, take a look at Gary Taylor's *Reinventing Shakespeare.* Diane Mountford (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peggy Galbraith Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 01:46:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0309 Re: *Lr.* Ending In regards to Peter Callahan's querry about the ending of King Lear... In lecture today, my Literature professor termed Lear "the most revised of Shakespeare's works" and definitely made mention of the fact that 18th and early 19th century productions were carried out as comedies, and that this practive went on for quite some time, and was considered the ONLY way to produce Lear. I just had to reply...it was the first time all semester that my "Skakespeare After 1600" class has been relevant on this newsgroup! Peggy Galbraith Duke University '98 (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peggy Galbraith Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 01:52:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Christianity vs. Paganism in Lear and Cymb Today, while having a classmate review my term paper, she expressed the opinion that Shakespeare not only uses pagan symbols and imagery in Lear and Cymbeline to make a point, but that he actually holds them in higher esteem than he does Christian teachings. Aside from the fact that if my professor shares her view, I am going to receive an F on my paper, I'm not sure I agree with my classmate. Any opinions? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 07:28:50 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0314 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0314. Tuesday, 18 April 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 13:45:49 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0307 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity (2) From: William Proctor Williams Date: Monday, 17 Apr 95 15:52 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0307 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 13:45:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0307 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity Since we are all one species, our genetic makeup is very similar. I apologize for my less precise usage. And since men and women can breed, that fact would suggest further that they are not separate species. We are all in this together. My point about cultural diversity is that belief in cultural diversity cannot be used as a political test. My point about "race" and "culture" is that some, if not many, antropologists question the usefulness (in antropology) of the term "race" except as it is synonymous with "culture." We are all varieties of one species. Concerning Terry Hawkes' comments on "early modern," I leave him to further explain what he meant. But it made me consider the use of "Renaissance" and "early modern" and "Tudor" and "Elizabethan" and so on. These terms carry a lot of baggage, and for those of us who want to try for neutrality, it might be more accurate to use dates. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Monday, 17 Apr 95 15:52 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0307 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity The Great Change was/were the European Renaissance and, in English, the Great Vowel Shift. I thought these were givens--guess I'm wrong. If you add to that the English Reformation, then I think we have enough differences between, let us say 1425 and 1535, to make not only cultural changes occur, but also linguistic/literary changes, theological changes, sociological changes, etc. In the old days (1950s and 1960s) when all graduate students had to take courses in Bibliography, and History of the English Language, and Old English these were not, I think, questions which needed to be asked. Sorry if this sounds "old curmudgeonly," but that is how I currently feel. William Proctor Williams Department of English Northern Illinois University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 07:41:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0315 Re: Insults; New 1st Folio; Don John; Lucrece Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0315. Tuesday, 18 April 1995. (1) From: Terry Craig Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 12:27:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakespearean Insults (2) From: Skip Shand Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 13:39:10 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0311 New 1st Folio Facsimile (3) From: Diane Mountford Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 19:38:10 -0400 Subj: Re: Don John (4) From: Matthew Westcott Smith Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 10:50:10 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0283 Q: "The Rape of Lucrece" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Craig Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 12:27:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespearean Insults For Dan Colvin: There's a Shakespearean Insult site in the Web: http://kite.resnet.cornell.edu/insult.html Enjoy-- Terry Craig DIVHMF1@nccvax.wvnet.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Shand Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 13:39:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0311 New 1st Folio Facsimile Re Applause Folio Facsimile: Better get it while you can, folks. The Applause facsimile is apparently in large part a reproduction of Hinman's Norton choices, and Norton has, I am told, seen to it that only copies now in the stores will be sold to the public. (I don't have anything official on this, just conversation with one of those usually-very-reliable sources.) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diane Mountford Date: Monday, 17 Apr 1995 19:38:10 -0400 Subject: Re: Don John I'd like to address Alexander Smith's post of last week regarding Don John and the subsequent discussion of "vice" characters. First of all, I need to enter a disclaimer, since what I have to say might get me blasted like my post r.e. Isabella & the Duke after the curtain. Although I see the necessity for literary criticism to consider only the portions of the characters' "lives" that the author actually writes, I come to Shakespeare primarily as an actor, and in fleshing out these characters on stage, I find it desirable to consider the gaps, the before and the after. So, since this question is specifically related to a performance, I will make so bold . . . Don John does indeed disappear from the play after the wedding scene. When I played the role, I found this quite satisfying, because at that point he as won the game, acheived his nefarious plan, and he gets to quit while he's ahead (unless he's seen at the end in chains). Structurally, I feel that after that point in the play, Don John is unnecessary, as he has effectively cast his pall over the proceedings, so his physical presence would be redundant. The driving force of the play also shifts at that point from Don Pedro to Leanato, who has no relationship to Don John. His being questioned at the end of the play would, I think, make things dark again. I think Benedick knows this, and postpones the questioning specifically for that reason. Don John's motivation for villainy is related largely to the event which immediately precedes the action of the play: his failed attempt to overthrow his brother. Unfortunately, the references to this are so few and far between, that I think this reality is a very difficult thing to relate to an audience. Don John clearly states that much of his emnity is directed not at Don Pedro (perhaps they really are reconciled?), but at Claudio ("[he] hath all the glory of my overthrow"). In relation to the "vice" character issue: however useful such an idea might be in literary criticism, it can do nothing but flatten a peformance. As a case in point, check out Keanu Reeves in Branagh's film. Whatever you may think of his acting (or lack thereof), the production treated him (the red, the greasiness, the burning fires in the background) as a pretty one-dimensional personification of evil, which I, for one, found to be the films biggest flaw. The thing I love most about Shakespeare as a dramatist is that he seems incapable of writing one-dimensional characters. When I played Don John (at the much-discussed Shakespeare & Company, with the character changed to be a woman, Dona Gianna [sacrilege, I know, but that's what happens when there aren't enough women's roles to go around]), the two main operating factors for me were lust after Claudio (I'd seen him on a battlefield and knew the evil he was capable of--a much better match for me that for the simpering Hero), and utter boredom. The prospect of being trapped in this culture-less, bucolic town for a month was anathema to a high-class lady from Seville. I found it interesting that the more I felt the more like a trapped dog, a victim striking out at her oppressors, the more feedback I got from the audience about how evil I was. Hmmm. Best of luck with your production, Diane Mountford (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Westcott Smith Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 10:50:10 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0283 Q: "The Rape of Lucrece" To John Ammerman: In your inquiry into the deeper significance of *Lucrece* (which, BTW, I wholly agree is worthy of such a treatment) you may want to include a treatment of Machiavelli's satirical comedy *Mandragola* which is based, it seems, on a distinctly different view of Lecrece's *virtu*. My hunch is that Shakespeare may have known of the play--we know he knew of Machiavelli--but do not know for sure. In any event, the differing treatments are of profound singificance, at least to my mind, for the emergence of Modern thinking seen in Machiavelli. After all, the rape of Lucretia is, according to legend, the proximate cause of the founding of the Roman republic, a topic near-and-dear to Machiavelli's heart. Matthew W. Smith The Civic Education Project Dept of Political Science Kossuth University, Hungary ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 12:40:45 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0316 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0316. Wednesday, 19 April 1995. (1) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 13:57:35 GMT Subj: Early Modern (2) From: Peter John Still Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 95 16:44:05 CST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0307 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 23:11:25 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0314 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity (4) From: Bob Gingher Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 05:07:16 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0314 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity (5) From: Bob Gingher Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 05:32:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0286 Re: Sh. & Co., etc. (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 13:57:35 GMT Subject: Early Modern Gabriel Egan touches a sore point. Does anybody know the provenance of the soul-gelding phrase 'early modern'? Why are we all using it? It's almost as bad as 'Renaissance'. Terence Hawkes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter John Still Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 95 16:44:05 CST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0307 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity Just a note from a theatre practitioner: it was only - after 5 years in the theatre - when I read Foucault's 'Les mots et les choses' that I finally lost that niggling worry: what did Shakespeare *really* mean when he wrote all that metaphor! - of course: he meant the metaphor. Most actors that I know, still have that niggling worry, an indication, I think, of some difference between their subjectivities, and whatever it was Shakespeare was producing words for. When you reach back further, and try to produce on stage a medieval play, at every sentence, you end up with the question "well, why doesn't [my character] do [this, that is my impulse]?" At every sentence. And when you explain a social reason, why that impulse simply wasn't an option, the actor will still retain a niggling suspicion at the back of their mind, that [their modern impulse] is what [their character] *really* wants to do, but is not allowed to do. So there is a big, big difference here, practically, and it seems to me that there has to be a big, big difference philosophically, else our philosophy is inadequate. ! In the same vein, Gabriel, what else *is* subjectivity, but 'that we perceive'? So this is where I admit that I missed much of this thread - so apologies for any irrelevance/redundancy - - comments?? --Peter (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 23:11:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0314 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity Since no one jumped in to tell me what THE COMEDY OF ERRORS had to do with "Subjectivity," I thought I'd suggest three possibilities: (1) THE COMEDY OF ERRORS has nothing to do with "subjectivity" which is a 19th century concept initiated by Southey and Coleridge. To speak of subjectivity in the late 16th century is historically incorrect. (2) To suggest that dramatic figures have subjectivity is to confused dramatic figures with real people. Dramatic figures are merely the words in the script or as spoken by actors. (3) We can make believe that dramatic figures have subjectivity and from their words construct what we might call an "implied subjectivity." (cf. Umberto Eco's making believe that a text has agency and intention.) Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Gingher Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 05:07:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0314 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity Re: Bill Godshalk's "We are all in this together." Exactly the point I was trying, however clumsily, to make earlier re: value, source, commentary. Or, in the words of Frank Zappa, "We're all bozos on the same bus." (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Gingher Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 05:32:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0286 Re: Sh. & Co., etc. Thanks to Christine Mack Gordon for the lovely passage on Einstein's view of our significance only insofar as we're related to all things, events, one another. Coleridge's 14th chapter from *Biographia Literaria*, Conrad's views on the task of the artist, Faulkner's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speecch, Robert Coles's books on *The Call of Stories* and "The Call of Service* all come to mind as variations on the same "theme." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 12:53:43 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0317 Qs: Troilus and Cressida; Shakespeare and Africa Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0317. Wednesday, 19 April 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 06:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Troilus and Cressida (2) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 95 23:07:11 CEST Subj: Shakespeare and Africa (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 06:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Troilus and Cressida Dear SHAKESPERians--For the next several weeks I will be putting together a paper on TROILUS AND CRESSIDA. As it seems to be shaping up now, I keep coming back to the, to me, central issue of the thematic doubling of the characters Cressida and Achilles. I know "character study" is suppossed to be out of fashion today, but I wish to reconcile it with other approaches. One of the central links between these two characters in the reading I'm proposing is that they are more interested in appealing to THE BODY.... If anybody knows of any recent work, or has done any recent work on this particular play---or even if you just have some stray ideas--It'd be great to talk about it (whether on the list or off it). Thanks, Chris Stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 95 23:07:11 CEST Subject: Shakespeare and Africa I am currently working -- more precisely, *planning* to work -- on certain aspects of Shakespeare's Africa (e.g., in 2HIV,V,iii,101: 'I speak of Africa and golden joys'). At the basis of this idea, or perhaps behind it, is my semiconscious aspiration to go on exploring the field of African literature and culture without losing touch with the home field of Shakespeare, Milton, and --in more general terms -- of Renaissance and Reformation studies. So far, from the catalogues of my University, and from those I can gain access to through Telnet, nothing has emerged on this particular subject except an unpublished M.A. thesis (William Ellsworth Vincent's 'The golden bubble: a study of English interests in Africa to James I with particular reference to Shakespeare,' UMaryland 1963) and Alan C. Dessen's chapter on 'The logic of "place" and locale' in *Elizabethan Stage Conventions and Modern Interpreters* (1984). Is it credible that nobody has published anything on "Shakespeare and Africa" over the last ten years? Any assistance, whatever its nature (bibliographical information, comment, suggestion), will be greatly appreciated and, of course, duly and cheerfully acknowledged. Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 13:06:45 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0318 Re: *Mac.* Discussions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0318. Wednesday, 19 April 1995. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 12:28:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0312 Re: *Mac.* Discussions (2) From: Dom Saliani Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 15:42:46 -0700 (MST) Subj: Macbeth problems (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 22:55:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0312 Re: *Mac.* Discussions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 12:28:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0312 Re: *Mac.* Discussions Scot Shepherd is certainly right that "Macbeth never faced Cawdor on the battlefield in Fife. He fought Norway." But I disagree that "It's perfectly clear if you start your quote at the beginning of the sentence." This is something of an overstatement; otherwise, why is it that first-time readers of the play almost always think that Macbeth has met Cawdor in single combat? Consider the last part of the sentence in question (omitted in Scot's quotation): Macbeth "confronted him" [i.e., Norway, not Cawdor], but he did so "with self-comparisons, / Point against point, rebellious arm 'gainst arm...." Norway, of course, is an invader, not a rebel. His arms aren't rebellious, Cawdor's are; and soon, Macbeth's arms will be extended in rebellion as well. The double but incomplete parallel construction invites auditors to ask, not only "Who's who?" but "Whose rebellious arm"? The parallel phrasing and the insistent imagery of mirrored "seeming" imply something like, "Point against point, rebellious arm against [rebellious] arm," but of course Macbeth at this point is not yet named as a rebel, either. One of *Macbeth*'s many equivocations is its equivocal treatment of identity, blurring "perfectly clear" assertions of difference among a world of bloody men. (Is Malcolm is "a weak, poor, innocent lamb" as he avers, or a far worse king-to-be than Macbeth, like the Malcolm in Holinshed's *Chronicles*? Either way, he's a supremely skillful liar.) The confusing report of Norway's duel with Macbeth appears in a scene that begins with the question, "What bloody man is that," and it's a good question, since the Scotsmen are a bloody lot. (Which bloody man is that bloody man?). We can't easily tell one bloody bloke from another, nor even whether "bloody" means "violent" or "wounded." The scene ends with Duncan's remark, "No more that Thane of Cawdor shall deceive / Our bosom interest" (i.e., No more THAT one; instead the NEXT Thane of Cawdor will deceive his bosom interest). Like two spent swimmers, like Macbeth and Macdonwald, like Macbeth and Cawdor, Cawdor and Norway invite self-comparisons, and Shakespeare's text invites them--with vague pronoun reference, incomplete parallel construction, ambiguous syntax, and indeed with any device that problematizes the assertion of stable and distinct identities. The bottom line is that there was an awful lot of killing out there on the field, and the guys looked an awful lot alike. Insofar as the ambiguities throughout *Mac* 1.2 are part of a pattern, the confusion between Cawdor and Norway seems to support Scot Shepherd's observation: "Better examples of bad editing than this will have to be found." The lines are perfectly coherent, despite (indeed, *because* of) their equivocating ambiguities. This is not to say that *Macbeth* wasn't cut and revised after Simon Forman saw it in 1611, only that 1.2 shows no obvious signs of revision. Don Foster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dom Saliani Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 15:42:46 -0700 (MST) Subject: Macbeth problems Scott Shepherd writes that >Macbeth never faced Cawdor on the battlefield in Fife and quotes lines from 1,ii to support his contention. I totally agree. Macbeth never faced Cawdor - Belona's bridegroom was on that battlefield and whether he faced Cawdor or Norway is not the issue. The issue is: Who is Belona's bridegroom? I am struck by the ambiguity and the noticeable absence of direct references to Macbeth in Ross's account which begins on line 49 and continues till line 64. The reference to Belona's bridegroom is ambiguous and a number of critics including Granville-Barker posits Macduff as the more likely candidate for this title. I tend to agree with this view for a number of reasons. Firstly, by building Macduff up in this scene, a dramatic purpose is served - he is established early as a worthy adversary for Macbeth. I would hypothesize that in the *Ur-Macbeth* Macduff's victory and presence would have been more pronounced. In the editing - major rewrite? - that followed the three campaigns were condensed into one and Macduff's contribution was clouded over for dramatic purposes of compression. Eddie Duggan quotes JR as writing: > It appears that there are several scenes written in the play > specifically to compliment the king (healing scrofula ... I read somewhere that the whole notion of he "King's Evil" was distasteful to James and that he performed the ceremony grudgingly. Including this detail in the play would not serve as a compliment to him. However if the play were written earlier, Elizabeth who approached this duty with glee would have been pleased with this allusion. The more I think about it the more I find it difficult to accept that James would have been complimented by the presence of Banquo and Fleance in the play. What prevents more people from seeing Banquo in an uncomplimentary light is the romantic notion that has been placed in our heads that Shakespeare to curry favour with James included an albeit fictional ancestor of James in the play. If one looks at the play objectively, without this preconception, a different conclusion can be arrived at about Banquo's so-called noble character. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 22:55:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0312 Re: *Mac.* Discussions I'd like to suggest a modification to Scott Shepherd's excellent account. Macduff may be "Bellona's bridegroom" since Macbeth seems to be fighting in the western part of Scotland, and Ross comes "From Fife" in the east. And one might expect the local thane to be leading the local troops; that's his job. Scott is right that accepting this reading changes our perceptions of the first part of the play. Duncan passes Macduff over in silence and rewards Macbeth with the title Thane of Cawdor. So Macduff -- as of scene 2 -- has a reason to resent Macbeth, and the antagonism between the two starts before the murder of Duncan and Macduff's subsequent refusal to attend Macbeth's coronation. Obviously that antagonism remains muted, and that it does so may not be the result of improper or hasty revision. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 13:54:09 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0320 Insults and Apologies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0320. Wednesday, 19 April 1995. (1) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 18:01:48 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0308 Qs: Fighting Words (2) From: Terrence Ross Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 17:41:34 -0400 Subj: Apologizing ala Richard III (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 18:01:48 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0308 Qs: Fighting Words >2. I seem to recall seeing an advertisement for a book (I think > published by a British press) which dealt with Shakespearean > curses and similar matters -- a kind of collection from the > plays. Do any of you know of such a book? > >Thanks for any help you can give. > >Dan Colvin >Western Illinois University >DL-Colvin@bgu.edu This book is called Shakespeare's Insults: Educating Your Wit -- Wayne F. Hill and Cynthia J/ Ottchen ISBN 0951868403 MainSail Press. There are literally 20 pages of non-stop insults all run together. I highly recommend this book. Eric (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terrence Ross Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 17:41:34 -0400 Subject: Apologizing ala Richard III I hate to contaminate SHAKSPER by referring to a certain legal proceeding in Los Angeles, but there have been two apologies in the last week, one by a senator and one by a lawyer, that remind me of Richard's apology in act 2 of R3: if any here By false intelligence or wrong surmise Hold me a foe; If I unwittingly, or in my rage, Have aught committed that is hardly borne By any in this presence, I desire To reconcile me to his friendly peace. 'Tis death to me to be at enmity; I hate it, and desire all good men's love. Our contemporary apologizers, like Richard, always shift the blame to those who might have taken offense where none was meant, though at least neither the senator nor the lawyer said, "I thank my God for my humility." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 14:15:28 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0322 *Lear*: Ending and Pagan Gods Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0322. Wednesday, 19 April 1995. (1) From: Bruce J. McIver <3074bmac@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 00:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0313 *Lear* Ending and Question (2) From: Nicholas Ranson Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 95 00:04:57 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0313 *Lear* Ending and Question (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce J. McIver <3074bmac@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 00:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0313 *Lear* Ending and Question The ending of Lear is pure pain in the original. In my dissertation, "Upon Such Sacrifices: King Lear and the Late Comedies," I argued that Lear is a kind of inverted romance and that its ending, as the negative does the positive, anticipates the endings of most of the romances. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicholas Ranson Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 95 00:04:57 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0313 *Lear* Ending and Question Pagan Gods in Lear: Lear doesn't refer or swear by pagan gods after III.iv in , if I recall; Kent's "Now, by Apollo, King, thou swear'st thy gods in vain." (I.i.106) gives the clue: he must be weaned from his addiction to false gods. After the h eath scene, III.iv. where Lear ushers Kent and the Fool into the hovel before himself, we see the journey though madness paralleled by a schooled spirit that no longer invokes ineffectual pagan dieties. Somewhere in SQ there's an article to this effect. Good luck. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 14:30:33 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0323 Re: Applause Folio; Shakespeare & Co., Voice and "est" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0323. Wednesday, 19 April 1995. (1) From: Nicholas Ranson Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 95 00:23:50 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0315 Re: New 1st Folio (2) From: Catherine Fitzmaurice Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 12:41:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakespeare & Co. Voice and "est" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicholas Ranson Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 95 00:23:50 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0315 Re: New 1st Folio Applause Folio I agree with Skip Shand. I got my copy at MLA in San Diego this December, for the conference discount of $27.50! One source also tells me that Norton is mad mostly about the TLN simply appropriated by Applause. But Norton has only itself to blame? Why won't it reprint it? As Applause has essentially said, so sue me! Meanwhile, we have a useful source for general text work that will fit on the flat plate of a Xerox machine . . . . Best, Nick. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Catherine Fitzmaurice Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 12:41:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare & Co. Voice and "est" Interesting comments from Cinnamon, Urkowitz, and Armstrong re the relationships between Voice, Shakespeare & Co., and "est" (later "the Forum," now "Landmark"). The confrontative techniques mentioned permeate the entire three years training at the Professional Theatre Training Program at the University of Delaware, and many injuries have occurred. In the three years I worked with them, 1989-92, there was a broken nose, a broken elbow, and a broken heel-bone, as well as countless sprains, and a one-quarter attrition rate in the student body. In the last three years, it has been alleged that there was, at the least, a broken neck, nodes, anorexia and two suicidal students, as well as a one-third attrition rate among the students. Of course the "true believers" are many, and there is a fierce discipline in the resulting work, which to some lacks aesthetic depth, but which produces "results." I teach Voice, and I chose not to continue with the training program but to teach undergraduates instead, because I felt that the "opening up" of students in my work, which is grounded in the nurturing of a humanistic self-discovery process, was antithetical to the prevailing "tough it out" philosophy, and in fact laid bare sensitivities which were then ignored or blatantly scorned in other classes. As an added "plug" for Voice work, of interest to professionals in the theatre, I will be leading my own workshop at Temple University from June 12 to June 16, 1995. Call Donna Snow at 215-204-8652 for information and/or a flyer. My work is also physically demanding, based on the need to free the breathing function, but is self-monitored and does not engage in ideology, rather seeking to give each individual the authenticity, autonomy, and authority that current ideologies, be they "est-Landmark" among practitioners, or "construction of identity" among the scholars, disallow. Education never used to be like this! What happened? Catherine Fitzmaurice ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 14:06:54 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0321 Re: Don John; Vice Figures; Aumerle and Banquo Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0321. Wednesday, 19 April 1995. (1) From: Edward Gero Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 00:12:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Don John (2) From: Lonnie Durham Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 95 03:01:54 CST Subj: Vice Figures (3) From: Edward M Moore Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 09:24:50 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Richard II; Macbeth (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Gero Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 00:12:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Don John I wanted to respond to the questions about Don John. I have had the opportunity of playing him twice here in Washington for the Shakespeare Theatre. The last time with Kelly McGillis as Beatrice. The thing I came up with for his motivation (most scholars will tell you, yes, Shakespeare did not want the play to be too dark) which proved emminentlt playable was this. Given that he is disinherited because of his birth (see Edmund), he might searching for alternate sources of funding. He finds it, I believe, in the person of Hero. What if, (thank you Stanislavski) Don John came into the play with the intention of marrying Hero in order to inherit Leonato's wealth! Immediately upon his arrival, (perhaps we see him taking Hero into the house just before Claudio attempts this) and upon hearing the news *from the great supper*, his plans are thwarted and proceeds to set about the business of ruining Claudio's hope. If he can't have her, his brother's surrogate certainly won't! He sets up the ruse and completely destroys the wedding. He flees having affected the debacle without incriminating himself, perhaps awaiting the dust to settle so as to return to do Leonato the favor of marrying the ruined goods, not to mention Leonato's largesse. It's always been my contention and practice that the superobjective of any character is made clear at the last bit of action the character does, which coincides with the character's functionality designed by the playwright. Hope this helps. Edward Gero Shakespeare Theatre Washington, DC egero@osf1.gmu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lonnie Durham Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 95 03:01:54 CST Subject: Vice Figures Well, I certainly got spanked for suggesting that Don John and Rich. III might be relatives and for "flattening" or "levelling" psychologically complex characters. But I don't think those making the comments know how *really* extreme I can become on the topic (Broughton?, Did someone mention Broughton?!). Why, I think not only Don J. and R.III are related, but Lear's Fool, Feste, Iago, Lady Macbeth and Falstaff as well. (One can go on, and I usually do). But to say that these characters, fools, villains, crafty servants, etc., perform a similar function--to bring out unacknowledged motives in the other characters--is only the *beginning* of such an analysis. The main reason for overlaying conventional types of any kind is to bring out DIFFERENCE, the coin of all meaning. Most of the serious fogging of our critical faculties arises not from a failure to discriminate between literary characters, but from the failure to discriminate between literary characters and real people. As Northrop Frye once pointed out, a picture af a horse is more like any other picture than it is like a horse. While it is NOT very edifying to claim simply, as the Introduction to the Folger edition of *Macbeth* does, that in morality-play fashion, Lady M. is her husband's "bad angel," it is to a serious extent true that she provides the "spurs" (which he says he hasn't got) to Macbeth's "vaulting ambition." But one can see at the same time that the Vice's typical detachment ("A little water will clear us of this deed") is shaky, perhaps even feigned, and that this particular "Vice" will catch a fatal clap of human guilt, try as she might to shed her humanity. (Cleo's seduction of Antony gives us even another variant, but there is no denying the parallels). Come to think of it, Falstaff, as well, is drawn from a position of pure detached self-interest into a web of human commitment, much to his sorrow. I make no secret of the fact that I would like to see much more discussion of literary convention in our exchanges, but our neo-Romantic impulses seem to make us shudder at the thought of taking note of artifice (for fear, I guess, of being accused of abandoning the real world which is so in need, apparently, of our ministrations). "Depth" and "weight" in literary character, though, is achieved relatively simply (for an artist, at least, writer OR actor) by layering or juxtaposing conflicting typologies. We don't think an essay is "flat" merely because the author used an alphabet of only 26 letters or a grammar of only eight (?) parts of speech. Hmmm. That last reminds me of Kenneth Burke; oh how I miss him. Sweet Dreams, All Lonnie Durham (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward M Moore Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 09:24:50 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Richard II; Macbeth Sheldon Zitner published an excellent article on the Aumerle conspiracy many years ago, arguing (I trust my memory is more or less accurate) that the scene with the King is comic and calls into question various political pretensions previously dramatized, in a way not dissimilar from the role Falstaff plays in Henry IV (in fact, I think the subtitle of the essay is "The Origins of Falstaff"). I once saw a production which tried to play the scene straight, and, so funny it was, it convinced me that Zitner was correct. You don't have to play it as farce--that could ruin it--but just expect the laughs. I think the scene of the Bishops' justifying Henry's claim to France is similar--it is impossible to play it straight, and when Canterbury is finished, the King asks, in effect, 'What the hell did you just say?' (Henry V, I.ii.96) Olivier did the scene wonderfully. There is a family tree of the line of Banquo, dating from 1578, printed in Vol. VII of Bullough's Narrative and Dramatic Sources (between pp. 516-17), showing the descent of James VI from Banquo and Fleance. I think the tree is also in H.N. Paul's Royal Play of Macbeth, a book much strained but with much useful information, relevant to the recent discussion on SHAKSPER. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 13:39:16 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0319 Stratford Seminars; Alabama Festival on WWW; News Group Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0319. Wednesday, 19 April 1995. (1) From: Joyce Litster Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 11:44:24 +0059 (EDT) Subj: 1995 Stratford Seminars (2) From: Peter Scott Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 05:46:55 -0600 (CST) Subj: Alabama Shakespeare Festival (3) From: Marty Hyatt Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 10:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: RFD: humanities.literature.english.shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joyce Litster Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 1995 11:44:24 +0059 (EDT) Subject: 1995 Stratford Seminars The 1995 McMaster University Seminars on Shakespeare and the Theatre will be held in Stratford, Ontario, July 10-15, 1995. The announcement is below. Apologies to those who received it more than once. The Centre for Continuing Education McMaster University ANNOUNCES THE STRATFORD SEMINARS ON SHAKESPEARE AND THE THEATRE Thirty-Sixth Season July 10-15, 1995 Stratford, Ontario Every year since 1960, McMaster University has conducted a 6- day seminar for theatre and Shakespeare enthusiasts in Stratford, Ontario. The program is held in association with the Stratford Festival and begins with a get-acquainted reception on Monday evening, July 15. During the week, participants attend seven performances (Macbeth, The Country Wife, Long Day's Journey Into Night, The Merry Wives of Windsor, The Gondoliers, The Boyfriend, A Comedy of Errors), engage in formal and informal discussion with scholars, Festival cast and production people, attend lectures on the plays, learn a little about back stage and production, meet some of the Festival cast, and soak up the ambiance of Canada's festival town. Three types of Seminar memberships are available: Type 1: Includes tickets to 7 performances, all seminar activities, 5 lunches and 4 dinners at the Stratford Country Club, 6 nights' accommodations in a Stratford guest home. Fee: $860 Cdn.* Type 2: Includes tickets to 7 performances, all seminar activities, and 5 lunches and 4 dinners at the Stratford Country Club. Participants arrange their own accommodations. Fee: $664 Cdn.* Type 3: Includes tickets to 7 performances, and all seminar activities. Participants arrange their own accommodations and all meals. Fee: $514 Cdn.* *Fees are quoted in Canadian dollars. Because of the difference in the exchange rate, the fees are considerably less in American dollars. We accept VISA & Mastercard. To receive our brochure and have your name placed on our snail-mailing list, please contact: Joyce Litster Co-ordinator, Stratford Seminars Centre for Continuing Education Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4K1 Telephone: (905) 525-9140, ext. 23329 FAX: (905) 546-1690 Toll-free message line 1-800-463-6223 (Canada, Northeastern and Central U.S.) e-mail: conted@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca or litster@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Scott Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 05:46:55 -0600 (CST) Subject: Alabama Shakespeare Festival Alabama Shakespeare Festival Montgomery, AL, US The Alabama Shakespeare Festival is the fifth largest Shakespeare Festival in the world. Our homepage includes schedules, information about the Festival, and links to some of the best theatre resources on the Net. http://www.wsnet.com/~jtu3/ASF.bulletin.html (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marty Hyatt Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 10:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RFD: humanities.literature.english.shakespeare REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION unmoderated group humanities.literature.english.shakespeare Group Name: humanities.literature.english.shakespeare Status: unmoderated Distribution: world-wide Summary: poetry, plays, and history of author William Shakespeare Proposed by: Marty Hyatt This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) on the subject of creating an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup: humanities.literature.english.shakespeare This message initiates a discussion period to consider the creation of a humanities.literature.english.shakespeare newsgroup. Discussion will take place on news.groups. All follow-up posts should be made to news.groups. CHARTER The proposed moderated newsgroup humanities.literature.english.shakespeare will be for discussion of: 1> the plays and poems of William Shakespeare and other English writers of the 16th and 17th centuries. 2> the life and times of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. 3> the production, staging, and acting of Shakespeare's plays, and of current and past productions of Shakespeare's plays. 4> Shakespeare's influence and impact on subsequent literature and culture. 5> Shakespeare's authorship including his sources, allusions in his works, publication of his works, possible collaborations, and possible pseudonymity. RATIONALE humanities.literature.english.shakespeare will provide a specific newsgroup for the discussion of the works of William Shakespeare. Shakespeare has been discussed frequently in rec.arts.theatre.plays and occasionally in rec.arts.books. There is also a listserv list, SHAKSPER, devoted to Shakespeare. But there is no usenet newsgroup specifically for the discussion of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Shakespeare was both a poet and a dramatist. And his preeminent position in literature is widely accepted. It seems appropriate to initiate humanities.literature.* with a group devoted to Shakespeare. It may be that no Shakespeare group had been proposed previously because of the seeming limitations of the existing hierarchies with respect to an author such as Shakespeare. Theatre lovers tell us that his plays were written for the stage, rather than for publication; poetry lovers treasure the sonnets; scholars never tire of dissecting his works and those of his contemporaries. While it is not expected that these various Shakespeare lovers will coexist in perfect harmony, a humanities.literature.* hierarchy seems to encompass these interests better than existing groups such as rec.arts.theatre.plays or rec.arts.books. The creation of h.l.e.s. will also initiate a division of humanities.literature.* by language (rather than by author, for example). Although there will be a few exceptional authors that will be difficult to place, this arrangement will have the advantage of allowing appropriate misc groups (such as humanities.literature.english.misc) at the language level. There is no reason for this arrangement to preclude other possible logical divisions of humanities.literature.*. humanities.literature.english.shakespeare will be unmoderated, unlike the listserv group (SHAKSPER) which is moderated and has banned discussion on certain subjects such as the possible pseudonymity of the name, Shakespeare. Support for such censorship on the listserv group was based primarily on the unwillingness of the editor to read all such posts and the objections of subscribers to a large volume of mail. Neither of these difficulties applies to an unmoderated usenet newsgroup. There are no plans to gate the new group to the listserv group. As noted in the charter above, discussion of other English writers of or near Shakespeare's times is also appropriate in this newsgroup, as there is considerable overlapping interest by the expected participants of this group. NOTE THE FOLLOWING This is NOT a call for votes. A Call For Votes (CFV) will be posted 21 to 30 days from now and will be conducted by an independent third party. This RFD is being cross-posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, humanities.misc, rec.arts.books, and rec.arts.theatre.plays. It is also being posted to the listserv list, shaksper@utoronto. Followups on usenet should be made to news.groups. Marty Hyatt ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 18:14:07 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0324 Re: The Ending of *King Lear* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0324. Thursday, 20 April 1995. (1) From: Charles Boyle Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 14:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Lear (2) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 95 23:37:19 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0309 Re: *Lr.* Ending (3) From: David M Richman Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 10:21:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0271 Re: Ending of *King Lear* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Boyle Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 14:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Lear I found the discussion of the unsettled succession issue at the end of Lear very interesting. Add to this that Shakespeare gives us an oddly ambiguous reading of Cordelia's death. Lear dies believing she still has the breathe of life in her ("Look on her! look! her lips! Look there, look there!"). Alive she would be first in line. Edgar then confirms that Lear is "gone indeed." No comment is made on Cordelia's condition. It might be said, however, that Edgar does speak with her "lips" when he advises us, "The weight of this sad time we must obey, Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say." This is the advice Cordelia followed when she precipitated the whole tragedy, she spoke truth to power. In Shakespeare's time the succession was the overriding domestic issue. In the last years of Queen Elizabeth's life concern became truly obsessive. The Essex/Southampton rebellion against the Cecil government was essentially over control of the succession. The care and subtly with which Shakespeare treats the subject here suggests he was writing for a very sophisticated and politically significant audience. The outcome, as has been noted, is for some reason left unresolved in the text. Charles Boyle (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 95 23:37:19 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0309 Re: *Lr.* Ending Ending of King Lear: Whoa! Hold on there, horses. The "happy ending" of Lear isn't a sneerable perversion of the "natural" or inevitable version. As the notes in the medium-priced editions tell us, all of the 300-or-so versions of the old-king-lotsa-daughters-all-bad-but-one chestnut have the king reconciled with the dear but too honest daughter. (always the youngest? hey, I dunno, I had enough trouble just reading through the two versions that got me into such hot water.) The earliest printed title of the play is something like "The Chronicle History of King lear and his three daughters" ('tis late, and I like making up factoids). Just imagine seeing a playbill posted near St. Pauls : Tonight! The Chronicle History of King Lear and his Daughters . . . "Hey, joey. I remember that one. It's great. C'mon. Old guy, great ending. Happy. This will get you over your depression about the black death having swallowed all your kids." They go to the Globe, hang out through the whole afternoon, and the old guy dies! That Shakespeare! Can't trust him. He's got no respeck. So after this disrespectful player/playwright messes around with people's heads for a while, he's "corrected" to fit the taste of the age by those who are too disturbed by considering the ways life generates painful rather than always cheerful varieties of art. My buddies in the bibliography and editing racket get all bothered by nasty stories I've been telling that Shakespeare actually liked to disrupt our expectations. And You all can watch him trying out different ways of slipping us banana peels under our feet just by looking at the alternative texts of his plays. Hey, the man (or the assemblage of players, scribes, jugglers, and whores in the playhouses) seems to have relished surprise. He changes old plays; and he'd likely jump with joy watching us change his. Let's not snarl at the adapters tonight, deearies. They had no tenure. G'night. Steve Urkowitz SURCC@cunyvm.cuny.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 10:21:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0271 Re: Ending of *King Lear* This is a belated (though I hope not too late) addition to the Lear endings discussions. I too have been confined to a Departmental Chair this semester, and one financial disaster after another increases my sympathy for the troubles of a divided kingdom. Substantial differences exist between the final scene of Quarto *Lear* and the final scene of Folio *Lear*. Much discussion, here and elsewhere, has been given to who (Albany or Edgar) speaks the final lines. In Q, Lear does *not* say Do you see this? look on her! Look, her lips, Look there, look there! (Typing from memory--spelling and punctuation mine. Apologies). Instead, he says: O, O, O, O,. I take these to be the groans of a breaking heart. "Sighs and groans that cost the fresh blood dear." There is no hint, as there is in F, that Lear, at the last, thinks that Cordelia lives. Several years ago, I attempted a production based on Q *Lear*, described in detail in my article in the Autumn '86, *Shakespeare Quarterly*. We discovered, when it came to the point, that we could not play Q's last lines for Lear. The power and familiarity of the F final lines made it impossible for the actor, a superb performer named John Franklyn-Robbins, to utter those groans with conviction. Students of *Lear*'s multiple endings may want to contemplate yet one more difficult variant. If there is interest, I can post my SQ article to the fileserver as an electronic offprint. Variably Yours, David Richman University of New Hampshire ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 18:27:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0325 Re: Shakespeare and Africa Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0325. Thursday, 20 April 1995. (1) From: Daniel Vitkus Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 21:05 +0200 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0317 Qs: Shakespeare and Africa (2) From: William Russell Mayes Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 21:33:37 -0400 Subj: Re: Shakespeare and Africa (3) From: John Drakakis Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 95 23:28:00 BST Subj: SHK 6.0317 Qs: (4) From: Naomi Liebler Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 95 00:06:00 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0317 Qs: Shakespeare and Africa (5) From: Robert Knapp Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 95 15:38:36 PDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0317 Qs: Shakespeare and Africa (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Vitkus Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 21:05 +0200 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0317 Qs: Shakespeare and Africa On Shakespeare and Africa, consult Eldred Jones' Othello's Countrymen: The African in English Renaissance Drama (OUP 1965). Daniel Vitkus, The American University in Cairo (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Russell Mayes Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 21:33:37 -0400 Subject: Re: Shakespeare and Africa Marcello Cappuzzo asks about recent work on Shakespeare and Africa. You might want to loook at Jeanne Addison Roberts' book, _The Shakespearean Wild: Geography, Genus and Gender_. As I recall, it covers the topic you mention at several points. Good Luck, W. Russell Mayes, Jr. University of Virginia (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 95 23:28:00 BST Subject: SHK 6.0317 Qs: Try Eldred Jones's Othello's Countrymen, though it is a little out of date now. There's also a collection of essays edited by David Dabydeen, called The Black Presence in English Literature. And then there's Martin Orkin's study of Shakespeare in Africa. Best wishes, John Drakakis (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 95 00:06:00 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0317 Qs: Shakespeare and Africa Marcello Cappuzzo inquires about Renaissance views of Africa and African cultures. Have a look at Martin Bernal's provocative and controversial *Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization,* 2 vols. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ, Press, 1987, esp. vol. 1, "The Fabrication of Ancient Greece." You should also have a look at the eloquent and persuasive challenge to Bernal by Edith Hall, "When is a Myth Not a Myth? Bernal's Ancient Model," in *Arethusa* 25 (1992): 181-201. Neither scholar is particularly concerned with Elizabethan views; however, their oppositional tracing of such views as the Elizabethans doubtless inherited offers a rich field of material for your inquiry. See in particular Bernal, I:23-24. Hope this helps. Naomi Liebler Montclair State University (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Knapp Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 95 15:38:36 PDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0317 Qs: Shakespeare and Africa Though not exclusively about Africa, John Gillies' _Shakespeare and the Geography of Difference_ is recent, elegant, and illuminating. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 18:44:53 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0326 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0326. Thursday, 20 April 1995. (1) From: Moray McConnachie Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 00:04:51 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0316 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity (2) From: Gail Burns Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 21:13:14 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0316 Re: Ideology a... (3) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 12:58:45 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0316 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity (4) From: Eddie Duggan Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 95 22:01:15 BST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0316 Re: 'Early Modern' (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 00:04:51 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0316 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity While I agree with much of what Bill Godshalk has said (and hence lay my life on the line, judging by the way that this thread has developed), I must question this remark: > (1) THE COMEDY OF ERRORS has nothing to do with "subjectivity" which is > a 19th century concept initiated by Southey and Coleridge. To speak of > subjectivity in the late 16th century is historically incorrect. I am, I think, as near a perceiver of scholarship as recovery as there can be. But we must use the concepts that mean something to us, now (which is who we are writing for) to describe what we have recovered. If we choose to label something, be it THE COMEDY OF ERRORS, or anything else, in this period as being (and dealing with) what we now call "subjectivity," then that must remain licit. It will always be true that the boundaries of our definitions will be different from those of the men and women we study. Language changes whether the mind does or not. Besides, if I read Bill right, the operations of the mind allegedly remain constant across the centuries: and therefore (if we experience a sensation of it, or believe in it as a mode or mental operation) subjectivity existed also throughout the years? On that point I must and will remain agnostic for many years. Moray McConnachie (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gail Burns Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 21:13:14 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0316 Re: Ideology a... I am sorry, I am not an academic. I am a humble reader of great writers. And I am a humble writer of not-great prose, fiction and drama. But, in both guises, I have always been DEEPLY offended when asked by a teacher to write a paper explaining what Shakespeare/Chaucer/Jane Austen/Charles Dickens/ANYONE meant by what they wrote!!! I am not those illustrious authors, nor do I pretend to be them or even be in the same class with them. Other than explaining in modern English what they rendered in the English of their day, how do I know what they meant??? I am not they. I am not even a contemporary to judge what their contemporaries thought they meant. I am one SUBJECTIVE human being of the late 20th century, and that is the only way I can respond to anything I see or hear or read! I write this as a practicing journalist. People compliment me on my objectivity and say they rely on what I write to tell them "what really happened". And I tell them that even if I quote people accurately and don't insert my own opinion, my retelling of what went on at a given time and place is just as subjective as another reporter's. I suppose this is why I am not an academic, but I strongly believe that Shakespeare (whoever that bloke or bloke-ette was) is the only one who knows what s/he meant when s/he wrote a given work, and even then it was only what it meant to her/him - and not to you or me! Gail Burns GailMBurns@aol.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 12:58:45 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0316 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity A quotation I came across this morning seems particularly germane to the discussion here. It's from Adorno: "Activity is not, as ideology teaches, merely the purposive life of autonomous people, but also the vain commotion of their unfreedom." This is a paraphrase of a famous remark of Marx, of course, but the pointedness of its "not merely...but also" seems to me to avoid certain traps. To set about applying these questions to Shakespearean scenes, I can think of two possibly relevant parables. 1) Gloucester on the clifftop sees himself as articulating (finally) an image of the dignity and resonance of his fate, one sufficiently powerful that the gods themselves are taken to be looking at it. That it involves an act of surrender into the hands of giant forces (troped by gravity) does not prevent our seeing it as an imaginatively capable gesture which communicates a powerful conception of self-possession. At the same time, of course, that gesture is undermined by Edgar's "therapeutic" stratagem, which has the (unintended?) side-effect of turning Gloucester's perception of himself as tragic into a vulgar error and his grand demise into a mere pratfall. Whose vision wins out here -- the power of Gloucester's desire for dignity or the pathos of Edgar's attempt to rehabilitate him (at what cost and for what covert satisfactions?). Edgar's description of the cliff itself, intended to deceive, has the unintended side-effect, at least for me, of making the clarity of Gloucester's conception that much more vivid and moving. 2) Cleopatra's description of Antony to Dolabella. Perhaps Bill Godshalk's championing of autonomy is one of the "dreams of boys and women" (and thank you yes, I am fully aware of the ironies of that assertion, but let that go) which serious Roman minds like John Drakakis' here are inclined to laugh at, if not rage against. Though the lines are difficult, it's fairly clear to me that Cleopatra ends up championing the power of conceptions of freedom and magnanimity to remake the world, even in a state of captivity to determinist Caesar ("Do not exceed the prescripts of this scroll"). And though it's a small concession, it turns out to be crucial that Dolabella is persuaded apparently by this speech to betray Caesar's intentions, allowing her at least the liberty (she calls it that) of choosing not to submit, of arranging her own death in order to "win a place in the story". That her choice is deadly is important, but the terms of that death are hers to select. Caesar's is the history play, with all its steamrollering, but Cleopatra's insistence on autonomy and the value and truth of her picture of freedom is not merely empty. No doubt these scenes can be reread in other ways. But I dont have a problem with that. Allez-y, les gars! Tom Bishop (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eddie Duggan Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 95 22:01:15 BST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0316 Re: 'Early Modern' Terry Hawkes wonders why we use the phrase 'early modern'. Might I suggest two possible reasons: First, the phrase forms part of the title of Peter Burke's _Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe_ Secondly, I believe the phrase has some currency in the popular and rather influential _Open University_ series of H/E study courses and accompanying television programmes (well, something has to keep me up at night). Eddie Duggan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 18:57:27 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0327 *Mac.* Discussions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0327. Thursday, 20 April 1995. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 10:38:48 -0400 Subj: *Mac* discussions (2) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 10:38:55 -0400 Subj: *Mac.* discussions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 10:38:48 -0400 Subject: *Mac* discussions SERGEANT No sooner justice had, with valor arm'd, Compell'd these skipping kerns to trust their heels, But the Norweyan lord, surveying vantage, With furbish'd arms and new supplies of men Began a fresh assault. DUNCAN Dismay'd not this Our captains Macbeth and Banquo? SERGEANT Yes, As sparrows eagles or the hare the lion. If I say sooth I must report they were As cannons overcharg'd with double cracks, So they doubly redoubled strokes upon the foe. Doesn't sound to me like two skirmishes on opposite sides of the country. Where did that idea come from anyway? If the above isn't enough to put Macbeth in both battles, here's Ross: The king hath happily receiv'd Macbeth The news of thy success, and when he reads Thy personal venture in the rebels' fight His wonders and his praises do contend Which should be thine or his. Silenc'd with that, In viewing o'er the rest o' th' selfsame day He finds thee in the stout Norweyan ranks... Any attempt to equate Bellona's bridegroom with Macduff is a rewrite theory. We all admit that, right? Is something missing in the development of Macduff? Why are we looking for more of him in act one? Lots of avengers have to wait for their big scenes. Look at Richmond in *R3*. Look at Antony in *JC*. Look at Laertes. They can't emerge until the configuration of events calls for them. (cf Tolstoy's conception of history in *War and Peace*) "Hero" is an opportunity afforded to Macduff by the assassination of Duncan, and he can't announce his candidacy before the position opens up. Dom Saliani wants to establish Macduff as "a worthy adversary" in act one, but that's an unshakespearean dramatic concern. I feel the same way about Bill Godshalk's scenario where Macduff resents Macbeth after being passed over for thane of Cawdor. The idea that Macduff would expect that appointment has no existence in the play. It might have been there before, but there's still no good reason to think so. Bellona's bridegroom seems to be a sticking point, because an epithet is used instead of a name. But the whole project of 1.2 is to glorify Macbeth! By the time Ross says "Bellona's bridegroom" everybody knows who the man of the day is. If you cut from > Or memorize another Golgotha, > I cannot tell to > Norway himself with terrible numbers, making one long battle report, could we still doubt the identity of the bridegroom? The sergeant's speech is followed by the story from Ross the same way one paragraph follows another in a monologue. One messenger collapses and another takes up where he left off, continuing in the same bloated epic style (which is the reason for epithets in the first place). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 10:38:55 -0400 Subject: *Mac.* discussions I wish I had an OED here. My old Webster's has this for "rebellious": > 2. resisting treatment or management. You can be rebellious against anything, not just a political state. For example, > ...His antique sword, > Rebellious to his arm, lies where it falls, > Repugnant to command. [Hamlet 2.2.469-471] So I think Norway (or Macbeth) can have a rebellious arm even if he's not a rebel. But Don Foster's main point about identity confusion as a device or pattern in *Macbeth* is right on the money. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 19:14:58 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0328 Apologies; *Tro.*; Don John; Stratford; Newsgroup Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0328. Thursday, 20 April 1995. (1) From: Edward Rocklin Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 95 17:42:55 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0320 Insults and Apologies (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 22:55:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0317 Qs: Troilus and Cressida (3) From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 10:21:33 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Don John (4) From: Mather Susan Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 17:15:20 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0302 Q: Stratford Festivals and Teaching (5) From: Marty Hyatt Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 15:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: humanities.literature.english.shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Rocklin Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 95 17:42:55 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0320 Insults and Apologies Loved the connection with Richard III and our more local and less self- conscious buffoons. "I thank my God for my humility" has always seemed to me to be not only hilarious but also perfect in what it does and in defining the set of attributes that can never be self-proclaimed. Thanks again Edward Rocklin (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 22:55:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0317 Qs: Troilus and Cressida I think Chris Stroffolino may be interested in Harold Brooks, "TROILUS AND CRESSIDA: Its Dramatic Unity and Genre," in "Fanned and Winnowed Opinions": Shakespearean Essays Presented to Harold Jenkins, ed. John Mahon and Thomas Pendleton (London: Methuen, and I don't have the date) 6-25. This is a good general essay that does deal with the doubleness in the play and, God bless the mark! with characters. (Angels and ministers of grace defend us!) Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 10:21:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Don John Given Don John's quote about Claudio ("He hath all the glory of my overthrow") coupled with the idea, noted in the discussion of _Macbeth_, that when one guy screws up someone else gets his job--it seems to me one could postulate that Claudio had been instrumental in squashing Don John's failed rebellion. Either he exposed it to Don Pedro, or he played a more active role in suppressing it. Then Pedro goes and forgives John, so he is not only defeated but humiliated, and he could be blaming all that on Claudio. It would give him a powerful motive for revenge. Juliet Youngren (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mather Susan Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 17:15:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0302 Q: Stratford Festivals and Teaching Dear Bill Dynes, I'm not sure what insight I can give you but, I have attended two classes at Kent State University with Dr. Wagner, who I believe can be reached--JWagner@Kentvm.Kent.edu--I could be mistaken. Being a Shakespeare professor, he might be part of listserv. But anyway, our class had to read the plays that we were attending at the Festival and respond to them in journal entries before we went to the performances. We then had to meet in a group before each performance and discuss things like--"How do you think the director will stage the scene where Cleopatra has Antony lifted up to her, without making it comical?" We also attended "Talking Theatre" and had interviews with then, "Cleopatra", Goldie Semple and "Antony", Leon Pownall (I think that's his last name). These were set up by Lisa Brudy, an educational correspondent that Dr. Wagner knew. She can be reached I believe at the Festival theatre. After the performances, we were to write another journal entry and eventually, we were expected to write an essay on some aspect of the experience. When I wrote my essay on A Midsummer Night's Dream and Measure for Measure, for instance, I worked in how the director staged the women's roles--hence, a feminist approach. I really think that it is important to incorporate sometimes what it is either what the director is thinking when s/he directs a play or what you as the viewer thought when you finally saw the play. I hope this was helpful--I can find out the number for Lisa Brudy if you need it--or you can reach Dr. Wagner by telephone at Kent Stark--1(216)499-9600 or 1(216)535-3377. Have a good time at Stratford, I wish I could join you but, I'm just a poor, grad. student, Susan Mather [You might also wish to read Richard Paul Knowles's piece on the 1993 season in SQ 45.2: 211-225. --HMC] (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marty Hyatt Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 1995 15:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: humanities.literature.english.shakespeare I recently forwarded to this list a proposal for a Shakespeare Usenet newsgroup (humanities.literature.english.shakespeare). It has been brought to my attention that the section in the Request For Discussion dealing with the shaksper list might be misconstrued. Hardy Cook is to be applauded for his work in maintaining this list. My only intent was to indicate why the new Usenet newsgroup should be unmoderated, not to comment on the moderation of the shaksper list. And just to calm any possible fears: there are NO plans to gate the new group to the shaksper list. Just another place on the "net" to discuss Shakespeare, that's all. It is expected that a proposal for a new Usenet group should be cross-posted to mailing lists on the same or very similar topics as a matter of information and courtesy. Some of the people here (like me) will want to look in on the newsgroup, so we might have some thoughts about where to place the group (for example, in the rec.arts.books.* hierarchy vs the new humanities.* hierarchy). Martin B. Hyatt (Marty) hyatt@duq3.cc.duq.edu Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 08:59:37 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0329 Birthday Greetings; Fulbright; Cal. Fest.; Reading Group Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0329. Saturday, 22 April 1995. (1) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Friday, 21 Apr 95 08:20:29 -0500 Subj: Happy Birthday (2) From: Daniel Minchew Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 95 18:30 CST Subj: Fulbright Chair Deadline is 05-01-95 (3) From: Peter Scott Date: Friday, 21 Apr 1995 05:46:53 -0600 (CST) Subj: California Shakespeare Festival Home Page (4) From: Jad Duwaik Date: Friday, 21 Apr 1995 06:36:30 -0700 Subj: Reading & Performance Group (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Friday, 21 Apr 95 08:20:29 -0500 Subject: Happy Birthday Just want to wish everyone a wonderful April 23: get out and celebrate the (traditional) birthday of the man from Stratford! May it be a beautiful spring (or autumn) day everywhere! Chris Gordon (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Minchew Date: Wednesday, 19 Apr 95 18:30 CST Subject: Fulbright Chair Deadline is 05-01-95 *** FEEL FREE TO REDISTRIBUTE *** The ACT Washington Office would like to remind interested teachers that the deadline for the 1996-97 Fulbright Chairs in Canada, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden is 05-01-95. For more information and applications, contact: Council for International Exchange of Scholars 3007 Tilden Street, N.W., Suite 5M, Box C.H.E. Washington, DC 20008-3009 202 686-6245 - Telephone ciesl@ciesnet.cies.org - Internet/e-mail Daniel Minchew ACT * American College Testing DISCLAIMER: These are not ACT programs. ACT's interest is in calling opportunities to the attention of potential applicants. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Scott Date: Friday, 21 Apr 1995 05:46:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: California Shakespeare Festival Home Page California Shakespeare Festival Home Page Information about the festival's upcoming 1995 season. Complete schedule and ticket details along with info on our year round education programs for students and actors. May the Bard be with you. http://www.via.net/~csf (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jad Duwaik Date: Friday, 21 Apr 1995 06:36:30 -0700 Subject: Reading & Performance Group Community Theatre Weekly Reading Group Denver/Boulder Area I am interested in forming a Shakespeare Reading & Performance Group in the Denver/Boulder area (Colorado, USA). The reading group will probably begin meeting in the Boulder area once a week to read one of Shakespeare's plays. (beginning in mid-May) The performance group is basically community theater. Basically that means that people who have never acted before are encouraged to get involved. Rehearsals will probably begin towards the end of May for 3 performances in late July early August. Please respond if you're interested in either group. Jad Duwaik ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 09:09:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0330 Re: Shakespeare and Africa Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0330. Saturday, 22 April 1995. (1) From: Scott Crozier Date: Friday, 21 Apr 1995 09:53:45 +1100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0317 Qs: Shakespeare and Africa (2) From: JC Stirm Date: Friday, 21 Apr 95 09:11 PDT Subj: English and Africa (3) From: Kimberly Nolan Date: Friday, 21 Apr 1995 14:03:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare and Africa (4) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Saturday, 22 Apr 95 0:31:31 CEST Subj: [Shakespeare and Africa] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Friday, 21 Apr 1995 09:53:45 +1100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0317 Qs: Shakespeare and Africa Marcello Cappuzzo, this may be of some help to you. John Gillies has recently published a work titled *Shakespeare and the Geography of Distance*, Cambridge University Press. Although this doesn't mention Africa specifically, Gillies looks at Shakespeare's complex mental universe. Cheers, Scott Crozier (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JC Stirm Date: Friday, 21 Apr 95 09:11 PDT Subject: English and Africa Dear SHAKSPERians, The recent questions about early modern English ideas abut Africa reminded me of some materials I haven't seen suggested yet, so here's a short (and incomplete) list of works I've found which might be useful: Ania Loomba, *Gender, Race, Renaissance Drama* (mostly re India, but there might be helpful stuff), 1989 Vaughan and Vaughan, *Shakespeare's Caliban: A Cultural History*, 1991 Jack D'Amico, *The Moor in English Renaissance Drama*, 1991 Hendricks and Parker, eds. *Women, "Race," and Writing in Early Modern England*, 1994 Kenneth R Andrews, *Trade, Plunder, and Settlement: Maritime Enterprise and the Genesis of the British Empire, 1480-1630*, 1984 Emily C. Bartels, "Imperialist Beginnings: Richard Hakluyt and the Construction of Africa," *Criticism*, 1992 Contemporary materials (including earlier stuff available then, but not dramatic works): Sir Thomas Browne, "Of the Blackness of Negroes" (ch 10 in the sixth book of *Pseudodoxia*) Richard Hakluyt, *The Principle Navigations...* John Leo, *A Geographical Historie of Africa* Pliny's *Natural History* Heroclitus Hope this helps, best, Jan Stirm izzyyg4@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kimberly Nolan Date: Friday, 21 Apr 1995 14:03:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare and Africa I have 2 sources you might want to check on. Last spring Patricia Parker delivered a paper at Univ. of Miami that dealt with Othello and travel narratives of Africa. I see that she is co-editor of a book *Women, Race & Writing in Early Modern England* The article she gave as a talk seems to be in that book along with some other very interesting titles. Also, Anthony Barthelemy has a book *Black Face, Maligned Race* that might be useful. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Saturday, 22 Apr 95 0:31:31 CEST Subject: [Shakespeare and Africa] Dear Colleagues, Thank you very much for your generous responses to my message on Shakespeare and Africa. Goldsmith's definition of friendship -- "a disinterested commerce between equals" -- is certainly more defensible (though "commerce" sounds a bit awkward in this context) than Bacon's statement that there is little friendship in the world, "and least of all between equals". Yes, I like this SHAKSPER of friendly colleagues ("equals")! Btw: a few days ago we all -- I presume -- received "a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) on the subject of creating [a new] Usenet newsgroup: humanities.literature. shakespeare." One of the main points of the proponent's rationale is that the new group "will be unmoderated, unlike the listserv group (SHAKSPER) which is moderated and has banned discussion on certain subjects such as the possible pseudonymity of the name, Shakespeare." Well, excuse me, but I _must_ give voice to my patriotic pride. At last the "English" bard will be restored to his real identity -- that of the Italian gentiluomo Signor Guglielmo Scotilanza. This should have happened some fifty years ago, but at that time one way or another "la perfida Albione" managed to have the better of her opponents. Now time's up -- justice shall prevail! On the other hand, I ask myself if the creation of a new group for discussion of Scotilanza and surroundings can really be useful and will not, on the contrary, result in an unnecessary duplication -- or, worse, in a fragmentation -- of the present "listserv group" (which certainly _is_ moderated, but -- it seems to me -- in a decidedly reasonable, temperate, "moderate" manner). Yours, Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 09:21:54 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0331 Re: The Ending of *Lear* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0331. Saturday, 22 April 1995. (1) From: David Wilson-Okamura Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 95 20:07:25 CDT Subj: Ending of *King Lear* (2) From: John Boni Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 23:42:40 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0322 *Lear*: Ending and Pagan Gods (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Wilson-Okamura Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 95 20:07:25 CDT Subject: Ending of *King Lear* The fact that Tate's version of _Lear_ played for nearly a century and a half ought to tell us something: the play obviously works with a happy ending. Nothing in the play (except the ending as Shakespere gave it to us) necessitates Cordelia's death--which is what (to my mind) makes it so heart-rending when it happens: waste to no purpose. Yours faithfully, David Wilson-Okamura dswilson@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 23:42:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0322 *Lear*: Ending and Pagan Gods Regarding Bruce J. McIver's comment on Lear as a negative romance: Maynard Mack did a piece perhaps thirty years ago in which he described *Lear* as a "topsy-turvy romance," paralleling it (in contrast) to AYLI. The essay was collected in one (of many) Essays on Shakespeare collections. Can't recall further detail. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 09:28:21 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0332 Qs: *TGV* Production; *Titus* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0332. Saturday, 22 April 1995. (1) From: Peter John Still Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 95 21:23:36 CST Subj: 2Gents Laird Williamson's production at San Diego Old Globe (2) From: Jung Jimmy Date: Friday, 21 Apr 95 10:38:00 PDT Subj: Titus Andronicus (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter John Still Date: Thursday, 20 Apr 95 21:23:36 CST Subject: 2Gents Laird Williamson's production at San Diego Old Globe Does anyone have recollections of/reactions to the above production? I am passing on this request from Anne D'Zmura, who will be directing our production out in Idaho, this summer. Before anyone leaps in with reproaches akin to those conjured forth by the Help-With-a-Term_Paper thread on the Theatre list, I would just like to state, tongue only half in cheek, how important I feel it is for theatre-artists to be familiar with - and to work from knowledge of - a shared body of work. Very, very difficult in such a large country as this, but worth the attempt. After two years here, I'm really feeling the contrast with, say, London. - Peter John Still (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jung Jimmy Date: Friday, 21 Apr 95 10:38:00 PDT Subject: Titus Andronicus Recently, an article in the Washington Post suggested that Titus Andronicus was just an awful play. I'd thought about reading it this summer, since it seems unlikely that anyone will stage it. Is it really that bad? jimmy jung ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 09:40:15 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0333 Re: Applause Folio; Subjectivity; *Mac.*; Stratford Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0333. Saturday, 22 April 1995. (1) From: John W. Mahon Date: Friday, 21 Apr 95 19:37:04 EST Subj: SHK 6.0323 Re: Applause Folio; (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 21 Apr 1995 22:24:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0326 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 21 Apr 1995 22:59:15 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0327 *Mac.* Discussions (4) From: Peggy Galbraith Date: Friday, 21 Apr 1995 14:44:20 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0328 Stratford (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John W. Mahon Date: Friday, 21 Apr 95 19:37:04 EST Subject: SHK 6.0323 Re: Applause Folio; The Easter Week comments on the Applause First Folio from Eric Armstrong, Skip Shand, and Nick Ranson have been especially interesting, since I am preparing a review of the Applause facsimile for the upcoming SPRING 1995 issue of THE SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER (published by Iona College, New Rochelle, NY 10801). As Eric Armstrong suggests, it is difficult to see how the text of the First Folio can serve as anything but supplement to most of us, actors or teachers, and yet we must also be grateful to Applause for making the text available at a relatively inexpensive price. It is disturbing to think that Norton would try to stop sales of such a useful aid to our work as Shakespeareans. -John W. Mahon, Co-Editor, THE SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 21 Apr 1995 22:24:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0326 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity Moray McConnachie will be pleased to know (I hope) that I do not accept the idea that 16th-17th century people did not have "subjectivity." But that position has be put forward. I reject it. Gravity and North America existed before they were "discovered." Tom Bishop notes that suicide is a form of freedom -- free will. You can always opt out. Unfortunately, I have the firm faith -- backed up in this case by textual evidence (which Tom will appreciate after his recent note in SQ on *MAC* 5.1) -- that Cleopatra was pushed toward suicide by Dolabella acting as Caesar's agent. Tom, look at Folio A&C TLN 3108-3199, and notice what the editors have done to Dolabella's lines. Whatever can Caesar mean when he says: "Let him [Dolabella] alone: for I remember now/How hee's imployed: he shall in time be ready" (TLN 3193-4)? For what? Who does Antony tell Cleopatra to trust? Who is immediately replaced by Dolabella after Cleo's capture? Who does Caesar entrust with the burial of the noble couple? When Dolabella first appears in the play, who is his partner? When you capture a hostile queen, what do you have to do with her? Take her to your capital city? Think of Mary, Queen of Scots. Paranoidly yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 21 Apr 1995 22:59:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0327 *Mac.* Discussions I'm answering Scott Shepherd's contention that the second scene of *MAC* deals with only one battle. The lines quoted in the last posting are not sufficient to establish that as a proven fact. (I still have my copy of the Norton Folio on my lap. Nice book.) Notice that bloody Captain says that Macdonwald is "supply'd" "from the Westerne Isles" (TLN 32, 31). Fife is in eastern Scotland, of course, and it would be hard to supply a rebel in eastern Scotland from the western isles. Rosse enters (TLN 66) with Angus "Fome Fife" (73). Now, if the battle were in one place, would the King have to ask where his thane was coming from? Wouldn't he assume that he was coming from "THE" battle? Now, I admit that my questions (in this case) do not lead to a completely satisfactory answer, but, Scott, don't they at least suggest a certain "dubeity" in this scene? And isn't is just possible that Bellona's bridegroom in not Macbeth? Of course, since Bellona is a virgin, Macbeth as her bridegroom does make a lot of imaginative sense! Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peggy Galbraith Date: Friday, 21 Apr 1995 14:44:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0328 Stratford Dear Bill Dynes: I missed your original question, but I have guessed from the answers I've seen that you were looking for information about the Stratford Festival. I live "in real life" about 5 hours from Stratford, and have attended it for 5 summers now. The best experience I had there was a long talk over coffee with Colm Feore (then of Hamlet, who might be more recognizable now as Glenn Gould), who I ran into in one of the shops in town. I went during high school as part of a summer enrichment program, so we also had the opportunity to attend many organized lectures. I would definitely suggest trying to schedule a tour of the costume and props department...they're fascinating, and all the people who work backstage were very willing to answer questions, as well as being tremendously talented, of course. Finally, just a note on a possible discussion or paper topic-while I was there, my instructor assigned an essay on how the authentic layout of the theaters (designed to resemble The Globe) affected the staging and effectiveness of the plays. I went on to turn this 2 page essay into a 25 page term paper, so I'm sure that there's plenty of information out there. Have a great time; I'm really bitter that I'm staying down here in Durham this summer and I won't be able to make any of the shows! Yours, peggy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 08:02:15 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0334 *Lear* Recommendations Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0334. Monday, 24 April 1995. (1) From: Bruce J. McIver <3074bmac@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> Date: Sunday, 23 Apr 1995 04:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0331 Re: The Ending of *Lear* (2) From: Judy Kennedy Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 09:19:04 AST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0331 Re: The Ending of *Lear* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce J. McIver <3074bmac@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> Date: Sunday, 23 Apr 1995 04:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0331 Re: The Ending of *Lear* Maynard Mack's "King Lear in Our Time" is also worth re-reading. More recently, R.A. Foakes' "Lear Vs Hamlet" is excellent on the shift in popularity from Hamlet to Lear since the early 1960's. See also, Foakes essay and workshop on Lear in my book, "Teaching With Shakespeare," Associated University Presses, 1994. Also, in "Teaching With Shakespeare," Leah Marcus' student-centered discussion of the different texts of the ending of Lear shows how indeterminmate our interpretations are. Incidentally, many of the textual issues in King Lear should be clarified when Foakes' new edition of the Arden King Lear appears. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judy Kennedy Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 09:19:04 AST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0331 Re: The Ending of *Lear* Not so much to do with the ending, perhaps, as with Bruce McIver's comment on *Lear* and romance: John F. Danby in 1952, in *Elizabethan and Jacobean Poets*, links Sidney's *Arcadia* and *Lear* in various ways. Judy Kennedy St.Thomas University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 08:15:23 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0335 Re: Don John and Q; More on *Mac.*; *Titus* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0335. Monday, 24 April 1995. (1) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Saturday, 22 Apr 1995 15:29:02 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0321 Re: Don John. (2) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Saturday, 22 Apr 1995 18:03:42 -0400 Subj: Still More *Mac* (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 23 Apr 1995 14:52:42 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0332 Qs: *Titus* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Saturday, 22 Apr 1995 15:29:02 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0321 Re: Don John. A thanks and a request: I would like to thank Mr. Gero for his insightful comments on Don John. From a production point of view I think they make a lot of sense and would certainly give an actor something to latch onto. This is all preamble to my request: I will be directing *Much Ado* as an outdoor, low budget production to be staged in Honolulu this August. I would love it if anyone would care to share stories, ideas and anecdotes from productions they have participated in, seen or heard about. August seems a long way away and I would like to get the creative juices flowing. Please respond either through the list or privately to me: Shirley Kagan dubroff@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu Thank you. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Saturday, 22 Apr 1995 18:03:42 -0400 Subject: Still More *Mac* Let's at least agree on this: --> Macbeth fought an army led by Norway. No matter what you think about Bellona's bridegroom, we know "The Norweyan lord...began a fresh assault" on Macbeth. We also know that Norway was fighting in Fife. So let's agree on this too: --> Macbeth was fighting in Fife. We know that the Norweyan attack came immediately after Macbeth "compell'd these skipping kerns to trust their heels." So, like it or not, --> Macdonwald was fighting in or around Fife. With kerns and gallowglasses all the way from the western isles. Geography obeys Shakesepeare's whim, here and elsewhere. ***** > isn't it just possible that Bellona's bridegroom is not Macbeth? Well yes Bill it's _possible_, the text doesn't rule it out completely. And it's tempting to draw nifty new patterns in the old story we're used to. But this _is_ a rewrite hypothesis. I'm still not sure you admit that. Any first-time audience of the script-as-published will imagine Macbeth throughout 1.2. They _can't_ imagine Macduff because they've never heard of him. He doesn't speak or get mentioned for another half hour or so (2.3)! No way are they going to connect him with Bellona's bridegroom after all that time. Now, if you cry "rewrite", which any preposterous conjecture can do, you ought to have some real powerful evidence to back it up. So far only weak cards have been played, like these alleged geography problems in 1.2 and the supposedly late emergence of Macduff, both of which I've countered in my last two posts. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 23 Apr 1995 14:52:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0332 Qs: *Titus* For Jimmy Jung: Of course Titus Andronicus is not that bad, and my students (and many others) love it. In recent years, the play has indeed become almost "popular" -- among scholars, of course. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 07:33:17 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0336 Re: The Ending of *Lear* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0336. Tuesday, 25 April 1995. (1) From: Elizabeth Y. Zeria Date: Monday, 24 Apr 95 10:45:10 EDT Subj: Re: The Ending of *Lear* (2) From: John Boni Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 11:27:15 -0500 (CDT) Subj: *Lear* Ending (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Y. Zeria Date: Monday, 24 Apr 95 10:45:10 EDT Subject: Re: The Ending of *Lear* > The fact that Tate's version of _Lear_ played for nearly a > century and a half ought to tell us something: the play > obviously works with a happy ending. Nothing in the play > (except the ending as Shakespere gave it to us) necessitates > Cordelia's death--which is what (to my mind) makes it so > heart-rending when it happens: waste to no purpose. > > Yours faithfully, David Wilson-Okamura No, I don't suppose anything in the play *necessitates* Cordelia's death, but much in the play suggests a reading which does...which suggests that while her death is indeed a waste, it might at least have thematic purpose. With so much of the text suggesting that the value of virtue (love, honesty, etc.) lies not in any honor or material reward it might bring -- that virtue so motivated or valued is really no virtue at all -- then it would seem Cordelia's death serves to prove her value, or her virtue's value. Part of the reason I find her death so heart- rending is because it *is* so apt, and such a waste; because it is only at that moment that I (and perhaps Lear) most fully realize her worth and her virtue. Your fellow reader, Liz Zeria eng3eyz@hibbs.vcu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 11:27:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: *Lear* Ending I have some disagreement with Charles Boyles' comment on the ending of *Lear*. Boyle writes: *It might be said, however, that Edgar does speak with her "lips" when he advises us, "The weight of this sad time we must obey, Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say." This is the advice Cordelia followed when she precipitated the whole tragedy, she spoke truth to power.* However, in my view, speaking what she feels is precisely what Cordelia is unable to do in Act I, when she says, "I cannot heave my heart into my mouth," and then adds, "I love your majesty [not a very intimate term] according to my bond, no more nor less." Unable to speak what she feels, Cordelia speaks what she *ought* to say. Strictly speaking, she is right. Shakespeare seems to enjoy playing off the legalistic against utterances based upon feeling and generosity. In Act V, in jail, Cordelia is able to speak what she feels. It would apear that both she and Lear have grown through suffering. Their exchange of feeling, imperfect as it maybe on Lear's part, itensifies the horror of the ending. It is interesting to ask students what Cordelia *should* have said to Lear in Act I, and to point out the double "ought." We ought to speak what we feel, not what we "ought" to say. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 07:44:39 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0337 Re: *Titus* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0337. Tuesday, 25 April 1995. (1) From: Michael Field Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 09:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Titus (2) From: William Russell Mayes Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 14:37:44 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0332 Titus (3) From: William Proctor Williams Date: Monday, 24 Apr 95 18:06 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0335 Re: *Titus* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Field Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 09:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Titus Jimmy Jung wonders worth *Titus Andronicus* is worth the time. I may take my life in my hands here, but I think if he reads with certain--perhaps unprovable--ideas in mind, he may well find the experience richly rewarding. Among them: --Titus was *probably* one of Shakespeare's first plays, written before he was a shareholder, before he was known and respected as a playwright, before the Globe was even built. Look carefully at how profoundly *theatrical* the play is--not just in all the blood, but in how effectively the young playwright uses the stage. Notice, for instance the skillful use of pomp and ceremony, the processions that could dazzle the audience with costumes and props. See how he grabs the audience by the lapels, as it were, from the first moment of the first scene, with noisy, excited entrances from left, right and above. There is also a wonderful scene in which actors shoot arrows from the stage out over the heads of the audience and entirely beyond the limits of the theater (we assume)--an astounding piece of theatricality. --Titus, more than any other play, is closely associated with the Rose theater. We believe it premiered there, we know it was a "hit" and played for many years after. Luckily, some construction workers stumbled upon the Rose not long ago, so we have more definitive archeological information about this theater than any other. Read an article about it to get a sense of some of the things they discovered--it will aid your understanding of the play. --We even have a drawing of period costumes used in Titus--again, a rarity and a fascinating insight into what the plays *may* have looked like. It dispels, by the way, the innacurate but oft-quoted notion that Shakespeare's plays were performed in Elizabethan costumes. They were performed in costumes inspired and influenced by Elizabethan clothes and fashion, but they knew, apparently, what a toga looked like. --Blood, guts, insanity, treachery, and high-falutin rhetoric. What more could you desire? Happy reading. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Russell Mayes Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 14:37:44 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0332 Titus I would like to add to Bill Godshalk's brief defense of Titus that it has also become more popular to perform, if anecdotal evidence be allowed. I have seen Titus performed twice--more than any other except the Tempest if I exclude movie versions. Most recently, students at University of Virginia gave a vivid and frightening performance. I taught the play at the same time, and my students seemed to like it. I should point out to the original correspondant that the article in the Washington Post was by resident (occasional) humorist, Joel Achenbach. The topic--even geniuses have bad days--was as much for humor as insight W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Dept. of English University of Virginia wrm2b@faraday.clas.virginia.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Monday, 24 Apr 95 18:06 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0335 Re: *Titus* Hooray for Bill Godshalk!! We all spend a fair amount of our time reading his postings. But he is right about +Titus+ now being popular. Right On!! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 08:03:51 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0338 Subjectivity; Early Modern; Antony and Cleopatra Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0338. Tuesday, 25 April 1995. (1) From: R.D.H.Wells Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 14:19:45 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0326 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity (2) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 22:35 ET Subj: Early Modern (3) From: Alistair Scott Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 12:53:31 +0200 Subj: Antony & Cleopatra (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: R.D.H.Wells Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 14:19:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0326 Re: Ideology and Subjectivity Reading through my mail after a three-week break I was struck by how quickly the tone of cheery affability with which the debate on early-modern subjectivity began degenerated into the kind of patronizing abuse that seems to be the favoured register in post-structuralist historicism (classic examples are Veeser's introduction to _The New Historicism_, and the London Review of Books 'Bardbiz' debate). Though that didn't surprise me, I was puzzled by the selective advice on reading offered by people who are obviously authorities on this topic. I'm always grateful for suggestions from specialists on what to read. But I prefer to look at both sides of the argument before making up my mind, especially when I'm reading in a field where I have little experience and no formal training. Clifford Geertz impressed me enormously until I read a more powerful work exposing some of the weaknesses in his constructivist anthropology (_The Adapted Mind_ by Jerome Barkow, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby). I still may not have got it right, but I think I have a better understanding of the issues that Geertz was addressing in _The Interpretation of Cultures_ now that I've read a critique of his arguments. In the present debate on ideology it seems odd that reference is being made only to one side of a vigorous argument. Post-structuralist Marxism may be fun to read for people who like long words. But we have to remember that it is only an imaginary version of Marxism, as Althusser confesses with admirable honesty in his posthumous autobiography _The Future Lasts a Long Time_. Again, as a non-specialist I believe that I have a better understanding of Althusser's arguments after reading books like Leonard Jackson's _The Dematerialisation of Karl Marx_, Scott Meikle's _Essentialism in the Thought of Karl Marx_, and Raymond Tallis's _Not Saussure_. I wouldn't presume to tell fellow Shakespeareans that they 'need' to read these books. But I'd be interested to hear from people who have read them what they thought of them and whether they think the arguments they offer are seriously flawed. What puzzles me most of all is the intellectual isolationism of a movement that likes to advertize its courageous demolition of academic barriers. Despite its concern with the origins of subjectivity, post-structuralist historicism has shown no interest in the debate on subjectivity that has been taking place in the social and biological sciences over the past three decades. Just at the time when popularizers like Catherine Belsey and Jonathan Dollimore started adopting constructivist ideas of human nature dating from the 1930s, a revolution was taking place in socio-biology and anthropology that has cast an entirely new light on theories that are now beginning to look rather dated. Barkow, Cosmides and Tooby give an excellent survey of this work in _The Adapted Mind_(1992). More recently, books such as Matt Ridley's _The Red Queen_, and _Blood Relations_ by the Marxist anthropologist Chris Knight have hammered more nails into the coffin of post-structuralist constructivism. Like the last of the Ptolemaic cosmologists, driven to ever more ingenious arguments in support of an untenable model of the universe, post-stucturalism offers pragmatically self-refuting arguments of scholastic ingenuity while consistently ignoring all evidence that contradicts its theories. As Leonard Jackson argues in _The Dematerialisation of Karl Marx_, 'one of the gross disadvantages of French theory in the last thirty years is the almost complete disappearance of the influence ... of any serious anthropology from literary criticism and theory'. As for Renaissance anti-essentialism, that is of course largely an imaginary version of the period, much as Althusser's Marxism was an imaginary construct arrived at by suppressing, as Althusser himself candidly admits, everything in Marx that seemed incompatible with the version that existed in Althusser's own mind (_The Future Lasts a Long Time_, p.221). Renaissance theology, psychology, poetics and social theory are all firmly rooted in an essentialist anthropology. This is true both of dissidents and of 'establishment' writers. You can only claim that the major thinkers of the period were atomists if you ignore or radically distort this whole body of thought. The assumptions that underly so much political debate in Shakespeare's lifetime may not accord with modern notions of natural justice, but I would argue that it makes more sense to criticize them for what they are than to try to remake them into something that fits better with our own sense of things. As Samuel Johnson said, to judge rightly on the present we must *oppose* it to the past. Robin Headlam Wells (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 22:35 ET Subject: Early Modern I believe that the term "early modern" was applied to English (and perhaps other European languages) for some time before it got transferred to history and culture; the linguistic bases of postmodern thought make such a transfer both natural and seemingly significant, though the fact that developments such as the shift toward mercantile capitalism, religious reformation, global travel, etc. all occurred in the same period in the West may or may not have anything to do with changes in language. Dave Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alistair Scott Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 12:53:31 +0200 Subject: Antony & Cleopatra Bill Godshalk writes:- > Cleopatra was pushed toward suicide by Dolabella acting as Caesar's agent Was she? I would have thought that during a reign such as hers she would have come across betrayal and treason enough times to become well inured to it. She's pretty inconstant throughout the play - faking illness, undergoing wild mood swings, flying from battle - the culmination of which is her faking death to get back at Antony when he is " ... more mad than Telamon". However, this ploy results in Antony's suicide. Mind you, Antony hasn't been too constant himself. The only constancy in such a passionate and stormy love affair seems to be death, the lovers sharing the same grave ... with their story living on. Therefore, Cleopatra's suicide could be seen as inevitable. Dolabella's betrayal of Antony's trust is just one small step confirming the inevitability. Whaddya think? Deterministically yours Alistair ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 08:10:12 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0339 CFP: Conference and Volume Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0339. Tuesday, 25 April 1995. (1) From: T. Scott Clapp Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 10:46:29 -0700 (MST) Subj: Call for Papers (2) From: Ton Hoenselaars Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 14:26:32 -0600 (CST) Subj: Call for Papers (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: T. Scott Clapp Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 10:46:29 -0700 (MST) Subject: Call for Papers CALL FOR PAPERS The Future of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: Problems, Trends, and Opportunities in Research February 15-17, 1996 ACMRS at Arizona State University invites papers for its second annual interdisciplinary conference on Medieval and Renaissance studies on the general topic of problems and new directions in the study of the Middle Ages and Early Modern period. Possible session topics include, but are not restricted to: problems of interdisciplinarity integrating literature and history local history versus period history copyright and technology textual studies the new philology politics and agendas of disciplines the future of Med/Ren studies in art history, history, literature, religion, economics, etc. While we want a broad spectrum of area studies represented, we are particularly interested in papers on Scandinavian, Baltic/East European, Judaic, and Mediterranean Studies. There will also be a number of open sessions. Papers accepted for sessions on Mediterranean Studies will have passed the first level of review for publication in the journal Mediterranean Studies, sponsored by the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, the Medieval and Renaissance Colloquium (MARC) at the University of Michigan, and ACMRS at Arizona State University. The conference will be held at the Radisson Mission Palms Hotel, two blocks from the ASU campus in Tempe, a suburb of Phoenix, Arizona. The high temperature in the "Valley of the Sun" during February averages 70 degrees. Proposals for sessions and detailed abstracts or complete papers will be accepted beginning July 1, 1995. The deadline will is November 1, 1995. Please send two copies of your abstract, paper and/or session proposal, along with two copies of your c.v., to the program committee chair: Robert E. Bjork, Director, ACMRS, Arizona State University, Box 872301, Tempe, AZ 85287-2301. Email: atreb@asuvm.inre.asu.edu. Phone: (602) 965-5900. Fax: (602) 965-1681. T. Scott Clapp, Program Coordinator ACMRS (AZ Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies) Arizona State University Box 872301 Tempe, AZ 85287-2301 Phone: (602) 965-5900; FAX: (602) 965-1681 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ton Hoenselaars Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 14:26:32 -0600 (CST) Subject: Call for Papers The following *Call for Papers* has been posted to a.o. RENAIS-L, SHAKSPER, REED-L and FICINO. We apologize for any convenience caused by multiple posting. Should you know of anyone interested in the proposal, but who cannot be reached via E-mail, please feel free to pass on this Call for Papers. C A L L F O R P A P E R S English Literature and the Other Languages Eds. Marius Buning and Ton Hoenselaars The aim of this volume is first of all to explore a variety of instances where English literature relies for its means of expression on languages other than English, or dialects that may in context be considered inferior to the English standard. The editors also wish to investigate cases where different languages (one of which English) are simultaneously at play in the production of texts. On one level, the type of linguistic contiguity as defined by the editors may occur as a feature within the text. Examples of text-internal contiguity in our working definition include, for example, macaronic verse, but also the use of dialect in the *Second Shepherd's Play*, Chaucer's *Reeve's Tale*, the novels of Sir Walter Scott, Thomas Hardy (*Mayor of Casterbridge*), Charles Dickens (*David Copperfield*, and Emily Bronte's *Wuthering Heights*, as well as the use of Welsh in the novels of John Cowper Powys, and the colonial dialect in Kipling. Other instances of text-internal bilingualism deserving attention are Shakespeare's Latin, the use of nonsense language in *All's Well That Ends Well*, the coded language of More's *Utopia*, the secret language of *Gulliver's Travels*, Joyce's distribution of foreign tongues, and T.S. Eliot's foreign quotes. Broken English, as in Shakespeare or in Nadine Gordimer's *July's People* deserves to be investigated as well. In a large number of cases, the issue of the other language as juxtaposed to English will involve non-native speakers or characters; reflections on the (frequently stereotyped) foreign character and his idiosyncratic speech in English literature are also invited. Is the foreigner endowed with a type of archaic English to set him off against the Englishman (the past as another country)? Which verbal cliches and stock phrases does the English author have at his disposal to convey the impression of a foreign language being used. On another level, we are thinking of contributions focusing on bi- lingualism in a broader sense, namely as a phenomenon existing between the text and the author. In the past, authors not native to the English language have nevertheless adopted it partly or entirely for their prose. Joseph Conrad is the classical example, but Vladimir Nabokov is a good runner-up. Also Jerzy Kosinski deserves attention, like Isak Dinesen. At which point is an author simply being translated, and at which point may he or she be considered part of the tradition of literatures in English. In order to illustrate the issue of various languages at the author's disposal, we are also thinking of contributions involving the political choices involved in the literature of the Empire that writes back. In the same way that authors who were not native to the English language employed it for their literary statements, so authors who were native speakers of a variety of English wrote in another language. We would wel- come contributions on literature and the *lingua franca*, on John Milton's Latin and/or Italian verse, or Samuel Beckett's work in French. Clearly, the author versed in more than a single tongue, and also using both, introduces the issue of self-translation. Ideally, the volume should be a collection of provocative papers presenting a wide range of ventures into a field that has remained largely neglected. In no way should the material be exhausted; rather, the appeal of the volume ought to be its exploratory character. The editors envisage a volume containing 20-25 articles of approximately 4,000-5,000 words in length. The deadline for contributions is 1 April 1996. Should you wish to contribute an article to our volume on *English Literature and the `Other' Languages* ! to be published in the DQR Studies in English Literature series (Rodopi: Amsterdam and Atlanta, Ga.) ! please submit your proposal of 250-300 words by 15 September 1995. Proposals should be sent to: Dr. Marius Buning, Dr. Ton Hoenselaars, Department of English, Department of English, Free University of Amsterdam, Utrecht University, De Boelelaan 1105, Trans 10, 1081 HV Amsterdam, 3512 JK Utrecht, The Netherlands. The Netherlands. E-mail Buning@let.vu.nl E-mail Ton.Hoenselaars@let.ruu.nl! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 08:15:25 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0340 Qs: Capell Book; Globe/Wanamaker Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0340. Tuesday, 25 April 1995. (1) From: Bernice Kliman Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 22:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Request for book on Capell (2) From: David Mullan Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 12:46:04 -0400 Subj: Shakespeare's Globe/Sam Wanamaker (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice Kliman Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 22:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Request for book on Capell Does anyone know where I might borrow a copy of a 1967 PhD dissertation by Hyman Hart, "Edward Capell: the First Modern Editor of Shakespeare"? Please contact me directly. Thank you, Bernice W. Kliman 70 Glen Cove Drive Glen Head, NY 11545 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Mullan Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 12:46:04 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare's Globe/Sam Wanamaker I'm posting the following on behalf of a colleague, Mr. Barry Day: "I am writing the story of the rebuilding of Shakespeare's Globe theatre on Bankside, which opens next summer. If anyone has any anecdotes or thoughts that might be helpful -- particularly with regard to the project's driving force, the late Sam Wanamaker, I'd like to hear from you." Post any replies to the list, or e-mail me directly and I will forward the responses to Mr. Day. Thanks in advance, David Mullan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 08:17:17 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0341 Re: Western Isles Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0341. Tuesday, 25 April 1995. From: David Evett Date: Monday, 24 Apr 1995 22:50 ET Subject: Western Isles Bill Godshalk suggests that "it would have been hard to supply a rebel in eastern Scotland from the western isles," and Scott Shepherd agrees that this is one of those Shakespearean geographical whims like the coast of Bohemia. Let's note first that Shakespeare is only following Holinshed here: "Makdowald . . used also such subtle persuasions and forged allurements, that in a small time he had gotten together a mighty power of men: for out of the western Isles there came unto him a great multitude of people . . . and out of Ireland . . . no small number of _Kerns and Gallowglasses_." Such folk are not as far from "eastern Scotland" as Bill and Scott seem to suppose--in a couple of days sailing they can get up the Clyde to Glasgow; from there overland to the head of the Firth of Forth is less than the distance from London to Oxford. It's not as though they had to go all the way around the top. Geographically, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 09:12:21 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0342 Deaths of Cleopatra and Antony Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0342. Thursday, 27 April 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 18:30:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0338 Antony and Cleopatra (2) From: Christine Couche Date: Wednesday, 26 Apr 1995 10:25:38 +0800 (WST) Subj: Re: Cleopatra's suicide (3) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 26 Apr 1995 13:20:21 -0500 (EST) Subj: Antony & Cleopatra (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 18:30:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0338 Antony and Cleopatra To Alistair, in response to Antony and Cleopatra--- It's not that "determinism" or questions of "plausibility" should be dismissed, it's a matter of realizing they can't be reduced to one single motivation. If people don't want to recognize the apocalyptic and/or playful/comic qualities to both A & C's deaths (in which Shakespeare can be seen moving away from conventional tragedy---someone referred to this play as a "problem tragedy" which seems fitting), the thematic circularity in the play that is announced as early as Enobarbus's "she has such celerity in dying", then of course we can see the play deaths as mere "inevitable suicides." Aside from this meta-level critique of Alistair's position, one could also point out that Cleopatra announces her intention to die BEFORE the entrance of Dolabella...in fact, she announces it to Anthony...and, though it's debated (at one point she seems to be willing to cut a deal with Caesar), she never flinches from this. There's more, but not now.... Chris Stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Couche Date: Wednesday, 26 Apr 1995 10:25:38 +0800 (WST) Subject: Re: Cleopatra's suicide I must beg to differ with Bill Godshalk that Dolabella was actually sent by Caesar to encourage Cleopatra's suicide. Caesar clearly wants to keep her alive for his own purposes (5.1.62-6): Give her what comforts The quality of her passion shall require, Lest, in her greatness, by some mortal stroke She do defeat us; for her life in Rome woud be eternal in our triumph As for the mysterious "other employment" at 5.1.71-2, in the New Cambridge version, David Bevington reminds us that Caesar 'remembered he had sent Dolabella to bid Antony yield (5.1.1)' (p.241). However, I am grateful for being made to read this all a bit more closely, because it seems to me this little section where Caesar asks where Dolabella is, and everyone calls out 'Dolabella," with no response (and perhaps Caesar slapping his forehead as he says "let him alone, for I remember now") must be quite funny in a good production (which sadly I have not had the pleasure of). Incidentally, after seeing the ESC's "War of the Roses" cycle some years ago, I am convinced Shakespeare has heaps more funny lines in it than we usually get. Sorry Bill, no mystery or exciting new twist here methinks. Regards, Chris Couche (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 26 Apr 1995 13:20:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Antony & Cleopatra In response to Alistair Scott, I admit that I have a mission. I want people to take Dolabella seriously, and I think that Shakespeare gives us clues, such as, the end of 5.1 -- where everyone is shouting for Dolabella. Why does Shakespeare up this in? My answer is: to call attention to the missing Dolabella, who in the Folio does not exit before Dercetus enters. To account for Dolabella's strange disappearance, editors have sent him out at line three and reassigned his later speeches. Unfortunately, that procedure makes nonsense of Caesar's lines: "Let him alone, for I remember now / How he's employed. He shall in time be ready" (5.1.71-72).Ready for what? Caesar's last command to Dolabella was to go to Antony and "bid him yield" (5.1.1 Bevington ed.). Dercetus has reported that Antony is dead. So what's Dolabella up to? The only answer to that is: what he does in the rest of the play. Now, I realize that I'm the only one (as far as I know) who thinks that Dolabella does what he does at Caesar's command ("I remember now/How he's employed"), and, further, that the Variorum editors say something derogatory about this idea, but if you aren't convinced by my arguments, I haven't been convinced by the folks who have tried to get me to see the "light." Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 09:25:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0343 Re: Titus; Macduff; Cordelia; Western Isles Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0343. Thursday, 27 April 1995. (1) From: Sarah Cave Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 09:02:00 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0337 Re: *Titus* (2) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 17:25:54 -0400 Subj: *Mac* (3) From: Susan Mather Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 17:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0336 Re: The Ending of *Lear* (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 26 Apr 1995 12:36:43 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0341 Re: Western Isles (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Cave Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 09:02:00 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0337 Re: *Titus* I would like to add my two cents in TITUS' defense. While horrific and at times melodramatic, it nonetheless is a very "good" play and deserves to be performed. In Atlanta this year performances of TITUS were well attended, and the truths that made the play powerful in Shakespeare's day remain inherent in our society. I also think that Tamora's speech to Aaron contains lush imagery and poetry that we see to a greater extent in Titania's lines in MIDSUMMER. Sincerely, Sarah Cave Agnes Scott College sarah.cave@asc.scottlan.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 17:25:54 -0400 Subject: *Mac* After that last *Mac* post me and Bill Godshalk stepped outside and settled a few things e-man to e-man. Just kidding. Actually I wasn't trying to be vicious in that post at all. I guess I came on a little strong. Lucid, definitive, vigorous--that's the sort of thing I was going for. Oh well. What I meant to say: I understand the appeal of this Macduff suggestion, it's imaginative, makes sense, has interesting implications. But the textual problems that gave rise to it in the first place are, upon analysis, nonproblems. That's what I meant. Sorry Bill. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 17:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0336 Re: The Ending of *Lear* I don't know that you can fault Cordelia for calling Lear, "your majesty". According to Catherine Belsey in her book, The Subject of Tragedy, silence usually was a virtue in women as in children; women were to speak only when spoken to and with reverance I believe as children ought to show their elders. Cordelia may simply represent the relationship between men and women, husbands and wives during the renaissance--and perhaps Shakespeare uses Cordelia's response which is typical to contrast with Goneril and Regan's flatteries. Kent says that Cordelia speaks plainly (and I'm probably going to butcher this) when power to flattery bows. I am currently working on a paper for my King Lear class that deals with the subject of Lear's relationship with Cordelia as an anima figure. (C.G. Jung) So that Cordelia with reverance causes Lear to loose the persona he has created, to pull away from looking to his children as possible mirrors, to finally, become a whole person, separate and distinct from others. Tell me what you-all think. Thanks you, Susan M. Mather (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 26 Apr 1995 12:36:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0341 Re: Western Isles Dave Evett's suggestion of moving Irish troops up the Clyde and then marching them overland to Fife is very good. Were I the Scots general, I'd wait until the Irish had left their ships at Clyde's head -- minimally guarded -- and I'd wait until the main Irish force was well on the way to Fife before I'd fall on those ships with my main force and either burn them or take them into my own navy. I would not impede the Irish entry into Fife, which is funnel-shaped, but I would seal up their retreat. I'd probably push the remnant into the sea around St. Andrews or Kirkcaldy -- at my whim. Your move, General Evett. Yours, Wild Bl Godshalk (of the Curl Clan) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 09:34:48 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0344 Qs: *Julius Caesar*; *Othello*; *Hamlet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0344. Thursday, 27 April 1995. (1) From: Timothy E. Kowalsky <00tekowalsky@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 23:32:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Julius Caesar (2) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 26 Apr 95 13:25:49 -0500 Subj: New *Othello*? (3) From: Michael Weston Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 17:55:10 +0500 Subj: Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Timothy E. Kowalsky <00tekowalsky@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 23:32:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Julius Caesar I am Sound Designing a staging of Julius Caesar, and am looking for suggestions for music to listen to. The challenging aspect of our production is its setting -- the year 2015 A.D. The director wants to stick to instrumental music, but doesn't mind if it leaves the traditional orchestral. Anyone who has any thoughts may either post them to the list, or send them to me directly. Timothy E. Kowalsky 00tekowalsky@bsuvc.bsu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 26 Apr 95 13:25:49 -0500 Subject: New *Othello*? I heard via a friend who watches one of the cable entertainment channels regularly that Kenneth Branagh will be directing a film of *Othello* with Laurence Fishburne in the title role; Branagh himself will play Iago. (At last, an "honest Iago" who actually looks the part!) Chris Gordon (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Weston Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 1995 17:55:10 +0500 Subject: Hamlet I am looking for any research that deals with the themes of death and suicide in Hamlet. Any help would be appreciated. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 13:43:46 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0345 Cleopatra and Dollabella Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0345. Friday, 28 April 1995. (1) From: Jean Peterson Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 11:59:02 -0400 Subj: Cleopatra & Dollabella (2) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 16:30:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0342 Deaths of Cleopatra and Antony (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 11:59:02 -0400 Subject: Cleopatra & Dollabella I'm with Alistair Scott on this one. (e.g."Cleopatra was pushed toward suicide by Dolabella acting as Caesar's agent"--NOT!) I've always assumed that the dramatic purpose of Cleo's conversation with Dollabella was twofold: to provide an auditor for the great "Emperor Antony" set-piece (why, in this over-populated play, introduce an entirely NEW character for this? a question to be asked), and to demonstrate that the ol' girl hasn't lost her touch--she can still snare and enchant Romans, still make them betray their political-militaristic-masculine loyalties. Was it Phyllis Rackin (probably) who pointed out that Dol. sells out his leader and countryman on the basis of a single conversation with the Queen? At any rate, Dol. tells her what confirms her decision to suicide: "He'll lead me, then, in triumph?"--exactly the information Caesar is trying to keep from her. Egyptians, 10; Romans, 0! Jean Peterson Bucknell University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 16:30:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0342 Deaths of Cleopatra and Antony In response to Chris Stroffolino, yes, I must admit that Cleopatra does say that she will commit suicide before she meets Doladella, but I point out that Dolabella gives her the information that pushes her over the edge; he tells her that Caesar intends to take her to Rome and that she has a limited time in which to commit suicide. I'm not saying that Dolabella controls her actions, but I do believe that he convinces her to act. And, yes, she does seem to be wavering in her last scene. The Seleucus episode may be seen as a trial of Caesar's possible infatuation with her (or if you will, a smoke screen to convince him that she's not going to commit suicide). Would she have acted so decisively if Dolabella hadn't given her the nudge? In response to Chris Couche, please, let me have a little mystery in all this! Bevington in this case is wrong. Please, Chris, give my position a chance, and check the scene as it appears in the Folio. If you check Bevington's edited scene with the Folio scene, you will see what I mean. Dolabella does NOT leave before news of Antony's death is delivered to Caesar. Bevington, like other editors, changes Dolabella's role, and then rationalizes the change. If Dolabella's mission is secret (he's one of Caesar's secret agents in my production), then his mission is not public. Caesar does not want to appear in this. Publicly he wants his wealthy supporters to believe that he wishes to take Cleopatra back to Rome alive. Caesar is a generous conqueror, etc. Privately, he knows that she must die, and suicide would be best for his public image. Also Caesar tells Cleopatra that, if she commits suicide, he will NOT protect Caesarion -- who is the genetic son of Julius Caesar -- a definite threat. Historically, we know that Caesarion "disappears." Cleopatra's suicide gives Caesar -- in this play -- the excuse he genuinely wishes to rid himself of the Egyptian royal family. As I suggested earlier, you may wish to compare Queen Elizabeth's charade when she had Mary, Queen of Scots, executed. Elizabeth wanted the execution done, but she did not want to appear in the act. Shakespeare had ample historical precedence for giving Caesar both private motives and public motives that are at variance with each other. Cleopatra and Caesar use Antony as a tool until he is no longer useful. Cleopatra then encourages him to commit suicide -- and he does. After his death, Cleo and Caesar face off -- and she blinks. I realize that this is a "paranoid" interpretation of Cleopatra's suicide. But, unfortunately, like many obsessed people, I'm convinced by the scenerio that I give you above. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 13:52:46 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0346 Re: Music for *Julius Caesar* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0346. Friday, 28 April 1995. (1) From: Doug Cummings Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 17:23:07 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0344 Qs: *Julius Caesar* (2) From: Heather Stephenson Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 19:50:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Julius Caesar Music (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug Cummings Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 17:23:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0344 Qs: *Julius Caesar* Given the time period you are thinking about, try some of the work of the Kronos Quartet. Their music is very modern and exciting. It is some of the most interesting contemporary instrumental music around. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Heather Stephenson Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 19:50:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Julius Caesar Music For a staging of JC set in 2015... If you are feeling a little funky, you might want to try something like DEEP BREAKFAST, by Ray Lynch. Celestial Soda Pop, Tiny Geometries and Dancing in the Pews are all songs that are synthesizer composed, but have background strings and woodwinds. Lynch has a few albums out, but (IMHO) Deep Breakfast is the best. Good Luck! Heather Stephenson Georgetown University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 13:58:35 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0347 Re: *Ham.* Query; New *Othello* Film Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0347. Friday, 28 April 1995. (1) From: Skip Shand Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 10:58:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0344 Qs: *Hamlet* (2) From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Friday, 28 Apr 95 09:23 EDT Subj: Re: new *Othello* film (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Shand Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 10:58:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0344 Qs: *Hamlet* Re *Hamlet* query: Frye, Roland, *The Renaissance Hamlet* Colie, Rosalie, *Paradoxia Epidemica* MacDonald, Michael, and Terence Murphy, *Sleepless Souls* Shand, G. B. (unblushingly!), "Realising Gertrude: The Suicide Option," *Elizabethan Theatre XIII* (1994) Good luck. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Friday, 28 Apr 95 09:23 EDT Subject: Re: new *Othello* film There is conflicting information about this new film version of *Othello*; some sources (such as this week's TIME magazine) say it is to be directed by Kenneth Branagh; others (such as VARIETY) say that the director will be Oliver Parker (who also adapted the screenplay). The only thing that seems clear is that Branagh is going to play Iago, Fishburne will play Othello, and the film will be partially bankrolled by Branagh's production company. Also, I believe that the McKellen *Richard III* is going to start filming next month. Ellen Edgerton ebedgert@suadmin.syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 14:03:26 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0348 Fahrenheit on WWW; ACTER Opening Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0348. Friday, 28 April 1995. (1) From: Peter Scott Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 10:19:55 -0600 (CST) Subj: FAHRENHEIT Theatre Company (2) From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 15:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: ACTER opening (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Scott Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 10:19:55 -0600 (CST) Subject: FAHRENHEIT Theatre Company Cincinnati's only professional theatre specializing in the classics! http://iac.net:80/~marjason/ (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 15:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ACTER opening Clemson University wants to host ACTER's Macbeth production for their Shakespeare Festival March 12-13, 1996 and they are looking for a school nearby to share the week residency. If you would like to have ACTER visit your school Friday-Saturday March 15-16 for one full performance of Macbeth, l or 2 one person shows (titles to be decided), a day of teaching and some Saturday workshops (for public or perhaps high school teachers), let me know. It is a good way to sample ACTER's offerings and would be half price. Contact csdessen@email.unc.edu off list if you are interested. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 14:13:08 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0349 Qs: PC and Productions; Textbooks; Macready's Hamlet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0349. Friday, 28 April 1995. (1) From: Ian Doescher Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 08:58:52 -0700 Subj: Racism, sexism in "Merchant," "Taming" (2) From: Gayle Gaskill Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 20:18:22 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Advice on Textbooks (3) From: Paul Alan Macdonald <901606M@axe.acadiau.ca> Date: Friday, 28 Apr 1995 13:57:51 -0400 (AST) Subj: Macready's Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Doescher Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 08:58:52 -0700 Subject: Racism, sexism in "Merchant," "Taming" In our politically correct society, how ought directors or performers deal with the issues of racism and sexism in "Merchant of Venice" and "Taming of the Shrew?" Quite clearly, the racism against Shylock must be dealt with in order to be appropriate for modern audiences, as well as the inherent sexist attitudes towards Kate. Should directors nowadays concern themselves with making their productions point out the negativity of racism and sexism? Or is it not a director's responsibility to be sensitive to an audience? Just wondering. Ian Doescher (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gayle Gaskill Date: Thursday, 27 Apr 1995 20:18:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Advice on Textbooks I'd welcome advice for choosing texts for two of my classes next year: 1. The Bible in literture. 2. The Age of Elizabeth: Politics and Literature in the Reign of Elizabeth I. And does anyone know how to get the videos of the _Elizabeth R_ series Glenda Jackson did for--I suppose the BBC, which Masterpiece Theatre played years ago? And could students bear to watch thoee videos in 1996? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Alan Macdonald <901606M@axe.acadiau.ca> Date: Friday, 28 Apr 1995 13:57:51 -0400 (AST) Subject: Macready's Hamlet Hello Everyone: This is my first time posting here, so a great big HELLO to all you SHAKESPEARians out there. Presently, I'm doing my graduate work on the Play Scene in "Hamlet", with the main focus being on its presentation by Macready, Irving, and Beerbohm-Tree. The Macready section is proving to be a little tricky, however, in that I am looking at his 1838 "Hamlet" at Covent Garden and cannot find any critical reviews of the production (with the exception of a short article in "Spectator", Vol. XI). I've seen his diaries and most of the scholarly books that cover his career, but none of them address this particular production in any detail. Does anyone have any suggestions? I would really be interested in reviews that are contemporary to the production, especially if they discuss the set, props, staging etc (Clarkson Stanfield was the set designer). Also, there was a series of sketches done on the productions at Covant Garden during the 1838/39 season by George Scharf and I would love to get some info on him and his work. If you have any ideas and/or questions, please feel free to E-Mail me directly. Thanks in advance, paul ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 12:45:48 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0350 Re: Textbooks Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0350. Monday, 1 May 1995. (1) From: Grant Moss Date: Friday, 28 Apr 1995 22:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0349 Qs: Textbooks (2) From: Luc Borot Date: Monday, 1 May 1995 11:19:20 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0349 Qs: Textbooks on the Bible in Eng Lit (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Grant Moss Date: Friday, 28 Apr 1995 22:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0349 Qs: Textbooks Re Gayle Gaskill's inquiry on textbooks about Elizabeth, it's hard to know where to begin. Susan Frye's new book (Oxford UP) "Elizabeth I: The Competition for Representation," is quite good, although without knowing the specifics of your course, I can't be certain that it will be what you're looking for. Susan Bassnett's "Elizabeth I: A Feminist Perspective" is an interesting variant on/critique of the traditional studies of Elizabeth. Alison Plowden's work (unfortunately, its title escapes me for the moment) is also useful. If you're looking for a straight biography, Christopher Hibbert's "The Virgin Queen: The Personal History of Elizabeth I" is a good one (although there are many others). Lisa Jardine's "Stil Harping on Daughters: Women and Drama in the Age of Shakespeare" is a good study of women during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with a chapter devoted to Elizabeth. I have not yet read Carole Levin's "The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power," but it sounds like it might be useful to you. Grant Moss UNC-Chapel Hill oberon@email.unc.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Luc Borot Date: Monday, 1 May 1995 11:19:20 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0349 Qs: Textbooks on the Bible in Eng Lit In SHAKSPER Vol. 6, No. 0349, on Friday, 28 April 1995, Gayle Gaskill asks for advice on >1. The Bible in literture. >2. The Age of Elizabeth: Politics and Literature in the Reign of Elizabeth I. As regards item #1, one should read Northrop Frye's *The Great Code, or the Bible as Literature* (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983) to start a study of the presence of Scripture in Literature by a presentation of the literary status of the "holy library" constituted by these two bodies of writing (OT and NT). Christopher Hill's *The English Bible and the Seventeenth-Century Revolution* (London: Allen Lane, the Penguin Press, 1993) may be another source, for the XVIIth century. Barbara Kiefer Lewalski wrote a book on the biblical inspiration of English meditation poetry whose title eludes me for the moment (it's a Princeton book, I think), and on Milton's *Paradise Regained* she wrote another book, *Milton's Minor Epic*, in which you'll find excellent passages on the subject. Father Peter Millward, SJ, wrote several pieces on Shakespeare and the Bible in a Japanese series published by Sophia University in Tokyo (something like 'English Renaissance Monographs'). All this is in the Elizabethan Centre's Library in Montpellier, but today is May 1st, and it's closed: I apologise for my poor memory. As regards item #2, I'll wait till I'm in college, and till others have sent replies, to fill in possible gaps, but my notes aren't within reach just now. Hope this helps Luc ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 12:55:12 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0351 Re: PC and Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0351. Monday, 1 May 1995. (1) From: Kezia Sproat Date: Saturday, 29 Apr 1995 15:23:19 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0349 Qs: PC and Pro... (2) From: Heather Stephenson Date: Saturday, 29 Apr 1995 18:51:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Directorial Responsibility (3) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 1 May 1995 10:54:43 +1000 Subj: Re: Merchant (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kezia Sproat Date: Saturday, 29 Apr 1995 15:23:19 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0349 Qs: PC and Pro... For Ian Doescher: The term "politically correct" was, according to a reliable informant (Jean Godby at OCLC Online Computer Library Center, who is a linguist), invented to discredit feminists and perhaps others who may urge change, in order to make us appear fascist or narrow. So, strong feminist that I am, I'd recommend not worrying about political correctness: instead, look closely at the text and present what you find. I find hugely sympathetic feminist ideas throughout the Shakespeare canon--in fact, I learned about feminism from these texts, and am still learning. Specifically on TOS, Coppelia Kahn wrote a study of it that might be very helpful to you as a Director. I can't remember where it was finally published. I saw it in manuscript more than 20 years ago, and cited it in my dissertation (A Reappraisal of Shakespeare's View of Women, Ohio State, 1975) as follows: "Coppelia Kahn's study 'The Taming of the Shrew: Shakespeare's Mirror of Marriage' (unpublished ms.) argues that Katherin is participating in Petruchio's comic exaggeration when she makes her final speech, just as she participated in it in her sun/moon speech. Professor Kahn point out several processes in that play which combine to indicate that it is meant to satirize conventional methods of courtship. For example, the entire Bianca subplot can be seen this way. Her study argues that Katherine and Petruchio understnad each other and have a good marriage." Interestingly, Kahn told me in 1974 that she "kept her feminism separate from her scholarship," and I assured her I found feminism and scholarship perfectly congruent. National Theatre Company toured TOS through Columbus in the late 1970s, and in their production Petruchio sat on a 3-legged stool during Kate's speech; at its end, she puts her hand under his boot and topples hims backward. He has smiled and bragged via body language throughout her comic overstatement, but keeps laughing as he falls. I suspect that if the theatres hadn't closed in 1642, stage tradition would have passed such lore down to us directly from Shakespeare's company. Keep your eyes on the text and you can't fail. That same advice holds for Merchant of Venice: stay with the text. The most eloquent anti-racist statement and most influential in my life ("Hath not a Jew eyes? etc.) comes from the mouth of Shylock. It truly pulls sympathy. Let Shylock be a whole person onstage, angry, but whole, as the text allows. You might also add a program note about the other "Jewish" plays being staged when that one was written: in context, Shakespeare's is not so bad. Scheduled audience/actor/director discussions of these problems after the curtain can help. We surely need more open public real time dialogue on these matters, and less restriction and concern with what's "proper" or "correct." "The weight of this sad time we must obey/ Say what we feel, not what we ought to say." (text may be garbled there??) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Heather Stephenson Date: Saturday, 29 Apr 1995 18:51:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Directorial Responsibility Ian Doescher writes: >In our politically correct society, how ought directors or performers deal >with the issues of racism and sexism in "Merchant of Venice" and "Taming of >the Shrew?" Quite clearly, the racism against Shylock must be dealt with in >order to be appropriate for modern audiences, as well as the inherent sexist >attitudes towards Kate. Should directors nowadays concern themselves with >making their productions point out the negativity of racism and sexism? Or is >it not a director's responsibility to be sensitive to an audience? Of course it is a director's responsibility to be sensitive... if not to the audience itself, at least to the pertinant issues of her/his time period. What are Shakespearean plays if not tools with which to interpret current issues? More than simply being examples of English Renaissance history, the plays are "living literatures" because they are adaptable, interpretable, and force the director and audience member to THINK... to consider and to create meaning. The interpretive gaps that Shakespeare left in the plays open a wealth of opportunity for directoral and audience intervention in the texts. Perhaps the charge to the director is not to point out the negativity of racism or sexism, but to highlight the existance of these negatives, show potential readings and make the audience itself take on the responsibility to THINK and assign meaning. Kate's speech at the end of _TotS_ is uncomfortable. And it is this discomfort that forces directors and audience members (and actor/actresses... in short, all players in the interpretive process) to wrestle with the many issues of sexism and finally to come up with a satisfactory or at least plausible explanation. The attention to these negative issues provides an opportunity for education, enlightenment and growth -- for all who encounter the plays. Choosing NOT to highlight or address these issues is in itself addressing them, assigning a value to them. NOT being sensitive to racism, sexism, classism... avoiding filling in these areas of interpretation actually fills them in a very specific manner. In short, the director absolutely MUST be sensitive to the negative issues in Shakespeare, lest s/he take a stand by refusing to take one. Heather Stephenson Georgetown University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 1 May 1995 10:54:43 +1000 Subject: Re: Merchant In reply to Ian Doescher's question about _Merchant_ a good place to start thinking about these issues would be the first chapter in Alan Sinfield's recent (1994) _Cultural Politics--Queer Reading_, published by Routledge. Adrian Kiernander Department of Theatre Studies University of New England Armidale, NSW 2351 AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 13:15:34 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0352 Re: Cleopatra and Dollabella Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0352. Monday, 1 May 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 29 Apr 1995 03:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0345 Cleopatra and Dollabella (2) From: James J. Hill, Jr. Date: Saturday, 29 Apr 1995 17:47:00 -0500 (EST) Subj: Dolabella and Cleopatra (3) From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 01 May 1995 10:24:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHAXICON and that Dolabella crux in ANT (4) From: Fran Teague Date: Sunday, 30 Apr 95 13:11:12 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0345 Cleopatra and Dollabella (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 29 Apr 1995 03:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0345 Cleopatra and Dollabella Wm. Godshalk---I am intrigued by your reading of the end scenario of Antony and Cleo, the idea that, in the power struggle with Caesar Cleo blinks for instance is an interesting and needed tonic to the view that Cleo is primarily a woman and her kingdom is strictly of another world, etc., but can you TOTALLY DENY any but political significance to her eulogizing of Antony, etc., (I'm not saying that's what your doing....I'm just asking). Also, what textual support do you have for saying that "privately, Caesar knows that she must die, and suicide would be best for his public image." Because i don't see it. But I must say i admire your ability to make me rethink my Enobarbus-centered reading of the play (which i thought was SOOOOO radical, and now I'm thinking it's old hat), though I wonder sometimes how far we can take rhetoric---like Berger's IMAGINARY AUDITION makes a convincing argument up to a point and then starts assuming that because the play has a way of making us sympathize with Richard 2nd that therefore Richard 2nd must have engineered that, that his failure in "the play" is his success "in the audience" and that Richard was ultimately cunning then. This perhaps can be applied to what i know of your reading of A&C.... but if Cleopatra is "cunning past man's thought" How do we KNOW she's cunning (maybe Jean could answer that!), or merely cunning? Don't the (scratch that---I'll end here) Chris Stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James J. Hill, Jr. Date: Saturday, 29 Apr 1995 17:47:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Dolabella and Cleopatra Those who reject the obvious significance/function of Dolabella [see the posting of Jean Peterson] in favor of a "conspiracy theory" that he is the secret agent of Caesar to push Cleopatra to suicide should examine Janet Adelman's demonstration of a pattern of structural repetitions in *Antony and Cleopatra* [a series of servants desert their masters (living or dead): e.g. Enobarbus, Menas, Alexas, Canidius, Seleucus, Decretas, and Dolabella]. See her *The Common Liar* (1973), pp. 45-47. It should also be noted that North's *Plutarch* describes Dolabella as "a young gentleman...that was one of Caesars great familiars, and besides did have no evil unto Cleopatra. He sent her word secretly, as she had requested him...that within three dayes [Caesar] would sende her away before with her children." Perhaps Janet Adelman and Jean Peterson are correct when they see Dolabella acting compassionately [and not conspiratorially] at the end of the play. J.J.Hill (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 01 May 1995 10:24:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHAXICON and that Dolabella crux in ANT About the Dolabella controversy in 5.1: SHAXICON offers a possible solution for the textual problem in 5.1. In the texts later than ANT, Shakespeare is very markedly influenced in his writing by the rare-word diction of five parts in ANT, all bit roles: Agrippa, Philo, Proculeius, Thidias, and Ventidius. In most other texts, Shakespeare "remembers" the rare-word diction of just one (or sometimes two) characters. It is perhaps doubtful that Shakespeare this late in his career would have studied five different roles, all bitsy parts at that, but that's a moot point: for whatever reason, Shakespeare indeed "remembers" the rare-word diction of these five roles while "forgetting" the rare-word diction of other characters in the same play. Given the example of other texts in which this selective mnemonic recall is evident, my guess is that Shakespeare performed these five roles--but that presents an immediate problem. It appears (at first glance) that the same actor cannot possibly have played both Agrippa and Proculeius. In F1 ANT, Agrippa is given an entrance at 5.1.0, but no lines. Proculeius is given lines and an exit, but no entrance. And at 5.1.29 and 5.1.31, we've got a problem with the speech prefixes (F1 Dola.), which most editors assign to Agrippa. Here's what I take to be the likeliest explanation: After the script was written, the play was casted (perhaps during the initial rehearsals). It was decided that Shakespeare would play Agrippa, Proculeius, Philo, Thidias, and Ventidius (hence the lopsided mnemonic recall of these roles in Shakespeare's later writing). But a problem arose in 5.1: let's imagine a first rehearsal in which Shakespeare-the-actor enters as Agrippa at 5.1.0, together with Caesar, Dolabella, Maecenas, and Gallus (and perhaps others). Let's assume for the moment that the s.d.'s at ANT 5.1.29 and 5.1.31 DID in fact say "Agri" in the original script, as most editors have assumed, and that F1 "Dola" is a mistake in both instances, as most editors have concluded. (Dolabella appears to exit at 5.1.3, even as the Egyptian exits at 5.1.60, Proculeius at 5.1.68, and Gallus at 5.1.69; a comparison of 5.1.3 with 5.1.68 leaves little room to doubt that Dolabella DOES exit at 5.1.3). But if Shakespeare-the-actor is to stand, speak, and exit as Proculeius at 5.1.61 ff., then the earlier, "Agri," speech prefixes in the script need to be lined out: right actor (no change there), but the wrong character, since Shakespeare-the-actor will now be Proculeius throughout 5.1. The only mistake, then, is that the stagehouse bookkeeper, or the printer, or someone, in trying to restore the lined out speech prefixes at 5.1.29 and 31, guessed wrong, inserting "Dola.," which has been emended by modern editors back to "Agri." While this scenario cannot be proven, SHAXICON offers, I think, a plausible and economical explanation for all of the confusion in 5.1: Problem: The S.P.s at 5.1.29 and 5.1.31 are indeed wrong in F1 (an attempt to supply s.p. after "Agri" was lined out); the entrance without exit for Agrippa, and the exit without entrance for Proculeius, are likewise mistakes. Solutions: If the editor or theatrical director wishes to represent the script as originally intended by Shakespeare-the-writer, "Proculeius" should indeed be added to "Agrippa" in the SD at 5.1.0, and "Dola" emended to "Agri" at 5.1.29 and 31; Agrippa thereby speaks twice before Proculeius speaks. If, however, the editor or director wishes to represent the script as first acted, then "Agrippa" should be emended to "Proculeius" at 5.1.0, and "Dola" should be emended to "Proc" at 5.1.29 and 31; the same actor (Shakespeare or whoever) thus speaks lines originally intended (by Shakespeare the writer) for both Agrippa and Proculeius, and he speaks all three speeches AS Proculeius (5.1.29 ff, 31 ff., 68). Proc thus enters at 5.1.0 and exits at 5.1.68. Eureka! Even the apparent *contradictions* in SHAXICON (How can the same actor play both Proculeius and Agrippa! Not possible!) now begin to look like revelations (But of course! F1 contradicts itself at precisely the same juncture!). After years of muttering curses at this database for all of the time and labor it has consumed, I'm starting to think rather well of it... Stay tuned. Foster (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Sunday, 30 Apr 95 13:11:12 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0345 Cleopatra and Dollabella Prof. Godshalk has met some resistance to his argument that Dolabella is a secret agent who pushes Cleopatra into suicide. Certainly if that is the way he would have the actor playing Dolabella perform the part in a produc- tion he directs, then that Dolabella will indeed be a secret agent. But why all Dolabella performances _have_ to follow that interpretation eludes me (as does any argument that the role could _not_ be performed that way). I'm not at all comfortable with the announcement that Caesar's role is comparable to Elizabeth I's "charade" in condemning Mary, Queen of Scots to death. Every responsible account of what occurred in 1587 agrees that Elizabeth was deeply troubled both by Mary Stuart's plotting a rebellion and by the insistence of Parliament (and of her councillers) that Mary Stuart must be executed. To suggest the Elizabeth I is some sort of 16th century Dragon Lady of Deviousness just continues misrepresentation of her accomplishments--she was neither Wonder Woman nor the Scarlet Woman. I prefer history without soap opera characters, when I can get it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 13:26:20 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0353 Shakespeare Projects Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0353. Monday, 1 May 1995. From: Julie Dubiner Date: Sunday, 30 Apr 1995 00:47:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare Projects The Columbia University MFA directing and dramaturgy students will be presenting Shakespeare projects this coming weekend (May 5 and 6). Each project is about a half-hour long, the day starts at 4 PM and goes 'til 11 with two breaks. The running order is as follows: The Taming of the Shrew Winter's Tale Coriolanus Macbeth Titus Andronicus The Tempest Twelfth Night The Taming of the Shrew Midsummer Night's Dream Admission is FREE, reservations can be made by calling (212) 517-1799. We start at Shapiro Theater (115th St. bet. B'way and Riverside) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 13:33:57 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0354 Re: *Oth.* Film; Macready's Hamlet; *JC* Music Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0354. Monday, 1 May 1995. (1) From: David Kathman Date: Friday, 28 Apr 1995 21:50:52 +0100 Subj: New Othello Film (2) From: David Peck Date: Saturday, 29 Apr 1995 11:26:01 +0059 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0349 Qs: Macready's Hamlet (3) From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 29 Apr 1995 22:54:57 -0400 Subj: More Caesar music (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Kathman Date: Friday, 28 Apr 1995 21:50:52 +0100 Subject: New Othello Film Regarding the new film of "Othello": I saw the item in Time which said that Kenneth Branagh was going to direct, and that Laurence Fishburne was close to being signed to play the Moor. Then today in the Chicago Tribune there was a brief item (all right, all right, it was in the INC. gossip column) which I might as well quote in full since it's so brief: "INC. hears Kenneth Branagh, busy in L.A. with plans for his lead role in the movie 'Othello' with Laurence Fishburne and possibly Uma Thurman as Desdemona, also was looking for a distributor for a film he wrote and directed, 'In the Bleak Midwinter.' It's a romantic comedy --- really --- about misfits who put on a production of 'Hamlet,' with Joan Collins and Jennifer Saunders (of TV's 'Absolutely Fabulous')." Uma Thurman as Desdemona. Hmmmm. I'll reserve judgement. The next item in the column mentions that Branagh want to do a movie of "the complete 'Hamlet' --- every word", which would take 3 1/2 hours, and in which Branagh would star. I for one would be interested to know what edition Branagh will use for his "complete" Hamlet, given all the textual questions involved with the play. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Peck Date: Saturday, 29 Apr 1995 11:26:01 +0059 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0349 Qs: Macready's Hamlet Re: Paul MacDonald's query about reviews of Macready's Hamlet at Covent Garden. I suggest you get in touch with the Theatre Museum near Covent Garden. They have have and excellent archive dealing with English theatre history and performance including a a great deal of material on Macready. I do not have the address, but it should not be difficult to acquire. The theatre is physically located about a block from the theatre. david peck (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 29 Apr 1995 22:54:57 -0400 Subject: More Caesar music Try Hoodoo Zephyr, by John Adams; NorthStar, by Philip Glass; Symphony #50, by Alan Hovhaness; Symphony #7, by Dmitri Shostakovich. Dale Lyles ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 07:44:04 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0355 Tudor Hall Conference; Character Index; EMLS 1.1 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0355. Wednesday, 3 May 1995. (1) From: Edward Gero Date: Monday, 1 May 1995 14:22:35 -0400 (EDT) Subj: 1995 Tudor Hall Conference (2) From: Thomas Berger Date: Monday, 01 May 95 15:38:37 EDT Subj: Character Index (3) From: R. G. Siemens, Editor, EMLS Date: Monday, 1 May 95 14:41:27 PDT Subj: EMLS 1.1 Now Available! (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Gero Date: Monday, 1 May 1995 14:22:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 1995 Tudor Hall Conference 1995 TUDOR HALL CONFERENCE "THE DISCOVERED COUNTRY" America and the Classical Acting Tradition Saturday, June 10, 1995 *The Preservation for Tudor Hall* presents a conference that seeks to examine the nature of Shakesperean acting and production as rendered through an uniquely American prism. Tudor Hall, in Maryland, was the |homestead of the most influential American classical acting company, the Booths. Junius Brutus Booth, the English born Shakesperean actor settled here in 1822 and raised a family that changed both the political and theatrical landscape of America forever. His sons, Junius, Jr., Edwin and John Wilkes toured America from California mining towns to the Broadway stage. As a result of such profound impact in their performance of Shakesperean texts, Tudor Hall has become known as Shakespeare's birthplace in America. *The Discovered Country* symposium scholars will explore the Booths influence, the traditions of Shakesperean performance as shaped by the western migration in the 19th Century and its evolution to the productions of today. *Guest Speakers* Donald Wilmeth (PH.D., U. of Illinois) - Professor of Theatre and English at Brown University in Providence, RI. TOPIC: *Willy in the Wild West, or Shakespeare on the Frontier* Stephan Archer (PH.D. Illinois) Director of Graduate Studies in Theater at the University of Missouri in Columbia, author of "Junius Brutus Booth, Theatrical Prometheus." TOPIC: *Acting Styles and National Personae: a clash of Wills* Herb Coursen (PH.D. UConn) Director of Education (US) for the International Globe Center in London, athor, dramaturg, professor specializing in such areas s "Shakepeare and Psychology", "Shakespeare and TV." TOPIC: *Recent Discoveies in American Hamlets* Margaret Tocci (PH.D. UMd) Professor at the University of Maryland and Johns HOPKINS> TOPIC: *Shakespeare and the Ladies, American Actresses and the Bard* ** AN EVENING PRESENTATION ** featuring well known actors performing and discussing theor experience with Shakespeare's plays. Hal Holbrook, Stacy Keach, Lynn Redgrave are tentatively scheduled. Also scheduled are actors from the Shakespeare Theatre in Washington headed by Edward Gero and Gary Sloan. REGISTRATION: $20.00, 10.00 for PATH members, $10.00 for students. AEA affiliated actors are free. (Subject to change:Grant pending). The registration fee includes a tour of Tudor Hall, buffet lunch, panel discussion, an evening supper and the Actor's presentation. Those desiring to see the Actor's presentation only can purchase tickets in advance for $15.00. Members of PATH are invited for a candle-light farewell to our guest speakers at Tudor Hall. The Conference begins at 12 noon and should last until 10 pm. ACCOMODATIONS: Overnights arrangements are available with several hotels within 10 miles of Tudor Hall. Call 410-838-0466 for hotel information. ADVANCED RESERVATIONS AND PAYMENT is requested in order to prepare meals and seating arrangements. Please call: 410-838-0466 for more information or send a check to PATH, Inc. including your name, address, phone number, number of people in your party and any tax deductible donation to: PATH CONFERENCE TUDOR HALL BEL AIR, MD 21015 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Berger Date: Monday, 01 May 95 15:38:37 EDT Subject: Character Index I am revising, with my colleague Sidney Sondergard, the INDEX OF CHARACTERS IN ENGLISH PRINTED DRAMA TO THE RESTORATION that William Bradford, Jr. (deceased) and I published in 1975, adding the LATIN PLAYS and the LOST PLAYS (many of which, of course, were not lost but simply were not printed). Please contact us if you have any contributions in the way of especially painful errors and egregious misdeeds that you have uncovered in the first edition (1975)? If there are any studies of characters/character types, we'd be pleased to hear about those too. Many thanks. Tom Berger TBER@MUSIC.STLAWU.EDU Dept. English St. Lawrence University Canton, NY 13617 USA (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: R. G. Siemens, Editor, EMLS Date: Monday, 1 May 95 14:41:27 PDT Subject: EMLS 1.1 Now Available! May 1, 1995. [This message will be cross-posted; please excuse duplication] EMLS 1.1 Now Available! We are pleased to announce the release of Early Modern Literary Studies: A Journal of Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century English Literature, Volume 1, Number 1 (April 1995). The journal is available now on the WWW via our home page, at http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/e-sources/emls/emlshome.html On May 5, an ASCII text version of EMLS will be made available to our electronic mail subscribers and those readers using GOPHER. EMLS 1.1 will be available via GOPHER at edziza.arts.ubc.ca /english/EMLS 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. ----------- Contents of EMLS Volume 1, Number 1 (April 1995): - Frontmatter: - Publishing Information, Journal Availability, EMLS Contact Addresses - Editorial Group - Submission Information - Citing Materials Appearing in EMLS - Foreword: - Early Modern Literary Studies: An Editor's Prefatory Statement. [1]. Raymond G. Siemens, University of British Columbia. - Articles: - Skelton and Barclay, Medieval and Modern. [2]. David R. Carlson, University of Ottawa. - King Lear in its Own Time: The Difference that Death Makes. [3]. Ben Ross Schneider, Jr. Lawrence University. - "This innocent worke": Adam and Eve, John Smith, William Wood and the North American Plantations. [4]. Graham Roebuck, McMaster University. - Milton and the Jacobean Church of England. [5]. Daniel W. Doerksen, University of New Brunswick. - Reviews: - Christopher Marlowe. The Complete Works of Christopher Marlowe (Vol. 3): Edward II. Ed. Richard Rowland. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994. [6]. Robert Lindsey, Oriel College, Oxford. - John Gillies. Shakespeare and the Geography of Difference. Cambridge Studies in Renaissance Literature and Culture 4. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994. [7]. Patricia Badir, University of British Columbia. - Nigel Smith. Literature and Revolution in England, 1640-1660. New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1994. [8]. Christopher Orchard, Lynchburg College, VA. - Alison Findlay. Illegitimate Power: Bastards in Renaissance Drama. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1994. [9]. Sonia Nolten, Oriel College, Oxford. - Harold Love. Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1993. [10]. Margaret Downs-Gamble, Virginia Tech, VA. - World Wide Web Resources for Early Modern Studies, 1500-1700: A Survey of Select Textual Resources. [11]. Perry Willett, Indiana University. - Reviewing Information and Books Received for Review - Professional Note: - A Textbase of Early Tudor English. [12]. Greg Waite (Editor in Chief), University of Otago. ----------- Early Modern Literary Studies is a refereed journal in electronic form which serves both as a formal arena for scholarly discussion and as an academic resource for researchers in the area. Articles in EMLS examine English literature, literary culture, and language during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries from a variety of perspectives; well-considered responses to published papers are also published as part of a Readers' Forum. Reviews in EMLS evaluate recent work in the area as well as academic tools of interest to scholars in the field. Our Internet site also gathers and maintain links to useful on-line resources. EMLS (ISSN 1201-2459) is published three times a year for the on-line academic community by the University of British Columbia's English Department, with the support of the University's Library and Arts Computing Centre. Raymond G. Siemens Editor, Early Modern Literary Studies, Department of English, University of British Columbia, #397 - 1873 East Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z1. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 07:56:28 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0356 Re: PC and Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0356. Wednesday, 3 May 1995. (1) From: John Owen Date: Monday, 1 May 1995 12:50:12 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0349 Qs: PC and Productions (2) From: David Glassco Date: Monday, 01 May 1995 14:43:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0351 Re: PC and Productions (3) From: Constance Relihan Date: Monday, 1 May 1995 22:04:10 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0351 Re: PC and Productions (4) From: David Chambers Date: Tuesday, 2 May 1995 19:58:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHREW and PC (5) From: Helen Robinson Date: Wednesday, 3 May 95 13:48:59 EST Subj: The Merchant of Venice (6) From: Diane Mountford Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 00:00:30 -0400 Subj: Re: PC and Productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Monday, 1 May 1995 12:50:12 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0349 Qs: PC and Productions In response to Ian Doescher's question. Common ground is certainly of paramount importance in an art form so dependent on communication as drama. We have lost some of that in the intervening years since Shakespeare's lifetime and there is really no point in either denying the change or in compensating by pretending to "understand" Elizabethan attitudes. Clearly, there must be some noise in the line. While I am not eager to revive the touchy and unpleasant Shylock debate, here are a few thoughts on the Shrew: It seems like directors have taken one of three ways to get out of the sexism charge: 1. Ignore it. Taming of the Shrew is a witty and charming romp, hilarious on its own terms and a great crowd pleaser. People will adjust themselves to the ancient ideas and have a good time. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, in other words. See the two movies of TOS, the early talky with Fairbanks and Pickford, and the less successful Zefferelli version, as well as the Caedmon recording, the abridged Living Shakespeare production with Peter O'Toole and innumerable stage productions. Problem: this ignores reality. People will be offended by the spectacle, and the director owes the members of the audience the sensitivity to present the work with them in mind. 2. Change Katherine. Adapt the play to modern sensitivity so that Katherine is not really "tamed" but rather made a partner in Petruchio's swaggering. In this version, the "unknit those threatening brows" speech is played purely for laughs, with a lot of winking and smirking between Kate and Petruchio and the added option of strained physical humor, which might please the groundlings, but . . . I have generally been spared this interpretation, although I did see it once in a performance with Meryl Streep in Central Park. Problem: It goes against the text so completely, that the director and actors end up working against themselves. In the final scene, the stage business, the smirks and winks, are not employed to reinforce the text, but to distract the audience from what is being said, or worse, to contradict it. Not only is it strained and unfunny in the extreme, but it doesn't even work as a blind. Audience members interviewed after the Streep production complained about the sexism of the final scen e. They might also complain about being treated like fools, who presumably can't understand what is being said. 3. Change Petruchio. He is not a bully, who tames Kate through a swaggering contest of wills, but a mature and sensitive soul who "teaches" Kate about being human. Yeah, right. I saw this with the BBC production a few years back, and John Cleese was so darn good he almost made it work. And at least this interpretation doesn't have anything as direct as the final scene to belie it. But it still doesn't quite describe what is going on in the play, and gives you a weird feeling that you are watching two plays at the same time. The one Shakespeare wrote, and the rather bizarre episode of Thirtysomething which the actors seem to be performing. Sorry this is so long. Anyone have an answer? John Owen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Glassco Date: Monday, 01 May 1995 14:43:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0351 Re: PC and Productions May I just offer a quiet bravo for the clear sanity of Kezia Sproat's remarks on *Shrew* and *Merchant* (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Constance Relihan Date: Monday, 1 May 1995 22:04:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0351 Re: PC and Productions On Mon, 1 May 1995, Kezia Sproat wrote: > For Ian Doescher: The term "politically correct" was, according to a reliable > informant (Jean Godby at OCLC Online Computer Library Center, who is a > linguist), invented to discredit feminists and perhaps others who may urge > change, in order to make us appear fascist or narrow. Hmmmm.... When I was an undergrad. at the University of Illinois from 1978-82, we used to refer to people as "pc" if they were sympathetic to alternative lifestyles, leftist causes, vegetarianism, recycling, etc. It was only some years later that I became aware that the term could be used pejoratively to describe members of the left. I know this issue doesn't directly bear on Shakespeare, but I wonder what the relation is between my experience of the term and that which Sproat describes. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Chambers Date: Tuesday, 2 May 1995 19:58:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHREW and PC To the SHREW question, I want to put forth one possible "solution" to the ending which does not, I believe, fly in the face of the text or play into the the desperate "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" tricks (cf. Streep, et al.)that are fast becoming the conventions of late 20th century productions of the play. Two wonderful actors (Diane D'Aquila of Toronto and Francois de la Giroday, then of NY) came up with this strategy in a production I directed in the mid eighties: Kate played the speech completely "straight," filled with promise, devotion, and sensual sincerity. Then with the concluding couplets, she knelt to "place [her] hands below [her] husband's foot" and finished the lines, about to kiss his foot. But before she could complete the action, a deeply moved Petruchio silently stopped her, rose from his chair, sat her on it, removed her boot, and kissed HER foot reverently and passionately! A few lines later they sped off with great hilarity (and sexual anticipation). The key to balancing the play is not to twist it out of shape, but to freshly read Petruchio, the price he pays (exhaustion, sexual restraint/frustration), but most importantly the transformation he undergoes as he discovers her! David Chambers (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Robinson Date: Wednesday, 3 May 95 13:48:59 EST Subject: The Merchant of Venice I have just finished directing "The Merchant of Venice" in Sydney, Australia (opening night was Saturday 29th April). Sometimes directors can be too concerned with the sensibilities of a modern day audience. The racism in the play cannot be ignored nor do I think it should be underplayed - particularly in the scene between Shylock, Solario and Solanio. Kezia Sproat makes the point that Shylock should be allowed to be a whole person on stage. At times we loath Shylock - at other times we feel sympathy especially when Shylock mourns the loss of his wife's ring in the scene with Tubal. Whilst I accept that audiences will bring certain experiences and feelings to a performance, I hope they will recognise that people, no matter what race or creed they are, all have their strengths and weaknesses. Helen Robinson mln211800@slim.slnsw.gov.au (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diane Mountford Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 00:00:30 -0400 Subject: Re: PC and Productions In addition to my whole-hearted endorsement of the comments by Kezia Sproat and Heather Stephenson, here are some rather-more-disjointed thoughts on the subject: I directed *Merchant* last summer with an emphasis on pointing up all the contradictions Shakespeare gives us about every character in the play, from the backed-into-a-corner violence of Shylock to the radiant racism of Portia. The production ended with Jessica clutching the paper on which Shylock has signed away his fortune and his faith, and singing an ancient Hebrew prayer. In discussion after the play, the audience seemed to be thinking, which I took as a sign of success. For comments on some interpretations of *Shrew*, I refer everyone (again) to *Clamorous Voices, Shakespeare's Women Today* for some cogent comments on some interpretations which take feminism into account. Cheers, Diane Mountford DianeM6922@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 08:02:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0357 Re: Textbooks Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0357. Wednesday, 3 May 1995. (1) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 01 May 95 14:50:00 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0350 Re: Textbooks (2) From: Alan Rosen Date: Tuesday, 02 May 95 07:19:26 IDT Subj: Anthologies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 01 May 95 14:50:00 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0350 Re: Textbooks Barbara Lewalski's book is PROTESTANT POETICS AND THE SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY RELIGIOUS LYRIC (Princeton UP, 1979). For Elizabeth I, Paul Johnson's biography is good, as of course is the golden oldie by Neale. The new books by Frye and Levin should certainly be on the reading list, as well as a very new one (only available in England at the moment) by Helen Hackett, VIRGIN MOTHER, MAIDEN QUEEN: ELIZABETH I AND THE CULT OF THE VIRGIN MARY (Macmillan, 1995). For other material, see the sections on Elizabeth I that have appeared in the ELR "Women in the Renaissance" bibliographies, most recently in the Winter 1994 issue, the earlier two in WOMEN IN THE RENAISSANCE, ed. Farrell, Hageman, and Kinney (U Mass, 1990). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Rosen Date: Tuesday, 02 May 95 07:19:26 IDT Subject: Anthologies I would be grateful for recommendations on up-to-date anthologies suitable for a undergraduate course on Renaissance Lit. Or anything else helpful. Thanks. Alan Rosen ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 08:18:29 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0358 JC Music; Branagh; Aumerle; Dolabella; Sh&Co; Ending Lr. Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0358. Wednesday, 3 May 1995. (1) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Monday, 1 May 1995 17:05:01 -0400 Subj: *JC* Music (2) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 1 May 95 16:14:06 -0500 Subj: SHK 6.0354 Branagh & Shakespeare (3) From: Sam Gregory Date: Monday, 1 May 1995 17:40:10 -0400 Subj: The York Family Feud (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 01 May 1995 22:18:57 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0352 Re: Cleopatra and Dollabella (5) From: Diane Mountford Date: Tuesday, 2 May 1995 23:48:04 -0400 Subj: Re: Shakespeare & Company (6) From: Diane Mountford Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 00:00:28 -0400 Subj: Re: The Ending of *King Lear* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Monday, 1 May 1995 17:05:01 -0400 Subject: *JC* Music Another brilliant thought on music for JC set in 2015: 2015 is 20 years from now. Well... it seems to me that a lot of the music I hear today is 20 years old. With ABBA's big come back I don't see why you don't use a healthy dose of "retro" music: grunge and the like! ;-) I suggest you do the honorable thing - HIRE A MUSICIAN. They can create (live, onstage even) new music that doesn't sound like anything you have heard before, or like everything you have heard before, easy as cake. And with so many starving-artist musicians around you could get one for... dare I say it, a song. Best of luck, Eric. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 1 May 95 16:14:06 -0500 Subject: SHK 6.0354 Branagh & Shakespeare In response to Dave Kathman's query about what text Branagh would use for a "complete" *Hamlet*--he has traditionally worked from the various Arden editions of the plays according to information I've gleaned from various sources. Uma Thurman as Desdemona? Oy. Chris Gordon (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Gregory Date: Monday, 1 May 1995 17:40:10 -0400 Subject: The York Family Feud Hi all, This is my first post to the SHAKSPER Discussion group although I've been *lurking* for several weeks. I saw a post several weeks ago which included some information regarding Aumerle's scene towards the end of Richard II. Aumerle and his mother beg for his life, while York wants him to die. I had the good fortune to perform Aumerle last year and would love to read any papers concerning the comic nature of this scene. I seem to recall that at least one of you had written a paper on this very topic. Please Email me directly at or respond to me here. In closing, I'd like to add that the scene almost always brought the house down. The audience really seems to need a little comic relief at that point in the play and Mr. Shakespeare provides it. The release of tension comes right before Richard's final monologue and death scene. I look forward to reading more about this fascinating scene. Thanks in advance, Sam Gregory SamnMegan@aol.com (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 01 May 1995 22:18:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0352 Re: Cleopatra and Dollabella I would like to point out that Don Foster's intriguing account of ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA 5.1 does not completely solve the problem. In fact, it doesn't solve the problem at all. If Dolabella leaves the stage at line 3, he has a mission to go to Antony and bid him yield. Decretas enters and reports that Antony is dead. Dolabella has been sent on a sleeveless errand. But Caesar claims at the end of the scene to remember how "hee's imployd: he shall in time be ready." Why question is "ready for what"? Well, in the next scene Dolabella relieves Proculeius -- the man Antony told Cleopatra to trust. In fact, for dramatic economy, why bring in Proculeius at all? Why not have Dolabella capture Cleopatra? And why, if Dolabella is going to bid Antony to yield, why does he show up at Cleoaptra's place and tell Proculeius that Caesar knows what he has done and "hath sent for thee"? Maybe. Maybe we are not supposed to question the apparent incongruity. Concerning Plutarch and other of Shakespeare's sources, we know that he was not bound by history and the historians. Tedious it were to detail all the ways he changed English history to serve his dramatic desires. Let Hotspur stand as example. I suggest that Shakespeare rewrote Plutarch in this play, and if you reread all of Plutarch's account of Antony you will see what I mean. My apologies to Queen Elizabeth I if I maligned her by squeezing a complex historical episode into a few lines. Political necessity may not exclude human emotion. I am obviously NOT claiming that my account of Dolabella is inevitable. I would say that most people who bother to listen to my description of Dolabella's role find it -- well -- not inevitable, and directors of the play have been doing nicely without it for, I suppose, hundreds of years. But I think it is an interesting possibility. Obviously no court in our nation would convict Dolabella on the evidence that I can adduce, but there are a few hints in the play that Dolabella is NOT one of the traitors. All the other traitors in the play leave their masters or mistresses. Dolabella alone is rewarded for his apparent betrayal of Caesar. No, it's not nice, not pretty. It's very bleak indeed. It's called real politics. Cynically, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diane Mountford Date: Tuesday, 2 May 1995 23:48:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Shakespeare & Company Okay, I must jump into the fray with one more post about the Shakespeare & Company and EST question. I participated in a Shakespeare & Company intensive and summer training program in 1990, and came home a significantly better person. For me it was , which has enriched my life and my work hundredfold. My experience with the "tough-it-out" approach had much more to do with emotional blocks than physical injuries. I know for myself that when I run into a big emotional issue, I try my best to evade it, and the teachers at the workshop were rather relentless about making me face my demons. At the same time, however, I learned how to take care of myself as an actor, both physically and emotionally, to keep myself safe and give myself the space to be dangerous. I imagine that the incident of the injured student being told to "tough-it-out" was a matter of a teacher confusing the person's physical condition with an emotional one (a grave mistake to be sure, but not in my experience a common one). As far as the connection with "est" goes, I never heard mention of it until now (I've heard a lot about the University of Deleware program in that light, but not S&Co). We used to joke about S&Co being kind of cultish, what with the self-inflicted sleep deprivation, emotionally and physically taxing program, and the setting up of Tina Packer as some sort of god (by those who felt the need to worship, not by me). But I've never heard of a cult that preaches, not conformity, but independent thought; a cult that teaches an actor how to dive into herself and find an endless font of creativity and inspiration. It is not a program for everyone, I'm sure, but my experience there was nothing if not a revolution of the soul. Cheers, Diane Mountford (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diane Mountford Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 00:00:28 -0400 Subject: Re: The Ending of *King Lear* Robert Knapp suggests that King Lear's "Look on her! look! her lips! Look there, look there!" means that Lear believes that Cordelia is still alive. Altough I certainly don't argue with this as an interpretation, I just thought I'd throw out an alternate one from Tony Church. I had the good fortune to study with Tony in London a few years back and one day in class he showed us how he plays the final moments of Lear's life. In his opinion the finality of "never, never, never, never, never" wiped out any hope of Cordelia being alive. So on the "look there" lines, he picked up Cordelia's body and showed her to the audience. It was quite a chilling moment of theater! Cheers, Diane ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 07:55:29 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0359 Re: Cleopatra and Dolabella Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0359. Thursday, 4 May 1995. (1) From: Ann Flower Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 10:34:53 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0352 Re: Cleopatra and Dollabella (2) From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 03 May 1995 12:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Dolabella (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ann Flower Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 10:34:53 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0352 Re: Cleopatra and Dollabella Re Cleopatra/Dolabella problems: I want to argue again for Cleopatra's agency in her own death, even if it is an "old hat" perspective. I don't think Cleopatra "blinked" -- she goes against her Egyptian code when she commits suicide, and instead follows the Roman code of honor and her "husband" Antony. Her hesitation, or it might be called her reasoning with a new Roman cast, can be seen in the lines that begin V.2, My desolation does begin to make A better life: 'tis paltry to be Caesar: Not being Fortune, he's but Fortune's knave, A minister of her will: and it is great To do that thing that ends all other deeds, Which shackles accidents, and bolts up change. It is as if she is trying to convince herself that she will be empowered by dying. Samuel Daniel's version has Caesar sense that Cleopatra will try to kill herself, though he wants it to be otherwise: "tis more honour for her to die free . . . Princes respect their honour more than blood . . . private men sound not the hearts of Princes,/ Whose actions oft beare contrarie pretences . . . A private man may yeelde and care not how,/ But greater hearts will breake before they bow." Daniel links an overall design of the necessity of change that levels iniquities directly to the internal action of the untrustworthiness of subordinates. Shakespeare does not work in this "exemplary" manner, but presents a more complex system of betrayals and trusts. Each of the three leaders has problems with subordination, and in both Roman and Egyptian worlds where there is something noble in extravagance and theatrical show, what is said about leaders is important to political order and fealty, to maintaining a height above the common men. In Shakespeare there is a fluidity to the information that comes by messenger that contributes to a dream-like confusion that a constantly shifting ownership of the world might create. The leaders are always susceptible to the changing loyalties of their men, each of whom may make a personal decision to defect to the other side based on change of fortune -- but all are part of an atmosphere of seeming and interpretation. Changing perceptions de-emphasize a clear relationship between reality and perceived events. Up to the last scene we are aware of multiplicity of perspective, but within the final 400 lines Cleopatra alone works out her desire to flaunt a Roman end and to embrace it. Shakespeare concentrates all the movements of Caesar's emissaries here, consolidating into Dolabella two other potential messengers in Plutarch, balancing the three minor Roman characters with the three Egyptians. The countryman who is merely an instrument in Plutarch, rendered as if he just happened to stop by, or as part of a series of events known only to Cleopatra and thus part of her deception, in Shakespeare becomes the embodiment of the unpredictable, the extra messenger, the intelligent life force that often appears completely unannounced in Shakespeare in humble form. Shakespeare does not linger on Cleopatra's decline but rather on the claustrophobia of the moment, the monument, and the boundary edge between life and death. The biggest problem with staying alive is becoming part of someone else's tableau, shown to be an actor in someone else's (Caesar's) design. Dolabella's purpose I think is to allow us to see Cleopatra's creative mind, her freedom even if entombed alive by Caesar. If it can be assumed that there was no mistake in Dolabella's late exit, it might be argued that Caesar was as confused by the proliferation of messengers as everyone else in the play. Remember that Cleopatra was sending a messenger every hour to Antony -- one can only picture a continuous marching file to the battlefield. Or Dolabella may have left on his own accord to warn Cleopatra. Hmm. This was a very long answer! Sorry. --Ann Flower New York University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 03 May 1995 12:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Dolabella (In response to Bill Godshalk) As Bill observes, my posting on ANT 5.1 only addresses the textual problem. I wasn't attempting to solve Bill's problem -- but for what it's worth, Bill's query, "ready for what," is easily answered: Caesar has just asked, "Where's Dolabella," forgetting that Dola. is employed. All of the other characters on stage call after Dola., who has, however, already left in haste without hearing the news that "Antony is dead." In response to that news, Caesar states clearly, to his own (privy) council of war, his latter set of directions for Dola., to wit: Dola. must "second Proculeius" in Proc's mission; following Proc, Dola too must "Go and say / We purpose her no shame. Give her ... comforts ... Lest in her greatness, by some mortal stroke / She do defeat us; for her life in Rome / Would be eternal in our triumph..." Bill's question: "Ready for what?" is thus explictly answered by the text: when Dola. returns, he will be ready "to second Proc. in attempting to make Cleo. a live POW rather than a dead queen. Bill's theory might be highly effective in the theater--it might even be worth changing the text to make such a reading work--but I can't see that there's any textual support for it, either in Shakespeare or in Plutarch. And as Fran Teague has pointed out, it is certainly a mistake to insist upon such a position. --Foster ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 08:01:12 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0360 Re: Textbooks Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0360. Thursday, 4 May 1995. (1) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 10:47:07 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0357 Re: Textbooks (2) From: David Lindley Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 16:18:20 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0357 Re: Textbooks (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 10:47:07 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0357 Re: Textbooks I have enjoyed following the thread on Textbooks and it has made me think about books that I have heard recommended to students. One text that I have heard questioned recently is Tillyard's "Elizabethan World Picture". This tiny tome certainly helped me, and I assume many others, to understand the Elizabethan world as it is revealed in Shakespeare. But of late, due to hanging out with some "Shakespeare academics", I have heard that Tillyard is BIASED. Over patriotic and all that. What I want to know is: 1. Is Tillyard really all that bad? 2. Is there something "new" that covers the same world picture, but maybe has taken some '90s Windex to the glass so we can see something else lurking in that dark, dark picture? Thanks, Eric Armstrong. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 16:18:20 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0357 Re: Textbooks No anthology is ever 'right' for teaching, in my experience - but I Alan Rosen might find David Norbrook's anthology, The Penguin Book of Renaissance Verse, 1509-1659 worth a look - the poems are arranged by topic, rather than by author, and he includes a good deal of relatively unfamiliar material. It is, of course, therefore shorter on some of the poems one might expect to find by the 'big names', and one would probably want to supplement it with other material. I've certainly learnt a lot from it. David Lindley ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 08:32:07 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0361 Re: PC and Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0361. Thursday, 4 May 1995. (1) From: Christine Gilmore Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 09:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0356 Re: PC and Productions (2) From: Terrence Ross Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 15:10:26 -0400 Subj: PC Merchant and Shrew (3) From: Daniel Vitkus Date: Thursday, 4 May 1995 11:09 +0200 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0351 Re: PC and Productions (4) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 4 May 1995 11:56:57 SAST-2 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0356 Re: PC and Productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Gilmore Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 09:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0356 Re: PC and Productions In reference to Kezia Sproat's comment on the etymology of the term "politically correct," Constance Relihan wrote on 1 May 1995: "Hmmmm.... When I was an undergrad. at the University of Illinois from 1978-82,we used to refer to people as "pc" if they were sympathetic to alternativelifestyles, leftist causes, vegetarianism, recycling, etc. It was only someyears later that I became aware that the term could be used pejoratively to describe members of the left." I think I have to agree with Constance Relihan on the popular use of "pc" in the dark ages, my college years in 1976-1981, as a positive term. However, we might use "not very pc" as a term of self-reprobation, which recognized that we were not performing up to snuff vis-a-vis recycling, enlightened attitudes, etc. Yet, one could say that the term was redefined as a negative term in the late 80s, early 90s, thus reinvented, as a critique of the very thing it stood for: a more responsible and enlightened way of living. This new way of living now is defined as a straitjacket. I really hate the widespread use of the term when it used only to sneer; but I do think it has a place as a self-critical move or gesture. For example, I think it would be intellectually dishonest to play Taming of the Shrew straight, that is, without recognizing that people no longer want to laugh at such behaviors. Therefore, it is imperative that the director make an attempt to recognize this. The interpretation is not fixed by political correctness; however, recognition that playing it straight, whatever that means, is a less-satisfying posture to an audience these days can prevent directorial suicide. One last point, I think an audience will reject a performance (or film) that reinvents the characters according to a perceived pc stricture (I think of a film called something like the Ballad of Little Joe[?], in which Joe was a woman, the most enlightened, and the first to accept Chinese rail workers as humans). Sometimes giving the people what they want is simply not what Shakespeare's about! Sorry to go on so long, thanks, cg. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terrence Ross Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 15:10:26 -0400 Subject: PC Merchant and Shrew The discussions about how to make MoV and Shrew safe for today's tender sensibilities remind me of the recent thread about Tate's happy ending for King Lear. Different plays upset different ages. If we can't stand seeing Kate tamed, then we may as well stick to Cole Porter's version, which has so many wonderful songs. As for Shylock, surely his "Hath not a Jew eyes" speech is a monstrous justification for the murder of Antonio, rather than being "the most eloquent anti-racist statement," as Kezia Sproat describes it. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Vitkus Date: Thursday, 4 May 1995 11:09 +0200 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0351 Re: PC and Productions The term "politically correct" was first widely used by Marxists, not by opponents of feminism. The Bolsheviks then other communist groups, during the years following the Russian Revolution, wrangled over what would define a "correct" party line. This included a definition of politically correct art and culture, usually along the lines of social(ist) realism or what was called "proletcult." Under Stalin, proletkult allegedly sought to create a purely proletarian culture free of bourgeois influences (thus, the Futurists' slogan, "Burn Raphael"). In the West, conservatives and opponents of progressive politics pointed to Stalinist oppression and dogmatism and then indiscriminately accused leftists in the West of displaying the same kind of dogmatism. Thus, the term "politically correct" was appropriated in the West during the Cold War "to discredit...others who may urge change," including left-leaning intellectuals and artists in Europe and N. America. Despite what Jean Godby may have said, the term "p.c." was not "invented" to attack feminism, but its Cold War usage has recently been revived by opponents of progressive politics in the West. Daniel Vitkus The American University in Cairo (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 4 May 1995 11:56:57 SAST-2 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0356 Re: PC and Productions The discussion about how best to produce The Taming of the Shrew seems to assume that either 1) one produces the play as it is, thereby almost certainly offending large sections of a modern audience, or 2) one adapts the action on stage or bowdlerizes the text in order to "please", or at least not to disturb a politically sensitive modern audience. Are these the only alternatives? The play is an historical text which, in a complex way to be sure, exemplifies particular conceptions of the relationships between men and men, women and women, and men and women (these are all imbricated in fairly complex ways in TS) which, while being historically specific, have certainly not been outgrown or abandoned in late twentieth century western society. Why the unwillingness to "offend"? In Apartheid South Africa some of the most repressive forms of censorship were exercised in the name of the right of particular groups not to be "offended" by certain sorts of ideas or kinds of art. The desire for self-censorship of the kind proposed in the discussion so far seems to me to make a fundamental mistake about the kind of "offense" that the last act of TS provokes. To chose either of the proposed alternatives, viz. to go ahead with the offensive bits or to downplay or eradicate them altogether is to deny the audience a critical perspective in terms of which the offensiveness can be seen as the product of an set of historical conditions that are still present certain forms in modern society. That is to say, a production can surely create the conditions for critical distance from which an audience may recognize offensiveness in the scene, but not feel either personally affronted by it or the need to censor such offensiveness. The play may be valuable precisely *because* of such "offensiveness", and either alternative of rendering it more palatable or encouraging an enraged personal response would thus diminish both the historical and contemporary value of the play precisely to a modern audience. My own approach to the staging of TS would follow Orgel's notion of comedy as a "collective fantasy" arising from a clash between dominant and emergent conceptions of marriage. The important point is to enable the audience to engage critically with that fantasy, inviting them (both men and women) to measure their own conscious or unconscious participation in it. This will mean encouraging them to ask questions about both the attractiveness and the repulsiveness of elements of the play. Either to clean the play up, to render it inoffensive, or to provoke offense as an uncritical gut response, is simply to deny the audience the opportunity of such critical questioning, which involves seeing the way in which what it operates in their own lives and society. How one puts this into practice is another matter. I haven't given this much thought, but it strikes me that the notions of fantasy and critical distance are both contained in the Sly scenes, which represent a marvelously meta-theatrical, self-conscious reflection on the ideological power of theatre itself to impose one's fantasies upon others, something that TS itself perhaps enacts. One can also draw attention to the palpable absurdities of Kate's final speech, which invites an unflattering comparison between the "ideal" husband as lord and the idle, irresponsible boy's club to whom she addresses the remarks, without having to signal them with a knowing wink. The point is registered, whether she knows it or not. In this sense all literature reads itself against its own grain (again, whether the author knows it or not). To remove this tension in the name of political correctness is to obliterate its politics. David Schalkwyk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 08:41:54 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0362 Re: Aumerle Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0362. Thursday, 4 May 1995. (1) From: Luc Borot Date: Wednesday, 3 May 95 15:37:42 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0358 Aumerle (2) From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Thursday, 4 May 1995 09:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: SHK 6.0358 Aumerle (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Luc Borot Date: Wednesday, 3 May 95 15:37:42 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0358 Aumerle In Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0358. Wednesday, 3 May 1995, Sam Gregory asks comments about the Aumerle scene in R2. It is one of the deepest scenes in the play, which is one of Shakes's deepest plays. I agree that it does have an obvious comic potential, fully permitted by the meta-theatrical comment on 'the beggar and the king', a traditional stage piece. The Duke's equivocation with French also sounds terribly comical to anyone with an inkling of French: 'pardonne moy' is not 'I forgive', but 'forgive me'. Yet, there is something historically and politically serious in that scene: the feudal values of York appear totally inhuman, whereas he's appeared over-supple in his management of Richard's downfall when he had the kingdom in stewardship; Aumerle may be seen as a convert, if the 2nd tetralogy is read as one whole, since he serves his new king and his son till his death at Agincourt. Henry is much more political: he gains a friend by forgiving an enemy. He proves that he can take a political AND a physical risk: indeed, if Aumerle is calculating, then Henry may be murdered. This has an echo in a contrary scene in H5, when Henry V calls the betrayal of Scroope, Grey and Cambridge a "second fall of man": his best friend had come to murder him; the friend turns into an enemy, in secret whereas Aumerle came to confess openly. I think that both dimensions of the scene should be made clear to the audience: the central character here is Henry, as he is the one who shows the kind of king he intends to be, in opposition to his predecessor. Of course, part of my argument may be questioned if the existence of a 'tetralogy' is denied. Melchiori's introduction to his Cambridge 2H4 presents the series very differently, but it may not totally break down the ethical and political parallels that I have suggested. Yours, Luc (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Thursday, 4 May 1995 09:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SHK 6.0358 Aumerle >I saw a post several weeks ago which included some information regarding >Aumerle's scene towards the end of Richard II. Aumerle and his mother beg >for his life, while York wants him to die. I had the good fortune to >perform Aumerle last year and would love to read any papers concerning the >comic nature of this scene. I briefly discussed the comedy here in *Stages of History* (Cornell, 1990), pp. 131-33. Two excellent earlier articles on it are Sheldon P. Zitner's "Aumerle's Conspiracy," SEL 14 (1974) and Leonard Barkan's "The Theatrical Consistency of R2," SQ 29 (1978). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 08:52:06 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0363 Re: Branagh and the New *Othello* Film Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0363. Thursday, 4 May 1995. (1) From: Christine Gilmore Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 10:03:58 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0358 New Othello Film (2) From: Dan Kois Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 13:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Branagh (3) From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Thursday, 4 May 95 06:21 EDT Subj: More Branagh film news (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Gilmore Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 10:03:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0358 New Othello Film I'm wondering why Dave Kathman and Christine MAck Gordon (didn't she love Keanu Reeves as Hamlet?) both dismiss the idea of Uma Thurman as Desdemona? Forget Tarentino's Pulp Fiction and remember her in Les Liaison Dangerouses (excuse spelling). She has the right beauty and in a costume drama (without a cigarette) would have the right innocence and heft needed for the role. I'm looking forward to Fishbourne and Thurman, if it works out. Excuse the frivolity of the question. Thanks, cg. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Kois Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 13:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Branagh I'm working on an article for a campus newspaper about Branagh's "Othello" and I was wondering who y'all _thought_ should be playing the leads. Currently rumor is Laurence Fishburne as the Moor, Branagh himself as Iago, and Uma Thurman (?) as Desdemona. This has caused some uproar around _our_ little dramatic art dept (sample quotation: "Why don't they just get Drew Barrymore?"), but it's been tough finding alternatives. Please weigh in. My picks would be Fishburne (or Samuel Jackson), Tim Roth as Iago, and I don't know who on earth would make a decent Des. Write me at... dankois@email.unc.edu Dan Kois UNC-Chapel Hill (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Thursday, 4 May 95 06:21 EDT Subject: More Branagh film news Some clarification on Kenneth Branagh's upcoming Shakespeare film projects - he >isn't< directing OTHELLO, just starring as Iago. (So it's not clear if Uma Thurman would be his fault...) According to VARIETY, however, he will direct a HAMLET film next year, the 3 1/2 hour version (which, he says, means that "3 1/2 people will probably go see it.") ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 09:01:27 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0364 Kiddieology; Shakespeare and Company; Music Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0364. Thursday, 4 May 1995. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 03 May 1995 13:55:25 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Shakespearean Kiddieology (2) From: Timothy Dayne Pinnow Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 13:34:03 -0500 Subj: Shakespeare & Co. (3) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 19:00:16 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Original Music (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 03 May 1995 13:55:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Shakespearean Kiddieology Charles and Mary Lamb revisited: In the 23 April issue of the *NYTimes Book Review,* Maxine Kumin reviews five books featuring adaptions of Shakespeare, the dramatic tales as retold for children. The texts reviewed by Kumin are by Leon Garfield, Geraldine McCaughrean, Bruce Coville, Stewart Ross, and Julius Lester. Kumin remarks that "Every one of these books strikes me [i.e., her] as useful and enjoyable..." For example, in Garfield's retelling of ANT, the "tale opens in a refreshingly straightforward manner: 'Three men ruled the world: Octavius Caesar, Lepidus and Mark Antony. Two were in Rome, where they belonged; the third, to his shame, was in Egypt...in the luxurious net of the harlot Queen.'...Mr. Garfield's adaptations are faithful to the original plays...valuable additions to the canon for the young." (Oh, please, dear God: in future, spare us from such "useful and enjoyable ... additions to the canon for the young": the little tykes who consume such slop might just end up in our classrooms a dozen years from now.) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Timothy Dayne Pinnow Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 13:34:03 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare & Co. Diane Mountford writes: >Okay, I must jump into the fray with one more post about the Shakespeare & >Company and EST question. >I participated in a Shakespeare & Company intensive and summer training program >in 1990, and came home a significantly better person. For me it was humanistic self-discovery process>, which has enriched my life and my work >hundredfold. >My experience with the "tough-it-out" approach had much more to do with >emotional blocks than physical injuries. I know for myself that when I run into >a big emotional issue, I try my best to evade it, and the teachers at the >workshop were rather relentless about making me face my demons. Forgive what may sound like a flame, but this to me sounds much more like intensive in-patient therapy. I'm curious as to why your message contains so little about what you gained in terms of theatrical training. I have been a counselor as well as actor and have taught both disciplines at the college level. Whenever I hear of acting programs trying to "relentlessly. . .making me face my demons" all sorts of red flags go up in my mind. Pushing a human being through emotional blocks (which may have been placed there as very necessary defense mechanisms) is to be done only be trained mental health professionals and only in very controlled circumstances. There just ain't no tellin' what you're gonna' find on the other side. In my teaching, a student who seems to be confronting those "demons" may well be asked by me "is there something I can do to help you?" but they will never be pushed forward at all costs. Many of them may even say, "I'm not ready to deal with this right now" and that will be respected. I'm glad you found something that you needed, but I cannot condone the training of actors at the risk of mental health. FLAME OFF, Tim (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Wednesday, 3 May 1995 19:00:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Original Music Bravo! for Eric Armstrong ("do the honorable thing -- HIRE A MUSICIAN" to write music for JC or whatever show you're doing). I am amazed that most of us, despite our desire to be truly creative in our productions, to not merely re-create but to re-fresh our Shakespeare, so automatically assume that recycled music is appropriate. It seems obvious to me that the only musical score that will do what music CAN do for the show is music purpose written for it. I confess a vested interest. I'm a composer and I've written a full score for every Shakespeare (every play of any kind, for that matter) that I've directed in the last dozen years. The computer and music/midi systems and the incredible new synthesizers make this feasible artistically and financially. I can go from the first glimmer of an idea to the finished performance tape without help from musicians and recording engineers. The two compelling reasons for original scores are: - they can do more of what you want done, more precisely the way you want it done - they are legal. Every time we use canned music for our shows we're breaking the law, robbing a composer and some musicians. The catch is this: only a very small percentage of talented composers understand the function of theatre scoring. Most of them think of the music as mini-concerts meant to be heard in the usual way. A theatre composer knows that the job is to manipulate the audience's feelings and expectations without them realizing they are listening. It's a very special art. Be sure which kind of composer you have before you make a deal. Worse than canned music is NO music. I've been using music so long that a play without it seems sort of empty, unfinished. Wagner was right about Total Theatre. Roger Gross Univ. of Arkansas ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 09:07:33 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0365 Q: *H5* 4.1 and 4.8 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0365. Thursday, 4 May 1995. From: Barry Vincent Date: Wednesday, 03 May 1995 21:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: *Henry V* inquiry The scenes I would like to discuss are within Act IV concerning events prior to and after the Battle of Agincourt. The scenes are i and viii involving the exchange of gauntlets between Henry and Michael Williams and how Fluellen becomes involved between the two. Without going into excess, I would like to discuss the premise that above scenes involve Henry's division of character: his nobility and his "folly" gained through his acquaintance to Falstaff. Is it possible that the above could represent a "tip-of-the-hat" to Flastaff? --that Henry is playing a practical joke among his comrades instead of being involved in a conflict? I would like your opinions. If you think I am totally off base, please be gentle :) Thank you for your time. --Barry Vincent nc500156@nccvax.wnet.edu -- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 09:32:20 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0366 UNSUBscribing or SETting NOMAIL Option Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0366. Thursday, 4 May 1995. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, May 4, 1995 Subject: UNSUBing or NOMAIL Option SHAKSPEReans, As the semester draws to a close for many of us, I have gotten requests for information on what to do when away from one's account. Basically, there are two 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@UTORONTO.BITNET, 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@UTORONTO.BITNET, again leaving the subject line blank. When you want to resume your SHAKSPER mailings, send -- SET SHAKSPER MAIL -- to LISTSERV@UTORONTO.BITNET. If you have other questions or problems, contact me at HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 06:35:48 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0367 Apology for Interruption Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0367. Wednesday, 10 May 1995. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, May 10, 1995 Subject: Apology for Interruption Dear SHAKSPEReans, Sometime on Friday, I lost my ability to send and receive mail. The problem, for whatever reason, was not resloved until late Tuesday evening. I apologize for the interruption. I will begin going through the 200 messages that have collected and start sending out digests today. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 10:29:26 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0368 EXTRACT/MAIL Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0368. Wednesday, 10 May 1995. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 4 May 1995 11:40:03 -0400 Subj: Casting the *Othello* movie (2) From: David Kathman Date: Thursday, 4 May 1995 18:50:35 +0100 Subj: Othello film (3) From: Chris Gordon Date: Saturday, 6 May 95 09:27:38 -0500 Subj: Uma Thurman/Shakespeare & Co (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 4 May 1995 11:40:03 -0400 Subject: Casting the *Othello* movie Maximize the age gap: Morgan Freeman and some unknown 14-year-old girl. Up the apparent scandal of that elopement or Brabantio's outrage comes out sheer bigotry. For Iago get somebody who always plays good guys. Tom Hanks or somebody (or Kenneth Branagh maybe). And be sure and find a damn good Emilia... (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Kathman Date: Thursday, 4 May 1995 18:50:35 +0100 Subject: Othello film Just for the record, and in response to Christine Gilmore, I was not dismissing the idea of Uma Thurman as Desdemona; I believe my exact words were, "I'll reserve judgement." I'm well aware of her work in Dangerous Liasons, and in fact almost mentioned that in my post, but was just tired of typing at the time. I assume she's being cast in this because she's "hot" due to Pulp Fiction (which I really liked, by the way), but I think she's quite capable of playing a good Desdemona under the right circumstances. Whether she actually will or not is another matter; if she is in fact cast in this movie, I hope she does a good job. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Saturday, 6 May 95 09:27:38 -0500 Subject: Uma Thurman/Shakespeare & Co In response to Christine Gilmore's query: I think Uma Thurman is a fine actor; I just don't see her as Desdemona, primarily because she seems to me so overtly sexual, and that isn't my image of Desdemona. Julia Ormond I could see, Michelle Pfeiffer (although some would probably say she's too _old_!!), even someone a little more intriguing and offbeat, like Lori Petty. And to Timothy Pinnow: I think from my contact with the people at Shakespeare & Co. that they are extremely responsible about what they are doing. When I submitted my application, the director of training called me to talk about the kinds of things they do and whether or not that was something I was interested in/prepared for, since my background in Shakespeare is primarily academic. After I convinced _him_ that I was interested, I was accepted into the program. As someone who has done only a bit of acting, and that long ago, but who has good friends who are actors (as well as not a few good friends in the mental health field), I think that confronting one's emotional blocks in a training program like this can be extremely productive. This is not to say that no risk is involved, but since most of the Shakespeare & Co staff are trained professionals in their own fields, and have done a lot of related work in group dynamics/therapy, I trust them to know what is appropriate in a given situation. I don't think mental health professionals are the only people qualified to assist fellow human beings in exploring themselves in new ways. Obviously, I'll be able to speak to this more specifically once I've completely the workshop. But based on reading about it, seeing a public tv program about Tina Packer, and talking with folks who have participated, I'm not concerned at this point. In fact, I'm anticipating the experience with great excitement. Sorry for going on so long. --Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 10:47:28 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0369 Burton and Branagh *Hamlet*s Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0369. Wednesday, 10 May 1995. (1) From: Bill Dynes Date: Friday, May 5, 1995 Subj: Richard Burton's _Hamlet_ (2) From: Elizabeth Blye Schmitt Date: Friday, 5 May 1995 12:33:44 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Hamlets on Film, etc. (3) From: Brendan P Murphy <71055.3340@compuserve.com> Date: Sunday, 07 May 95 12:11:32 EDT Subj: Branagh's Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Dynes Date: Friday, May 5, 1995 Subject: Richard Burton's _Hamlet_ I heard only part of an NPR report (Thursday 4 May) that a copy of a film of Richard Burton's _Hamlet_ has been discovered and shown in London. Does anyone know if there are further plans for this film? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Blye Schmitt Date: Friday, 5 May 1995 12:33:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Hamlets on Film, etc. The DALLAS MORNING NEWS today (5/5/95) also ran a wire report from the HOLLYWOOD REPORTER confirming the Branagh 3.5 hr HAMLET. It also stated that Oliver Parker will direct OTHELLO with Laurence Fishburne as Othello, Branagh as Iago and Thurman as Desdemona. "All things considered" on NPR yesterday ran a piece on the 1964 Burton Hamlet directed by Gielgud. An archive tape has been restored and will be available for American audiences "sometime this Fall." No mention if this meant a theatrical release, cable or video. Also, did no one but me catch the A&E BIOGRAPHY episode on HAMLET. Lots of history, archive clips, talks with directors and actors. A good overview of performance history. Elizabeth Schmitt (note new address) ebs0001@jove.acs.unt.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brendan P Murphy <71055.3340@compuserve.com> Date: Sunday, 07 May 95 12:11:32 EDT Subject: Branagh's Hamlet I know this may be old news to many SHAKSPEReans, but anyone who wants to know what Branagh is likely to do with the *Hamlet* film should check out his 1992 full-length BBC Radio Drama recording (Bantam Doubleday Dell Audio Publishing, ISBN 1 85686 1287, Catalogue No. RC100). On the whole, it is an exceptional recording. Many of the players are drawn from Branagh's films -- Judi Dench (Gertrude), Derek Jacobi (Claudius), Richard Briers (Polonius), and Emma Thompson (Player Queen) - - with such other notables as John Gielgud (Ghost), the recently-deceased Michael Hordern (Player King), and Michael Williams (Horatio). On the matter of the text, Branagh used ** Shakespeare: The Complete Works - Electronic Edition ** from Oxford University Press. Quoting from Russell Jackson, Fellow of the Shakespeare Institute, University of Birmingham: "The text used for the present production is based on the play as it appeared in the First Folio. ... There are two other significant versions of the play, both of them in the smaller, quarto format: the 'Bad' Quarto of 1603, in which a short and badly mangled text is given ('To be or not to be, ay there's the point') and the 'Good' Quarto of 1604. In the 1604 edition Hamlet has some passages that do not appear in the First Folio and it is thought by many scholars that the play had been revised in the course of its career in the theatre -- possibly by the author himself. In our script these passages have been included in order to present the fullest possible version of the play -- among them is the soliloquy 'How all occasions do inform against me'. ... Although other editions have been consulted, and some of their readings adopted, the principal source for the text used in this recording is G.R. Hibbard's edition (Oxford, 1987)." This recording is well worth a listen -- you can bet Branagh will be using it to help convince wary producers to part with portions of their livelihood. ===> Brendan Patrick Murphy (brendan_murphy@livewire.com) Santa Clara, CA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 11:03:33 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0370 Qs: Hypermedia Project; *Oth.* Verse Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0370. Wednesday, 10 May 1995. (1) From: Robert Knapp Date: Thursday, 04 May 94 08:18:02 PDT Subj: Hypertext/Hypermedia (2) From: Emmanuel Kowalski Date: Friday, 5 May 1995 09:28:56 MET-1DST Subj: A Question about a Verse in Othello (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Knapp Date: Thursday, 04 May 94 08:18:02 PDT Subject: Hypertext/Hypermedia Does anyone have information about the current state of the MIT/Stanford project (under development by Peter Donaldson, Larry Friendlander, and Janet Murray) that was demonstrated at the Atlanta SAA? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Emmanuel Kowalski Date: Friday, 5 May 1995 09:28:56 MET-1DST Subject: A Question about a Verse in Othello This being my first post, Greetings to all SHAKSPEReans, and especially to Hardy Cook... In his short story "Pierre Menard, author of Don Quixote", Borges mentions the following verse found in Othello (near the end of Othello's last long speech, I'm sorry I don't have a line-number) : Where a malignant and a turban'd Turk which he praises for its strange use of a descriptive and a moral adjective. I was discussing this with a friend recently who thought it was merely rhetorical, and brought no deeper meaning to the speech. I thought it would be as good an occasion as any to write a first post to SHAKSPER to ask about it, so: do you think this particular verse adds to the understanding of Othello, and how/why? Does it have any special function in the speech? As a subsidiary question, talking of Borges: what do Shakespearian scholars/actors/specialists think of his criticism and allusions to Shakespeare in general? I have in mind for example a preface he wrote to an edition of "Macbeth" and his short text "Everything and nothing" - which appeared in a book called "El Hacedor" in spanish ("L'Auteur" in french), although I don't know the english title. And, by the way, do you know other instances of this same "zeugmatic" construct in Shakespeare or other writers? I'm afraid this is already too long for such a simple query. I hope I haven't taken too much of your time. Emmanuel Kowalski emmanuel@stendhal.grenet.fr ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 11:11:29 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0371 Re: Applause Folio; Tillyard Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0371. Wednesday, 10 May 1995. (1) From: Eddie Duggan Date: Sunday, 7 May 95 8:35:53 BST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0323 Re: Applause Folio (2) From: Milla Riggio Date: Wednesday, 10 May 1995 08:45:16 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0333 Re: Applause Folio (3) From: An Sonjae Date: Saturday, 6 May 1995 10:39:34 +0900 (KST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0360 Re: Textbooks (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eddie Duggan Date: Sunday, 7 May 95 8:35:53 BST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0323 Re: Applause Folio A note of interest to London-based UK subscribers to the list: The paperback facsimile of the first folio is available in a WC1 bookshop, priced at #40 uk. I saw the book in the window of Jack Duncan (Cartoons and Books)] 44 Museum Street London WC1A 1LY +44 0171 242 5335 fax +44 0171 242 2978 The bookshop is located about two minutes away from the British Museum. (needless to add, I have no interest in the shop, but am merely relaying information). The man at the desk claims to be the only uk source of the text. Eddie Duggan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Wednesday, 10 May 1995 08:45:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0333 Re: Applause Folio On the question of Norton's response to the publication of an inexpensive facsimile of the Folio: I understand that, faced with the possibility that someone as for instance at the Folger Library might want to bring out a folio edition, since the Norton is now unavailable, Norton is in fact planning to re-release its own, or perhaps to update its own facsimile edition. Someone with more information may want to confirm this rumor, but it does at least explain the profit motive behind the wish to deny cheaper - i.e., less expensive - editions of the facsimile. Milla Riggio (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: An Sonjae Date: Saturday, 6 May 1995 10:39:34 +0900 (KST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0360 Re: Textbooks The question as to whether Tillyard can be trusted might be found surprising; in the fifty years or so since he read Tillyard quite a lot of rather eminent scholars and good thinkers have written about the way Shakespeare and his contemporaries experienced reality, and a lot of them have included critical discussions of Tillyard. Has the questioner not read anything of this? Apparently not. Perhaps a reading of T. McAlindon's "Shakespeare's Tragic Cosmos" (Cambridge UP, 1990) would be a good place to begin? Or perhaps the various mentions of Tillyard found in a simple critical reader like "Shakespearean Tragedy" ed. John Drakakis in the Longman Critical Readers series (1992). I am sure that more qualified people can offer far more and better suggestions. An Sonjae. Sogang University Seoul Korea anthony@ccs.sogang.ac.kr ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 11:57:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0372 Re: Music; Kiddieology Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0372. Wednesday, 10 May 1995. (1) From: David Lindley Date: Friday, 5 May 1995 11:23:26 GMT Subj: Re: Music (2) From: Daniel L. Colvin Date: Friday, 5 May 1995 12:58:27 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Kiddieology and Music (3) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Monday, 08 May 95 23:12:50 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0364 Kiddieology; Shakespeare and Company; Music (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Friday, 5 May 1995 11:23:26 GMT Subject: Re: Music I can't agree with Roger Gross that no music is worse than canned music - not because I hold any brief for canned music at all, but because the modern practice of applying a cinematic 'surround sound' of incidental music in performance seems to me profoundly to distort the ways in which music functions within the play texts. I don't think that there are any examples of moments in plays where the music the audience hears is not also heard by the characters on stage (the odd counter-example, in The Tempest for instance, uses the failure to hear music by Antonio and Sebastian as a moral marker). When texts want 'mood music' it is called for - in Twelfth Night for example; to supply more is to risk at best devaluing, at worst distorting and simplifying the verbal texture. That, at least, is my view - one which, I recognise, is a mark of my authenticist puritanism, and is vigorously opposed by most colleagues and students! (But I do agree that the music, such as is called for, should be 'live'.) David Lindley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel L. Colvin Date: Friday, 5 May 1995 12:58:27 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Kiddieology and Music As the semester draws to an end, I did want to respond to two recent posts. Don Foster bemoans the new kiddie-lit popularizations of Shakespeare and worries that we might have some of those students in our classes in the future. Actually, I would look forward to having those students. I usually find that students who are excited about Shakespeare -- as a result of any earlier stimulus, no matter what type -- are the most interesting and able in my classes. And often they are some of the most creative when it comes to envisioning staging of the plays or other "production" considerations. The way things are here (a regional state university), I would be glad to get as many students as I could. Second, let me second Roger Gross's comments regarding origional music. For our recent production of *MACBETH* we had a composer from the music department create original music. He came to the fight rehearsals to get a feel for the battles, and then actually scored the music to highlight the movements of the battle. He did the same for the Weird Sisters and for several other parts of the play, besides creating music to open each of the three parts (acts) of the play. The music became an integral part of the experience. I highly recommend it. Have a good end of the semester, friends, and a good summer. Daniel Colvin Western Illinois University DL-Colvin@bgu.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Monday, 08 May 95 23:12:50 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0364 Kiddieology; Shakespeare and Company; Music Music and productions: Susan Spector and I worked with composers for scores in the OTHELLO and the TWELFTH NIGHT we've done in the last few years. A delicious experience both times. With OTHELLO we were able to use electronic renaissance instruments doing all kinds of tricks, like Othello's trumpeters coming closer and closer during the entry into Cyprus scene. Ah, electric echo-control! And storms and alarums built to order . . . CCNY's Digital Music Center was a great resource. The TWELFTH NIGHT bounced along to calypso beats, some live, some recorded, all original scores. With enough lead time, collaboration with a music department's composition classes might be a nice way to pull together otherwise distant or estranged academic functions on a liberal arts campus. Advertising for a composer? Offering a prize for a competition within a composition class? Any way one goes at the task, articulating thoughts about overall impact of a production and fine details of a moment's auditory blast or whisper can radically aid any director's thoughts. Actually, that might be a valuable project for a group of students, to pound out tunes and rhythms of a style appropriate to a specific scene set to underscore specific production conditions. "Invent a musical accompaniment for ____________." From the budgetary whirlwind of CCNY, Steve Whirledowitz SURCC@CUNYVM.CUNY.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 12:12:43 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0373 Re: Dolabella; Aumerle Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0373. Wednesday, 10 May 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 04 May 1995 23:50:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0359 Re: Cleopatra and Dolabella (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 06 May 1995 22:53:25 -0500 (EST) Subj: Goodbye Dolabella (3) From: Helen Vella Bonavita Date: Friday, 5 May 1995 11:49:44 +0800 (WST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0362 Re: Aumerle (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 04 May 1995 23:50:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0359 Re: Cleopatra and Dolabella In his last posting, Don Foster makes it abundantly clear that I will have to call his reading of A&C 5.1 into question if my reading of Dolabella's mission is to have ANY credit. Don argues that changes to the manuscript were made in the playhouse, that during rehearsal "Agri." had to be amended to something else. Stanley Wells supported by Gary Taylor (A TEXTUAL COMPANION) says the following: "The manuscript appears to have been in a more finished condition than most of Shakespeare's foul papers, but shows no signs of originating in a prompt-book" (549). Evans (RIVERSIDE SHAKESPEARE) makes, basically, the same judgment. Therefore, Don's contention that A&C was set from a playbook is not supported by previous editors -- the editors that he cites contra moi! So, if Dola. were substituted for Agri. in the manuscript, the probability is that Shakespeare made the substitution. As Don points out, this scene shows signs of reworking. Unfortunately, Don's account of 5.1 is not based on the Folio, but a later edition, so some of his assertions are based on emendations rather than Folio readings. Editors have worked to clean up this scene more than Don acknowledges, and in doing so, have done my hypothesis a distinct disservice. From my hypothesis, A&C 5.1 has been reworked, but not by a nameless bookkeeper, overseer of the press, or compositor. Shakespeare reworked the scene to underline Dolabella's role in this last act. SHAXICON can take us only so far into Shakespeare's workshop. Bouncing back, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 06 May 1995 22:53:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Goodbye Dolabella There's only so much that can be said about a minor character, and we perhaps have reached our limit. In any case, I wish to thank everyone who has responded to my Dolabella hypothesis. You have certainly given it a thorough scrutiny, and your resounding conclusion is: NOT PROVEN. Possibly the two best things that you've said about the hypothesis are (1) that it may be an interesting theatrical option (Don Foster) and (2) that it caused you to reconsider the power struggle between Caesar and Cleopatra (Chris Stroffolino). Thanks for your comments, your stern objections, and most of all for giving the hypothesis such a patient hearing. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Vella Bonavita Date: Friday, 5 May 1995 11:49:44 +0800 (WST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0362 Re: Aumerle Having lurked on the internet for nearly a year, I would like to jump in with my two cents worth on the subject of Aumerle. I agree with Luc Borot that the scene should not be treated purely as comedy, but I think that York himself should be given a little more sympathy than he seems to have received. Possibly he makes his son a guilt-offering to his conscience, to expiate his own perceived fault in having stood by at Richard's deposition. There is also a parallel with the Abraham and Isaac story, in which Henry plays the part of God to perfection. Richard's power as king brought death; Gaunt points out that Richard can shorten but not extend life, but Henry, in pardoning his cousin, does exactly that, and is rewarded by the Duchess' acclamation: "a god on earth thou art!" So although the scene is quite funny, when looked at with the rest of the play it isn't just comic relief, and I think York, placed in an impossible position from the beginning of the play, deserves a little more sympathy than he has generally received. I do hope this isn't totally old hat or anything like that Helen Vella Bonavita. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 12:15:09 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0374 Call for Papers Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0374. Wednesday, 10 May 1995. From: Libby Smigel Date: Thursday, 04 May 1995 15:04:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Call for Papers CALL FOR PAPERS, PANEL PROPOSALS -- ALTERNATIVE FORMATS WELCOME Who: Mid-Atlantic Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association annual conference Where: Syracuse, New York When: November 3-5, 1995 (Friday through Sunday) Deadline for proposals: JUNE 1, 1995 How to Submit a Proposal: Send an abstract (minimum 150 words) or full-length paper (no more than 12 pages) to the appropriate area chair listed below by JUNE 1. If your topic or idea does not fit any of the areas, send it directly to Stanley S. Blair, Program Director, MA PCA/ACA, English Dept., James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807; office, (703) 568-3566; e-mail, fac_ssblair@vax1.acs.jmu.edu; fax, (703) 568-3581. Proposals for full panels (3 or more participants) are welcome, as are individual paper submissions. Include special AV requests (VHS videocassette or slide projectors only) with proposal or we will assume you do not require any. We also assume that your proposal indicates your intention to attend the conference if your paper is accepted. Conference participants may serve in multiple roles (e.g., panel chair, respondent, presenter) but may present only ONE paper. STUDENTS: Note student paper competition listed at the end of this call for papers. When Will You Hear: Acceptances will be mailed out in August. Area Chairs (who form panels and events on particular topics) -- ***** a partial listing: Film: Ralph Donald, Communications Dept., University of Tennessee at Martin, Martin, TN 38238-5099 Performance Studies: Ted Bain, English/Theatre, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY 14456-3397 Studies in Medievalism: Veronica Kennedy, English Dept., St. John's University, Jamaica, NY 11439 For further information about the MA PCA/ACA and the conference, or a complete list of area chairs, please contact Libby Smigel, President, MA PCA/ACA, Dept. of English/Comp Lit, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY 14456-3397; fax, 315-781-3348, e-mail, smigel@hws.edu; office, 315-781-3479; home, 315-536-0571. Please feel free to distribute this call to other lists or interested colleagues. ******************* Mid-Atlantic Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association STUDENT PAPER COMPETITION The Mid-Atlantic PCA/ACA will sponsor a competition for best student paper submitted for presentation at our annual conference. If you are a student, start thinking about revising your spring term paper. If you are a faculty member, read those final papers with an eye to recruiting the best samples for our Fall conference. Full papers or proposals must be submitted no later than JUNE 1 to: Anne K. Kaler, Literature/Language/Fine Arts Gwynedd Mercy College Gwynedd Valley, PA 19437 Please note whether the paper should be considered for the GRADUATE or UNDERGRADUATE student competition. By entering a student agrees to be present to read the paper if it is accepted for the conference. The awards will be announced at the conference luncheon, Saturday, Nov. 4, 1995, at the Hotel Syracuse in downtown Syracuse, New York. An honorarium will be given to the winning paper in both categories. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 12:20:07 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0375 National Voice Intensive Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0375. Wednesday, 10 May 1995. From: Eric Armstrong Date: Friday, 5 May 1995 11:46:26 -0400 Subject: National Voice Intensive Hello all, After some delightful e-mail requesting information about the National Voice Intensive, I finally have 10 minutes to sit down and type out some info from the flyer. Please remember this information is for NEXT year. Precise dates will be released around January. This year, the intensive runs from May 14 to June 16. Here goes: The National Voice Intensive is part of the Simon Fraser University Contemporary arts Summer Institute, held each summer on Burnaby Mountain, just outside of Vancouver in British Columbia, Canada. It is offered in association with Equity Showcase Theatre, a national training programme for actors. WORKSHOP: Now in its tenth year, the National Voice Intensive is a concentrated five week workshop designed for professional actors, performers, voice teachers, and advanced students. David Smukler again directs a closeworking team of expert instructors "...nothing less than one of the most searching learning events for actors in this country, if not on the whole continent. ...one of the most important touchstones in the development of Canadian Theatre. Every working actor in this country should try to experience it". --- Guy Sprung, Canadian Theatre Review #71. ELEMENTS: Widely recognized as a national resource for those who wish to extend their performance skills, the Voice Intensive is a unique program providing an examination of voice, body and language skills for actors and teachers. The studio work is designed to stimulate the imagination while expanding emotional, physical and vocal insights through specific voice, body and language training techniques. The morning classes focus on physical training and the voice, while the afternoons and evenings focus on language, text analysis, speech and articulation. The studio work evolves from a study of the Shakespearean sonnets and three of the Shakespearean plays. This year the plays are _Richard III_ _Macbeth_ and _Cymbeline_. INFORMATION: Application Procedure: Professional actors, performers, voice teachers and advanced students in related fields will be selected on the basis of experience as reflected in their written application. Deadline for applications is in early March. Tuition: CDN$800 plus a primted materials fee. Once accepted, a CDN$100 deposit is required to hold your place. Payment of the balance is due in early April. Refund Policy: Tuition is not refundable except in cases of medical emergency and an administration fee will be applied. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanya Petreman, contemporary arts summer institute, School for the Comtemporary Arts, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC. Canada V5A 1S6. Phone: (604) 291-4672 Fax: (604) 291-5907 LOCATION: Simon Fraser University is located in Burnaby, BC. Magnificently situated atop Burnaby mountain, the campus overlooks Vancouver, Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River. Limited Campus Accomodation is available. Contact Housing & Residence at (604) 291-3366. Downtown Vancouver is 45 minutes away by public transit. Transit information (604)261-5100 can provide details on routes, fares and travel times. Parking permits may be purchase at the first session. Carpools are encouraged. Eric Armstrong ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 07:24:18 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0376 [was 6.076] Re: *Hamlet*s: TV and Burton Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0376. Thursday, 11 May 1995. (1) From: Bill Boyle Date: Wednesday, 10 May 1995 13:45:26 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0369 Burton and Branagh *Hamlet*s (2) From: Gloria R. Wilson Date: Wednesday, 10 May 1995 13:12:55 CST6 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0369 Burton and Branagh *Hamlet*s (3) From: Heilan Grimes Date: Wednesday, 10 May 1995 23:37:00 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0369 Burton and Branagh *Hamlet*s (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Boyle Date: Wednesday, 10 May 1995 13:45:26 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0369 Burton and Branagh *Hamlet*s >Also, did no one but me catch the A&E BIOGRAPHY episode on HAMLET. Lots of >history, archive clips, talks with directors and actors. A good overview of >performance history. Yes, I saw this too, and it was very interesting. Particularly interesting was that it was not a biography of Shakespeare, but rather a biography of Hamlet. This is the first instance I know of in which a subject covered on A&E BIOGRAPHY was not a real person, but a "fictional character". Thereby hangs a tale. Bill Boyle 10 May 1995 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gloria R. Wilson Date: Wednesday, 10 May 1995 13:12:55 CST6 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0369 Burton and Branagh *Hamlet*s Will you folks who are interested in the Richard Burton version of Hamlet on film, please keep the list posted if you see anything else pertaining to it. I have used the LP in my classes for 15 years and I'd *love* to see the film version. ************ This is a side note/question, for Burton fans.... A few years ago, I was at a production of Camelot with Robert Goulet as Arthur. I asked one of the company's members, who was working with the Broadway production of Camelot when Burton played Arthur, if it had ever been filmed. He said that there was a private company, he thought, that had filmed it at one time, but that was the only production of it on film. If anyone knows of such a file, please send me a note. Thanks! Gloria Wilson (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Heilan Grimes Date: Wednesday, 10 May 1995 23:37:00 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0369 Burton and Branagh *Hamlet*s Burton had insisted that all copies be destroyed. But a few survived. I have the book that Guilgud (who directed it) wrote about the production. They other cast members apparently also wanted it destroyed. It was done in modern dress and as a stage play. I have heard that it will be shown on cable. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 07:30:41 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0377 Re: MIT/Stanford Multimedia Project Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0377. Thursday, 11 May 1995. From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Wednesday, 10 May 95 14:57:00 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0370 Qs: Hypermedia Project [For some very mysterious reason, Robert Knapp's request for information about the MIT/Stanford Multimedia Project from May 1994 appeared in my mailbox yesterday and was sent out as a new query. I have no idea how this happened, but I thank Georgianna Ziegler for her update below. HMC] This is a reply about the MIT project (though doubtless Peter will have more info.) Alan Young has just been at the Folger identifying more Hamlet illustrations to add to the large collection that is being digitized as part of the project. Peter et al have just applied for a Mellon grant to continue the project, and the Folger is to be a test-site for scholars to try it out! I've seen the digitized images of the illustrations and of the photographs of the individual Q pages, and the resolution is amazing. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 07:33:57 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0378 Re: Borges and Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0378. Thursday, 11 May 1995. From: Geoff Pywell Date: Wednesday, 10 May 1995 13:52:49 -0500 Subject: Borges and Shakespeare Isn't the ultimate Borgesian correspondence between Borges and Shakespeare provided anecdotally by Jan Kott in his book, The Essential Shakespeare, which may or may not be essential, may or may not be about Shakespeare, or at least not that Shakespeare, and may or may not have been written by Borges or Kott? Geoff Pywell, Franklin and Marshall College g_pywell@acad.fandm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 07:36:24 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0379 Anglo-Irish Darma Workshop Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0379. Thursday, 11 May 1995. From: Phil Nelson Date: Wednesday, 10 May 1995 13:14:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Anglo-Irish Drama Workshop - Summer '95 DRAMA SUMMER SCHOOL in Ireland. Dates: 2 July to 14 July, 1995 Set on the beautiful Southwest Irish coast, this 2 week programme will culminate in a performance of student work. Lectures and tutorials conducted by working theatre professionals, will explore English and Irish theatrical traditions. Cost: 650 Irish Pounds - Covers all tuition and 14 nights bed & breakfast. For complete details contact: Phoenix Contemporary Theatre Company 113 Broadhurst Gardens London, NW6 3BJ Telephone: 071-624-5661 Or Contact: Mr. C. Tim Quinn Theatre Arts Department Fresno City College 1101 E. University Avenue Fresno, California 93741 Telephone: (209) 442-4600 extention 8455 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 07:38:19 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0380 Q: Shakespeare and American Romanticism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0380. Thursday, 11 May 1995. From: Zoltan Abraham Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 02:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Shakespeare & American Romanticism I am trying to find a topic for a 10-15-page research paper on American Romanticism. One potential topic I've been thinking of is Shakespeare's influence on American Romanticism, with a possible focus on _Moby Dick_. Is this a fruitful area to explore? Can anyone recommed some books or articles? Zoltan Abraham Seattle U. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 07:41:10 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0381 Re: Aumerle; Kiddieology; PC; *Oth.* Verse Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0381. Friday, 12 May 1995. (1) From: Jon Enriquez Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 09:41:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0373 Re: Aumerle (2) From: Don Foster Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 10:05:50 +0100 Subj: Re: Kiddieology (3) From: Ian Doescher Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 09:14:28 -0700 Subj: PC and Productions (4) From: Jesus Cora Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 19:34:42 UTC+0200 Subj: SHK 6.0370 Qs: *Oth.* Verse (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jon Enriquez Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 09:41:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0373 Re: Aumerle Thanks to Helen Vella Bonavita for her kind words about York. I agree with her, and I used similar logic when I played York a few years ago in a production directed by fellow SHAKSPERean Cary Mazer. My take was that York is trying to be loyal to the Crown, whoever happens to wear it. Remember that York was the sixth of Edward III's sons, and probably had no idea that he would get within two or three heads of the Crown. After Gaunt dies, he is the last surviving member of the Black Prince's generation, and therefore assumes a certain responsibility for the stewardship of the Crown. He kneels before Richard when the two meet at Barclay Castle, and Richard has to drag him to his feet and tell him in no uncertain terms that he is abdicating in favor of Henry, for the good of the realm. Therefore, when York learns of Aumerle's treachery, he is quick to bring the traitor before the King for just punishment. But there is certainly an element of comic relief. Remember that when York is describing the procession to the Duchess, and he explains the difference between public response to Henry and to Richard, he says: As in a theater, the eyes of men, After a well-graced actor leaves the stage, Are but idly bent on him who enters next, Thinking his prattle to be tedious; So too it was with Richard. (Or words to that effect; this is from my memory.) Cary pointed out that this is Shakespeare pulling a joke on the actor who played York, who is in this scene placed in exactly that predicament. Surely Shakespeare was aware of the need for a break, but used the break to further the depiction of Henry. Jon Enriquez Georgetown University ENRIQUEZJ@guvax.georgetown.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 10:05:50 +0100 Subject: Re: Kiddieology To Dan Colvin: I don't bemoan the *existence* of "kiddie-lit popularizations of Shakespeare." (Indeed, the more the merrier: if there's nothing for the tykes to consume on television, let them eat cake.) I merely lamented the indoctrination of juvenile Shakespeareans with kiddie-litter, as in Leon Garfield's endorsement of the "Roman" view in his retelling of ANT: Listen up, kids: Octavius is a real man, one to be emulated by good little boys; Antony a fellow who ought to be ashamed of himself; and Cleopatra is a lousy whore. Maxine Kumin's view that such a doctrinal position is "refreshing" is good for a moan or two, don't you think? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Doescher Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 09:14:28 -0700 Subject: PC and Productions To all engaging in the discussion about "Merchant" and "Shrew," thank you for your thoughts. Although it was not my intention to inspire a discussion of political correctness, I do appreciate the responses. In response to John Owen's list of possible solutions to the sexism in "Shrew:" "Ignore it...change Katherine...change Petruchio" I thought it might be interesting to mention a production of "Shrew" I saw here in Portland. All of the characters were played by women, and the production was set in the 1940's (i.e. Rosie the Riveter, etc.). This approach seemed to deal well with the sexism of the play because an all female cast was able to convey an attitude that women are as strong (and, sometimes as weak) as men. Also, the relationship between Petruchio and Kate was more like two people playing a joke on others rather than a man taming a woman. It worked. Any other thoughts out there? The discussion turned to political correctness and got off of whether or not it is a director's responsibility to be sensitive to a modern audience. Sorry about the confusion. Ian Doescher (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 19:34:42 UTC+0200 Subject: SHK 6.0370 Qs: *Oth.* Verse Dear Emmanuel Kowalski, In my humble opinion, what Shakespeare did in that verse from Othello was to join two adjectives that, at the time, were thought to be a "paradigm in Turkishness", so to speak. The verse indicates that all Turks are malignant and turbaned, or at least, that a Turk being malignant is as natural and typical as being 'turban'd'. Quite rhetorical, indeed, just as zeugmas or conceits. What do other SHAKSPEReans think? Do ye perchance agree with me? Jesus Cora Dpto. de Filologia Moderna Universidad de Alcala de Henares FMJCA@FILMO.ALCALA.ES ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 07:59:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0382 Re: Shakespeare and American Romanticism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0382. Friday, 12 May 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 15:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0380 Q: Shakespeare and American Romanticism (2) From: James Crowley Date: Thursday, 11 May 95 16:51 EDT Subj: SHK 6.0380 Q: Shakespeare and A (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 15:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0380 Q: Shakespeare and American Romanticism To Zolton Abraham---As for S's influence on Melville, the poet Charles Olson wrote a pretty seminal book showing it--called "CALL ME ISHMAEL" which is still available. Emerson of course was very influenced and Dickinson's favorite Shakespeare play was ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA....she identified with ANTONY however (and thus what happens with Dollabella in Act 5 wasn't that important to her). Well, maybe this will be helpful,. Chris Stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Crowley Date: Thursday, 11 May 95 16:51 EDT Subject: SHK 6.0380 Q: Shakespeare and A Two bibliographies come to mind as starting points, keeping in mind that "influence" is always a dangerous thing to argue, unless you're willing to dig through journals, correspondence, etc. I believe there exists a bib on Melville by Brian Higgins, and somewhat older, of course, in Eight American Authors, ed. James Woodress. Check the annual bib chapter in American Literary Scholarship for more recent material. For documentation on M's activities, etc--check the MOST RECENT edition of The Melville Log. I hope this helps you start... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 08:27:32 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0383 Re: Burton *Hamlet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0383. Friday, 12 May 1995. (1) From: Robert Page Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 12:03:34 PDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.076 Re: *Hamlet*s: TV and Burton (2) From: Jerry Bangham Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 21:48:31 Subj: Re: SHK 6.076 Re: *Hamlet*s: TV and Burton (3) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, May 12, 1995 Subj: Burton *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Page Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 12:03:34 PDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.076 Re: *Hamlet*s: TV and Burton I'm sure others besides myself remember the Burton Hamlet as a major theatrical event in the 50's because of its (simultaneous, I think) projection in major movie houses throughout the U.S. I've forgotten the name given to the process, but it was in B/W and hailed as a revolutionary breakthrough in entertainment for the future. I think it remained the only time the process was used, and criticized as not being altogether satisfactory. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Thursday, 11 May 1995 21:48:31 Subject: Re: SHK 6.076 Re: *Hamlet*s: TV and Burton Am I the only one on the list that actually saw the film? In Morehead Kentucky, of all places. I imagine I still have, somewhere hidden away, the publicity pack that the theatre manager gave me. The only clear memory I have of its contents was a 45 rpm recording of Burton doing a couple of monologues. My memory isn't all that clear but I think I liked the film, taking into account the fact that it was a record of a stage production. I was impressed by Burton, far more that I'd expected to be. I believe that there is a book about the production written by an excellent actor who played a minor role (prehaps Rosencrantz or Gildernstern) . I could probably dig his name out, but not easily. While the name escapes me, I still remember an absolutely amazing preformance he gave on the old Armstrong Circle Theatre (now I'm really dating myself). Anyway, I'd hardly rate the film as a lost treasure, but I'd like to see it again and see if still holds up. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, May 12, 1995 Subject: Burton *Hamlet* As I recall, the process that Robert Page mentions above was a process that allowed filming in black and white an actual performance with the available light. I too saw the film some thirty years ago when I was in high school. Some images remain for me that I can help along with an excerpts record album and the souvenir program. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 13:29:54 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0384 Re: Burton *Hamlet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0384. Saturday, 13 May 1995. (1) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Friday, 12 May 1995 09:06:45 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.076 Re: *Hamlet*s: TV and Burton (2) From: Peter S. Donaldson Date: Friday, 12 May 95 10:46:36 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0383 Re: Burton *Hamlet* (3) From: John Owen Date: Friday, 12 May 1995 09:45:17 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0383 Re: Burton *Hamlet* (4) From: Stephen Schultz Date: Friday, 12 May 95 11:32:03 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0383 Re: Burton *Hamlet* (5) From: Stephen Orgel Date: Friday, 12 May 1995 09:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0383 Re: Burton *Hamlet* (6) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Friday, 12 May 1995 12:32:48 -0400 Subj: Burton's *Hamlet* (7) From: Peter Greenfield Date: Friday, May 12, 1995 Subj: Burton "Hamlet" (8) From: Edward Rocklin Date: Friday, 12 May 95 23:07:12 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0383 Re: Burton *Hamlet* (9) From: Richard Klautsch Date: Friday, 12 May 95 12:22:25 MST Subj: Book on Burton/Gielgud Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Friday, 12 May 1995 09:06:45 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.076 Re: *Hamlet*s: TV and Burton I remember flashes of this *Hamlet* on stage at the O'keefe Centre in Toronto. [I was 19 I think]. a.) the fact the Gielgud's voice as the Ghost [represented on stage by a light] made much of the rest of the spoken verse seem flat and unpalatable. b.) that the directorial/design premisee was that this was a "rehersal." The arras was a moveable rack of costumes. Polonius overset the rack as he collapsed into a welter of costumes. Gertrude the actress had a fur stole but performed in black rehersal skirt. c.) Hume Cronyn was the quintessential politician [as I saw politicians in those days] d.) Burton's encounter with Claudius crackled with danger, quiet threats and white hot energy on a very short leash. e.) After the performance Burton came out with Taylor to announce that they had been married in Montreal & that "there shall be no more marriages" -[ It's true - I saw it.] f.) I found myself comparing the famous Burton to the unkown Christopher Plummer of a few years before at Stratford Ont - & that the young, at-the-top-of-his-form Plummer won hands down. Still does when an older, critical Mary Jane looks back. -- Charming, intelligent, athletic, funny, superb swordsman --- and he slid into the "to be" before we knew it and made it his own. I was 15 at the time. PS Who was Burton's Claudius? I remember that he managed to be a credible antagonist [though my favourite Claudius is Antony Hopkins in the Williams/Richardson Hamlet -- another light (off camera) for the Ghost. Favourite Ghost? Scofields' measured, fatherly Ghost] Anyone else want to play favourite actor in a supporting or leading role in *Hamlet.* Mary Jane Miller (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter S. Donaldson Date: Friday, 12 May 95 10:46:36 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0383 Re: Burton *Hamlet* The Burton Hamlet film process was called Electrovision in the credits of the film, but what that means, other than the use of fast film stock I don't know. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Friday, 12 May 1995 09:45:17 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0383 Re: Burton *Hamlet* I have mixed feelings about finally seeing the Burton Hamlet. I have an unedited recording of the full production (which may be still available commercially), and Burton is pretty good. Good enough to make me want to see him as well as hear him. But that has to be absolutely the worst set of supporting performances to ever curse a Shakespearean production. Ironically for a play directed by our century's most celebrated speaker of verse, the verse is spoken with appalling ineptitude. The worst offender is Barnard Hughes as Marcellus, with his dead stops at the end of each line. Alfred Drake's overmodulated delivery of Claudius' lines runs a close second (despite the fascinating possibility of Claudius as a radio DJ). Maybe this is less noticeable in a visual recording. I hope. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Schultz Date: Friday, 12 May 95 11:32:03 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0383 Re: Burton *Hamlet* Jerry Bangham mentioned a book about the production of the Gielgud/Burton *Hamlet* but couldn't remember the author or the title. The author was William Redfield (who DID play either Rosencrantz or Guildenstern) and the title was *Letters from an Actor*, I think. I remember it as marvelously insightful about both the particular production and the process of rehearsal in general. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Orgel Date: Friday, 12 May 1995 09:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0383 Re: Burton *Hamlet* The book about Burton's HAMLET is William Redfield's LETTERS FROM AN ACTOR, and it is informative and delightful. Last year the paperback (Limelight Editions, NY) was remaindering for $1.88. I also saw the film, and can remember almost nothing about it, though this probably says more about my memory than about its quality. S. Orgel (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Friday, 12 May 1995 12:32:48 -0400 Subject: Burton's *Hamlet* I saw somebody watching that Burton *Hamlet* at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts about 2 years ago. I guess it's in similar video collections elsewhere. (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Greenfield Date: Friday, May 12, 1995 Subject: Burton "Hamlet" The book mentioned by Jerry Bangham is LETTERS TO [FROM?] AN ACTOR by William Redfield, who played Guildenstern. (One of the funniest parts of the book is Redfield's description of his own chagrin at being asked to play Guild.) A gossipy but informative book, that tells us more about Redfield's own struggles in the production than about Burton's. For more insight into Burton's and Gielgud's approaches to the play, see JOHN GIELGUD DIRECTS RICHARD BURTON IN HAMLET. The latter is essentially transcriptions of tape recordings of rehearsals, made covertly by the author, Richard L. Sterne, a student who played Osric in this production. Included is a private dialogue between Gielgud and Burton about Hamlet's character, which Sterne recorded by hiding under the stage for several hours--a modern "fellow in the cellarage"! (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Rocklin Date: Friday, 12 May 95 23:07:12 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0383 Re: Burton *Hamlet* The book by the minor actor: Richard L. Sterne, _John Gielgud Directs Richard Burton in Hamlet_ (Random House 1967)--I picked up a copy used in 1985, so it may float around. It includes a transcript of a supposedly private Gielgud-Burton rehearsal that Sterne taperecorded (he hid in the room if I remember)--it also includes the prompt script, which is interesting in itself--for example, Burton's Hamlet is unarmed when he comes upon Claudius praying, takes the sword Claudius has put down to pray, and exits with the sword, leaving Claudius to discover the empty scabbard and make the appropriate inferences. My colleague Joe Stodder calls this a corny manuever, but it is interesting in showing how an action can change the relative awareness of both dramatis personae and spectators, shift the balance a bit. Discussing this is an activity I sometimes use in class. Happy reading (or book hunting?) Edward Rocklin (9)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Klautsch Date: Friday, 12 May 95 12:22:25 MST Subject: Book on Burton/Gielgud Hamlet The book that chronicles the Burton/Gielgud production of "Hamlet" is entitled "Letters from an Actor" by William Redfield, an accomplished stage and film/TV character actor. The book is a fascinating account of the production, from rehearsals to performance to visits by Liz Taylor. It also offers unique insight into the working processes of both Gielgud and Burton (how Gielgud worked himself into tears giving line readings, for instance). Redfield writes with perception, wit, and an obvious reverence for Shakespeare and the theatre. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 13:47:37 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0385 Qs: Elizabethan Fonts; *Rom.*; *Shr.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0385. Saturday, 13 May 1995. (1) From: Stephan Genn Date: Tuesday, 09 May 95 18:09:45 EDT Subj: Elizabethan Fonts (2) From: Milla Riggio Date: Saturday, 13 May 1995 09:43:43 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0176 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* (3) From: Date: Friday, 12 May 1995 21:16:22 -0400 Subj: Taming Of The Shrew (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephan Genn Date: Tuesday, 09 May 95 18:09:45 EDT Subject: Elizabethan Fonts Hello. I am looking for MS-Windows fonts, preferably True-Type fonts, that are suitable for typing Shakespearean verse as it was originally typeset. Does anyone know where such a thing can be purchased or downloaded? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Saturday, 13 May 1995 09:43:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0176 Re: *Romeo and Juliet* Dear SHAKESPERians: May I repeat a request I made a couple of months ago, but now a little more urgently and a little more specifically: For a bibliography I'm assembling for Mark Lamos, who will direct Romeo and Juliet in the fall, I'm looking for material: what is the best one or two essays or book chapters you've read on this play in, say, the last 5 or 6 years? Could you let me know by responding here? I'm going to the Folger on May 22 to work on this play for the production, so I'd appreciate answers before then. Thanking you in advance, Milla Riggio (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Friday, 12 May 1995 21:16:22 -0400 Subject: Taming Of The Shrew [Please respond privately to this query from a non-list member. HMC] Help! I'm an 8th grade English teacher in NJ, who is searching for a video copy of the American Conservatory Theater's San Franciso production of Taming Of The Shrew, starring Mark Singer. Any help finding a copy of this production would be much appreciated. Please e-mail me at: happper@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 13:55:45 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0386 Re: Kott; Norton Folio; Tillyard Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0386. Saturday, 13 May 1995. (1) From: Geoff Pywell Date: Friday, 12 May 1995 09:19:57 -0500 Subj: Kott in the act (2) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Friday, 12 May 95 09:42:00 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0371 Re: Applause Folio (3) From: Penelope Klein Date: Friday, 12 May 95 13:20:39 -0500 Subj: Re: Tillyard (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Geoff Pywell Date: Friday, 12 May 1995 09:19:57 -0500 Subject: Kott in the act Ooops. That's what comes of trying to be a smart-ass at the end of semester while the NBA playoffs are on. There is an amusing anecdote by Kott about Borges and Shakespeare but the book is of course The Theater of Essence. I think someone asked about any possible relationships between the two a while ago. Geoff Pywell, Franklin and Marshall College g_pywell@acad.fandm.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Friday, 12 May 95 09:42:00 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0371 Re: Applause Folio In response to Milla's questions regarding the Norton facsimile of F1, Peter Blayney has told me that he is preparing a new introduction for Norton's re-issue of the volume, that will be printed along with the old introduction. I don't know what the release date will be. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Penelope Klein Date: Friday, 12 May 95 13:20:39 -0500 Subject: Re: Tillyard In response to the recent query about Tillyard, I recommend "The Fortunes of Tillyard: Twentieth-Century Critical Debate on Shakespeare's History Plays" by Robin Headlam Wells. You can find it in *English Studies* 66 (1985): 391-403. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on Elizabethan politics and the Henriad, and found this article particularly enlightening. I also used Tillyard and myriad other sources. It is true that I was warned that Tillyard was "dated" but I found it very readable and useful. Cheers. Penelope Klein ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 14:07:55 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0387 Folger Institute Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0387. Saturday, 13 May 1995. From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Friday, 12 May 95 09:47:00 PDT Subject: Folger Institute A year-long humanities institute, "Shakespeare Examined Through Performance," to be directed by AudreyStanley and Alan C. Dessen is scheduled to meet for intensive sessions one weekend every month of the academic year (1995-96) at the Folger Shakespeare Library. Sponsorship by the National Endowment for the Humanities will fully cover the travel and lodging expenses of the fifteen faculty members chosen to participate. The APPLICATION DEADLINE is 1 June 1995. For further information or application forms, please contact the Folger Institute by phone (202) 675-0333, fax (202) 544-4623, or e-mail: institute@mail.folger.edu. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 07:37:42 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0388 Re: Burton and Feines *Hamlet*s Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0388. Monday, 15 May 1995. (1) From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 13 May 1995 11:57pm ET Subj: Burton Hamlet (2) From: David Levine Date: Sunday, 14 May 1995 17:38:26 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0383 Re: Burton *Ha... (3) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Monday, 15 May 95 01:09:30 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0384 Re: Burton *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 13 May 1995 11:57pm ET Subject: Burton Hamlet I saw the Burton Hamlet in Boston, maybe still a little bit in process, but essentially the production that stopped traffic on Broadway a couple of weeks later. An earlier poster complains about the bad speaking of the secondary roles; the real problem, it seemed to us then, was the unresolved competition of acting styles, a roomful of British and American stars never wrought into an ensemble. Alfred Drake, better known as a leading man in musical comedy, wore 3-inch elevator shoes and was still shorter than his Gertrude; like a lot of Claudiuses he succeeded very well in the first half and less so in the second. Hume Cronyn was surely the most dapper Polonius ever, brisk, efficient, superficial, a figure out of drawing room comedy. George Rose stole the show as the grave-digger; he _owned_ that graveyard, the way a farmer owns his field, and made everybody else seem rootless. Burton was brilliant; we saw him on one of the manic nights (he told an interviewer that he played the role for laughs or signs according to whether or night the audience laughed at "I know not seems") and he caught all the dizzying fertility of the Hamlet wit. But he did seem to be playing more to the audience than to the other characters, and the final scene was not particularly moving: you expect a rocket to have a short if brilliant life. But I'll hope you all have a chance to judge for yourself. Retrospectively, Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Levine Date: Sunday, 14 May 1995 17:38:26 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0383 Re: Burton *Ha... Several points: there was a complete recording of the Burton Hamlet on Columbia, which might still be available fom Columbia Special products. Check Round-Up Records in Cambridge, Mass. It was in their catalogue last year (3 LP's). I used to have it, and it's still extremely interesting. Burton's reading was a deliberately unusual one, and much of it still works, although he does spend a good deal of effort miling his (considerable) vocal pyrotechnics. There are TWO books on the production. One was by Richard Sterne, who had a tiny part. It's a very complete record of the rehearsal process which was, by all accounts, not a happy one (Gielgud dismisses it as a failure). Also, William Redfield's Letters from an Actor, which was recently remaindered by Limelight Editions, is about the production and is a very amusing work in its own right. Hope the above was helpful. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Monday, 15 May 95 01:09:30 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0384 Re: Burton *Hamlet* I saw the Broadway run of Burton's HAMLET in 1963-64; wonderful, energetic, crackling with taut laughter. Burton "played" the audience, and I remember being elated by the exuberant wit that he shared with us, moment by moment. The rehearsal clothes made sense, since social registers were accurately translated in ways that Elizabethan dress on modern bodies rarely project. I saw the production with my sixteen year old brother, and he cheered and laughed and choked back in final pain too. This was quite a different experience than the grimly monotonous Rafe Feines (however spelt) production I saw a week ago. The recent event's rapidly fading into grey. One spark of insight: when Laertes first touches Ophelia, she winces in aversion. But the stale flatness of barked language, running for hours on single notes . . . pfui. Perhaps someone will explicate for me the "meaning" or dramatic value of having Gertrude die illuminated by a brilliant blue-white spotlight while the rest of the stage flumped along in dust-colored evening? The set had terrific doors and windows and levels. Wheee! Les Miz, watch out! The squat actor playing the Ghost (doubling as the gravedigger and other parts) was such a troll compared to the matinee-idol Claudius that Hamlet's comparison of the two portraits made at least the people I was with speculate that Hamlet's eyesight or his judgment were terminally bent. The casual stupidity of Hamlet's pawing of Ophelia during the "get thee to a nunnary" passages was simply one out of many actions unconnected to words and words spoken with no necessary accompanying human action. "Oh, you literal minded Yanks. Can't understand the IDEA." Sorry, Jack. For ideas, I slog through books and journals and philosophy. For my money I go to the theatre for action, emotional verisimilitude, the visceral involvement and atachment of masterful playing. Burton and that 1960s cast did it. These poor goobers from merry-old didn't even come close. As ever, Steve Verisimilowitz SURCC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 16:40:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0389 Re: Folger Institute; Tillyard; Shakespeare Globe on WWW Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0389. Monday, 15 May 1995. (1) From: Skip Shand Date: Sunday, 14 May 1995 12:03:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0387 Folger Institute (2) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Sunday, 14 May 1995 11:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Tillyard (3) From: Andreas Schlenger Date: Monday, 15 May 1995 14:32:08 +0200 (MET DST) Subj: Shakespeare Globe on WWW (Cologne) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Shand Date: Sunday, 14 May 1995 12:03:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0387 Folger Institute A query/suggestion to Georgianna Ziegler re the Folger Institute and the full NEH sponsorship of "fifteen faculty members chosen to participate": Will the NEH sponsor citizens of countries other than the U.S.A.? If not, as I believe has always (and quite understandably, I might add) been the case in the past, then maybe the broadly international readership of SHAKSPER deserves to be reminded that you mean "fifteen *American* faculty members"--just so the rest of us, particularly those who actually live within reach of the Folger, don't start dreaming impossible dreams! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Sunday, 14 May 1995 11:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Tillyard I seem to recall Jonathan Dollimore dispensing with Tillyard rather decisively in *Radical Tragedy* some ten years ago. But the problem isn't that Tillyard is "dated"; in fact, a number of British historians (Kevin Sharpe and J.P. Kenyon, for example) still cling to the Tillyard view. The problem has to do with how literary evidence is used for deciding cultural-historical questions, and how our concepts of culture and history and especially cultural history are to be fashioned. In brief, the Tillyard approach encourages to look for consensus. What many of us are doing nowadays (I think) is looking for conflict. Ulysses's speech in *Troilus* can be taken as evidence for a worldview (which it is our misfortune to have lost, perhaps); or it can be taken as evidence of a conflict in the social order which Shakespeare is putting in the mouth of Ulysses, a conflict in the "observance of degree" which Ulysses can be seen to be somewhat hysterically and ineffectually responding to. I'm particularly interested in the political experience of the Jacobean period, concerning which the drama is often our best evidence (since so much else was subject to censorship), and would be interested in hearing how others respond to this issue. -- Robert Appelbaum (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andreas Schlenger Date: Monday, 15 May 1995 14:32:08 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Shakespeare Globe on WWW (Cologne) Dear members of SHAKSPER! Please allow me to draw your attention to a new, illustrated item on our International Shakespeare Globe Centre Germany Web Page: THE ELIZABETHAN THEATRE, a "tagged" lecture Professor Hilda D. Spear held at Cologne University in 1989. It's URL is: http://www.rrz.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/englisch/shakespeare/spear.html Regards, Andreas Schlenger University of Cologne a2271001@smail.rrz.uni-koeln.de ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 07:44:42 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0390 Re: *Hamlet*s: Burton, Fiennes, Plummer Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0390. Tuesday, 16 May 1995. (1) From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 15 May 1995 09:02:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0388 Re: Burton and Fiennes *Hamlet*s (2) From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Monday, 15 May 1995 16:25:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0388 Re: Burton and Fiennes *Hamlet*s (3) From: James Schaefer Date: Monday, 15 May 1995 13:20:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Plummer *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 15 May 1995 09:02:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0388 Re: Burton and Fiennes *Hamlet*s I was in my twenties when I saw the filmed version of the Burton Hamlet, and found Hume Cronyn's Polonius a quite annoying performance that overstated and underlined what a more subtle actor such as Redgrave made chilling by control and calm. I could only assume that, for his ghostly voice-over, Gielgud had courageously removed his dentures. Alfred Drake's Claudius caught little of the "pleasantness" of the politician and lover. Although Burton was at other times superbly able to handle verse (his recording of Donne, for instance, on Caedmon Records, captures well the visceral immediacy of the more popular poems), for Hamlet his method eschewed the given rhythms in favour of a prose reading of the role. It was very exciting, but of course missed too many of the ambiguities that a Scofield is capable of conveying. Burton's virility, however, and the electric quality of his voice supported by his infamous heavy inhalations, showed -- in fact, lived -- how a young intellect confronted with death and duty becomes existentially heroic. I have never since seen a Hamlet whose wit was such a fist shaken at the cosmos and its order, nor whose voice was such an embodiment of that fist. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Monday, 15 May 1995 16:25:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0388 Re: Burton and Fiennes *Hamlet*s Dear Steve, No one has greater respect for your intelligence, wit, erudition, and perspicuity than I but I must've seen a different performance of the Ralph Fiennes' HAMLET than the pathetic thing you so cleverly bashed on the network. I thought Fiennes was dynamite; Francesca Annis as Gertrude, mesmerizing; the ghost/gravedigger/1st player person, versatile; the Hamlet/Ophelia high jinks, plausible. I faulted Laertes a bit for being less physically aggressive than Hamlet. As for the propped up, chalk-white Gertrude, I admit that having a corpse so rigidly erect was odd but then I decided she was either echoing the Player Queen in the dumbshow, or it was just a bit of theatrical license, harmless enough. Or again maybe I was so in shock from having bought 5 tickets at $55 each (my family loyally accompanied me) that I was determined to love Fiennes' performance, no matter what. Only rarely does one see Hamlet played by Schindler and Charles Van Doren. With all due respect to Steve's opinions, I claim that it's a show well worth seeing if you're in New York and have $55. Ken Rothwell (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Monday, 15 May 1995 13:20:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Plummer *Hamlet* Mary Jane Miller's mention of Christopher Plummer's Hamlet at Stratford, Ontario recalled a story I heard about that production nearly 30 yrs ago from Kirk Denmark at Beloit College. As he told it, during the scene in the Queen's closet, Plummer was so distracted by the beauties of his Gertrude that Polonius's behind-the-arras cries of "What ho! Help!" found Hamlet all the way down center. Improvising, Hamlet pointed his sword and shouted, "Die!" -- which Polonius obliging did, presumably of a heart attack. James F. Schaefer Jr. Georgetown University schaefej@guvax.georgetown.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 07:52:22 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0391 Re: *Rom.*; *Ham.*; *Cor.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0391. Tuesday, 16 May 1995. (1) From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Monday, 15 May 1995 10:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0385 Qs: *Rom.* (2) From: David M Richman Date: Monday, 15 May 1995 12:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Notes on Verona, Elsinore, and Corioli (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Monday, 15 May 1995 10:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0385 Qs: *Rom.* I don't remember whether I responded to the original request, but if I didn't, here's my all-time favorite: Dympna Callaghan's "The Ideology of Romantic Love: The Case of *Romeo and Juliet,* in *The Weyward Sisters: Shakespeare and Feminist Politics* by Dympna Callaghan, Lorraine Helms and Jyotsna Singh (Blackwell, 1994) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Monday, 15 May 1995 12:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Notes on Verona, Elsinore, and Corioli This posting is what comes of reading several dozen SHAKSPER postings in a row when one is punchy (reeling?) with semester's end anomie. First, my favorite pieces on R. and J. (as per Milla Riggio's request) remain Susan Snyder's discussions in *The Comic Matrix in Shakespeare's Tragedies*, Princeton, 1979; also Steve Urkowitz's essay that turned up right here on the SHAKSPER fileserver on Textual Di(Per)versity. I am myself preparing a production of R. and J. that must travel, and I will base it on Q1. Steve Urkowitz's comments on that text's version of the pre-nuptial scene with Romeo, Juliet, and the Friar is worth several hundred thousand pages of the latest -ism. On favorite Hamlets, the best Claudius and Gertrude of my experience were James Earl Jones and Colleen Dewhurst, in a Joe Papp production in the Park in 1972. Raoul Julia was a wonderful Osric. Jones and Dewhurst were so energetic, sexual, passionately alive that one wanted the rather cold and feckless Hamlet to die early and let them get on with them. With all this talk about Burton's *Hamlet*, let me say a word about the Caedmon recording of *Coriolanus* with Burton, Jessica Tandy, and Michael Hordern. Definitive. The boy soldier, cracking out orders and insults at top speed, with impeccable diction. Some of the best verse speaking that can ever pleasure the ear. David Richman University of New Hampshire ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 08:00:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0392 Re: Tillyard Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0392. Tuesday, 16 May 1995. (1) From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Tuesday, 16 May 1995 10:18:35 +0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0389 Re: Tillyard (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 15 May 1995 20:54:15 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0389 Re: Tillyard (3) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 16 May 1995 12:05:07 GMT Subj: Re: Tillyard (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Tuesday, 16 May 1995 10:18:35 +0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0389 Re: Tillyard Robert Appelbaum is correct in identifying Dollimore as a major influence on the 'discreditation' of Tillyard, but I don't agree that *Radical Tragedy* decided the matter. I have always felt that Dollimore and his fellow Cultural Materialists had rather more in common with Tillyard than they were comfortable to admit, particularly on methodological grounds. Both Dollimore and Tillyard rest much of there arguments on assertion - constant iteration of some authoritative THIS IS SO! - rather than 'proof' - insofar as proof is possible in something as subjective as literary criticism. Even beyond the methodology, there is their mutual dependence on essentially the same texts, viewed from ideologically dissimilar positions, to put forward theit cases - though I concede that in Dollimore's case, the choice of texts may have been determined by the fact that Tillyard used them. It is true to say that Tillyard was searching for consensus, while much recent criticism seems to focus on conflict, but in their single-minded attempts to 'prove' their point, both Historicism and Cultural Materialism are claiming that there is a single right interpretation of Shakespeare, and that theirs are the best pointers to it. Robert Appelbaum, in referring to Ulysses' infamous 'degree' speech, has reminded us that there are a plurality of possible interpretations - something which I think is anathema to the Tillyards and Dollimores of Shakespearean criticism. But I have to wonder why Mr Appelbaum thinks that the plays are any better a source of insight into the period than non-dramatic writing, or even privately-circulated material. Everything was subject to _kinds_ of censorship, especially the drama - a factor which contributes to the ultimate unverifiablility of most hypotheses about Elizabethan or Jacobean literature. If he has any doubt about this, I refer him to Richard Dutton's *Mastering the Revels* (Macmillan, 1991). Robert F. O'Connor ocoreng@durras.anu.edu.au English Department Australian National University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 15 May 1995 20:54:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0389 Re: Tillyard Dear Robert Applebaum---the Ulyssean "world order" in the context of the play from which it's taken is quite clearly exposed as flawed by Shakespeare itself. it didn't take Dollimore to see this. earlier writers like Frye and Harold Goddard also pointed out that this world view was a ruse of rhetoric being manipulated...in Ulysses at least...because Shakespeare himself so often subverts the "world view" expressed in official accounts of that time (though he has a character mouth it; and the subversion is no doubt lost on many both then and now), one can conjecture that just as the "World View of the 1990's: seen from a historical perspective may fail to account for much subversive thought but rather accept the Bell Curve or the World Weekly News (which this week has a headline that says "WHAT THE FBI DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW: ARAB PAID OKLAHOMA BOMBING TERRORISTS") as a "world view'...Maybe my analogy is flawed, but though the "world view" of Tillyard (or the work of Greenblatt for instance) is helpful in a way, we should be careful to reduce the Renaissance and all its writers to one "world view." Even if we take a Marxist approach, that is NOT claiming ahistoricity for Shakespeare, we may see that today's culture in many ways is of the same historical phase as Shakespeare's.... Chris Stroffolino (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 16 May 1995 12:05:07 GMT Subject: Re: Tillyard Robert Appelbaum is slightly misleading when he says the problem isn't that Tillyard is dated. The Elizabethan World Picture is very precisely dated and that is exactly the problem. The book appeared in Britain in 1943 and its commitment to an ideal of consensus within an ordered, golden age obviously reproduces and reinforces many of the nostalgic fantasies of that turbulent time. In fact its last sentence addresses the book directly to the 'present conflicts and distresses' of the second World War. It remains, above all, an imaginative response to that event, rather than a work of 'pure' scholarship. But who ever met one of those? Terence Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 08:04:34 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0393 Q: Silvia Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0393. Tuesday, 16 May 1995. From: Sam Gregory and Megan Stermer Date: Tuesday, 16 May 1995 00:28:27 -0400 Subject: 2 Gents. First off I want to thank everyone who responded to my Aumerle question a few weeks ago. Your help has been invaluable. Now my wife, also an actor, has a question. She say's: I am currently rehearsing The Two Gentleman of Verona in which I am playing Silvia. I would be very interested and appreciative of any input, insight and/or comments you may have concerning Act 2, scene 1 of that play. Specifically, Silvia's lines 109-112 (Arden- starting with "A pretty period..."). But I would also invite comments regarding the entire scene and the relationship between Valentine and Silvia. Thank you in advance for your help. This discussion group is such a wonderful resource for us. We are very appreciative. Please respond either directly to SamnMegan@aol.com or by posting to this discussion group. Sincerely, Sam Gregory and Megan Stermer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 08:30:11 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0394 Re: Tillyard Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0394. Wednesday, 17 May 1995. (1) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Tuesday, 16 May 1995 11:05:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Tillyard (2) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Tuesday, 16 May 1995 10:19:51 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Tillyard (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 16 May 1995 22:34:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0392 Re: Tillyard (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Tuesday, 16 May 1995 11:05:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Tillyard I find myself in agreement, at least in part, with Robert Appelbaum AND Robert O'Connor AND Chris Stroffolino AND Terence Hawkes on the Tillyard question (Mark Twain somewhere remarked that when you find yourself on the side of a majority, it is time to stop and reconsider). But surely Stroffolino is right to point out pre-Dollimore skepticism in this area. I'd add Louis Montrose, who in the early '80s (in the pages of _Helios_, as I remember it) pointed out that if we meet some version of the Elizabethan World Picture so frequently in Elizabethan documents, it is not because that Picture is manifestly an adequate representation of the Elizabethan World, but precisely because it is not. The lady isn't the only one who doth protest too much. The Elizabethan World Picture, Tillyard asserted early on, was part of "a mass of basic assumptions" which all Elizabethans "had in common," and which, moreover, "they never disputed and whose importance varied inversely with this very meagreness of controversy." Today, I think, we are a good deal more wary about specifying just what it is everyone believes at any given time, and even in a poll of contemporaries, the best we can hope to do is establish what anyone says he believes or is willing to admit he believes, different matters altogether. Terence Hawkes adverts to the specific historical context of Tillyard's work and reminds us that Tillyard himself may have protested too much. In 1943 he can hardly have been alone in wishing for a lock-step consensus and a seamlessly united front. Ron Macdonald (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Tuesday, 16 May 1995 10:19:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Tillyard My respondents -- Robert F. O'Connor, Chris Stroffolino, and Terence Hawkes -- on the worldview question were all extremely illuminating and I want to thank them for their remarks. Professor Hawkes reminds us of something rather important about Tillyard's position, and all three raise serious questions about what we do when we do things with Shakespeare's texts. If it's not too presumptuous I would like nonetheless to try to clarify a few things: (1) About Tillyard's book appearing in 1943, though I am sure that Hawkes is right about its historico-ideological position, nevertheless we can make such assessments of Tillyard's work only in part because of our own historical positions; we also make such assessments based on what we try to fashion as independent judgment. I don't think that you can reduce Tillyard's position to being "dated." You have to deal with what he says in light of what he says and how he uses his evidence. Our historical position certainly gives us a certain perspective on Tillyard which Tillyard couldn't have had; but our knowing this doesn't release us from responsibility from making our own judgments. And this is important to me because although "we critics" might be well past the age of Tillyard's oversimplifications, a number of historians, our contemporariries, apparently aren't; and we can't argue away our contemporaries by simply saying that they are clinging to an old-fashioned point of view. (2) Concerning O'Connor's remark that Dollimore and Tillyard have a lot in common, I would agree, in that Dollimore's book has some serious flaws, it too trying too hard to come up with a "world picture." But I don't understand O'Connor's antipathy to Cultural Materialists en masse. O'Connor's doing to Cultural Materialists (his caps) what he complains that the materialists are doing to the Renaissance. Of course the drama was censored too; and it no more directly reflects the political experience of the period than any other kind of document; but the drama had means of indirect discourse that could let a few things out that otherwise had to be kept in the closet. Historians like Sharpe, seeing that no anti-absolutist tracts were published in English during the first part of James's reign, conclude that there was no anti-absolutist sentiment; and when J.P.Sommerville points to all those anti-absolutist texts produced on the Continent, Sharpe responds, Exactly -- they were produced on the Continent, not in merry England. I'll not try to draw any conclusions about early modern England on the basis of *Troilus,* but I must at least observe that *Troilus* tells us that something was up, that it was possible to *try* to have a worldview, and possible to have it thrown back in your face. (3) Finally, I agree with Stroffolino's remarks (although I don't see why he implies that Greenblatt implies that the Elizabethans had a single world view -- in *Renaissance Self-Fashioning* Greenblatt highlights at least three conflicting and self-conflicted Elizabethan views) -- but then, to return to Hawkes's position (if I'm not contradicting myself here), Dollimore was among the first to point out persuasively not that there might be flaws in Tillyard's account, but that the flaws in Tillyard's account, as indicated by his misuse of evidence, were indicative not only of flawed scholarship but of a flawed ideological impulse, a flawed appropriation of Shakespeare. Of course, we all owe a great deal to Hawkes for this kind insight as well. Thanks again, everyone. Robert Appelbaum (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 16 May 1995 22:34:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0392 Re: Tillyard The question of Tillyard seems to lead to a larger and much more vexed question: the relationship of words on a page or even plays on a stage to the historical life -- the felt and lived life -- that surrounds them. After all, there is some reason to believe that Shakespeare was not attempting historical accuracy even in his history plays. When we take a passage of imaginative (may I use the word?) writing and read it as historically revealing, are we running over thin ice? Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 08:38:22 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0395 Re: Folger Institute; Silvia Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0395. Wednesday, 17 May 1995. (1) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 16 May 95 11:12:00 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0389 Re: Folger Institute (2) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 14:32:19 +1000 Subj: Re: Silvia (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 16 May 95 11:12:00 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0389 Re: Folger Institute In reply to Skip and Fellow Canadians - I've forwarded your "warning label" to Kathleen Lynch in the Institute! If you would like to confer with her further, you might want to use the Institute's e-mail address: institute@mail.folger.edu. I'm only the Messenger with the SHAKSPER connection!! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 14:32:19 +1000 Subject: Re: Silvia In reply to Sam Gregory and Megan Stermer: I directed a production of 2 Gents in Wellington, New Zealand, a couple of years ago, where we took a very strong line on the play which is, I think, unusual but not unique--I solicited ideas on SHAKSPER; Jean Petersen told me at the time about a production in New York (?) which had taken a similar line, and I had some very useful input too from Randall Nakayama. We took very seriously the rape in the final scene, seeing it not as an aberration in a flawed play, but the logical conclusion of the attitudes towards women's place in society demonstrated by almost all the characters in the play, male and female. It's a society where a woman is incapable of having the words "no" heard. The result was a production which probably sounds rather grim but in fact turned out extremely popular and funny, while at the same time I hope drawing attention to issues which are crucially important to us now. (The young characters were played as spoiled rich kids dressed in high status costumes and accessories from both the Elizabethan and modern periods--ruffs and Reeboks, Raybans and codpieces-- and the production was subtitled "Verona 90210". If anyone's interested, I've just published a short article on the play, drawn from our experience of staging it, in an Australian-based journal _Social Semiotics_ vol 4, nos 1-2, 1994, 31-46.) With regard to the scene that Megan Sterner is interested in, our reading of that section was that Valentine's "and yet..." is a hesitation. He's just said that he will write a thousand more love letters (or perhaps one a thousand times longer than the one he's just written) on Silvia's behalf to her "unknown" lover if she wants him to, as a sign of his devotion to her, "and yet..." he is doing it against his own interests because he is in love with her himself. Silvia understands what he has left unspoken, and is pleased about the fact that he has some hesitation in helping her to a match with someone else--"a pretty period". Then, teasing, she guesses at what he has left unsaid but will not say what she believes it to be, then says she doesn't care, and then delivers the first love letter he has written on her behalf to its rightful recipient. And so on. What we see Silvia doing in this scene is what almost all the other characters, including Valentine (III,2, c line 100) and Julia (I,2, c line 50) say all women do, i.e. 'say "no" to that which they would have the profferer construe "aye"'. In other words in the world of this play, when women say "no" they really mean "yes" and a man only needs to keep harrassing her to get what he wants. So of course when Julia sets out into the wide world in pursuit of Proteus she has to dress as a boy, and of course when Silvia and Proteus meet in the woods everything in his social milieu tells him that rape is an appropriate action. And of course when Valentine stops him he accuses Proteus not of being a rapist but of betraying their friendship!!!! What we tried to do in our production was expose the workings and assumptions of their society (and our own) and show the continuum between casual treatments of women as property and the possibility of rape. So my advice, for what it's worth, to anyone working on the play is not to be too seduced by the romantic attractiveness of the young lovers. I find it much richer theatrically and in other ways to look at them as self-centred, arrogant and sexist. (But still attractive, if you like.) Adrian Kiernander Department of Theatre Studies University of New England AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 08:44:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0396 Re: More *Hamlet*s Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0396. Wednesday, 17 May 1995. (1) From: David Meyer Date: Tuesday, 16 May 1995 19:32:06 +0059 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0391 Re: *Ham.* (2) From: Edward Rocklin Date: Wednesday, 17 May 95 00:36:51 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0391 Re: *Ham.* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Meyer Date: Tuesday, 16 May 1995 19:32:06 +0059 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0391 Re: *Ham.* I saw Michael Higgins play (uncut, 4 hour) Hamlet with the Yellow Springs Shakespeare at the Zoo in Toledo, Ohio, when I was a kid, in the 50's-- a performance that changed my life. I later had the privilege of seeing Higgins as John Proctoer in THE CRUCIBLE, off-B'way. Another definitive performance. G.L. Horton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Rocklin Date: Wednesday, 17 May 95 00:36:51 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0391 Re: *Ham.* I would like to add to David Richman's comment on the Central Park Hamlet with James Earl Jones, Colleen Dewhurst, and Stacy Keach (Hamlet). I saw the production about 20 times (I was working in the box office that summer) and what casting Jones as Claudius made clear is the payoff of a stronger rather than weaker Claudius: the stronger, more imposing Claudius is, the more intelligible some aspects of Hamlet's delay seem to be. If nothing else, Jones was a Claudius who made it obvious why Hamlet would NOT imagine simply murdering him in any easy fashion. (In fact, at the end Jones opened his arms as if to crush Hamlet in a huge embrace). One evening in particular also created what remains for me one of the most vivid illustrations of what live theater can occasionally do that will never happen on the page. The set was a three level set with the second and third levels essentially steel catwalks, the third level so high it was above most of the audience. It was on this level that Jones performed Claudius's solo and fruitless prayer. This itself was a powerful image, a tortured Claudius almost suspended over us. In addition, it was a rainy summer--some performances simply got rained out. One night, however, the rain started but was light enough so that the performance continued. And continued as Jones began this scene. Howerver, when he stretched out his hand-- and his hand seemed to be over us-- and said "What if this hand were thicker than itself with brother's blood? Is there not rain enough in the sweet heavens to wash it white as snow?" the rain simply stopped.... A wonderful moment indeed. Edward Rocklin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 09:13:16 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0397 CFP: *English Literature and Other Languages Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0397. Thursday, 18 May 1995. From: Ton Hoenselaars Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 16:47:58 -0600 Subject: Call for Papers The following *Call for Papers* has been posted to a.o. RENAIS-L, SHAKSPER, REED-L and FICINO. We apologize for any convenience caused by multiple posting. Should you know of anyone interested in the proposal, but who cannot be reached via E-mail, please feel free to pass on this Call for Papers. C A L L F O R P A P E R S English Literature and the Other Languages Eds. Marius Buning and Ton Hoenselaars The aim of this volume is first of all to explore a variety of instances where English literature relies for its means of expression on languages other than English, or dialects that may in context be considered inferior to the English standard. The editors also wish to investigate cases where different languages (one of which English) are simultaneously at play in the production of texts. On one level, the type of linguistic contiguity as defined by the editors may occur as a feature within the text. Examples of text-internal contiguity in our working definition include, for example, macaronic verse, but also the use of dialect in the *Second Shepherd's Play*, Chaucer's *Reeve's Tale*, the novels of Sir Walter Scott, Thomas Hardy (*Mayor of Casterbridge*), Charles Dickens (*David Copperfield*, and Emily Bronte's *Wuthering Heights*, as well as the use of Welsh in the novels of John Cowper Powys, and the colonial dialect in Kipling. Other instances of text-internal bilingualism deserving attention are Shakespeare's Latin, the use of nonsense language in *All's Well That Ends Well*, the coded language of More's *Utopia*, the secret language of *Gulliver's Travels*, Joyce's distribution of foreign tongues, and T.S. Eliot's foreign quotes. Broken English, as in Shakespeare or in Nadine Gordimer's *July's People* deserves to be investigated as well. In a large number of cases, the issue of the other language as juxtaposed to English will involve non-native speakers or characters; reflections on the (frequently stereotyped) foreign character and his idiosyncratic speech in English literature are also invited. Is the foreigner endowed with a type of archaic English to set him off against the Englishman (the past as another country)? Which verbal cliches and stock phrases does the English author have at his disposal to convey the impression of a foreign language being used. On another level, we are thinking of contributions focusing on bi- lingualism in a broader sense, namely as a phenomenon existing between the text and the author. In the past, authors not native to the English language have nevertheless adopted it partly or entirely for their prose. Joseph Conrad is the classical example, but Vladimir Nabokov is a good runner-up. Also Jerzy Kosinski deserves attention, like Isak Dinesen. At which point is an author simply being translated, and at which point may he or she be considered part of the tradition of literatures in English. In order to illustrate the issue of various languages at the author's disposal, we are also thinking of contributions involving the political choices involved in the literature of the Empire that writes back. In the same way that authors who were not native to the English language employed it for their literary statements, so authors who were native speakers of a variety of English wrote in another language. We would welcome contributions on literature and the *lingua franca*, on John Milton's Latin and/or Italian verse, or Samuel Beckett's work in French. Clearly, the author versed in more than a single tongue, and also using both, introduces the issue of self-translation. Ideally, the volume should be a collection of provocative papers presenting a wide range of ventures into a field that has remained largely neglected. In no way should the material be exhausted; rather, the appeal of the volume ought to be its exploratory character. The editors envisage a volume containing 20-25 articles of approximately 4,000-5,000 words in length. The deadline for contributions is 1 April 1996. Should you wish to contribute an article to our volume on *English Literature and the `Other' Languages* ! to be published in the DQR Studies in English Literature series (Rodopi: Amsterdam and Atlanta, Ga.) ! please submit your proposal of 250-300 words by 15 September 1995. Proposals should be sent to: Dr. Marius Buning, Dr. Ton Hoenselaars, Department of English, Department of English, Free University of Amsterdam, Utrecht University, De Boelelaan 1105, Trans 10, 1081 HV Amsterdam, 3512 JK Utrecht, The Netherlands. The Netherlands. E-mail Buning@let.vu.nl E-mail Ton.Hoenselaars@let.ruu.nl! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 09:28:04 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0398 Re: Tillyard Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0398. Thursday, 18 May 1995. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 11:11:37 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Thin ice (2) From: John Drakakis Date: Wednesday, 17 May 95 19:03:00 BST Subj: SHK 6.0394 Re: Tillyard (3) From: Nicholas Ranson Date: Wednesday, 17 May 95 23:24:02 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0394 Re: Tillyard (4) From: R.D.H.Wells Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 20:35:27 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0392 Re: Tillyard (5) From: Sally Greene Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 17:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0392 Re: Tillyard (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 11:11:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Thin ice Bill Godshalk is right to warn us about forcing imaginative works to bear the burden of their time. They may hold a mirror up to nature, but it is a thin and delicate mirror, easily distorted or broken. No kid gloves needed, but a keen awareness of their imaginative structure and what that structure can bear is always in order. Jim Schaefer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Wednesday, 17 May 95 19:03:00 BST Subject: SHK 6.0394 Re: Tillyard Depends on how we read it Bill, Yours, John Drakakis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicholas Ranson Date: Wednesday, 17 May 95 23:24:02 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0394 Re: Tillyard Why does EMW get tagged with all the obloquy from cultural materialists? Did nobody think to tag A.O.Lovejoy's Great Chain of Being, which is the spine of Tillyard's thinking? I ain't been lurking: jus' got back from the walleye capital of the world, Port Clinton. Fact is, Eliz World Pix is a great place to start for any undergraduate: you can teach with it and against it so well. Cheers. N. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: R.D.H.Wells Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 20:35:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0392 Re: Tillyard I'm afraid I missed the original piece of correspondence about Tillyard. But today I see that Robert F. O'Connor writes: 'Robert Appelbaum is correct in identifying Dollimore as a major influence on the 'discreditation' of Tillyard. It would be more true to say that Dollimore has taken major responsibility for the resurrection of Tillyard as bogeyman. What Dollimore omits to mention in his radical demolition of Tillyard is that people have been saying pretty much the same kind of thing for the last forty years. Here is Helen Gardner writing in 1953: 'The "Elizabethan World Picture" tidily presented to us as a system of thought cannot tell us how much of that picture had truth and meaning for an Elizabethan. And even if we could discover a kind of highest common factor of contemporary beliefs and attitudes, it could not tell us what an individual believed, and certainly not what Shakespeare believed.' (The Historical Method, 1953) Gardner goes on to warn that we have to be wary of claims for a 'background' that will somehow 'explain' 'literature' and says that we have constantly to remind ourselves that when we interpret the past, it is in part our own age that we are describing. 'The historical imagination is itself historically conditioned' says Gardner. Hiram Haydn makes similar objections to the notion of monolithic 'World Picture' in _The Counter Renaissance_(1950). In its concern to present itself as a radical and dissident movement, Cultural Materialism has painted a misleading picture of 20th-century criticism. By selective quotation it's easy enough to make it appear that the ghost of Tillyard lives on. But the dominant mode of mid-century Renaissance criticism was not a slavish veneration of Tillyard and his simplified war-time view of Elizabethan England, but a fruitful alliance between new-critical methods of close analysis, and a relatively sophisticated form of historicism that acknowledges that you can never recover the past in any objective form. For these critics Shakespeare's plays do not mirror a unified historical period; instead they offer what WR Elton describes as 'a dialectic of ironies and ambivalences, avoiding in its complex movement and dialogue the simplifications of direct statement and reductive resolution'. Cultural Materialism is oddly silent on this whole critical tradition. Robin Headlam Wells (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sally Greene Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 17:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0392 Re: Tillyard Terence Hawkes' point about the date of *The Elizabethan World Picture* is well taken. Its post-World War II moment is of course the same as that of Olivier's *Henry V.* (In her 1994 *Irony's Edge,* Linda Hutcheon considers Olivier's vs. Branagh's versions.) Hawkes' reference to the last page of the book reminded me of what's on the first page: a reference to Virginia Woolf's *Orlando* (1928). Now, as a Woolf scholar I have for a long time enjoyed my own theory that Tillyard was actually driven by Woolf's outrageously dis-ordered take on the Renaissance! I've found a bit of support for this idea in Richard Lanham's *The Motives of Eloquence.* He posits two extreme views of the world, the entirely serious and the entirely rhetorical. Although a person who is purely one or the other would be hard to find, he says, different people do line up at different points. In this scheme, Woolf and Tillyard are poles apart. Sally Greene UNC-Chapel Hill ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 09:50:36 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0399 Re: Still More *Hamlet*s Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0399. Thursday, 18 May 1995. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 11:34:40 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0388 Re: Fiennes *Hamlet* (2) From: Stacy Keach Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 12:51:53 -0400 Subj: Playing the Dane (3) From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 17:15:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Claudius' Attempt at Prayer (4) From: Kate Wilson Date: Thursday, 18 May 1995 15:26:55 +1000 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0396 Re: More *Hamlet*s (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 11:34:40 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0388 Re: Fiennes *Hamlet* Steve and Ron are both right about Jonathan Kent's *Hamlet*, starring Ralph Fiennes (prn. RAFE FINES): it is indeed a production of "barked language, running for hours on single notes" (Steve) and yet, I think, still "well worth seeing" (Ron). Most of the characters are angry and manic. Even Polonius and Guildenstern find an opportunity get mad, and do (at Hamlet). Hamlet, for his part, stays madly manic even after the graveyard scene. There is a lot of shouting. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and these characters don't mind letting on that they are pretty pissed off about it. One character who doesn't shout much, because he *can't*, is Terence Rigby as the Ghost of King Hamlet: this Ghost's voice is hoarse for having smoked far too many Winstons without filter-tips (or perhaps it was purgatorial smoke that did him in). Rigby's King Hamlet is an over-plump, badly shaven, blear-eyed chap who looks to have strayed into Denmark from the corner pub. The casting here must have been done tongue-in-cheek; but then again, Hamlet's Hyperion-to-a-satyr comparisons between Dad H. and Uncle C. are all in his head, and I found Rigby's frumpy Ghost-King pathetically endearing. If this ghost were to show up on my battlements, I'd gladly buy him a beer any day or night. High grandeur is similarly undercut by Rigby as the cigar-smoking first player, who would look well in a bookie joint, if not in the Danish court. In his third role, as Gravedigger, Rigby looks right at home. I didn't much care for Damien Lewis's Laertes. This Laertes is slightly hot for his sister until he sees her mad, at which point he slides down a wall into a silly heap of jelly and loses his own wits. In the latter scenes, Lewis is a picture of open-mouthed stupidity as he wanders about in his unbuttoned high-school band uniform (and, yes, with his mouth hanging open). But Lewis has at least got a very nice Don-King-like coiffure of flaming red hair which points to Laertes' Hotspur-like pretensions even while turning into a Bozo. Any Ophelia following Helena Bonham-Carter is bound to be disappointing, but for an actress with a hard act to follow, Tara Fitzgerald was pretty stunning, especially in her mad scenes. Also effective, in this production, was the underscoring of the pain inflicted upon Ophelia (and, to a lesser degree, on Gertrude) as a woman whose interiority doesn't count for much in Denmark. After the "Nunnery" scene, Ophelia staggers off in pain while Polonius and Claudius form an excited huddle, wholly oblivious to Ophelia's devastation. Fiennes is a stylish Hamlet, but he's taken some flak for rattling off the soliloquys without attempting to convey them as meaningful utterances. His principal thought in reciting the soliloquys seems to be, "Listen quick, guys, and heads up, 'cuz here comes the plum." Fiennes's Hamlet seems thus to feel a double burden: both Hamlet's imperative to play the revenger in a vulgar play not of his own design, and the actor's task of playing HAMLET: He says the lines as if he HAS to say them (which may be a kind of theoretical cleverness, provided that one doesn't mind getting trashed or schooled by a few reviewers). The next step for a daring director will be to produce *Hamlet* without the soliloquys altogether. Which might not be a bad idea. The production is peppered with (sometimes wacky) special effects. Audible blasts of light, doubly redoubled, herald the advent of a ghost who then comes on, somewhat anticlimactically, like a boozy cab-driver. The poison vial that Lucianus empties into the Player King's ear glows bright green (on an otherwise dimly lit stage); it may in fact be a Star Wars mini-lightsaver that the production crew picked up at Toys-R-Us. Most weirdly, Gertrude (as Steve Urkowitz has noted) ends the play as a rigid white mannikin bathed in light, causing everyone in the audience to ask themselves the same question: "Huh?" But I'm being unkind. A colleague and I took 40 Vassar undergrads to the show. The students' response was unanimously enthusiastic, which points to the production's effectiveness as a piece of stagecraft. I will even confess that I,too, enjoyed every minute of the show. Jonathan Kent's *Hamlet* may be short on ideas, but I wouldn't mind seeing it again, just for the thrill of it. --Don Foster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stacy Keach Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 12:51:53 -0400 Subject: Playing the Dane I recently had the pleasure of participating in a BBC Documentary entitled "Playing the Dane", which I believe aired on PBS sometime earlier this year. In it, many Hamlets of the past, Christopher Plummer, Kevin Kline, Mel Gibson, Jeremy Geidt among them, discussed respective interpretations, problems in playing the role, observations re: both part and the play itself. For those of you who might be interested in seeing it, I have been told that plans are afoot to release it on CD-ROM sometime later this year. I continue to enjoy all of the cyberxchanges on this wonderful forum and I extend very best wishes to all of you. Stacy Keach (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 17 May 1995 17:15:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Claudius' Attempt at Prayer In 1964 I auditioned for Carl Weber of the Cleveland Playhouse and other regional theatre directors at the TCG Ford Foundation auditions at Chicago, and such was the setup that we young actors could watch the two or three audtioners before our turn. Of the three pieces each had to do, I was amazed to find, as I sat in the stalls of the Goodman Theatre, that another actor in his twenties was doing Claudius' "Oh my offence is rank..." speech not only as subtly and quietly as I intended myself, but also inflected upwards and downwards at exactly the same places, gave a vowel greater value on the same words, timed the caesurae to precisely the same length and effect. It was this experience that gave birth to my lifelong interest in how the texture and shape of a mature Shakespearean speech can produce the character itself. When it came to "Oh limed soul, that struggling to be free Art more engaged!" neither of us raised our volume, but expressed our fatal frustrations by keeping our mouths almost closed, with those very closwd sounds of "limed soul" and "struggling" were in both consonantal and vowel opposition to the much desired "free" which is ground down into the hellish ground immediately by the antithetical, rough, teeth-clenched plaint of "engaged". I wish I still remembered that actor's name, we had such a stimulating converstion in a bar afterwards in which we saw into the life of some of the verse. I wish I could thank him now for having improved my acting, not to mention my teaching. I know there are many others on SHAKSPER who have similarly visceral reactions to the feel of the verse that they put into use in performance and research. It was thinking about *Hamlet* today that brought on this new fit of praise for WS's greatest moments. Harry Hill (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kate Wilson Date: Thursday, 18 May 1995 15:26:55 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0396 Re: More *Hamlet*s In either 1969 or 1970 when I was a theatre student in London, I saw the Round House (Chalk Farm) production of HAMLET starring Nicol Williamson, Judy Parfitt (as Gertrude), Marianne Faithfull (Ophelia) and a then-unknown to me, but absolutely riveting Anthony Hopkins as Claudius. The Roundhouse was a huge 19C railway engine turning shed which had been converted into a performance space and arts centre. I remember Williamson's bear-like rumbling Hamlet being absolutely outclassed by the mercurial intellect of Hopkins'performance. Despite the daunting size of the auditorium, Hopkins energy and vocal power easily filled the space. It was a great lesson in presence for we young actors. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 10:27:54 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0400 Re: NEH -- Folger Institute Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0400. Thursday, 18 May 1995. (1) From: Daniel Minchew Date: Wednesday, 17 May 95 13:03 CST Subj: Re: NEH (2) From: Kathleen Lynch Date: Wednesday, 17 May 95 14:43:00 PDT Subj: Performance Institute at the Folger Shakespeare Library (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Minchew Date: Wednesday, 17 May 95 13:03 CST Subject: Re: NEH Skip makes a good point about the NEH fellowships. Non-USA citizens are normally eligible to apply for NEH grants if they have been professionally employed with a USA institution (school, university, etc.) consecutively for the past three years. There are many NEH funded Institutes/Seminars. If a non-USA citizen would want to participate, I have recommended in the past --- with some success --- that the interested person contact the organizer and offer to serve as a "faculty" participant. Most of the Institutes have some flexiblity in adding non-USA citizens as "faculty" when they cannot be offered spaces as particpants. Might be worth a try here? Daniel Minchew Director ACT * American College Testing (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Lynch Date: Wednesday, 17 May 95 14:43:00 PDT Subject: Performance Institute at the Folger Shakespeare Library RE: "Shakespeare Examined Through Performance," to be directed by Audrey Stanley and Alan C. Dessen at the Folger Library in 1995-96 (SHK 6.0387 Folger Institute) Eligibility for NEH grants is restricted to full-time teachers at US institutions of higer learning, including community colleges. Those eligible for an NEH grant will automatically be considered for one. Contact for further information and an application form. Application deadline 1 June 1995. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 10:35:33 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0401 Re: *Oth.* Film; Subjectivity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0401. Thursday, 18 May 1995. (1) From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Wednesday, 17 May 95 13:52 EDT Subj: More *Othello* film news (2) From: Jesus Cora Date: Thursday, 18 May 1995 16:51:06 UTC+0200 Subj: literature and subjectivity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Wednesday, 17 May 95 13:52 EDT Subject: More *Othello* film news Irene Jacob (European actress, starred in Kieslowski's RED) is joining the cast of this film. (Maybe she will be Desdemona instead of Uma?) Director is Oliver Parker, not Kenneth Branagh as previously reported. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Thursday, 18 May 1995 16:51:06 UTC+0200 Subject: literature and subjectivity Sorry I join in this discussion so late. I read Egan's statement on the development of capitalism being the capital development in the Renaissance. Well, I am sorry to dissent. I think the development of capitalism was only secondary to the great event that changed mentalities at the end of the 16th century, namely, the notion that the universe was not as Scholastics wanted it. The works of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and others shattered the old, medieval worldview and this commotion also influenced politics. Let me remind you that the theory of correspondences established a parallelism between the universe and human society. Kings (or Queens, remember Good Old Bess) were equated to Gods as to the top places they occupied in the social hierarchy. When the Scholastic and Old Philosophy hierarchies, degrees, classifications, etc. were challenged the justification for absolutism was also challenged. If one hierarchy, or order, rather, is proven not to be real, then, doubts as to social hierarchies and organization begin to creep in our minds. It is in this context of scientifical revolution and changing worldviews that the development of capitalism must be articulated, but only as a secondary cause for the development of a new subjectivity. Capitalism or proto- capitalism, helped to alter the traditional views of social hierarchies, for it introduced social mobility. Someone -sorry about my bad memory- also mentioned that the word subjectivity is a 19th-century coinage. Ok, but the feeling and the idea existed long before that. Let me remind you, dear SHAKESPEReans that one of the Renaissance commonplaces was 'Know thyself', i.e. know your own subjectivity -that is my interpretation, anyway-. I do not want to disparage marxist views, but there are more things in heaven and earth than your *philosophy* can dream on. And now a question: Is BRAVO available all over Europe? Is it an encripted channel? And now a moan: It is so frustrating living in a country where all those things -videos, recordings, TV channels, etc.- are not widely available! Would anyone swap English-American-Canadian-English-speaking- in-general videos for Spanish ones (VHS system)? Rather enviously, Jesus Cora Universidad de Alcala de Henares fmjca@filmo.alcala.es ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 10:38:27 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0402 Q: Request for Advice Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0402. Thursday, 18 May 1995. From: Alan Young Date: Thursday, 18 May 1995 11:57:37 -0400 (AST) Subject: Request for Advice The newly-created Atlantic Theatre Festival will shortly open its first season in a new theatre that has been constructed in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. The new theatre will have a small gift shop and the manager would like advice concerning what books might best suit such an enterprise. Unfortunately, the shelf space will be limited. This is a request, then, for suggestions. If you could only stock a very few items, what would you choose, bearing in mind that those attending the theatre performances will be a fairly diverse audience? Anyone visiting Nova Scotia this summer may wish to consider a visit to Wolfville. The Festival opens on June 16 with a production of TEMPEST, directed by Michael Langham with Peter Donat as Prospero. Two other plays will also be performed: Feydeau's FLEA IN HER EAR and Chekov's CHERRY ORCHARD. Alan R. Young (Dept. of English, Acadia University) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 07:05:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0403 Re: Tillyard Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0403. Saturday, 20 May 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 18 May 1995 22:57:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0398 Re: Tillyard (2) From: Lonnie Durham Date: Friday, 19 May 95 01:20:11 CST Subj: Tillyard (3) From: Imtiaz Habib Date: Friday, 19 May 1995 20:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0398 Re: Tillyard (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 18 May 1995 22:57:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0398 Re: Tillyard Obviously I'm skeptical about the relationship of imaginative writing (i.e., writing in which a writer is not dedicated to telling the truth -- no matter what definition of "truth" you assume) and the lived life of any historical period. The central problem is that we can only in our imaginations reconstruct that lived life, so that the relationship is between two imaginative constructions, one ours, one theirs. If we consider imaginative writing from our own time, the case is altered. I would not take Thomas Pynchon's Crying of Lot 49 as a guidebook to California; others might. But, if you do meet Oedipa, please give her my email address and ask her to write. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lonnie Durham Date: Friday, 19 May 95 01:20:11 CST Subject: Tillyard I've just got to put a word in here because the discussion is so much about my academic adolescence and my academic fathers. Theodore Spencer (with a "c" or "s"? I can't remember) was Tillyard's great American disciple; C.L. Barber was Spencer's most brilliant student. Barber intimated to me once that Spencer's position on Order and Degree was so densly defended that he (Barber) struggled for years to find a chink into which he might drive an argument for the positive functions of MISRULE; hence the strategy of SHAKESPEARE'S FESTIVE COMEDIES. Northrup Frye, too, was provoked into taking on Tillyard's High Anglican orthodoxy in "The Argument of Comedy," where he came up with a sort of Maurice Sendakian ("Where the Wild Things Are") notion of the psychological and moral benefits of visiting a "green world." Jan Kott got even more orgiastic in his EATING THE GODS. One would think someone would have noticed, even before all that back-and-forth, what a thorough inversion and violation of hierarchy the incarnation was. (constituted? represented? presented?) So I guess I would take a kind of Harold Bloom Anxiety of Influence approach to the whole issue. Tillyard, spurred by whatever historical circumstances, created a brilliant machine for organizing our attention toward the plays in a certain way, and much of what has been done in Sh. scholarship and criticism since has been in response to that invention. Calling his work "dated" is merely another strategy for overcoming the tyranny of a set of ideas whose after-tremors are still felt in the cellars of contemporary Shakespeare commentary. I haven't read it, but from what I've gathered, Leonard Tennenhouse's POWER ON DISPLAY may be a tougher, less elegant and less sentimental re-issue of the arguments of the Great Chain Gang. In any case, I am always a bit annoyed when someone suggests that we are making progress toward a less distorted and less self-interested view of the plays. Rather, I think we are merely left to elaborate the field of allegory delineated by the last interpretive genius. For better or worse, Foucault seems to be the one have set the task for the most recent crop of explainers. I swear, if I see another conference agenda featuring a list of topics on "The Body," I'm going to scream. As always, yours, Lonnie Durham P.S. (a propos of nothing): As Orlando says to his trusty old Adam, "Live a little." (2.6.5) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Imtiaz Habib Date: Friday, 19 May 1995 20:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0398 Re: Tillyard If we're talking about "the demolition" of Tillyard, what about Robert Ornstein's A KINGDOM FOR A STAGE: THE ACHIEVEMENT OF SHAKESPESARE'S HISTORY PLAYS? Imtiaz Habib UNLV, Las Vegas. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 07:10:44 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0404 Re: *Hamlet*: Fiennes and More Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0404. Saturday, 20 May 1995. (1) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 19 May 95 00:20:50 EST Subj: [Fiennes *Hamlet*] (2) From: Stephen C. Schultz Date: Friday, 19 May 95 12:51:36 EDT Subj: SHK 6.0399 Re: Still More *Hamlet*s (3) From: Moray McConnachie Date: Friday, 19 May 1995 10:30:16 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0399 Re: Still More *Hamlet*s (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 19 May 95 00:20:50 EST Subject: [Fiennes *Hamlet*] Herewith a somewhat belated reaction to Steven Urkowitz's blast at the Almeida _Hamlet_--all the more surprising to me since our response to the Gielgud-Burton was so similar. The production is, indeed, a bleak one, and all the features of it that Prof. Urkowitz takes exception to seem to me clearly intended to contribute to that effect. Ralph Fiennes' anguished Hamlet is less mono-tone- ous than U. implies; initially, the arrival of friends--Horatio, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern--lifts him out of his gloom, and the players light and sustain a release from his brooding that continues for quite a while (lots of actors are happiest when they are practicing their craft). But the friends' actions, of course, willingly or unwillingly, add to his pain; Horatio takes him to meet the Ghost, R & G (_echt_ corporate climbers) are soon revealed as Claudius's creatures, and the players, by re-enacting the murder and confirming his suspicions, thrust him deeper than ever into his dilemmas. He is never dull, however; what he gives us is a passionate struggle to retain balance on a teeter-totter world, a struggle that is expressed physically but especially verbally--no Hamlet of my experience since Burton has caught so much of the sheer verbal energy of the writing, the exhilarating shifts in register, the surges of metaphor, the heady play with allusion and risky syntax. Indeed, I think all the favorable criticisms of the production have commented on its general drive and speed--established, to be sure, by fairly heavy cutting at beginning and end. The strange light on Gertrude in the final scene (not just the gels, I judge, but pale makeup, too) is only the culmination of a pattern; from the beginning the two women are frequently isolated in bright light (much more often than the men), warm at the beginning but ever cooler and cooler (as are their costumes), as though the conflicts between the men are sucking the life and color from them. The most intriguing of the devices U. complains of treats the Ghost as a satyr to Hyperion--a coarse-faced, heavy-bodied thug, for all his splendid armor--a Guido da Montefeltro, whose cultivated present depends on a violently amoral past? There's a familiar kind of father (husband, boss) whose alternating abuse and embrace of his sons (wives, daughters, employees) leaves them respectful, even possessively affectionate, but also full of suppressed rage. Having to avenge such a father might well generate conflicted feelings. Another interesting feature is the visual treatment of Claudius-- rufous vest, short grey curly hair combed up and out from a pointed beard: very foxy. Finally, commendation for the company's willingness to trust young actors; Damian Lewis as Laertes, Tara FitzGerald as Ophelia, James Wallace as Rosencrantz, Nicholas Rowe as Guildenstern, and Rupert Penry-Jones as Fortinbras, are all persuasively in their early twenties. By play's end, only one of them survives, and he's altogether too beautiful to be true. Almost as much as _Romeo and Juliet_, the crimes and follies of the old folks destroy their kids--something to think about as the millenium approaches. Pensively, Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen C. Schultz Date: Friday, 19 May 95 12:51:36 EDT Subject: SHK 6.0399 Re: Still More *Hamlet*s Don Foster says that a daring director might produce *Hamlet* without the soliloquies altogether. If I'm not mistaken, William Poel did so about eighty years ago to demonstrate that the play is not simply a "star turn." (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Friday, 19 May 1995 10:30:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0399 Re: Still More *Hamlet*s I have so far resisted the temptation to get involved in the row about the production of Hamlet starring Fiennes. I saw it in preview, and I thought most of it pretty dreadful (with the honourable exceptions of Fiennes and Rigby). Textual and interpretative niggles aside (and there were many), and leaving alone the pacing problems, let me single out Tara Fitzgerald, since she has so recently been singled out for praise. To shout and scream and be manic is not the same as the achievement of hysteria. Hysteria has its moods and its different paces, its quiet and its rage, both in practice and the way Shakespeare wrote it. Fitzgerald played an accelerated Victorian Ophelia, going simply for noise and shock value, yet retaining exactly that characterlessness. I admit, I have rarely seen a decent Ophelia, and I note also that the production may have changed considerably since I saw it. With these reservations, and with the reservation also that Fiennes is actually quite good, I may say that this is the worst of five or six productions that I've seen in the last ten years. Moray McConnachie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 07:15:44 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0405 Qs: Marxism; *Cor.* Recording Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0405. Saturday, 20 May 1995. (1) From: Lynn A. Parks Date: Thursday, 18 May 1995 13:21:16 CST Subj: Re: Marxism query (2) From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Friday, 19 May 1995 10:12:22 +0700 Subj: Coriolanus recording (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lynn A. Parks Date: Thursday, 18 May 1995 13:21:16 CST Subject: Re: Marxism query Help! My literary criticism background is pretty scanty, and my knowledge of Shakespeare scholarship is pretty general (and fading quickly), so when people use the term "Marxism," I suspect I have a distorted view of what that means. How does Marxism fit into the broader category of sociological criticism? What are the authoritative statements about what Marxist criticism means? Are there "classic" Marxist treatments of Shakespeare? Please reply directly to me if responses seem too peripheral to be posted to the listserv, and thanks in advance for any direction/clarification you can give. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Friday, 19 May 1995 10:12:22 +0700 Subject: Coriolanus recording Dear everybody, Amongst all of the discussions about various Hamlets of late, someone mentioned a recording of Burton perfroming a 'young' Coriolanus. An intriguing idea. Can anyone with the details of this recording (when & where & sources, cat. no's, whatever) e-mail me direct? I'm trying to get somewhere with this awkward play and my only preformance sources thus far are the BBC version and a bloody terrible production in Sydney two years ago. Ta Robert F. O'Connor ocoreng@durras.anu.edu.au English Department Australian National University ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 07:18:38 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0406 Re: Advice Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0406. Saturday, 20 May 1995. From: Fran Teague Date: Thursday, 18 May 95 13:58:40 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0402 Q: Request for Advice Regarding the stock of a theater bookstore: I always enjoy (and buy) murder mysteries that have a Shakespearean link. They're often quite dreadful, but the good ones are fun and great for reading during intermission. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 10:09:05 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0407 Marxism; Advice; *Cor.* Recording; R-H *Ham*; Tillyard Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0407. Monday, 22 May 1995. (1) From: Christine Gray Date: Saturday, 20 May 1995 23:39:56 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0405 Qs: Marxism; *... (2) From: Kate Wilson Date: Sunday, 21 May 1995 22:10:07 +1000 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0406 Re: Advice (3) From: David M Richman Date: Sunday, 21 May 1995 13:53:02 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0405 Qs: *Cor.* Recording (4) From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Monday, 22 May 1995 09:10:15 -0400 Subj: Round-House Hamlet (5) From: Chris Fassler Date: Monday, 22 May 1995 09:29:26 -0400 Subj: Re: Tillyard (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Gray Date: Saturday, 20 May 1995 23:39:56 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0405 Qs: Marxism; *... <> I hope a repsonse to her queries is posted on the list. I too, perhaps with others, would like charification of/answers to these topics/questions. Thanks you, christine gray (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kate Wilson Date: Sunday, 21 May 1995 22:10:07 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0406 Re: Advice . . . and one of the best Shakesperian whodunnits has to be Josephine Tey's THE DAUGHTER OF TIME. Did Richard III really do it? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Sunday, 21 May 1995 13:53:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0405 Qs: *Cor.* Recording During the 'fifties and early 'sixties, Caedmon Records produced all of Shakespeare's on long playing records with big-name British actors. Coriolanus, besides Burton, featured Jessica Tandy (does she count as Canadian?) as Volumnia, Michael Hordern as Menenius, Robert Stephens as one of the tribunes, and Kenneth Haigh as Aufidius. The last time I did business with Caedmon, their address was 505 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY USA. They may well have moved, or merged. Most, though not all, of their stuff has been redone on tape or CD. That's all the information I have. Don't know the catalogue number. David Richman (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Monday, 22 May 1995 09:10:15 -0400 Subject: Round-House Hamlet Kate Wilson rightly praises Tony Richardson's "Round-House" production of HAMLET. Fortunately it was committed to film, which is how I came to see it in Michigan. When I prepared to play Claudius here in NY at the Bouwerie Lane Theater (in a production that ended up running two and a half years in rep!) it was only Hopkins' performance that I recalled anything worth stealing from. That was my first exposure, too, to Hopkins' talent. The film was shot in the Round-House, but was very skillfully done. It does not feel like an archived stage video. Besides the cast Kate mentioned, it includes Michael Pennington as Laertes. The film is still available and can be ordered from The Writing Company. Call them at (800) 421-4246 for details. It'll only set you back $19.95. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Fassler Date: Monday, 22 May 1995 09:29:26 -0400 Subject: Re: Tillyard SHAKSPERians, Here's to Robert Appelbaum's cogent and brief articulation of the Tillyard issues: "the problem isn't that Tillyard is 'dated'; in fact, a number of British historians (Kevin Sharpe and J.P. Kenyon, for example) still cling to the Tillyard view. The problem has to do with how literary evidence is used for deciding cultural-historical questions, and how our concepts of culture and history and especially cultural history are to be fashioned. In brief, the Tillyard approach encourages to look for consensus. What many of us are doing nowadays (I think) is looking for conflict." While I also agree that drama is *among* the best evidence of "the political experience of the Jacobean period," I think that its pre-eminence comes, in part, from its complex *relation to* censorship, not from its *freedom from* censorship, as R. A. suggests. BTW: Thanks to all of you who helped make this year's Ohio Shakespeare Conference interesting and fun. --Chris Fassler ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 09:03:05 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0408 Re: *Cor.* Recording Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0408. Tuesday, 23 May 1995. (1) From: John Owen Date: Monday, 22 May 1995 09:27:43 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0405 Qs: *Cor.* Recording (2) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 22 May 95 11:36:00 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0405 Qs: *Cor.* Recording (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Monday, 22 May 1995 09:27:43 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0405 Qs: *Cor.* Recording Regarding the recording of Coriolanus, the entire Caedmon stock was purchased by HarperCollins Inc. a number of years ago, and while I don't have the number for Harper Audio (their spoken word label) handy, the customer service line is 800-328-3443. Caedmon's attempt to record ideal versions of Shakespeare has never really been equalled. All but Timon of Athens and the Henry VI trilogy were recorded, usually with great critical success. Scofield's Hamlet was recorded in 1963, Gielgud's Richard III and Leontes somewhat earlier. Coriolanus seems to be the one Shakespearean role in which Burton made an unqualified success, and Caedmon got the whole thing, very much worth hearing. Harper has remastered most of the series and repackaged them in inexpensive cassette versions running well under $20. John Owen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 22 May 95 11:36:00 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0405 Qs: *Cor.* Recording This is a reply to Robert O'Connor. Richard Burton recorded Coriolanus for the Shakespeare Recording Society of New York in 1962, along with Jessica Tandy as Volumnia and Michael Hordern as Menenius. The recording was made by Caedmon Records and is a 3-record set, 33 1/3 lps. The number is SRS-226. I know that Caedmon has made many of these recordings available on tape. They are distributed by Harper-Collins,10 E. 53rd St., NY, NY 10022: phone: 212-207-7000; ask for their Audio division. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 09:09:12 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0409 Re: Tillyard; Advice Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0409. Tuesday, 23 May 1995. (1) From: Luc Borot Date: Monday, 22 May 95 17:03:05 +0200 Subj: Tillyard (2) From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 22 May 1995 22:21:28 -0400 Subj: Re: Request for advice (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Luc Borot Date: Monday, 22 May 95 17:03:05 +0200 Subject: Tillyard Most major objections to many of Tillyard's generalisations can be found in Elizabethan intellectual productions themselves. Have a glance at the piece on machiavellianism in his *History Plays*, in which he states that it is impossible for an Elizabethan to just 'think' in those terms. This is denied by the amount of machiavel-characters in Eliz. political (and other drama), but also by the existence of political writings taking reason of state (before Botero) into account. Ms translations of Machiavelli, Italian editions, etc circulated and were read. The Elizabethans of Tillyard's books were naive people who did not know what power was all about. The queen knew that she was Richard II, in the days of the Essex rebellion, didn't she? The chief ministers of the age were as capable of manipulation, deceit and double-entendre as later statesmen. When a member of Parliament was in session, could he be duped by the show of deference? In my very humble opinion, Tillyard took the rhetoric for a real, practical attitude. Very early on, Lily B. Campbell and BL Joseph did present a much less idealised picture of Elizabethan attitudes towards the world of politics. As regards other dimensions of Tillyard's books, I would not be so positive, lacking direct competence, but I'm positive he missed a lot of irony and deceit in his interpretation of Eliz. political ideas. Yours, Luc Borot (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 22 May 1995 22:21:28 -0400 Subject: Re: Request for advice I would think the Shakespearean insult books would be fun sellers. Also, bookmarks are easy: I know I treasure my two leather ones from RSC. Dale Lyles ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 09:11:21 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0410 Q: London and Stratford Seasons Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0410. Tuesday, 23 May 1995. From: Kathryn Murphy Anderson Date: Monday, 22 May 1995 13:33:17 -0400 Subject: London and Stratford Seasons What productions are particularly worth seeing in London and Stratford this summer? I'd be interested especially in productions of 16th and 17th c. material, but will be happy to have other suggestions as well. Thanks. Kathryn Murphy Anderson. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:13:22 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0411 Re: London and Stratford Seasons Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0411. Wednesday, 24 May 1995. (1) From: Luc Borot Date: Tuesday, 23 May 1995 19:56:01 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0410 Q: London and Stratford Seasons (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 24 May 1995 00:31:41 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0410 Q: London and Stratford Seasons (3) From: Bob Gingher Date: Wednesday, 24 May 1995 04:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0410 Q: London and Stratford Seasons (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Luc Borot Date: Tuesday, 23 May 1995 19:56:01 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0410 Q: London and Stratford Seasons Kathryn Murphy Anderson asks: >What productions are particularly worth seeing in London and Stratford this >summer? I'd be interested especially in productions of 16th and 17th c. >material, but will be happy to have other suggestions as well. I saw 4 plays at the RST and Swan last month. Taming and R&J at the RST are very poor to unbearably appalling, according to mood, indulgence or taste. The Taming is in very bad taste, both costume, acting styles, set, are over the top, and don't solve most painful issues, but we've debated this matter recently on SHAKSPER, haven't we... The last 2 or 3 minutes are interesting, but add to the puzzle of the end in a very inconclusive way. The R&J cast are mostly miscast, especially the 2 leading parts... Mercutio (Mark Lockyer) and the Friar (Julian Glover) are good to very good. I was told the rehearsals started (6 weeks before the start, as usual at the RST) without Romeo or Juliet (I forget which) cast. I usually like Adrian Noble's productions, but this one is very disappointing. At the Swan, on the other hand, I saw Jonson's *The Devil is an Ass*, which has never been played since its creation in 1616; it's an excellent play and an excellent production, very inventive, with great comic power. I also saw Vanbrugh's *The Relapse*, which I found very good, well acted, with a few imperfections in movement, but as this was the beginning of the season, it's bound to improve. Of course, all this is terribly partial, but there seemed to be a kind of consensus on the two Shakespeares. Yours, Luc Borot (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 24 May 1995 00:31:41 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0410 Q: London and Stratford Seasons At Stratford: _Devil is an Ass_ with David Troughton and John Nettles is very good indeed. This years _Romeo and Juliet_ and _The Taming of the Shrew_ are, in my opinion, not worth crossing the street for. Of last year's RSC stuff still playing in London (what a regionalist view I take!) I recall nothing special either. I am prepared to type in a precis of newspaper reviews if anyone is interested; and even expand on my dislike of the above productions! Gabriel Egan Shakespeare Institute of the U. of Birmingham UK (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Gingher Date: Wednesday, 24 May 1995 04:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0410 Q: London and Stratford Seasons I will be in London for one week beginning June 19 and would be grateful for any advice or commentary regarding current productions. Sincerely, Bob Gingher ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:17:51 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0412 Re; *Cor.* Recording; Marxism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0412. Wednesday, 24 May 1995. (1) From: John Owen Date: Tuesday, 23 May 1995 10:01:08 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0408 Re: *Cor.* Recording (2) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Tuesday, 23 May 1995 13:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Marxist Advice (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Tuesday, 23 May 1995 10:01:08 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0408 Re: *Cor.* Recording Correction - In my last post, I made an unfortunate typo. Gielgud fans will know that it was Richard II, not Richard III that became one of Sir John's signature roles and was recorded by Caedmon in 1960. Caedmon went officially out of business a few years back, a loss to poetry and drama lovers everywhere. HarperAudio has not been eager to revive the entire Caedmon stock, and many recordings are simply no longer available. However, the Shakespeare corpus, due to its popularity, is fairly easy to obtain at the number I have already posted. Again, my regrets for the error. John Owen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Tuesday, 23 May 1995 13:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Marxist Advice Dear Christine Gray and Lynne Parks, If you think the Tillyard question got a little hot, wait'll people start responding to the Marxist question. Personally I can't wait. A quick read to prepare yourself for it might be Terry Eagleton's *Literary Theory*. Pierre Machery's *Theory of Literary Production* might also be helpful. And don't forget the complete works of Bertolt Brecht. Good luck. -- Robert Appelbaum ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:20:33 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0413 Q: *Twelfth Night* Bibliography Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0413. Wednesday, 24 May 1995. From: Luc Borot Date: Tuesday, 23 May 1995 19:23:57 +0100 Subject: Twelfth Night bibliography A call to all SHAKSPEReans! The national educational authorities of France have decided that the Shakespeare play of the year on the syllabus of the national competitive exams for teachers of English will be Twelfth Night. An associated member of the Montpellier CERRA is compiling the bibliography for the members of English depts all over the country that will be in charge of teaching this course. We have the PMLA CD-ROM, the biblio of ShakespeareQ, other bibliographic tools, but one always leaves lots of things aside, for ignorance or short-sightedness. Hence my call: if anyone has published papers on TN in the past 2 years, or papers that have been overlooked or ommitted by the latest ShakespeareQ biblios, or if you have published books in which chapters are dedicated to TN, please email the CERRA director, Prof. Jean-Marie Maguin, jmm@alor.univ-montp3.fr. He will forward the information to our colleague. If our friend agrees, we shall send the bibliography to SHAKSPER, and make it available on our www pages: serinf2.univ-montp3.fr. Thanks for our colleagues and students, Luc ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:24:50 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0414 Call for Abstracts: Shakespeare and Popular Culture Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0414. Wednesday, 24 May 1995. From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 23 May 1995 16:45:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Call for Abstracts Although there has been much academic attention directed to popular culture outside the academy in recent years, one need not take an Althusserian approach to understand institutions of higher learning, especially on an undergraduate level, as itself a form of popular culture. In the field of Shakespearean studies there has been much attention given to various "pop culture" appropriati appropriations of Shakespeare's plays (and to a lesser extent the sonnets) in advertisements, songs, cinema as well as TV shows such as GILLIGAN'S ISLAND and MOONLIGHTING. Even relatively "straight" performances of Shakespeare, however, circulate in a way that bears more of a resemblance to pop-culture than most other academic culture. Thus, the role of the academic "disseminator" viz-a-viz Shakespeare becomes a more highly visible site for cultural contestation than other academic fields. From the records we have, Shakespeare's plays were originally scorned by his "high-culture contemporaries such as Sir Philip Sydney and Lady Elizabeth Cary. Despite the "high culture" appropriation of Shakespeare, however, 400 years later these plays still manage to appeal to the equivalent of the "groundlings" (in both political and "apolitical" ways). In 1926, Riding and Graves argued that, despit despite the difficulty and obscurity of "modernist" poetry, that it is no more difficult than Shakespeare's sonnets. They argue that these sonnets are more popular because they are willfully misread. If this is true of the sonnets, it's even truer of his most popular plays. We can see this in the debate between dramaturges,directors and performance critics on one hand and "close readers" (whether New Critical, Post-structural or Marxist) on the other. It has been much commented on that part of Shakespeare's brilliance was due to his writing for two different audiences and that by giving the "establishment" enough of what it wanted on a surface level Shakespeare was able to encode a more subversive reading(s) into his plays. Whether or not Shakespeare intended this, or whether or not people only read their own positions into the plays, has not been resolved. Within the academy we see both "populist" and "elitist" positions (In fact, one generation's "populist" position often becomes the next generation's "elitist" one). One of the main reasons Shakespeare studies is so compelling is that there is such a proliferation of positions being taken due to, if nothing else, the legitimizing position Shakespeare occupies BOTH in academia and in theatre cultures. I am putting together a panel that interprets the notion of the Academic Shakespeare Industry as "popular culture" in the broadest sense, as a site in which "popular culture" intersects with "elite culture," with "revisionary" and/or "subversive" readings of Shakespeare (be they from a historical, anthropological, feminist, Marxist, post-structuralist, pedagogical, reader- response,perfromance-oriented perspectives) and their intersections with other aspects of culture or counterculture. Papers that problematize the 'relativity' of the term 'popular culture' will be especially welcome. For instance, if Shakespeare is served up as 'elite culture' viz-a-viz SCHINDLER'S LIST, this is not the case if we set Shakespeare in relation to such contemporaty contemporary experimental writers as John Ashbery and Carla Harryman, who share much with the more 'elite' Shakespeare). Although i am more interested in the META aspects to this debate, and especially welcome essays that, following Carol Thomas Neeley's landmork reading of OTHELLO and Christy Desmet's recent READING SHAKESPEARE'S CHARACTERS (1992), show how the debates that exist within academic discourse often mimic and extend the debates within the plays themselves, I would certainly welcome more "traditional" "transparent" and non-academic readings that do not problematize the role of the reader/critic/theatregoer/scholar as centrally. The panel will be part of the MID-ATLANTIC POPULAR CULTURE ASSOCIATION/ AMERICAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION (PCA/ACA) annual conference to be held in Syracuse, NY November 3-5 (Friday-Saturday). For more information you may contact me directly by email LS0796@ALBNYVMS.BITNET" or phone 518-432-4643 or by "snail mail" at 356B State St., Albany, NY. 12210. Abstracts or outlines for papers should be received no later than June 15th. Sincerely, Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 09:36:43 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0415 Re: Sidney (Popular Culture); Marxism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0415. Thursday, 25 May 1995. (1) From: Renee Pigeon Date: Wednesday, 24 May 1995 08:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0414 Shakespeare and Popular Culture (2) From: C.C. Warley Date: Wednesday, 24 May 95 13:28:15 EDT Subj: Marxist Advice (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Renee Pigeon Date: Wednesday, 24 May 1995 08:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0414 Shakespeare and Popular Culture As I'm sure many readers of the list will be quick to point out, there's a problem with Chris Stroffolino's assertion in today's call for abstracts on Shakespeare and Popular Culture that "From the records we have, Shakespeare's plays were orginally scorned by his 'high culture' contemporaries such as Sir Philip Sydney . . . " Sidney died in 1586, and thus had no opportunity to scorn (or praise) Shakespeare's work. Renee Pigeon (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C.C. Warley Date: Wednesday, 24 May 95 13:28:15 EDT Subject: Marxist Advice Dear Christine Gray and Lynne Parks, Robert Appelbaum is absolutely right - your question is a scorcher. In addition to his recommendations, I'd suggest that as further fire-proofing you read Marx and Shakespeare and decide for yourself. The section on "Estranged" or "Alienated" (depending upon your translation) Labor in the 1844 Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Part 1 of The German Ideology, and the section in Capital Volume 1 on the Fetishism of Commodities might be good places to start. If you really want to read a contemporary "Marxist" (whatever that means) critic of Shakespeare, try Robert Weimann. Dialectically yours, Christopher Warley Rutgers University ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 10:24:19 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0416 New on the SHAKSPER FileServer: ITALIAN DREAM Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0416. Thursday, 25 May 1995. From: Hardy M. Cook or . ******************************************************************************* EXCERPT: Shakespeare's Italian Dream Cinquecento sources for A Midsummer Night's Dream(1) by Robert W. Leslie In the light of Shakespeare's extensive use of Italian settings and nomenclature, and his adaptations of plot-lines ultimately stemming from Boccaccio (Cymbeline), Giraldi Cinthio (Othello and Measure for Measure) and the novelle (Romeo and Juliet), it is surprising that the Italianate character of A Midsummer Night's Dream has not been generally noted. Most `commentators(2) see the play as drawing from a pool of classical, traditional and romance sources which include Plutarch, Chaucer, the romance Huon of Bordeaux, Ovid, and Apuleius while Judith M. Kennedy is convinced that Book I of Jorge de Montemayor's Diana (c.1559, Yong's English translation 1598) furnished Shakespeare with the principal action of the play.(3) This last has a certain credibility since it is indisputable that Shakespeare used Montemayor's Felismena/Felix story in Two Gentlemen of Verona and Book I certainly contains a similar pattern of changing love relationships and rustic setting. However, the strongly Italianate character of Montemayor's Diana and the generic rather than precise nature of the similarities noted by Judith Kennedy do suggest that more exact parallels may be found in the literature of Italy. Hugh M. Richmond(4) appears exceptional in identifying a possible Italian source in Giraldi Cinthio's Hecatommithi II.8 (see Appendix 1 for summary). It would be apposite here to examine the description given in the novella's head-word: Possidonio, & Peronello amano Ginevra, ella ama Possidonio, & h=E0 in odio Peronello, il quale =E8 amato da una altra Giovane detta Lisca, Egli non ama lei, Lisca =E8 promessa dal Padre a Possidonio, & Ginevra similmente =E8 promessa a Peronello; & nel volere celebrare le nozze , per nuovo accidente Ginevra divien di Possidonio, & Lisca di Peronello. (Possidonio and Peronello love Ginevra. She loves Possidonio and detests Peronello who is himself loved by another young woman named Lisca. He does not love her. Lisca is betrothed to Possidonio by her father. Ginevra is similarly promised to Peronello but, on their way to celebrate the nuptials, through an unforeseen event, Ginevra becomes the bride of Possidonio and Lisca that of Peronello.)(5) The shifting relationships of the Lovers and the conflict with paternal wishes (which is not present in Montemayor), taking into account Shakespeare's other instances of mining Giraldi for plots, demand our consideration while Richmond sees other parallels in Possidonio's denunciation of the obstacles to true love (cf. Lysander's similar listing in I.i), the removal to a rustic setting (in this case to complete the betrothals by marriage), an imbroglio involving danger and confusion which serves to re-align the love relationships and is ascribed to supernatural influence, and the challenging and overruling of parental opposition by a wiser authority. In addition to these structural details, Richmond also notes a common underlying theme of the superseding of archaic, patriarchal attitudes to marriage which is emphasised by the use of both supernatural and magisterial intervention to deny parental severity. A full reading of the text, nevertheless, somewhat weakens Richmond's arguments. The bare description given by the head-word is, in fact, the only part which immediately suggests that here we may have the central matter of A Midsummer Night's Dream - although Shakespeare's unquestionable use of Giraldian sources favours the view that he was at least aware of the Ginevra story. The close resemblance which we find between Giraldi's original stories and the plots of Othello and Measure for Measure is simply not present here, as I shall demonstrate. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 10:37:07 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0417 New on the SHAKSPER FileServer: DATABASE FUNCTION Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0417. Thursday, 25 May 1995. From: Hardy M. Cook or . One warning, however, the University of Toronto ran out of disk space for the complete six years of SHAKSPER discussions. Currently, only the 1994 and 1995 digests are available. Do not dispair. Bowie State has received the LISTSERV software and the hardware to run it should arrive in a few days. Sometime in June SHAKSPER will be moving to Bowie State and not only will all the archives again be available for searching but they will also be available on our gopher server. Finally, I plan, in addition, to set up a SHAKSPER Homepage on the WWW. Stay tuned for further details. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 09:24:24 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0418 Re: London and Stratford Seasons Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0418. Friday, 26 May 1995. (1) From: Bob Gingher Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 02:30:37 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0411 Re: London and Stratford Seasons (2) From: Penny Gay Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 16:55:30 +1000 Subj: Productions London & Stratf (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Gingher Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 02:30:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0411 Re: London and Stratford Seasons Any news/views on any of the following now running in repertory? The Royal National Theatre--Lyttleton: Out of a House, What the Butler Saw, Absolute Hell. The Olivier: Merry Wives, Women of Troy, Under Milk Wood. Barbican Centre: Twelfth Night (I'm not hearing raves here...), After Easter, A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Wive's Excuse, Measure for Measure, The Broken Heart, Coriolanus, The Shakespeare Revue. Open Ar Theatre in Regent's Park: Richard the III, The Music Man, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Kids of Sherdoow. Any news on the following musicals (we're planning to see late June): Crazy for You, Starlight Express. Or the following comedies and dramas: In Praise of Love, Indian Ink, The Duchess of Malfi, The Woman in Black... (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Penny Gay Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 16:55:30 +1000 Subject: Productions London & Stratf REGARDING Productions London & Stratford A dissentient voice, I'd like to recommend the *Shrew* at Stratford as exciting and challenging, with a powerful and affecting Katharine from Josie Lawrence (Michael Billington said 'a future Lady Macbeth or Cleopatra' and I entirely agree), especially in her treatment of the last speech. I also think Gale Edwards' (director's - first woman ever to direct *Shrew* at Stratford) editorial decisions about the end of the play are fascinating. You have to be prepared to accept a post-modernist (stylistically eclectic) and intelligently feminist approach to the play: Edwards splits it virtually into 2 plays happening at once: the superficial comedians can't see the serious story happening in their midst. And all cleverly contained within the Sly framework. London Shakespeare, by contrast, I found bland, touristy, nice to look at but unexciting (RSC *Dream* and *Twelfth Night*). The National's (Terry Hands) *Merry Wives* is more interesting, with a manic Ford from Richard McCabe. But still basically 'heritage Shakespeare'. Greetings from an Australian who's about to hit the N.American Shakespeare festivals - any recommendations? Penny Gay penny.gay@english.su.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 09:26:04 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0419 Re: Marxism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0419. Friday, 26 May 1995. From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Thursday, 25 May 1995 10:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Marxist Advice ... also there's a wonderful essay by Walter Cohen heading off a great collection of essays called *Political Shakespeare* ... I wonder, by the way, what anyone has thought of that magnificently idiocyncratic book by Eageleton called *William Shakespeare*. Hot air, or a cyclotron of insights? --Robert Appelbaum ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 09:27:53 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0420 Q: *Cardenio* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0420. Friday, 26 May 1995. From: John Reed Date: Thursday, 25 May 95 19:16:06 EST Subject: Cardenio play I recently heard a colleague mention that a play was discovered who's protagonist is Cardenio, a character in Don Quijote. He seemed to feel that the play was possibly written in collaboration with another author. Can anyone help me out? Thanks in advance. You can email directly to reedjw@sage.cc.purdue.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 09:31:46 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0421 RE: London and Stratford Seasons Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0421. Saturday, 27 May 1995. (1) From: Thomas H Blackburn Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 09:50:40 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0418 Re: London and Stratford Seasons (2) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 14:45:37 -0500 (CDT) Subj: London theatre (3) From: Jerry Bangham Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 23:32:10 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0418 Re: London and Stratford Seasons (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas H Blackburn Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 09:50:40 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0418 Re: London and Stratford Seasons I saw the current RSC "Dream" in Stratford last summer and both enjoyed the production and learned from the interpretation. Debts to Peter Brook are pretty clear in setting and some of the business, but the atmosphere created focusses, as I saw it, on the semi-conscious magic of the transformations that occur in the wood. I summed this up at the time by suggesting that the play contained equal elements of dance and trance, almost a psychedelic minuet, as it were. Bottom, on the other hand, was as firmly grounded in the mundane and sensual as he must be. In short, I recommend attendance to anyone who can get a ticket. Enjoy, Tom Blackburn (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 14:45:37 -0500 (CDT) Subject: London theatre Bob Gingher asks about UNDER MILD WOOD (etc.). I am thoroughly conflicted about it. The production contains some of the most amazing visual effects I've ever seen...mostly very complicated forms of flying. The show is well acted in most roles. The visual effects did seem supportive of the content of the script. Yet.......I came away with two feelings: I loved the evening of theatre and I wanted to go home and produce the play in a small room with absolutely NO scenic support. In retrospect, it seems clear that much of the astonishing word-power of the script was lost in the large scale and technical brilliance of the production. But don't miss it. It will carve a few vivid images deeply into your mind. Roger Gross Univ. of Arkansas (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 23:32:10 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0418 Re: London and Stratford Seasons >Any news/views on any of the following now running in repertory? The Royal >National Theatre--Lyttleton: Out of a House, Strange and kind of interesting. An impressive troupe, but not the best show to fully demonstrate their abilities. >What the Butler Saw, Absolute >Hell. The Olivier: Merry Wives, Women of Troy, Under Milk Wood. Barbican >Centre: Twelfth Night (I'm not hearing raves here...), After Easter, A >Midsummer Night's Dream, The Wive's Excuse, Measure for Measure, The Broken >Heart, Coriolanus, The Shakespeare Revue. Great fun, if you don't take the Bard too seriously. >Open Ar Theatre in Regent's Park: >Richard the III, The Music Man, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Kids of Sherdoow. >Any news on the following musicals (we're planning to see late June): Crazy for >You, Starlight Express. Or the following comedies and dramas: In Praise of >Love, Indian Ink, The Duchess of Malfi, The Woman in Black... I'd add Arcadia, if it is still on. Also, if it is still on, I'd rate She Loves Me way over the musicals you mention. Starlight is fun if you want to be blown away by tech. It was worth the 5 pounds I paid for standing room, but I'd of hated to have paid much more. Be sure to see what is on at the Tricycle, the Almedia, Hampsted, etc. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 09:45:19 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0422 Re: *Cardenio* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0422. Saturday, 27 May 1995. (1) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 10:39:40 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0420 Q: *Cardenio* (2) From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 18:57:54 UTC+0200 Subj: SHK 6.0420 Q: *Cardenio* (3) From: Gail Lerner Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 18:18:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0420 Q: *Cardenio* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 10:39:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0420 Q: *Cardenio* Re: Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0420. Friday, 26 May 1995. Your colleague was probably referring to Charles Hamilton's edition Cardenio or The Second Maiden's Tragedy (Lakewood, Co: Glenbridge Publishing, 1994). Hamilton attributes the play to Shakespeare and Fletcher. The attribution has not been generally accepted. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 18:57:54 UTC+0200 Subject: SHK 6.0420 Q: *Cardenio* Yes, allegedlly, the play was written by Shakey and John Fletcher. Two years ago, I read a small press news somewhere telling that it was published by a small press in Colorado. There is a Spanish translation also published by a Spanish small press. I have not got my copy with me now, but next Monday I will give you the details. However, it is not a discovery, but a 'reconstruction' of what the play might have been. The editor -sorry about my bad memory- used William Davenant's play to work out his own text. He believes that Davenant, who, he thinks, might have been Shakey's illegitimate son, appropriated the text and did some alterations to suit both contemporary and his own taste. When I read the introduction, I must say, all my desires to read the play vanished in thin air. I suppose that this, hmm, discovery is made of the 'stuff that dreams are made on'. What do you, SHAKSPEReans, think of the subject? P. S. Have you ever noticed that Fletcher sounds very much like the Spanish word for arrow -flecha-? What do you make of the pair: Shake-SPEARE and FLECHA? Punningly yours, JESUS CORA UNIVERSIDAD DE ALCALA DE HENARES -CERVANTES'S HOME TOWN- (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gail Lerner Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 18:18:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0420 Q: *Cardenio* Hi. I just read the request for information about the lost/coauthored/we don't really know what it is play "Cardenio". The writer suggested that people write backto him directly. I too, however, would love to hear more about "Cardenio", and would request that we open it up to the line. Thank you, Gail Lerner [*Cardenio*/*The Second Maiden Tragedy* has been discussed previously on SHAKSPER. You may wish to use the DATABASE Function to locate those digests. --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 09:48:20 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0423 Re: Marxism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0423. Saturday, 27 May 1995. From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 10:46:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0419 Re: Marxism Re: Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0419. Friday, 26 May 1995. Robert Appelbaum asks about Eagleton's William Shakespeare. Is it "[hot] air, or a cyclotron of insights?" I'd put my money on "hot air" in the ninth. Eagleton seems better in theory than he is in practice. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 09:55:35 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0424 Q: Greene's Spleen Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0424. Saturday, 27 May 1995. From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 26 May 1995 19:19:08 UTC+0200 Subject: Greene's Spleen Dear SHAKSPEReans, Does anyone know if Robert Greene wrote any other sour commentaries on Shakespeare besides that on _A Groatsworth of Wit_? Did he write against John Donne? I think I found something, but it might turn up it is, as someone wrote on the discussion, terribly 'old hat'. Cheers. JESUS CORA UNIVERSIDAD DE ALCALA DE HENARES ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 10:29:51 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0425 Greene; Marx/Eagleton; London/Stratford; Congratulations Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0425. Monday, 29 May 1995. (1) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 27 May 1995 10:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0424 Q: Greene's Spleen (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 27 May 1995 21:18:45 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0423 Re: Marxism and Eagleton's _WS_ (3) From: Joanne Walen Date: Sunday, 28 May 1995 14:34:33 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0418 Re: London and Stratford Seasons (4) From: Jerry Bangham Date: Sunday, 28 May 1995 22:41:22 Subj: Congratulations! (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 27 May 1995 10:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0424 Q: Greene's Spleen For Jesus Cora, Why not check out the endlessly useful SHAKESPEARE ALLUSION BOOK? First published in 1909, reprinted in 1932 and 1970. It has a bunch of references to Greene, but apparently only the famous references to Shakespeare from A GROAT'S WORTH. The ALLUSION BOOK deserves a new and revised addition, but I doubt this will happen anytime soon. If you do not have easy access to this book, email me privately and I'll check it out locally. Yours warmly, Bradley Berens email: claudius@garnet.berkeley.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 27 May 1995 21:18:45 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0423 Re: Marxism and Eagleton's _WS_ > Eagleton's _William Shakespeare_. Is it "[hot] air, or a cyclotron of > insights?" I'd put my money on "hot air" in the ninth. Eagleton seems > better in theory than he is in practice. I would have cited _WS_ as an example of the wit and joyful energy of Prof. Eagleton's work, his novel _Saints and Scholars_ being another, _Literary Theory_ another. Some snippets from _WS_: "The witches are the heroines of _Macbeth_...It is they who, by releasing ambitious thoughts in Macbeth, expose a reverence for hierarchical social order for what it is, as the pious self-deception of a society based on routine oppression and incessant warfare." p2 and "It is almost as though Shylock is defying the court to deny him in order to expose its own hollowness. Either way he will win: by killing Antonio, or by unmasking Christian justice as a mockery." p38 Two brilliant inversions to get students thinking against the grain of 100 years of leaden criticism. Are these extracts 'true'? Of course not. But none of the nonsense that passes for textual criticism which we routinely refer each other to, is 'true'. If we engage in real archeological work on, say, recovering the conventions of Elizabethan dramaturgy we may find something of significance that illuminates how (not 'what', but 'how') these text might mean to the original audience. And the above snippets are examples of 'what' the text could be made to mean to us now. But as for discovering 'what' they meant then, forget it. _Literary Theory_ is not Eagleton's theoretical manifesto for what should be done to text, nor _WS_ the practice. The former is a sociological history of literary theory and the way it inadvertantly speaks of the concerns of the society that produces it. The latter is offered as "an exercise in political semiotics", but was really produced (I suspect and hope) to help a new generation of lefty Shakespearean pedagogues warm up their students. The 'theory/practice' opposition is very silly and old-fashioned. Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Sunday, 28 May 1995 14:34:33 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0418 Re: London and Stratford Seasons RSC'S 12N bland and touristy? Not. . .unless they've done something awful to it since last summer in Stratford. There the show belonged to Des Barrit's Malvolio without a doubt. (Some traditionalists did seem to think there was too much playing-to-the-audience pantomime in the box-tree scene, but it was a hoot.) There was much to think about in Tony Britton's darkly tinged Sir Toby and Derek Griffith's Feste, who was more the wise fool than the clown. A group of us "text-crawled" through the play and then saw it three times. We found strong performances all around. By the way, has the Stratford skyline (as Ilyria) made the transfer to London? (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Sunday, 28 May 1995 22:41:22 Subject: Congratulations! A while back. it was announced that list member Edward Gero was nominated for a Helen Hayes award for his performance as Hotspur in Washington's Shakespeare Theater production of Henry IV. This week's "Variety" carries the announcement that he was the winner of the best supporting actor award. Way to go! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 10:37:05 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0426 Q: *Err.* at Lincoln Center Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0426. Monday, 29 May 1995. From: Joanne Walen Date: Sunday, 28 May 1995 14:37:19 -0400 Subject: C OF E at Lincoln Center Could anyone help me locate a tape of the Lincoln Center performance of Comedy of Errors? It must have been shown on PBS about 1987 or 88. It was filled with various clowns and all sorts of "error-filled" comedy. It opened with a long piece involving a janitor and his broom and his attempts to light a cigarette. Anyone know this one? I would gladly send a tape for a copy, or would you know where I could purchase it? You can post your answer to the list or reply privately to shaxpur@aol.com. Many thanks if you can help. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 09:02:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0427 Fletcher; *Cardenio*; Fonts; Marx/Eagleton Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0427. Tuesday, 30 May 1995. (1) From: Stephen Gagen Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 01:44:58 +1000 (EST) Subj: Meaning of Fletcher (2) From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 29 May 1995 17:53:22 UTC+0200 Subj: *Cardenio* (3) From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 29 May 1995 18:04:09 UTC+0200 Subj: Elizabethan Fonts (4) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 29 May 1995 22:42:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0425 Marx/Eagleton; (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Gagen Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 01:44:58 +1000 (EST) Subject: Meaning of Fletcher Dear SHAKSPER, > P. S. Have you ever noticed that Fletcher sounds very much like the Spanish > word for arrow -flecha-? What do you make of the pair: Shake-SPEARE and > FLECHA? Fletcher is an English trade-name, like Smith, Baker, Butcher, etc.. The word Fletcher is still in use in English, and means an arrow-maker. To Fletch means to feather, and the word apparently comes from the old French flecher, a fletcher. And what Londoner or Parisian can forget the famous train The Golden Arrow, also known as the Fleche D'Or, which runs (or used to run) from London to Paris! Presumably the Spanish word Flecha is from the same root. Regards from Steve Gagen. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 29 May 1995 17:53:22 UTC+0200 Subject: *Cardenio* As promised, here are the details of the Spanish edition of *Cardenio* for anyone that may be interested: Wllliam Shakespeare and John Fletcher. *Historia de Cardenio* Traduccion espanola e introduccion por Charles David Ley. Clasicos El Arbol, 8. Madrid: Jose Esteban, editor, 1987. The text translated is not that published by Hamilton, but the play edited by Lewis Theobald in 1728 based on three manuscripts now lost. The original title of this play was, in Spanish, _Doble falsedad_ (Fley does not provide the original English title) and it was published with an intro. by Walter Graham in 1922 in the USA and reproduced in facsimile in England in 1970 with an intro. by Kenneth Muir. Fley explains that in his translation he has done without those additions to what he thinks was Shakespeare and Fletcher's original (Wow!). It seems that Hamilton's "discovery" has encouraged others to find other *Cardenios* and this craze will last quite a long time. Yours, Jesus CORA ALONSO Universidad de Alcala de Henares. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 29 May 1995 18:04:09 UTC+0200 Subject: Elizabethan Fonts For Stephan Genn, Sorry about the delay, first of all. I have a considerable amount of e-mail to read and I can only dedicate a few minutes a day to this task. Anyway, I suppose you will get some help in the net at the following addresses: INTERNET DESKTOP PUBLISHING JUMPLIST: http: //www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/gwp /dtp/dtp.html (You can ftp files) ALDUS FORUM on America Online (KEYWORD: ALDUS) DESKTOP PUBLISHING FORUM on COMPUSERVE (go DTP) DESKTOP PUBLISHING FORUM on DELPHI (go COMP DESK) I hope these help. Good luck and all the best! Jesus CORA fmjca@filmo.alcala.es Universidad de Alcala de Henares. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 29 May 1995 22:42:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0425 Marx/Eagleton; " The 'theory/practice' opposition is very silly and old-fashioned," writes Gabriel Egan who apparently missed my (admittedly feeble) joke, re: Eagleton seems better "in theory than in practice." Perhaps the phrase is an Americanism? About three years ago, our local Cultural Studies Group discussed Eagleton's book, and I can report that only one of the lefty graduate students present was impressed. Her attempted defense of the book was (embarrassingly) greeted with silence. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 09:04:45 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0428. Tuesday, 30 May 1995. From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 29 May 1995 19:38:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater Not E.K. Chambers in his voluminous examination of the Elizabethan Theater, nor M.C. Bradbrook, nor Gerald Bentley, so much as mention the role of director in Elizabethan times. We have authors, actors as sharers, actors as hired men, theater managers like Henslowe, company managers like Hemmings, but who did the directing? These plays weren't mere plot outlines, as in the Commedia del Arte; they required blocking. Ideas, anyone? Thanks, Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 09:02:55 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0429 Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0429. Wednesday, 31 May 1995. (1) From: Douglas Bruster Date: Tuesday, 30 May 95 9:21:43 CDT Subj: director in the eliz. theater (2) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 08:51:25 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater (3) From: Brian Corrigan Date: Tuesday, 30 May 95 11:05:35 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater (4) From: G.L. Horton Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 13:03:59 +0059 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater (5) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 14:19:39 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater (6) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 23:39:50 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater (7) From: Michael Faulkner Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 18:58:10 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater (8) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Tuesday, 30 May 95 22:26:40 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater (9) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 23:02:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Bruster Date: Tuesday, 30 May 95 9:21:43 CDT Subject: director in the eliz. theater Stephanie Hughes asked about the role of director in the Elizabethan playhouse. In her _Shakespeare the Actor and the Purposes of Playing_ (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1993), Meredith Skura has some insightful observations on this issue. See the references under "Director" in her index. (Let me say as an unsolicited endorsement that I find this a very, very good book). Doug Bruster db17@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 08:51:25 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater As far as I can determine, "director, " and even "stage manager," is a pretty modern concept, going back no farther than the nineteenth century, if that. Actually, Shakespeare's plays are pretty schematic, and one death scene is much like another. Plays don't really require "blocking" if you always work with the same people and don't worry about naturalism. I think with nostalgia of the addresses two years ago at the SAA on annotated quartos. What I took away from that, and I suspect others did too, was that the Elizabethan theater was even less like the modern theater in its basic outlines than we tend to suppose. The simple answer to the question is (probably) the sharers, who also had the best roles, worked out what they were going to do. Boys, hirelings, and miscellaneous crowd did what they were supposed to and cleared out of the way. The bookholder made sure that big props made it on stage when necessary, and that's about it. You can't perform as often as they did, as many different plays as they did, and fret about details. I hope we'll hear from Alan Dessen and Andrew Gurr on this, in more detail-- Melissa Aaron University of Wisconsin-Madison (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Corrigan Date: Tuesday, 30 May 95 11:05:35 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater Professor Spenser has stated, I'm paraphrasing, that the word "director" (in its theatrical sense) did not even exist at the time. He opines that the professional company of actors were more than able to work out any stage movement on their own--very much like the Commedia troupes would have done. I tend to agree with this suggestion. Given the history of the theatre immediately before the early modern age, it seems possible that the group of actors would be experienced enough to determine what _lazzi_ (to use the Commedia term) worked for their audiences. The later plays of the 18th-century in which the rehearsal action itself is presented theatrically (cf. _The Rehearsal_) no "director" is in evidence there, but rather the guiding hand of the playwright or chief performer or impressario. If the idea of "directing" a play is in such an unfledged condition in the 18th century, *a fortiori*, it seems likely that "direction" would not really exist in the 16th or 17th. Brian Corrigan North Georgia College (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: G.L. Horton Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 13:03:59 +0059 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater If you have ever rehearsed in a company where the director isn't "interested" in blocking, you'd have noticed that experienced actors sort this out pretty well. Everybody has to stand where the important actions can be seen and heard, and people onstage make these adjustments automatically. Those who don't are adjusted by their fellows, tactfully or otherwise. "Tricky" scenes usually result in a conference: "If I were to push him in front of me as I enter, and then he trips so that the sword falls out of his hand"... with appeals to the group as a whole or to someone (author? producer? star?) whose judgement is trusted to settle disagreements. The scenic limitations of the Shakes stage favor this kind of thing. It can result in boring stage pictures, or in bursts of physical creativity when each actor is intent on making drama. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 14:19:39 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater It comes as something of a surprise to a theater and film culture nurtured on the interpretive authority of "the director," but there may have been no such function in the Elizabethan theater. Certainly, there are no clear contemporary references to such a position or activity for the public theaters of Shakespeare, Alleyn et. al. Andrew Gurr has some useful, but necessarily tentative remarks on the question in his excellent "Shakespearean Stage", including a suggestion that Shakespeare himself may have given some portrayal hints to Burbage for his Richard III, based on the reading of Holinshed (in particular the detail that the King's hand was always on his dagger, which Burbage is reported to have imitated). Apart from this there is very little. The "blocking" may have been done by a combination of consensus, tradition and repertory know-how -- it wasnt as though the companies had a great deal of time for rehearsal, was it? The children's companies, on the other hand, were much more supervised, both by the "directors" of the companies, and sometimes by the playwrights who wrote for them. Ben Jonson was apparently especially insistent that his plays be performed a certain way, and this supervisory anxiety may migrate into such adult pieces as the Induction to "Bartholomew Fair" in the fight with the book-holder. Whether that latter worthy had any role in orchestrating the action I dont think we know. In Nashe's "Summer's Last Will and Testament" Nashe himself seems to have been the prompter, and perhaps therefore exercised some marshalling authority over the action, but that piece is so eccentric and original it's hard to draw any conclusions. The take-home message is, I suppose, that the public companies seem to have parsed and organised authority over the performance as a whole differently from how we now think of it, so they may not have needed all the officers we have come to expect. And not just the Lighting Designer! Cheers. Tom Bishop (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 23:39:50 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater Stephanie Hughes writes >These plays weren't mere plot outlines, as in the Commedia del Arte; >they required blocking. Ideas, anyone? If by 'blocking' you mean predetermination of where each player would stand at each moment, I think not. Conventions of entrance/positioning/exit could provide what in the modern theatre a director would do. In the case of the Chamberlain's/King's Men then Shakespeare himself could 'direct' things not covered by convention. Patrick Tucker's "Original Shakespeare Company" put on plays without rehearsal and only using "cue-scripts" in which each player gets his/her own lines only and their cues. By this means Tucker recreates what he believes to be the dynamics of original performance. For example, a player exits when they can see that they have no more lines to say. If they have more lines then they hang around listening to the others on stage to catch their cue. I have a problem with Tucker's unwarranted reliance on the Folio text in all cases to produce his cue-scripts, but his cue-script means of working has some claim to 'authenticity'. Tucker's F1-derived cue-scripts are published under the series title "Shakespeare Acting Editions". Gabriel Egan (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Faulkner Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 18:58:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater Stephanie Hughes asks an interesting question. An interesting theory is that put forth in the essay (Was there a book also?) "Free Shakespeare" by an author that escapes me at the moment. I'm sure someone else on this list will be able to fill in the missing name. =) [Editor's Note: John Russell Brown] The basic premise is that characterization, motivation, timing, and even basic blocking (physical action taking up the missing feet of half-lines) can all be found in the structure and rhythm of the text. I once participated in a *guided* exploration of this technique and found that there were some extraordinary results. Of course, it works best with an ensemble that truly know each other well, and feel free to surprise each other with new choices on stage. It seems reasonable to suggest that this is the way it was done; with the author or a respected member of the company "guiding," rather than directing the group, resulting in a very collaborative piece of theater. I would also like to point out that the term "Stage Manager" has changed enormously throughout history, and that as recently as the turn of the century what we now call the director was then referred to as the Stage Manager in many circumstances. Anyone more knowledgable on any of the above care to comment? Michael Faulkner hotspur@mcs.com (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Tuesday, 30 May 95 22:26:40 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater "Required blocking" is a nice idea, but the dialog contains cues for much action and the actors themselves are able to figure out where to go without a puppet-master. Experienced actors who have worked together enough to share a common vocabulary of movement will disport themselves "naturally" and surprisingly -- and do it more quickly than can be thought of by a single imagining director. I've worked with ensembles that have been together for many years; they adjust, make room for one another, invent polyphonic visual effects, recognize and solve problems, signal their intentions . . . . All to shape their performance DURING performance. It's like those ball-teams of "old guys" I used to watch when I was a kid: the younger players could run faster, but the experienced teams invented their playing with masterful knowledge of the possible shapes of action. Look at the kinds of planning for classes that are "necessary" when you've been teaching for just a couple of years, and look at how differently you need to notate the plans for a class after you've been at the game for twenty or thirty years. Shakespeare and his buddies got better at their collaboratively choreographic craft, I'd bet. (In Pultneyville, NY, a tiny hamlet on Lake Ontario, the high school kids have been putting on Gilbert & Sullivan each summer for about 25 years now. Grey and balding chorus kids who started out in the back rows now coach the teenagers, and the shows go up with panache after the briefest of rehearsal periods. The moves and choral practices are by now part of the village's ideolect. Not the King's Men, but they're not the Rockettes either. Individual imagination and common values . . . Shared experience and trust.) I direct and block action when I do. I'd rather work with folks who directed themselves. Ah well. As ever, Steve Blockheadowitz (9)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 23:02:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0428 Q: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater In James Shirley's Hyde Park , a "prompter" is mentioned: "Have you no prompter to insinuate/The first word of your studied oration?" (3.2.26-27). There's no absolute assurance that the "prompter" was a playhouse functionary, but it seems probable. The play was licensed in 1632, so by that time, it would appear that there was a prompter. Is it possible that the prompter was also a proto-director? Did the prompter also double as "bookkeeper"? Was he generally responsible for the playscripts and rolls? Wouldn't it be nice to know? Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 09:12:36 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0430 Re: *Err.* at Lincoln Center Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0430. Wednesday, 31 May 1995. (1) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 30 May 95 12:16:00 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0426 Q: *Err.* at Lincoln Center (2) From: Mark Cosdon Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 23:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0426 Q: *Err.* at Lincoln Center (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 30 May 95 12:16:00 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0426 Q: *Err.* at Lincoln Center The production of Errors at the Vivian Beaumont Theatre, Lincoln Center in June 1987 was shown on PBS stations. The video is 120 mins. long and it is held by the Vivian Beaumont. You might try calling the Theatre Library at Lincoln Center (212-870-1641) to ask about its availability. This information comes from a wonderful reference source that all SHAKSPERIANS might find useful for such questions about films: SHAKESPEARE On SCREEN, by Ken Rothwell and Annabelle Melzer (NY: Neal Schuman, 1990). It is a goldmine of all information on the existence and availability of Shakespeare films, from the earliest times to about 1990, including addresses and phone numbers for holding archives. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Cosdon Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 23:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0426 Q: *Err.* at Lincoln Center The COMEDY OF ERRORS presented at Lincoln Center in 1987 starred the Flying Karamazov Brothers, Avner the Eccentric, Ethyl Eichelberger, and a score of other actors possessing extraordinary physical skills--juggling, baton twirling, tap dancing, rope walking, etc. The production was first presented in 1983 at Chicago's Goodman Theatre and was later remounted as part of the 1984 Olympic Arts Festival in Los Angeles. The 1987 production was broadcast on PBS as part of their "Live at Lincoln Center" series. To obtain a video of the production, you might want to try contacting your local PBS affiliate or a local library. I once heard from a reliable source that the NYPL has a copy. Mark Cosdon mcosdon@emerald.tufts.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 09:19:16 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0431 Q: Miss-Begetting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0431. Wednesday, 31 May 1995. From: Gareth Euridge Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 15:43:19 -0400 Subject: miss-begetting This is not directly Shakespearean--my apologies--but may provoke Shakesperean responses. I have just read Beaumont & Fletcher's _The Captain_. In it, Jacamo, a bluff soldier, curses the pesky period of peace which has beset Venice; he suspects that such rusty times render real men effeminate. He then proclaims the following: "would to God my Mother Had given but halfe her will to my begetting And made me woman, to sit still and sing, Or to be sicke when I list, or any thing That is too idle for a man to thinke of." (Bowers, v=1 2.1.10-14) Can we assume from this that there was a pop culture (or, given these our times, a professional medical culture) which equated the sex of the child with the participatory gusto of the mother/father at its conception? The more rambunctious, the more likely to be a boy? And, perhaps, latent and ironic hostility to women enjoying sex, especially since, I believe, boys were generally preferred (though I don't really believe that)? The play says nothing about Jacomo's parents to make this internally significant. One small thing more. In one part of the play, Jacomo is teased for behaving like a little boy (3.5.33-41). In these 8 lines, there is a list of names that other boys might call him, together with mentions of games that such boys played. Anyone know a good reference source for this stuff? Either personally or netly, thoughts and suggestions would be received warmly. Gareth M. Euridge geuridge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 09:26:23 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0432 Re: Fletcher; *Oth.* Film; Marx/Eagleton Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0432. Wednesday, 31 May 1995. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 15:26:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Time's Spear/Arrow (2) From: David Kathman Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 22:37:34 +0100 Subj: Othello film news (3) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 01:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0425 Marx/Eagleton; (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 15:26:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Time's Spear/Arrow > P. S. Have you ever noticed that Fletcher sounds very much like the Spanish > word for arrow -flecha-? What do you make of the pair: Shake-SPEARE and > FLECHA? ... And if you're into cross- [popular-] cultural conspiracy theories about the Authorship question, what do you make of the old Wrigley's Doublemint Gum ad that slyly opined that "Some call it a SPEAR, others call it an ARROW"? Jim (Gumshoe) Schaefer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Kathman Date: Tuesday, 30 May 1995 22:37:34 +0100 Subject: Othello film news Some of you have no doubt seen this, since it was an AP wire story, but there was an item in the paper today about the new Othello film. It will star Laurence Fishburne as the Moor, Kenneth Branagh as Iago, and Irene Jacob (not Uma Thurman) as Desdemona, and will begin shooting in Italy next month. I will quote the last three paragraphs: "First-time director Oliver Parker said the play's dialogue, which gave the English language the phrases 'green-eyed monster' and 'One that loved not wisely, but too well,' needed updating to keep the movie moving. "'Where I feel verse is not necessarily contributing to the emotion of a scene, I make the dialogue more conversational,' he said. "Parker, a veteran of the British theater, received financial backing for the film only when Branagh --- an accomplished Shakespearean whose own directorial debut was 'Henry V' --- agreed to appear in it." Hmmm. "More conversational" --- sound kind of like A.L. Rowse's Contemporary Shakespeare that caused such a ruckus a decade or so ago. I imagine SHAKSPERians will have things to say on this, so I'll refrain from comment at the moment. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 01:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0425 Marx/Eagleton; Re--the Marx/Eagleton debate-- One question I'm especially interested in (inspired by Godshalk's comments about his leftist student chuckling the Eagleton book out the window) is what anyone on this list may consider a superior marxist (historical materialist) approach to reading Shakespeare? Dollimore backs away from hardcore Marxism as much as Eagleton... maybe Stallybrass? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 09:06:34 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0433 Re: Miss-Begetting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0433. Thursday, 1 June 1995. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 10:09:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Conceptual involvement (2) From: David Middleton Date: Wednesday, 31 May 95 11:02:43 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0431 Q: Miss-Begetting (3) From: Michael Friedman Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 16:48:10 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0431 Q: Miss-Begetting (4) From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 17:33 ET Subj: Miss-begetting (5) From: Daniel Vitkus Date: Thursday, 1 Jun 1995 11:45 +0200 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0431 Q: Miss-Begetting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 10:09:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Conceptual involvement >Can we assume from this that there was a pop culture (or, given these our >times, a professional medical culture) which equated the sex of the child with >the participatory gusto of the mother/father at its conception? I don't know about the effects on a child's sex, but for Laurence Sterne, at least, temperment and fortune were subject to conjugal circumstances: remember the opening of *Tristram Shandy* (1759), in which Our Hero laments the coitus interruptus (sort of) of his own conception: "I wish either my father or my mother, or indeed both of them, as they were in duty both equally bound to it, had minded what they were about when they begot me .... that possibly the happy formation and temperature of his body, perhaps his genius and the very cast of his mind;--and, for aught they knew to the contrary, even the fortunes of his whole house might take their turn from the humours and dispositions which were then uppermost.... I tremble to think what a foundation had been laid for a thousand weaknesses both of body and mind, which no skill of the phuysician or the philosopher could ever afterwards have set thoroughly to rights." And all for the lack of a digital clock! James F. Schaefer Jr. schaefej@guvax.georgetown.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Middleton Date: Wednesday, 31 May 95 11:02:43 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0431 Q: Miss-Begetting To Gareth Euridge--I don't know of pop culture data regarding vigor during conception and the sex of the child, but Edmund does comment in -King Lear- about a cause/effect relation between vigor and legitimacy. You'll recall his saying, "Why brand they us/ With base?. . . . Who in the lusty stealth of nature take/ More composition and fierce quality/ Than doth, within a dull, stale, tired bed,/ Go to th'creating a whole tribe of fops,/ Got 'tween asleep and wake?" That remark does not appear to refer particularly to either the man or woman in alluding to "lusty stealth," but rather values the excitement generated by the "illegitimacy" of the realtionship. Reminds me of the major premise of the film -Bocaccio '70- from twenty odd years ago in which Marcello Mastrioanni requires risk in order to enjoy sexuality. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 16:48:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0431 Q: Miss-Begetting Gareth, I don't have an answer to the question of the perceived relation between a woman's participation in the sexual act and the sex of the child produced by that union, but it sure reminds me of Edmund's soliloquy in *King Lear* (1.2.1-22) where he claims that because he was conceived "in the lusty stealth of nature," he is superior to his "legitimate" brother Edgar, who was begotten in the "dull, stale, tired bed" of marriage. Edmund's father Gloucester also comments of his bastard son that "there was good sport at his making" (1.1.23-24). Michael Friedman University of Scranton (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 17:33 ET Subject: Miss-begetting I can't come closer to an answer to Gareth Euridge's inquiry about a possible early-modern theory of the effect of passion on conception than Edmund's first soliloquy in _Lr_, when he attributes his own energetic bastardy to "the lusty stealth" of the love-making between his parents (his father has earlier told Kent that "there was good sport at his making), whereas the "dull, stale, tired" marital bed produces only fops. And fops, of course, are effeminate. Lustily, Dave Evett (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Vitkus Date: Thursday, 1 Jun 1995 11:45 +0200 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0431 Q: Miss-Begetting re: sex and conception Yes, it was believed that greater vigor and heat during the act of coition would produce a boy-child, the heat being necessary to bring the seed to complete development (patriarchal medical theory desscribes a girll- child as "incomplete", lacking, in this sense). See _Making Sex_. D. Vitkus The American University in Cairo ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 09:17:35 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0434 Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0434. Thursday, 1 June 1995. (1) From: Kate Egerton | Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 10:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0429 Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater (2) From: Stephen Orgel Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 10:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0429 Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater (3) From: Jerry Bangham Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 12:27:24 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0429 Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater (4) From: Andrew Gurr Date: Thursday, 1 Jun 1995 09:59:03 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0429 Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kate Egerton | Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 10:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0429 Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater For an interesting and most rewarding view of "directorless" Shakespeare being performed today, check out an ACTER tour. 5 well trained actors prepare a Shakespeare play, some play as many as five roles, and the actors reherse alone and make all the decisions there are to make. Their _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ a few years back was the best version I've seen of this play, on camera or off. Look for a tour of _Macbeth_ this fall at a university near you. Kate Egerton University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill kegerton@email.unc.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Orgel Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 10:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0429 Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater In INIGO JONES I pointed out that Ben Jonson, in THE MASQUE OF QUEENS, gives Jones credit for devising "the scene of the binding of the witches" (I'm quoting from memory--the book's too big to hold on my lap while computing). No such scene appears in Jonson's text; which suggests that there was quite a significant directorial function in court masques, at least, and that it wasn't the author who performed it. S. Orgel (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 12:27:24 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0429 Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater >Is it possible that the prompter was also a proto-director? Did the prompter >also double as "bookkeeper"? Was he generally responsible for the playscripts >and rolls? Wouldn't it be nice to know? This is the assumption that "Edward Marston" makes in "his" series of mysteries featuring bookholder Nicholas Bracewell. Hardly scholarly evidence, but the author makes a convincing case that someone would be needed to keep order with a group of egotistical actor-shareholders. There are at least five books in the series and they would be good choices for the bookstore we were discussing a while back. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Gurr Date: Thursday, 1 Jun 1995 09:59:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0429 Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater The key to the question of directing the plays is surely the available time for rehearsals. Henslowe's diary seems to propose three weeks from purchase of playbook to first performance, a period which had to include copying the scripts and the parts, allocating and learning the parts, organising the costumes and props, and any actual blocking or allocation of entry and exit doors (a tricky question, not fully answered by Bernard Beckerman's theory that the door used for an entry routinely also served the same character for exit). Not so much directing, more sharing and collaborating, with a long experience to draw on and a different play each day... Andrew Gurr. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 09:40:11 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0435 Re: Fletcher; Caedmon Recordings Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0435. Thursday, 1 June 1995. (1) From: Jesus Cora Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 18:37:40 UTC+0200 Subj: SHK 6.0432 Re: Fletcher (2) From: David Levine Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 19:16:48 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0412 Re; *Cor.* Rec... (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 18:37:40 UTC+0200 Subject: SHK 6.0432 Re: Fletcher Woe betide all ye who lack a sense of humour! (Just joking) It seems that Stephen Gagen missed my little bilingual joke on Shake-SPEAR and John 'FLECHA', in spite of my signing off with the word 'punningly' (a neologism?). James Schaefer quite appreciated it and retorted with a reference to an American TV ad(vertisement) -that of Wrigley's Chewing-gum-. (Un)fortunately, I do not watch American TV. We get American series all right, but not commercials, adver- tising companies make their own ads for the Spanish public as it has its own idiosincracy. Of course, we get the odd exception, like the ads for Coke, Pepsi, or Adidas and some other runners brands. Coming back to the issue of the authorship of *Cardenio*, I can only say, dear James Schaefer, that the issue is in mint condition and we will have to wait for the question to grow wither, rank, and probably fester. I do beg your pardon to all you who think the net should be used for more serious purposes. I can only say in my defence that I get somewhat frustrated when my students cannot understand puns in Renaissance sonnets or the language of Elizabethan plays. That is why I tend to turn to all those who have a good command of the language and can understand my 'eccentricities'. Jesus CORA Universidad de Alcala de Henares P.S. I perceive that the British sense of humour is sometimes incompatible with its American counterpart (if it exists, the USA being such a large country). Cheers. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Levine Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 19:16:48 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0412 Re; *Cor.* Rec... Actually, the Caedmon Shakespeare titles all do seem to be available, but the less popular plays are, some of them, extrmely expensive. However, the entire catalogue (as well as the entire catalogue of Argo Shakespeare titles, most of them quite superb in their own right and dating from the same period--late '50's and early '60's) is available in the U.K. at very, very reasonable prices. Any large bookstore (Blackwell's, James Thin in Edinburgh, Hatchard's, Waterstone's, etc.) will ship them and the prices are reasonable enough that air mail is not even prohibitive for a large order. Another recommendable set with Gielgud is The Winter's Tale, which I saw yesterday available here for about sixteen dollars (in the two-cassette mass market package) at Applause! books in Manhattan. In this set, Gielgud's Leontes is almost unbelievably intense. Unlike a lot of spoken word recordings, it's very much a real performance. I believe that Caedmon also has Gielgud playing Angelo in their old Measure for Measure. Argo has its version of the famous Gielgud/Ashcroft Much Ado. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 09:43:49 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0436 Q: Web Sites Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0436. Thursday, 1 June 1995. From: David Levine Date: Wednesday, 31 May 1995 19:16:39 -0400 Subject: [Web Sites] I remember seeing something in a computer magazine a few months ago about a Shakespeare Web page, but when I tried to find it, my server was told it wasn't working. Does anyone know anything about this? Also, does anyone know any good theater Web sites? [Editor's Note: The following was posted on FICINO a while back. --HMC] From: Jack Lynch Subject: Re: Renaissance W3s To: Multiple recipients of list FICINO Luc Borot asks for Renaissance Web sites. These are the most useful I've come across: http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/e-sources/emls/emlshome.html Early Modern Literary Studies http://sashimi.wwa.com/~culturew/Shakesweb/shakesweb.html The Shakespeare Web http://www.rrz.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/englisch/SHAKESPEARE/ Internationale Shakespeare Globe Zentrum Deutschland http://andreae.unbc.edu/sonnetscan.html Index of Shakesperian Sonnets There are also good Medieval resources in the following: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/wola.html Worlds of Late Antiquity http://www.georgetown.edu/labyrinth/labyrinth-home.html The Labyrinth I've recently been piecing together eighteenth-century resources; though it's just getting off the ground, you may want to check out http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/18th.html -- Jack Lynch; jlynch@english.upenn.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 15:39:01 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0438 American and British Humor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0438. Friday, 2 June 1995. (1) From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 01 Jun 95 11:54:01 est Subj: Re: SHK 6.0435 Re: Fletcher; Caedmon Recordings (2) From: Michael Field Date: Thursday, 01 Jun 1995 12:42:47 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Am. & Brit. Humor (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 01 Jun 95 11:54:01 est Subject: Re: SHK 6.0435 Re: Fletcher; Caedmon Recordings As a Brit expatriate who dabbled in stand-up comedy before losing my sense of humor at law school (and regaining it in modified form after becoming an actor/director), I agree with Jesus Cora that there are differences between British and American sense of humor, as well as comic elements such as timing, inflection, and idiom (as well as accent: the word "banana" is much funnier in English than in American). As for "punningly", I am sure Nabokov used it somewhere, but he's pretty good company for an aspiring neologiser to be in. David Jackson Washington, D.C. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Field Date: Thursday, 01 Jun 1995 12:42:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Am. & Brit. Humor Jesus Cora writes that he perceives American and British humor may at times be incompatible. I couldn't agree more. Fawlty Towers, a British sitcom starring John Cleese and Prunella Scales, was immensely popular in the U.K., and for a time some of its episodes were the number 1 video rental in that country. The show has long had a devoted cult following here in the U.S., but it is not and has never been "mainstream." John Cleese relates that in one of the many proposals to bring the show to primetime U.S. viewers, the show was to be recast and his character--Basil Fawlty--was to be eliminated. Why? "He's too mean." Which is, of course, precisely the point. Another British comedic import currently enjoying a healthy cult following is "Absolutely Fabulous," a sitcom centering on two women in the fashion/modeling industry. The show might as well be titled "Absolutely Wicked" for it's leading characters get drunk, use drugs, and are bitchy (there is no other word to describe it) with anyone and everyone who comes in their sights. Currently there is talk of an American version of the same show. You don't need to be psychic to predict that the American version will not feature women dabbling with drugs and drinking wine straight from the bottle. "Too wicked." I bring this up because I feel it has direct import on our ongoing discussions about Shakespeare issues such as Malvolio's punishment or the whole of Taming of the Shrew; "comedic" exercises which, you will notice, seem to strike a sour note with many American observers. I think, frankly, that the British are much more willing to accept the true nature of comedy as socialized hostility, and are therefore better at it. Personally, I'll stick with Basil Fawlty calling his wife a "benzedrine puff adder" over "Three's Company" any day of the week. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 15:46:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0439 Re: Miss-Begetting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0439. Friday, 2 June 1995. (1) From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 01 Jun 95 11:54:01 est Subj: Re: Miss-Begetting (2) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Thursday, 1 Jun 1995 18:27:33 -0400 Subj: Re: Mis-begetting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 01 Jun 95 11:54:01 est Subject: Re: Miss-Begetting Re: Miss-Begetting, at the risk of revealing a woeful ignorance (or, worse, misinformedness) concerning such things, I recall reading about studies that indicate that the potential gender of offspring is to some extent affected by the arduousness of the spermatozoon's journey toward the ovum. In what some may consider an entirely apt manner, the "male" spermatozoon is more likely to reach the ovum faster than the "female" over a short distance, but the latter is far more hardy and has more staying power over the long haul. While not wanting to delve too deeply into the realm of the lurid or graphic, this suggests that the extent of penetration may affect the relative likelihood of success of an "X" or a "Y" spermatozoon in combining with the ovum, and perhaps body temperature may also affect each in different ways, too. Although I do not pretend to equate penetration and temperature with vigor or enjoyment (the unkind comments of certain of my intimates notwithstanding), the Elizabethans and Jacobeans may well have been onto something with a glimmer of empirical evidence, which they then subjected to all manner of myths and interpretations (in a way that we enlightened 20th-century types would never do). I raise this not to suggest that there is justification for believing that there is a connection between one's lustiness and the gender of one's offspring, but rather to suggest that there's often no smoke without fire (even though in some cases the smoke comes after the fire has died down). In any event, the experimentation and gathering of evidence was probably a lot more fun for the Elizabethans than today's researchers with their pipettes and petrie dishes, even if it produced more spurious conclusions. David Jackson Washington, D.C. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Thursday, 1 Jun 1995 18:27:33 -0400 Subject: Re: Mis-begetting I don't have the original posting in front of me as I deleted it, but it seems to me, from memory, that the "fierce quality" theory of copulatory intensity having a masculinizing effect on the outcome (a version of which is discussed by Thomas Laqueur, as Daniel Vitkus points out, and which also appears in Greenblatt's "Fiction and Friction") won't serve to gloss the passage in question. There, as I recall, the character lamented that his mother's lack of "will" in his begetting had caused him *not* to become a woman -- from memory "had my mother given but half her will" etc I might have been a woman. This is precisely the inverse of the "hot sex" theory. Possibly relevant might be, however, another ancient theory about copulation -- which may be no more than a kind of joke or story-starter -- in which the state of mind of the mother could influence the child. In particular this appears in one of the Greek romances (and again in ?Tasso?) where a Queen gives birth to a child of the wrong skin color because in the act of begetting she is looking upon a picture. (I am remembering this off the top of my head without benefit of book). That sounds closer to the needed theory to me, and would have been pretty familiar to Renaissance writers. Cheers, Tom Bishop ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 16:01:20 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0441 CFP: *SQ* Special Issue Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0441. Friday, 2 June 1995. From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Friday, 2 Jun 1995 10:05:06 -0500 Subject: network call for essays Note: This call is being cross-listed; please excuse any duplication. Call for Essays *Shakespeare Quarterly* is soliciting essays for the winter 1996 issue, a special issue on "Teaching Judith Shakespeare," to be guest-edited by Elizabeth H. Hageman and Sara Jayne Steen. Papers should address approaches to and/or implications of teaching sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English women writers in conjunction with Shakespeare. Rather than simply providing useful readings of paired works, teachers might, for example, examine methods of teaching *The Tragedy of Mariam* with *Othello,* *The Convent of Pleasure* with *Love's Labor's Lost,* or Wroth's and Philip's poems with Shakespeare's sonnets; describe how students respond to Portia and Rosalind when Shakespeare's plays are juxtaposed with the writings of Aemilia Lanyer, Arbella Stuart, or Rachel Speght; suggest innovative reconfigurations of courses, treating issues such as language, spirituality, or the pastoral; or explore entirely new courses that emerge when these women's works join Shakespeare's as part of our cultural and literary discussions. Articles should be submitted to both Elizabeth H. Hageman, Department of English, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824-3574, and Sara Jayne Steen, Department of English, Montana State University-Bozeman, Bozeman, MT 59717-0230. The deadline for submissions is 31 October 1995. Inquiries are welcome and may be directed to either Professor Hageman or Professor Steen. Elizabeth Hageman ehageman@christa.unh.edu Sara Jayne Steen uenss@newton.math.montana.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 15:31:37 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0437 Re: Web Sites Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0437. Friday, 2 June 1995. (1) From: Jack Lynch Date: Thursday, 1 Jun 1995 11:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0436 Q: Web Sites (2) From: Terry Craig Date: Thursday, 01 Jun 1995 14:48:48 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Web Sites (3) From: Dana Lloyd Spradley Date: Thursday, 1 Jun 1995 10:19:40 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0436 Q: Web Sites (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Lynch Date: Thursday, 1 Jun 1995 11:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0436 Q: Web Sites DL: I remember seeing something in a computer magazine a few months ago about a Shakespeare Web page, but when I tried to find it, my server was told it wasn't working. Does anyone know anything about this? Also, does anyone know any good theater Web sites? I thank HMC for re-posting an article I sent a few months ago. I'll take the opportunity to refer people to http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/research.html -- my omnibus collection of literary Web sites. It includes pointers to all the major literary sites I've discovered, arranged by period, as well as to Alan Liu's excellent "Voice of the Shuttle" omnibus page. Both my page and Alan's will point you to other Renaissance and theatre sites. I also have pointers to Renaissance mailing lists (with subscription instructions) and current calls for papers. As always, I welcome additions and corrections. -- Jack Lynch; jlynch@english.upenn.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Craig Date: Thursday, 01 Jun 1995 14:48:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Web Sites For David Levine: You might try the Shakespeare Web page at http://www.shakespeare.com/ I don't know of any theater sites offhand, but you might try a webcrawler search. Happy hunting! Terry Craig DIVHMF1@nccvax.wvnet.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dana Lloyd Spradley Date: Thursday, 1 Jun 1995 10:19:40 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0436 Q: Web Sites Yes, David, a Shakespeare Web site does exist, and I'm the "webmaster" of it. I recently transferred it to another service provider, since the other one was too expensive and unreliable (although the "not working" message may simply have been a "refused connection" message, which often comes across when a site is too busy). I was going great guns on the site until February, when NetGuide magazine saw it and gave a favorable review in the April issue. Since then I've changed apartments and jobs, and had to attend to myriad other issues, so the site has languished a bit. I also got somewhat discouraged when the Folger's librarian rejected my request for permission to put GIF versions of some of their illustrations on the site out of hand. But now I'm back and starting to get the thing running again, and will but putting up the first generation of automatic interactive forms this morning. I invite all interested Shaksperians to come take a look at the new URL: http://www.shakespeare.com/ And of course, I could use helpers in this venture: volunteers are always welcome. Until forms are up to handle it, just send e-mail to associates@shakespeare.com. --Dana Spradley (former budding literature professor, current Product Development Specialist for Information Access Company, and Webmaster of the Shakespeare Web in my spare time) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 15:57:17 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0440 Illinois Fest.; Fonts; Recordings; Directing; Tillyard Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0440. Friday, 2 June 1995. (1) From: Pete Guither Date: Thursday, 01 Jun 1995 11:33:27 CST Subj: Il Shakes Fest URL (2) From: John Owen Date: Thursday, 1 Jun 1995 10:28:46 -0700 Subj: Caedmon and Argo (3) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Thursday, 1 Jun 1995 18:32:27 -0400 Subj: Re; Directing in the Elizabethan Theater (4) From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 2 Jun 1995 15:51:33 UTC+0200 Subj: SHK 6.0392 Re: Tillyard (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Guither Date: Thursday, 01 Jun 1995 11:33:27 CST Subject: Il Shakes Fest URL Info on Illinois Shakespeare Festival 1995 season, new URL address, articles available, and coming Shakespeare font. The Illinois Shakespeare Festival just got on the web yesterday with a set of pages which includes information on the Festival and this year's season, plus a series of articles originally written for our program guides which might be of interest. Included are articles on *R&J*, *RII*, *1HIV*, *MND*, a production of *Pericles* with a deaf actor in the title role and the sign language he developed for the role, and others. The URL is: http://orathost.cfa.ilstu.edu/isf.html The 95 season runs June 30 through August 6 and includes *2HIV* (as a continuation of the history series -- one each year, with a lecture series on the history and culture of the time), *Cymbeline* (The most common reaction from our patrons has been "Oh? Who is THAT by?"), and *Comedy*. Since there has been some discussion on the Karamozov *Comedy* here recently, I thought you might be interested to know that director Steve Rothman is approaching *Comedy* in the concept of "How 1940's Hollywood viewed America" (I believe we may have the Marx Brothers in it). Someone earlier was looking for a Shakespearean font. We are working on developing a font based on the folio. It's almost complete (just a matter of my finding time to add punctuation and an alternate "s" while getting our season up and running). We will be making it available free at our web site a little later this summer. Please let me know if you would like more info on our season, web pages, or the font. Peter Guither, General Manager Illinois Shakespeare Festival pguithe@ilstu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Thursday, 1 Jun 1995 10:28:46 -0700 Subject: Caedmon and Argo Do not depend on the availability of the Caedmon collection unless it has been reissued by Harper Audio under their label. Many of the recordings are only available until the stock purchased by the publisher at the time of acquisition dries up (conjecture on my part). I experienced this with a number of non-Shakespearean recordings, and fairly popular ones at that. I'll believe in the availability of the whole SRS series when someone tells me they bought Titus Andronicus during the last year. (BTW, this too is excellent, with Michael Hordern a terrific Titus). Regarding the Argo recordings, officially by the members of the Marlowe Dramatic Society of Cambridge, they are an interesting series for a number of reasons. First, they have travelled quite a bit, and I have seen them under not only the Argo label, but under Decca, London and Newman as well. Second, the quality is wildly uneven. The Society is made up of amateurs with occasional appearances by notable professionals. Thus, a truly amateur production of the two parts of Henry IV moves along at a mediocre clip until part one, I iii, when out of the blue comes Paul Scofield as Hotspur!!! So you get the Katherina Minola of Peggy Ashcroft, the scary Margaret of Anjou of Mary Morris, Michael Hordern's wonderful Prospero and Irene Worth's Cleopatra plonked in the middle of university level performances (some surprisingly good, e.g. young Derek Jacobi and Ian McKellen). Nevertheless, I would like to know where David Levine is getting them. God knows I have had little luck save in libraries. John Owen (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Thursday, 1 Jun 1995 18:32:27 -0400 Subject: Re; Directing in the Elizabethan Theater Stephen Orgel's note about "directorship" in the masque (is there any specific indication that it was Jones who was responsible, or might it have been one of the dancing-masters?) is very much relevant to this discussion, since in the masque many of the performers were amateurs and could _not_ be expected to have the sort of developed knowledge of staging that a professional company would have. Though the Witches were presumably professionals, as I recall, those binding them were not. (Again, I dont have a text to hand). Tom Bishop (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 2 Jun 1995 15:51:33 UTC+0200 Subject: SHK 6.0392 Re: Tillyard Dear SHAKESPEReans, I have been going through my accumulated e-mail and the discussions on Tylliard's books have drawn my attention powerfully. I am working on the evolution of the induction convention and I take the Elizabethan world-view and its collapse as the basis to establish the factors that influenced this evolution. I do not think that Tylliard is dated or, for that matter, that his theories are not tenable anymore. I am sure that some Elizabethan and Jacobean authors worried over the possibility of this order being lost, and some others rejoiced at the idea and sought to undermine it in their writings as Dollimore aptly pointed out. I do not see Tylliard and Dollimore as incompatible, but complementary. In any case, whether the world view is accepted or rejected in texts, *it is there* and we must bear it in mind in order to understand the texts and the point of view of their creators. May I also point to the fact that our world view is also changing very fast and this changing is producing conflicts too? Do not we find thar there is as New World (Dis)order after the Fall of the Wall? I do not know much about the Theory of Chaos, but is it not changing many of the assumptions held by scientists? Do not many people feel nostalgia for the Old Order of Political Blocks? Why is there such an obsession with the occult and religion nowadays? Why are angels so fashionable now? (If my memory serves me right, Thomas Middleton wrote a treatise on angels in the 1620s) Why is religious bigotry thriving in many societies -the Puritans strike back-? I think that we are undergoing a process of change similar to that of 1590-1650. Can we consider this contemporary period the Neobaroque? I am looking forward to reading your reflections. Meditatingly and mediatingly yours, Jesus CORA ALONSO Universidad de Alcala de Henares. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 13:18:03 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0442 Re: Elizabethan Directing and Directors Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0442. Saturday, 3 June 1995. (1) From: Ralph Alan Cohen Date: Friday, 02 Jun 1995 16:07:43 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 31 May 1995 to 1 Jun 1995 (2) From: Stephen Orgel Date: Friday, 2 Jun 1995 16:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0440 Inigo Jones regisseur (3) From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 3 Jun 1995 11:18:20 -0400 Subj: Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ralph Alan Cohen Date: Friday, 02 Jun 1995 16:07:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 31 May 1995 to 1 Jun 1995 As to directing for the Elizabethan stage, add to Professor Gurr's list of things a company had to do in the three week gestation period of a production that one indispensable duty -- perform the plays already in repertoire for a paying audience. As always, follow the money . . . Ralph Cohen, JMU and SSE (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Orgel Date: Friday, 2 Jun 1995 16:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0440 Inigo Jones regisseur Tom Bishop is right that masques would need a director where plays might not. I think Jones is clearly being credited with the job; here's the sentence: "Nor are these only his [Jones's] due, but divers other accessions to the strangeness and beauty of the spectacle, as the hell, the going about of the chariots [another bit of direction], the binding the witches, the turning machine...." I'm not sure the binding wouldn't have been done by professionals: Perseus is a professional; the masquers are all women, and wouldn't have done it. The chariots have torchbearers, 4 for each, so there are lots of available men who aren't courtiers. Tom, by the way, knows lots about masque direction, having been deeply involved in an impressive OBERON in Cleveland a couple of years ago. This exists on tape, for anyone interested. S. Orgel (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 3 Jun 1995 11:18:20 -0400 Subject: Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater All the commentary so far on an experienced troupe of actors being able to "direct" themselves agrees with my experience at my own community theatre. Ironically, it is only with Shakespeare that our actors have felt freed enough to take this challenge to its ultimate. When we did Errors two years ago, I selected 15 actors and then waited two weeks before assigning roles. In the interim, we workshopped the script, trading roles and exploring ways to physicalize the text, very touchy-feely/acrobatic/ensemble. The result was a very close-knit cast who all spoke the same "language." One evening, early in the rehearsals, I had to be at another meeting and had the cast begin work on selected scenes without me. When I arrived at the theatre, I found that the first meeting between A of S and Adriana had turned into this fabulous World Federation of Wrestling tagteam match. So much for the director! :) This physical inventiveness continued up to the last performance: A of E, trying to batter down the door in III.1 during Balthasar's speech [during which Balthasar and Angelo snickered uncontrollably], suddenly, without warning, picked up Dromio and hurled *him* against the door. Lazzi indeed. So now I'm rereading Brown's *Free Shakespeare* to see how I can get a significantly larger cast to tackle the significantly more complex *Winter's Tale* this fall. This group will hear from me again as I begin to formulate more questions than I can answer. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company Newnan, GA ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 13:32:01 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0443 Re: Miss-Begetting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0443. Saturday, 3 June 1995. (1) From: Milla Riggio Date: Friday, 02 Jun 1995 17:43:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0439 Re: Miss-Begetting (2) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Friday, 2 Jun 1995 23:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0439 Re: Miss-Begetting (3) From: Anna Cole Date: Friday, 02 Jun 1995 10:03:16 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0433 Re: Miss-Begetting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Friday, 02 Jun 1995 17:43:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0439 Re: Miss-Begetting With regard to the issue of fertilizing a baby with male or female sperm. It is true that male sperm, according to current research theory, are more vigorous than female, but shorter-lived. As a result, those trying to determine the sex of a child before fertilization do work with body temperature, but only to determine the probable date of ovulation, which affects body temperature. One has a better chance of conceiving a male child on the early side of ovulation, a female on the later side. But the vigor of the conception, or as far as I know the degree of penetration are irrelevant factors. A very healthy baby girl can be produced from a vigorous conception; and a healthy boy can indeed be got 'twixt sleep and waking with scarce a murmur of passion. A research obstetrician I used to know who worked with parents to help them "pre-sex" children would at times have wives call their husbands from his office and loan them a couch if he thought the time for conception was right. The method seemed to work just fine for both boys and girls! Do we really need to walk much further down this path? The Renaissance myths about conception are probably just that: myths! A well-wishing Shakespearean who hopes to hear little more of this particular discussion,, Milla Riggio (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Friday, 2 Jun 1995 23:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0439 Re: Miss-Begetting On the subject of the child being influenced by external influences to the mother, like the pictures Tom Bishop alludes to, we might also see this sort of belief applied to animals in Shylock's explanation regarding Laban's sheep. Cheers, Sean. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Cole Date: Friday, 02 Jun 1995 10:03:16 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0433 Re: Miss-Begetting It is interesting to contrast Shakespeare's view of the "dull, stale, tired" marital bed in Lear with its depiction in Hamlet, 1.v: "But virtue as it never will be moved/Though lewdness court it in a shape of heaven,/So lust, though to a radiant angel linked,/Will sate itself in a celestial bed/ and prey on garbage." The lust is there but the bed has been imbued (by the Ghost) with a shining marital sanctity. Anna Cole ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 13:40:04 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0444 Re: Web Sites; Recordings; Fonts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0444. Saturday, 3 June 1995. (1) From: Luc Borot Date: Friday, 2 Jun 95 21:30:39 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0436 Q: Web Sites (2) From: Gail Burns Date: Friday, 2 Jun 1995 19:42:52 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0440 Recordings (3) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Friday, 02 Jun 95 22:33:20 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0440 Fonts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Luc Borot Date: Friday, 2 Jun 95 21:30:39 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0436 Q: Web Sites You can also visit the home page of the CERRA and Cahiers Elisabethains at http://serinf2.univ-montp3.fr Report and criticise. Thank you Luc Borot (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gail Burns Date: Friday, 2 Jun 1995 19:42:52 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0440 Recordings John Owen remarks that he has had trouble finding these recordings save at libraries. That is exactly where I have been able to BUY, usually for 25 cents to $2 per album, these recordings. Many of our local public libraries have switched from LPs to casettes and CDs exclusively and have sold off their LP collections at their annual Book Sales - usually with some publicity. I acquired about 15 of the Caedmon Shakespeare series, including the Burton "Coriolanus" and the Hordern "Titus Andronicus", along with other recorded theatrical performances as diverse as Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman"; Peter Weiss' "Marat/Sade" (directed by Peter Brook); Howard Sackler's "The Great White Hope"; and Tennessee Williams' "The Glass Menagerie". I also have The Marlowe Society's "Richard II" and an argo recording of Malory's "Le Morte D'Arthur" All of these records are in nearly new condition (even if their boxes are a little the worse for the wear) because recorded theatrical performances just aren't checked out that often. I am sure that New England is not the only place where LPs are selling cheap and libraries are making the change to newer technology. I would suggest, as the warm months bring "Tag Sale Season" to us, that you paw through those boxes of LPs that inevitably turn up at any good garage sale! Gail Burns GailMBurns@aol.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Friday, 02 Jun 95 22:33:20 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0440 Fonts Re: SHAKESPEARE FONT Anyone delving into the mysteries of Shakespearean period typefonts should consult and giggle over Randall McLeod's (a.k.a. Random Cloud's) Shakespeare Quarterly essay "The Marriage of Good and Bad Quartos." Perhaps more important is his "Spellbound" in G.B.Shand and Raymond C. Shady, PLAY-TEXTS IN OLD SPELLING (New York: AMS Press, 1984), 81-97. He shows how the odd shapes of individual types -- letters and ligatures -- and other unthought of practicalities often shaped the spellings that we are so antiquarianly fond of sometimes. F'rinstance, the "th" ligature at the end of a word like "drinketh" may have been put in to stretch out the types in a prose line where the printer's copy reads "drinkes." And the Drinketh would still be pronounced as "drinks." Oh, joy. There are a lot of puzzles back there in the wilderness we call the past. Thteve Urkowith ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:48:23 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0445 Re: Directors and Directing Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0445. Monday, 5 June 1995. (1) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 03 Jun 1995 13:37:57 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0429 Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater (2) From: Anna Cole Date: Sunday, 04 Jun 1995 10:55:40 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0442 Re: Elizabethan Directing and Directors (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 03 Jun 1995 13:37:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0429 Re: The Director in the Elizabethan Theater Steve Urkowitz (writing as Steve Blockheadowitz!) claims that "actors themselves are able to figure out where to go without a puppet-master." I'd like to lend support to that claim. Last year at the University of Cincinnati, I watch the members of the Fahrenheit Theatre Company re-block Twelfth Night in less than an hour for a one-night performance in a rather unique acting-space. There was a dais with a railing at the front of the room, and the actors had to enter from one of two doors (right and left) at the back of the room. There was no scenery. The actors arrived about one hour before the performance, began discussing among themselves how to block the action, and by show time there were no hitches. (Well, almost -- Feste did slip and fall. He then claimed that he had "broken his spleen" -- to loud laughter.) In fact, one of the actors claimed that it was their best performance. Of course, this was re-blocking what had already been blocked, but the director was not conspicuous as the actors worked through the blocking. If any members of the Fahrenheit company was reading this, I'd like to read your take on this performance. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Cole Date: Sunday, 04 Jun 1995 10:55:40 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0442 Re: Elizabethan Directing and Directors The first instance of a clearly directorial role must surely be Hamlet with his explicit and detailed instructions to the Players in Act111, scene ii. Anna Cole ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:51:47 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0446 Q: Was he a Catholic? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0446. Monday, 5 June 1995. From: Zoltan Abraham Date: Saturday, 3 Jun 1995 21:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Was he a Catholic? What is the present state of the debate concerning the religious affiliation of Shakespeare? Was he a Catholic or an Anglican? Zoltan A. Seattle U. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:54:13 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0447 Re: American and British Humor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0447. Monday, 5 June 1995. From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 4 Jun 1995 20:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0438 American and British Humor I have a great thirst for British humor. During the seventies I lived for the weekly return of Monte Python because it would make me laugh in a way that no American comedy program ever could, but I never really enjoyed Fawlty Towers because it made me too anxious. As the horrible denouement began to form it just made me too un- comfortable. And Benny Hill, another English comedy program, was just too stupid. This, for what it's worth. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:59:29 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0448 Re: Miss-Begetting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0448. Monday, 5 June 1995. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 4 Jun 1995 20:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0443 Re: Miss-Begetting (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 05 Jun 1995 00:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0443 Re: Miss-Begetting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 4 Jun 1995 20:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0443 Re: Miss-Begetting Probably the only item in folklore that exceeds in number and variety, ways to influence the nature of a conceived child is ways to attract the man or woman of one's choice. There may be something in all of them. Who can measure the power of belief? Stephanie Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 05 Jun 1995 00:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0443 Re: Miss-Begetting Dear Anna Cole--thank you for your contrasting images and attitudes towards "lust" and "beds" in Shakespeare. It may be helpful also to consider the following "textual crux" in TROILUS AND CRESSIDA (which one critic, interestingly, claims is one of Shakespeare's few plays in which lust goes undamned)--spoken by Pandarus, near the end of the assignation scene: "Whereupon I will show you a chamber which bed, because it shall not speak of your pretty encounters, press it to death. Away!" The breakdown of cause and effect here is but aspect of an attitude towards sex which Greenblatt's notion of "erotic friction" doesn't seem to account for....Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:59:56 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0449 Q: William Shakesbear Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0449. Tuesday, 6 June 1995. From: Fran Teague Date: Monday, 05 Jun 95 15:45:22 EDT Subject: William Shakesbear I don't know if anyone can help with this request. The North American Bear Company used to make a costumed teddy bear named William Shakesbear. About five years ago, they stopped and they no longer have any of these. Does anyone know of a possible source for an unsold Wm.? The woman I spoke with at North American said she thought only special dealers might have such bears and that they would cost around $500 (gasp). Please e-mail me off list at FTeague@uga.cc.uga.edu if you can offer any information. Thanks! [I too would be interested in a William Shakesbear for less than $500. Please cc: me if you know the whereabouts of more than one. It seems just right for my toddler. Thanks, Hardy. HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 10:14:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0450 Re: Humor; Catholic Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0450. Tuesday, 6 June 1995. (1) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 5 Jun 1995 13:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0447 Re: American and British Humor (2) From: Mack Carter Date: Monday, 05 Jun 1995 19:37:42 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0446 Q: Was he a Catholic? (3) From: Melissa Aaaron Date: Monday, 5 Jun 1995 21:48:34 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0446 Q: Was he a Catholic? (4) From: Tom Hill Date: Tuesday, 06 Jun 1995 19:41:40 JST Subj: Re: Was he a Catholic? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 5 Jun 1995 13:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0447 Re: American and British Humor Surely it is a bit hasty to make generalizations about contemporary popular culture in America or Great Britain as being reliable indicators of the state of popular culture in Shakespeare's time? Surely it is at least a little bit problematic to claim that "the British" have sustained a single popular tradition of humor (or humour) from Elizabeth I to Elizabeth II? Surely not all Brits share a taste for Benny Hill, or all Yanks a taste for Roseanne Barr? Surely it isn't an issue of "national character" whether some people today find the scapegoating of Malvolio distasteful? -- Robert Appelbaum (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mack Carter Date: Monday, 05 Jun 1995 19:37:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0446 Q: Was he a Catholic? He was a Jew! Oops, sorry that's Hilter's father. Shakespear was baptized on April 24, 1564, in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. The third of eight children, he was the eldest son of John Shakespeare, a local merchant and Mary Arden, daughter of a Roman Catholic member of the landed gentry. The answer would seem to be according to my data is that Shakespeare was Catholic. I hope this help. mcarter@ewu.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaaron Date: Monday, 5 Jun 1995 21:48:34 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0446 Q: Was he a Catholic? I don't have anything to contribute, I just wanted to second the query. What's the (reasonably responsible, scholarly) position in the Spiritual Will? Melissa Aaron University of Wisconsin-Madison (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Hill Date: Tuesday, 06 Jun 1995 19:41:40 JST Subject: Re: Was he a Catholic? Wonderful question Zoltan! I hope someone can lay some research on us and not just a quick answer. Tom Hill ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:28:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0451 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0451. Wednesday, 7 June 1995. (1) From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 6 Jun 1995 11:14:07 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0445 Re: Directors and Directing (2) From: Dom Saliani Date: Tuesday, 06 Jun 1995 15:36:56 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0445 Re: Directors and Directing (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 6 Jun 1995 11:14:07 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0445 Re: Directors and Directing >The first instance of a clearly directorial role must surely be Hamlet with his >explicit and detailed instructions to the Players in Act111, scene ii. > >Anna Cole And we should remember that Hamlet is as much a *playwright* who wants to make sure that his text is done "correctly" as he is a director. He wants to make sure those uncontrollable actors don't screw things up, because if they do, the play won't be the thing. He's trying to make his playtext "actor proof." The actors are likely ignoring his "direction." Actors sometimes do that. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dom Saliani Date: Tuesday, 06 Jun 1995 15:36:56 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0445 Re: Directors and Directing I would like to think that a fair amount of directing did occur during the Elizabethan period. Shakespeare makes this obvious in Hamlet's directorial "advice" to the actors. A similar scenario occurs in the *Shrew* Induction scene with the Lord directing his servants. From the little that I know about actors during the Elizabethan period, they were basically servants and hence the *Shrew* scene would be a fairly accurate representation of one of the ways in which entertainments were arranged. In other words, the licensing Lord could and perhaps would be involved in the productions - as a director? Henry IV Part 1 also has a scene involving a "Lord" directing a scene. Are there any other plays with such scenes? The most inept "director" would have to be Quince in *MND* and I think it is interesting that here we have a commoner as director. Does anyone have any information in this regard? Did the Lord Chamberlain become involve in the productions of his servants? What was the extent of Lord Strange and Derby's involvement? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:40:47 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0452 Re: Was Shakespeare Catholic? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0452. Wednesday, 7 June 1995. (1) From: Milla Riggio Date: Tuesday, 06 Jun 1995 11:41:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0450 Re: Catholic (2) From: Zoltan Abraham Date: Tuesday, 6 Jun 1995 08:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Catholic (3) From: David Jackson Date: Tueday, 06 Jun 95 14:01:26 est Subj: Re: SHK 6.0446 Q: Was he a Catholic? (4) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 06 Jun 1995 22:57:51 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0450 Re: Catholic (5) From: David Kathman Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 1995 00:10:31 +0100 Subj: Was Shakespeare Catholic? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Tuesday, 06 Jun 1995 11:41:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0450 Re: Catholic The discussion of whether Shakespeare was Catholic or not could be a good and useful one, since it impacts in some ways the plays. What I would like to hear if possible is informed responses to Ian Wilson's SHAKESPEARE, THE EVIDENCE: UNLOCKING THE MYSTERIES OF THE MAN AND HIS WORK (St. Martin's Press, 1994), the latest book to make a serious claim for the Catholic connection. How persuasive do you find Wilson's evidence? And what are the implications for the plays? Hoping to hear more, Milla Riggio (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Zoltan Abraham Date: Tuesday, 6 Jun 1995 08:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Catholic One thing a professor told me about in passing is the question of Shakespeare's marriage. From what I understand, some inconsistences (or some lack of information) in the Anglican records could indicate that he had a secret wedding. If he was a Catholic, he would have had to practice his faith secretly because of the persecution, and, therefore, a Catholic marriage would have been clandestine. Thus, apparently the records regarding his betrothal and marriage support to the theory that he was Catholic, though they do not prove it. Can anyone shed more light on this? Zoltan A. Seattle U. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Tueday, 06 Jun 95 14:01:26 est Subject: Re: SHK 6.0446 Q: Was he a Catholic? This is from memory, but I recall reading in Levi's "Life & Times of WS" about the debate over whether John Shakespeare's fall from prosperity in the 1570s or 80s (?) was occasioned in part by his Catholic leanings. There was a "Catholic Testament" found in the rafters of his house in Henley Street sometime in the late 18th century, which I believe was similar to other tracts dating back to J.S.'s time. Apparently Mary Arden's family were Catholic, but let's face it, so were many people in England before Henry VIII's amorous urges precipitated the break with Rome. The 95 Theses had only been posted on the doors of Wittenberg Cathedral 47 years before W.S.'s birth, and the dissolution of the monasteries and the institution of the Church of England were only a few years in the past. So, as long as you went to church (the only ones available were the officially approved ones) and didn't publicly espouse "Papist heresies" (or practice them in secret hidey-holes), you were probably not considered a Catholic. I don't think there's any evidence that WS did any such thing, so he was probably deemed a good Anglican. In any event, other than believing in trans- as opposed to con- substantiation, I'm not sure exactly what difference there really was. On the other hand, there seemed to be plenty of people who felt there was enough of a difference to warrant their jeopardizing their lives and fortunes by insisting that they were Catholic. I just don't think it was a big deal to WS. (If it had been, he'd probably not have gotten as far as he did, unless he kept his beliefs to himself.) (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 06 Jun 1995 22:57:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0450 Re: Catholic Regarding Shakespeare's religion, probably the latest discussion is in Eric Sams's The Real Shakespeare. Sams favors Catholicism. But who can tell? In the absence of an autobiography, we shall be left to conjecture. Yours, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Kathman Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 1995 00:10:31 +0100 Subject: Was Shakespeare Catholic? Zoltan Abraham asks whether Shakespeare was Anglican or Catholic. Actually there's a third choice; he could have been a Puritan, at least theoretically. I don't think that's too likely, given the Puritans' antipathy toward the stage, but I seem to remember that somebody has argued that Shakespeare was a Puritan, based mostly on the marginally Puritan associations of the name Susannah, which he gave to his first daughter, and on the Puritan leanings of Susannah's eventual husband and Shakespeare's friend John Hall. That's a pretty tenuous basis, especially given all the other evidence, and I don't think too many people subscribe to the Puritan theory. (I just found a reference for the Puritan theory: Thomas Carter's *Shakespeare Puritan and Recusant* (1897), cited in Schoenbaum's *Shakespeare's Lives*) Deciding whether Shakespeare was Anglican or Catholic is not a cut and dried matter. He himself never did anything overtly that would identify him as a Catholic, and so the default assumption is that he was a good Anglican, especially given his upwardly-mobile social ambitions. (Being a known Catholic was not the path to power in Elizabethan England.) But respectable people have made respectable arguments that Shakespeare may have been a closet Catholic, or at least that he was influenced by Catholics around him. Richard Davies wrote of Shakespeare in 1685 that "He dyed a papist", and while such a statement must be taken with a grain of salt given that it was written 70 years after the man's death, we cannot just dismiss it. Several of the Stratford schoolmasters during Shakespeare's youth had Catholic leanings and/or connections. Mack Carter correctly points out that the family of Shakespeare's mother, Mary Arden, was Catholic, but given the volatility of the religious situation in mid-16th century England (with the country going from Protestant to Catholic and back to Protestant while Mary was growing up), we can't put too much stock in that when talking about the religion of her children. In the case of Shakespeare's father, John, we have his Spiritual Testament, found hidden in the rafters of the Birthplace on April 29, 1757, during a renovation. This is a very Catholic document, in which the testator (in this case, John Shakespeare) declares himself a member of the Holy Catholic religion and makes many other Catholic declarations. It languished in Stratford for nearly 30 years, at some point losing its first leaf, until it eventually made its way to Edmond Malone, the great Shakespeare scholar. Malone at first pronounced the document genuine and published the text in his 1790 edition of the plays, but later he began to have doubts. During the 19th century the pendulum of scholarly opinion swung to the extent that by 1900 the Spiritual Testament was generally regarded as a forgery. But in this century, the pendulum has swung the other way, so that the Testament is now generally regarded as genuine. In 1923, a Jesuit scholar found a Spanish version of the Testament, published in Mexico City in 1661; it had been written as a weapon in the Counter- Reformation by Carlo Borromeo, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, sometime before his death in 1584. In 1580 a team of English Jesuit missionaries visited the Cardinal and smuggled copies of the Testament into England --- we know this from a 1581 letter to Rome requesting three or four thousand more of the Testaments, "for many persons desire to have them" --- but it was not until 1966 that an early English edition of the Testament was discovered. This was published in 1638, and corresponds virtually word for word to the document found in the Birthplace. (The original of John Shakespeare's Testament has unfortunately been lost.) So at some point, Shakespeare's father declared himself a Catholic, albeit probably not publicly. This must have been sometime between 1580 and his death in 1601, but exactly when is a matter of speculation. He could have always been a closet Catholic, or he could have converted on his deathbed. Ian Wilson, in his recent book "Shakespeare: The Evidence", suggests that John's fall from grace in the 1570s was a result of the exposure of his Catholicism rather than financial misfortune as is commonly believed, but this is speculation. And even if one believes that John Shakespeare was a lifelong Catholic, this does not necessarily say anything about his son's religious convictions; children have been known to rebel against their parents' beliefs, both in Shakespeare's time and in ours. In 1606, Shakespeare's daughter Susannah was cited for failing to receive Anglican communion the previous Easter, as part of a crackdown on closet Catholics in the wake of the Gunpowder Plot the previous year; about a third of the others cited were known Catholics or Catholic sympathizers. But her case was dismissed when it came before a court, and the next year she married the very Protestant John Hall. I suppose one could argue that the marriage to Hall was a cover for Susannah's closet Catholicism, but that seems to me to be grasping at straws; I don't see any reason to believe that Susannah was anything but Anglican. Among the people arguing that Shakespeare was Catholic are Ian Wilson, in the book cited above (which I reviewed on this list a few months ago), Peter Milward in *Shakespeare's Religious Background* (1973), and going back a ways, Richard Simpson and Henry G. Bowden in *The Religion of Shakespeare* (1899). Most biographers tend to assume that he was Anglican, when they mention his religion at all; among those explicitly arguing that he was Anglican are T.W. Baldwin in *William Shakespeare's Petty School*. Samuel Schoenbaum in his biography is typically agnostic, but seems to lean toward the Anglican theory. Many of the above facts are taken from chapters 5 and 6 of Schoenbaum's *Documentary Life*. There's plenty more to be said on this subject, but the above are the basics. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:48:33 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0453 Re: American and British Humor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0453. Wednesday, 7 June 1995. (1) From: Anna Cole Date: TueSDAY, 06 Jun 1995 15:26:11 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0447 Re: American and British Humor (2) From: Pam Powell Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 10:01:27 GMT +2:00 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0450 Re: Humor (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Cole Date: TueSDAY, 06 Jun 1995 15:26:11 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0447 Re: American and British Humor To Stephanie Hughes, Delighted to hear that you enjoy some British humour. I think perhaps you would not enjoy Absolutely Fabulous if you do not feel comfortable with Fawlty Towers. The humour is certainly black. It reminds us of a vestigial savagery that lurks in apparently civilised man - or women in the case of the appalling Eddy and her side-kick. This is balanced by the decency and good sense of Saffy the daughter. I believe both AF and FT are morality plays. They are intended to shock, just as Falstaff's speech in Henry1V part 1, at the end of Act V,i, would shock a Shakespearean audience. With their more clearly defined notion of honour, Elizabethans might very well have reacted as you have - with discomfort - when Falstaff (False Staff?) declares at the end of his speech: "Honour is a mere scutcheon - and so ends my catechism." Anna Cole (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pam Powell Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 10:01:27 GMT +2:00 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0450 Re: Humor Dear Robert Applebaum, Here is one Brit who things Benny Hill is a load of rubbish, very unsubtle to say the least! Pam Powell Univ. of the Witwatersrand South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:54:54 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0454 Re: Recordings; Miss-Begetting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0454. Wednesday, 7 June 1995. (1) From: David Levine Date: Tuesday, 6 Jun 1995 19:45:09 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0440 Re: Argo Shakespeare titles. (2) From: Robert Dennis Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 95 13:27:19 -0400 Subj: Miss-begetting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Levine Date: Tuesday, 6 Jun 1995 19:45:09 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0440 Re: Argo Shakespeare titles. They are ALL available in the U.K. and are stocked in ANY major bookstore you go into. Tower Records in Piccadilly Circus is reliable, but you can find all of the Caedmons and most (if not all) of the Argo titles in just about any well-stocked Waterstone's, in or out of London. I usually buy from James Thin, simply because I have an account and they're very nice people. I also usually buy up a whole bunch when I happen to find myself in England. Apropos of which, although off the topic: I didn't see (in the London Season string) that John Barton's production of Peer Gynt (which appeared at the Swan last Summer) is being revived this season. It showcased an amazing performance by Alex Jennings (who also played Angelo in Measure for Measure, which I missed), and if it is being revived, should not be missed. It was far more worth seeing than the production of Coriolanus that also played in the Swan and seemed to attract all the crowds, mostly because of Toby Stephens, who sure didn't knock me out, although the production is, finally, worth seeing with an excellent Menenius (Philip Voss) and a REALLY dangerous Aufidius (Barry Lynch, if I remember correctly--watch him!). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Dennis Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 95 13:27:19 -0400 Subject: Miss-begetting I would like to refer those of you interested in the subject of Miss-Begetting to the wonderful discussion in _Eve's Rib_ by Robert Pool. Apparently the X and Y chromosomes are not sufficient of themselves to firmly determine the output of the conception. Raging hormones, to which the very early fetus (not just at conception!) is exposed, can carry the day regarding the outward sexual appearances and behavior. The whole book is very interesting, but you might just read the introduction about the hyena's sexual reality and the chapter midway through the book about sex identification. I can't remember exactly which chapter it is, but it begins with a discussion of a female Olympic athlete who was denied competing due to chromosome tests. As David Jackson said earlier, "... the Elizabethans and Jacobeans may well have been onto something ...", and Thomas Bishop's idea of the inversion emphasis also allows a very interesting meditation. I want to take gentle issue with Milla Riggio, not with the idea that, "Rennaissance myths about conception are just that, myths", but with the implication that myths are somehow false. Myth is a way of dealing with data and ideas for which we have no other vocabulary. An excellent contemporary example of myth is the cosmology of the Big Bang. This is entirely a mythical expression in contemporary terminology, of events for which we simply have no adequate vocabulary. Possibly we do not even have a glimmer of the right mechanisms. But the myth (the Big Bang theory) expresses what we _do_ observe and what we interpret as reality from our equations. That particular myth has won not a few Nobel Prizes for good myth-tellers. One might add evolution theory on the list of very-strongly-held contemporary myths. While the Renaissance "myths" may not have had the vocabulary for modern biochemistry, genetics, and physiology, we cannot allow ourselves to conclude that therefore, the people had no data. As far as we know they had babies the way we do today, they had eyes to observe just like we do, and they appear to have had excellent cerebral capabilities (witness Shakespeare!). So the problem is _not_ to correct their somehow "erroneous" conceptions, but to see how they phrased their understanding of reality; to examine how they used _myth_ to express those observations and thoughts for which they did not have the specific technical terms (often called jargon). From such examinations we can frequently learn how better to use myth ourselves, understand ourselves better, and even, in many instances, glean insight into contemporary ideas about what otherwise appear to be oppressive, contradictory, or just dull "facts". I think it is critical to avoid confusing myths, which are a kind of model, with what are simply wrong facts. On the quite different issue of appropriateness brought out by Riggio, relating to the Miss-Begetting discussion: Why should we avoid discussion of Renaissance ideas of whatever subject relevant to Shakespeare's works? I believe the original query on Miss-Begetting was a good one and the responses are justified. If we stay within the purview of actual scientific studies (e.g., as reported with references in Pool), of original ideas and interpretations from participants, and of other literary references given by the contributors (as opposed to apocryphal anecdotes) we stand to gain knowledge and are reasonably assured of avoiding offense. Information about research obstetricians playing sex-doctor also can be legitimate, but the story as shared here on the list seemed more apocryphal than didactic. I have enjoyed this Miss-Begetting thread and hope more will come of it. Bob D. rdennis@orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 09:23:41 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0455 Re: William Shakesbear Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0455. Thursday, 8 June 1995. [Note: Many responses to the William Shakesbear query arrived both privately and publicly. Because I found them so charming, I've decided to post them all to the members. Enjoy. --HMC] (1) From: Kate Egerton Date: Tuesday, 6 Jun 1995 14:40:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakesbears (sort of...) (2) From: Wendy Adler Date: Tuesday, 6 Jun 1995 15:23:13 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0449 Q: William Shakesbear (3) From: Michael Friedman Date: Tuesday, 06 Jun 1995 15:48:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0449 Q: William Shakesbear (4) From: Terry Craig Date: Tuesday, 06 Jun 1995 18:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakesbear (5) From: Joanne Walen Date: Tuesday, 6 Jun 1995 22:01:45 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0449 Q: William Shakesbear (6) From: Alice Kroman Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 23:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: The search for Shakesbear (7) From: Kate Egerton Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 1995 18:51:09 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakesbears - more (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kate Egerton Date: Tuesday, 6 Jun 1995 14:40:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakesbears (sort of...) H'lo - I'm not familiar with the specific company you mention, but in the course of my collecting rambles (hunting down old quilts and other interesting textiles) here in North Carolina, I've done business with a small, local business which both sells vintage textiles and manufactures teddy bears dressed as, well, everything. The bears are quite large (20"?) made of various (lovely) fabrics, not plush. I can't attest to the potential "Shakespeare-ness" (or price) of a special order, but their workmanship looks pretty good. Will run down name & address if you like. Kate Egerton kegerton@email.unc.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wendy Adler Date: Tuesday, 6 Jun 1995 15:23:13 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0449 Q: William Shakesbear I feel quite fortunate to have said bear! It may be the best investment I own.... re: toddler...the tag specifically says "Not recommended for children under 3 years old." Note: The costume is nice, but not particularly intricate. One could just get a nice bear and whip up the breeches, blouse, collar, and hat onesself. Wendy Adler Felton CA (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Tuesday, 06 Jun 1995 15:48:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0449 Q: William Shakesbear I happen to own a William Shakesbear, which was given to me by my wife when we first started going out. He's a little worse for wear ten years later, having sustained an attack from our spaniel Troilus (who once played Crab in a production of *Two Gents*). If the going price is $500, I could probably persuaded to let Ole William go for $475 :-). Michael Friedman University of Scranton (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Craig Date: Tuesday, 06 Jun 1995 18:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakesbear Hi, Fran and Hardy-- I'm afraid I don't have anything definite about the availability of Shakesbear, but you might try the rec.collecting group on USENET. Another possibility is the collectibles show on FX--it airs every day at noon and a friend of mine has located all sorts of stuff there. You can even e-mail the folks at the show at personalfx@delphi.com. I'll also check out a couple of other sources around here and let you know if I come up with anything. I have a Shakesbear (not for sale, sorry) and love him dearly. He's fondly known as Budd (after the *Moonlighting* Shrew credits) and he occasionally visits my Shakespeare classes to answer questions. He was bearnapped once by a rambunctious class--I'll have to be even more careful now that I know his market value. Good luck-- Terry Craig DIVHMF1@nccvax.wvnet.edu (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Tuesday, 6 Jun 1995 22:01:45 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0449 Q: William Shakesbear I think you might try the Tudor Guild store at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Every year I see there (I'm pretty sure) both a Wm. Shakesbear and Queen Elizabear. I bought mine there about 5-6 years ago for $25-30. They would have them if anyone would. The number is 503-482-0940. (Later) I called and they now carry only a 5" costumed Shakesbear for $11.95. I tried Paddington Station, but they don't have any. I'll be at the Festival June 21-24 and will look around. There are a couple very good bookstores (one a children's) that might have some, and a great children's toy store in Jacksonville that used to carry the (almost) complete line of No. American bears. No, my Shakebear is not for sale (even at $500), but I do have a friend who owns both Will and the Queen; I'll ask if he's willing to part with them. Will get back to you. (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alice Kroman Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 23:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The search for Shakesbear It just so happens that I used to work in a store a number of years ago which carried your sought after bear. It is one of a series of teddy bears fashioned after celebrities. As I recall there is also Lauren Bearcall and Humphrey Beargart, well you get the idea. At that time, maybe seven years ago, they were all priced at around $350. These really aren't "toys" but rare collection items. I suggest you try places that would carry collectible dolls. I don't suspect you will find them for much less than $500, if you find them at all. I think I last saw one at FAO Schwartz - Mr. Cook, I know you live near Washington DC, and there is one located in Tysons Corner Mall - but even that was a few years ago. Good Luck and let me knows how it goes, Alice Kroman akroman@osf1.gmu.edu (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kate Egerton Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 1995 18:51:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakesbears - more H'lo - More info - local folks are delighted at the idea of trying their hand at a "Shakesbear" or two. Ask for Beth Ross at _As Time Goes By_, 2514 University Drive, Durham, NC 27707, phone (919) 419-1971. Their bears are made from vintage fabrics and are about the size of a chubby two year old child. Beth thought that this kind of custom order would run about $120. Anyone interested should call her directly for more info. and details. Kate Egerton kegerton@email.unc.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 09:38:57 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0456 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0456. Thursday, 8 June 1995. (1) From: Zoltan Abraham Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 1995 11:55:41 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Catholic (2) From: Bob Leslie <8913241l@arts.gla.ac.uk> Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 1995 13:32:50 +0100 Subj: Shakespeare's Catholicism (3) From: Ed Pechter Date: Wednesday, 07 Jun 1995 21:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0452 Re: Was Shakespeare Catholic? (4) From: G.L. Horton Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 00:36:26 +0059 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0450 Re: Catholic (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Zoltan Abraham Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 1995 11:55:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Catholic I am not qualified to join this discussion, but if you will not mind an observation, Thomas Tallis and William Byrd, perhaps the greatest English composers of the Renaissance, were Catholics and were not only able to go on composing during the reign of Elizabeth, but she even gave them a joint monopoly for the printing, importing, publishing, and sale of music, and also for the printing of music paper (E. Britannica), which is an indication that affiliation with the Catholic Church did not necessarily mean that one could not advance in England at the time. Zoltan Abraham Seattle U. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Leslie <8913241l@arts.gla.ac.uk> Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 1995 13:32:50 +0100 Subject: Shakespeare's Catholicism Heinrich Mutschmann and Karl Wentersdorf, in their *Shakespeare and Catholicism* (Sheed and Ward, New York 1952), align themselves with Carlyle and Chateaubriand in identifying Shakespeare as a Catholic. Their case is convincing as far as the religious sympathies of his parents are concerned: his mother, Mary Arden, came from a staunch Catholic family ; John Shakespeare withdrew from public life at a time when Counter-Reformation Catholicism forbade the taking of the Oath of Supremacy or attendance at Anglican services ; much of the family's property was sold, leased-out or mortgaged at this time and thus became immune to confiscation ; at a time when many Catholics were being summoned to appear at Westminster to account for an unspecified "breach of the Queen's peace", John Shakespeare, and others who had stood guarantor for him, paid heavy fines in lieu of appearing to answer such a charge - presumably fearing imprisonment if he were to present himself in London ; and the Shakespeares had many links, both by family and acquaintance, with known Catholics - some of whom would later be involved in the events of the Gunpowder Plot . The evidence for William Shakespeare's adherence to the Old Faith is of a more circumstantial nature, e.g. his marriage, by special licence, probably in Temple Grafton - a parish whose officiating clergyman was a Catholic , the Catholicism of his patron, Southampton , and the circumstances of his lodging with a Huguenot family in London which provided him with a legal dispensation from attending Anglican services - there appears to be no evidence in parish records that Shakespeare conformed while in London . E.A.J. Honigmann, in his *Shakespeare: the 'lost years'* (Manchester University Press, Manchester 1985) supports the Shakespeare-as-Catholic theory and bolsters it with a mass of circumstantial evidence identifying the early career of Shakespeare as that of a tutor and occasional actor-in-residence for a wealthy Catholic household in Lancashire. Mutschmann and Wentersdorf, in the textual examination to which much of their book is devoted, indicate that Shakespeare, whatever the truth regarding his religious affiliation, frequently chooses to depict a theology which reflects Catholic rather than Anglican orthodoxy. It thus appears likely that Shakespeare was, at the least, well-acquainted with Catholicism whether through upbringing or association. I hope this is of some use! Bob Leslie (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pechter Date: Wednesday, 07 Jun 1995 21:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0452 Re: Was Shakespeare Catholic? I read an article by Gary Taylor in *ELR* earlier this year or maybe last year that gathered lots of the kind of evidence mentioned by SHAKSPERians and more into a strong argument for concluding that Shakespeare was Catholic. It seemed convincing to me, but then I was more or less convinced by Honigmann's speculations about a Catholic Bard in *Shakespeare--the Lost Years* a while back, as I have been by other parts of the biographical story Honigmann has been developing more recently: a usurious, uncharitable, litigious, self-serving figure seems right to me. None of this can be proven, though as I remember, Taylor at the end of his article seems to be assuming as a fact what he admits at the beginning cannot be determined for sure, whereupon he proceeds to draw critical conclusions, none of which necessarily follow. But then even if we found proof that Shakespeare was a Catholic, what consequences would necessarily follow? Do such speculations impact on the way we understand the plays, or do they proceed from the way we understand the plays? Why do we keep asking a question we can't answer and which wouldn't do us any good even if we could answer it? So far as I can see, the question is of no practical use or theoretical significance. And yet, like the speculations about Foucault in that controversial book a couple of years ago (I forget the author) they ARE interesting. Is this just because we like reading novels (I say this having just read Janet Malcolm's piece on Bloomsbury in the *New Yorker*--that's her point about the interest of biography)? Tell me, he or she that knows. Ed Pechter (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: G.L. Horton Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 00:36:26 +0059 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0450 Re: Catholic I had always thought that there was a slight pro-Catholic bias in Shakes, and that, considering that such a position was politically unwise at the time, there was rather strong evidence that the author was, if not a believer, at least a sympathizer. But when I visited The Shrine at the Stratford Church, I took note of a detail that seemed to me to weight heavily on the Protestant side of the scale: upon retirement, Wm S took up the post of Churchwarden in the parish, and held that office until his death. That's why he is buried in such a prominent place in the nave -- not because of his literary fame. I don't believe he would have served if he did not approve. Perhaps the family was divided in allegience, and he was able to see some right on both sides. G.L. Horton ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 09:55:51 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0457 Re: American and British Humor; Miss-Begetting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0457. Thursday, 8 June 1995. (1) From: Peter Donaldson Date: Wednesday, 07 Jun 95 11:03:27 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0453 Re: American and British Humor (2) From: Jesus Cora Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 13:38:00 UTC+0200 Subj: SHK 6.0453 Re: American and British Humor (3) From: Robin Farabaugh Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 08:49:09 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0433 Re: Miss-Begetting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Donaldson Date: Wednesday, 07 Jun 95 11:03:27 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0453 Re: American and British Humor I have a mixed reaction to the discussion on British/American humo(u)r. 1. There are no essential national differences. The proximity contemporary Britons and/or Americans feel to Shakespeare is a construction. (Which is greater -- 400 years in time or 3000 miles by air in a world in which the hotels all look the same, pizza with guacamole available near the National Theat(e)r/e and t shirts with advertis/zing never far off. A more fruitful question would be: how are British/American differences constructed in particular cultural contexts, and what role does (")Shakespeare(") play in those constructions. This is my post-structuralist or United Colo(u)rs of Benetton reaction. Should we, for example, be discussing the path from the "Britishness" of John Gielgud in "The Ages of Man" and Manckiewicz' Julius Caesar as it contrasts with the construction of Britishness (if any) in Prospero's Books or Branagh films, and seeking to explain such shifts as we may find? 2. It is interesting that such questions can be discussed in cyberspace when they are not respectable at conferences. This is not all bad. Similarly with questions about S's Catholicism (quasi-unrespectable, yet very interesting), authorship (totally unrespectable, not interesting to me, but obviously to others), etc. Even lack of anonymity (contrast muds and moos) has not deterred Shakespearean from venturing (transgressing) into the naive, the humanly interesting, the perennially annoying yet poignantly persistent set of "Shakespeare" questions. Does mentioning this dampen participation? This is my electronic populist reaction. Should we just enjoy this, or, meta-discursively, discuss it? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 13:38:00 UTC+0200 Subject: SHK 6.0453 Re: American and British Humor Tut, tut! Does anyone really consider _Benny Hill_ as "true" English Humour? I certainly do not. Irony, innuendo, double-meaning, subtlety, etc. are the main characteristics of what I understand English humour is. As the "provoker" of this issue, I think I should point this out. Yours, Jesus CORA ALONSO. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robin Farabaugh Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 08:49:09 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0433 Re: Miss-Begetting Shakespeareans might be interested in two books that deal with the physical realities of female life in Early Modern England. Mary Prior has edited Women in English Society 1500-1800, which has a number of useful essays on pregnancy and lactation, issues which had a great deal to do with shaping the lives of both men and women, obviously enough, though we don't often stop to think about it. Valerie Fildes has edited Women as Mothers in Pre-Industrial England which has some essays on the experience of pregnancy and one essay which includes a transcription of a letter from an uncle to his nephew about how best to get his wife pregant. The advice was apparently successful, for a year later she gave birth to a son. I think I remember some discussion in those articles of early modern beliefs of the importance of female arousal for successful conception. Hope this helps. Cheers, Robin Farabaugh ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 10:05:42 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0458 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Cirecting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0458. Thursday, 8 June 1995. (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 1995 17:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0451 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing (2) From: Jesus Cora Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 14:06:58 UTC+0200 Subj: SHK 6.0451 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing (3) From: Chris Bergstresser Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 1995 09:06:41 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0451 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 7 Jun 1995 17:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0451 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing About Hamlet as director: isn't he more like an acting coach, telling them how to speak and what style to work in, rather than where to walk on, fall down, etc.? That said, there's a definite metadramatic slant to the play. Cheers, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 14:06:58 UTC+0200 Subject: SHK 6.0451 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing To Dom Saliani, Well, if companies were economically independent from their nominal masters, I think they should also be artistically independent from them. I cannot really imagine the Lord Chamberlain or King James, for that matter, taking the troubles of directing their men at the Globe or Blackfriars. Yours, Jesus CORA ALONSO (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Bergstresser Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 1995 09:06:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0451 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing >The first instance of a clearly directorial role must surely be Hamlet with hi >explicit and detailed instructions to the Players in Act111, scene ii. > >Anna Cole Every essay I see on acting styles in Shakespeare's time uses _Hamlet_ at some point for evidence. Personally, I'm highly suspicious of any conclusions drawn from what a character, with personal and political motives, describes as proper presentational methods. There can be a few bits of information gleaned from the passage ("Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand" must surely indicate that gestures were used -- with no indication of how much is too much, of course) but most can be placed squarely within the context of the the situation. Were I trying to get a reaction from Claudius, I'd certainly say the purpose of acting was "to hold a mirror up to nature". Chris Bergstresser ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 12:25:53 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0459 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0459. Friday, 9 June 1995. (1) From: Terrence Ross Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 10:05:42 -0400 Subj: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? (2) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 1995 10:40:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0452 Re: Was Shakespeare Catholic? (3) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 10:05:10 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0456 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? (4) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 22:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0456 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? (5) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 21:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0456 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terrence Ross Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 10:05:42 -0400 Subject: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? Questions of the form "Was Shakespeare an X?" are always in danger of being decided by our rooting interests. If I am an X, and I love and admire Shakespeare, surely he was an X as well. The answer to the question is usually "He could have been," which is another way of saying, "He probably wasn't." Of course, you don't have to be Catholic to wonder whether Shakespeare was, but it probably helps. Today the X term is "Catholic," a few weeks ago it was "homosexual," but nobody since Woody Allen has posed the question, "Was Shakespeare three women?" He could have been. Terry Ross (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 1995 10:40:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0452 Re: Was Shakespeare Catholic? Dave Kathman has almost all the bases covered, but not quite. Shakespeare could have been an atheist, a conclusion some have drawn after seeing King Lear. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 10:05:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0456 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? Peter Donaldson's remarks shifting the ground of discussion from national differences to the construction of national differences, and the role W.S. and humo(u)r may play in it, might also be adopted in the discussion of Catholicism. One may ask, what is being constructed when individuals inquire into whether W.S. was "Catholic"? And one may also ask, how do the plays themselves construct or avoid constructing religious questions? How do our own readings, classroom discussions, and performances perpetuate the question of religious differences as W.S. constructs or fails to construct it? And here is another question: What is Hamlet's religion? -- Robert Appelbaum (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 22:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0456 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? Zoltan Abraham mentions Thomas Tallis and William Byrd as examples of Catholics who were successful in Elizabethan times. I don't know about Tallis, but Elizabeth had to use her influence several times to keep Byrd out of trouble, as she did as well with Sebastian Westcott, who was in charge of Paul's Boys. If it hadn't been for their talents, which she required, she wouldn't have protected them. Life for an English recusant was extremely difficult.Thomas Lodge is an interesting case in point. His conversion to catholicism put him in a number of difficulties, although he managed to survive them, ultimately taking a degree in medicine at a catholic university in France, returning to England to practise medicine. Although he was listed in one of the contemporary documents as one of the top medical practitioners of his day, he was forced to restrict his practice to members of his own faith. Stephanie Hughes (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 21:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0456 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? But it's obvious that whether Shakespeare was Catholic is important. His works reflect a certain period in the history of philosophy (or "ideology", if you're into polit-lit), and it obviously impacts on our reading if we imagine the author as holding Catholic views, just as the "protestant poetics" of Milton condition our reading of *Paradise Lost*. The problem with the debate seems, IMHO, to be that we assume "Catholicism" to possess a certain fixed, referential meaning, just as in criticial theory, we perform a sort of mental inertia in assuming "Marxism," "cultural materialism," "new criticism," etc., to also have simple meanings. The fact that Shakespeare may have been a recussant only impacts on the plays if we can understand not only a vague sympathy, but an implied philosophy. One can say that the Pope is catholic, and also that the current crackpot dictator of Zaire is catholic, but this does not mean that they are of a single mind. The role of constructing Shakespeare's outlook (or the outlook of his time, as always already inscribed in and overdetermining him, to be unnecessarily verbose) isn't really served by just labelling him unless the label can be tied to something concrete. Cheers, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 12:37:06 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0460 Re: American and British Humor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0460. Friday, 9 June 1995. (1) From: Pam Powell Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 16:52:14 GMT +2:00 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0457 Re: American and British Humor (2) From: Robert C. Evans Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 10:11:39 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0453 Re: American and British Humor (3) From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 95 12:34:35 est Subj: Re: SHK 6.0457 Re: American and British Humor (4) From: An Sonjae Date: Friday, 9 Jun 1995 09:23:36 +0900 (KST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0457 Re: American and British Humor; Miss-Begetting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pam Powell Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 16:52:14 GMT +2:00 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0457 Re: American and British Humor Here! Here! Benny Hill is not British humour in my opinion. Pam Powell South Africa (but British) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert C. Evans Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 10:11:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0453 Re: American and British Humor Dear Colleagues: I will soon be teaching a course in humor and satire and wondered if any of you had any suggestions about readings to include. To narrow the question a bit, I am specifically interested in non-dramatic works (especially poems and short stories) that will really excite genuine laughter but that also have literary merit. Please don't hesitate to mention titles that may seem obvious to you. Right now I am planning to give heavy emphasis to Chaucer, Donne, Jonson, Twain, and Flannery and Frank O'Connor. Thanks for any help! Robert C. Evans (Bob) bobevans@kaos.aum.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 95 12:34:35 est Subject: Re: SHK 6.0457 Re: American and British Humor I realize that this is off on a bit of a tangent, so I won't belabor it, but I feel that someone must speak up for the late Benny Hill. Certainly, his later work (after he became popular beyond Britain, in the U.S. and Australia) tended to aim toward the lowest common denominator (people in states of undress, "naughty" puerile nudge-nudge wink-wink jokes, etc.), but his earlier stuff (while certainly not highbrow) could be quite amusing, especially his songs (which sometimes employed a mixture of satire, pathos, and wordplay that WS himself might appreciate). I once played Touchstone and I remember someone remarking that the portrayal had some Benny Hill qualities (I don't think this was intended as an insult); while I didn't have him in mind when developing the character, I could certainly see the merits of the analogy. Anyway, my point is: don't judge BH just by the trashy excerpts you saw on American TV or the final work he did to capitalize on his later fame; also, bear in mind that he used irony, inuendo, double-entendre and bawdiness, just as did Monty Python, Joe Orton, Noel Coward, Chaucer and WS; they just sometimes have different styles. I would say that "British humor" is a nebulous phrase, but it certainly encompasses a long tradition of men in drag, men without trousers, women in underwear, and bodily functions, just as much as irony and witty repartee. I recall a BH sketch in which he (Newhart-style) portrayed WS' agent on the telephone to WS, asking him about the commercial viablilty of his plays. I also recall my English teacher's introductory remarks about Hamlet when I was 16: "This is a play about many things, including sex - which is not only great fun, but also very funny." So much for the state of British schooling (I believe Margaret Thatcher was Education Minister at the time) David Jackson (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: An Sonjae Date: Friday, 9 Jun 1995 09:23:36 +0900 (KST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0457 Re: American and British Humor; Miss-Begetting On a more literary level than Benny Hill I would be very interested to hear what have been the American responses to the poetry of Wendy Cope? Her first book of poems was called "Making Cocoa for Kingsley Amis" which is pretty Kultur-spezifisch, her second "Serious Concerns" has me rolling in fits yet the title is absolutely right, these are really serious poetic statements. National stereotyping of any kind is surely a waste of time, and can loose British ministers their jobs but in terms of reception theory we can surely ask whether a best-selling British poet has the same impact elsewhere and if not why not? I certainly feel a rough edge in British attitudes to Life that seems to be smothered in sugar across the Atlantic. An Sonjae Sogang University, Seoul, Korea anthony@ccs.sogang.ac.kr ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 12:56:21 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0461 Re: William Shakesbear Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0461. Friday, 9 June 1995. (1) From: Jung Jimmy Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 95 11:09:00 PDT Subj: another bear message (2) From: Terry Craig Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 1995 12:41:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: More on the Bear (3) From: Fran Teague Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 95 13:42:07 EDT Subj: Many thanks (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jung Jimmy Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 95 11:09:00 PDT Subject: another bear message Hardy, I forgot you were in Maryland. There is a bear store in Fells Point, Baltimore, where they carry the line of bears you speak of, and perhaps old willy shaksbear himself. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the store, but its next to the bar, Leadbetters, perhaps they can give you the name; its across the street from The Horse You Came In On. Sorry all my fells point geography is based on the locations of bars. The owner is a little out there, and seems to have a conversational relationship with much of her merchandise, but she probably can help, if not sell you one. jimmy (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Craig Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 1995 12:41:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: More on the Bear Fran and Hardy-- I visited a store caled Bear Tracks this morning. They carry the line (VIB) from which Shakesbear was retired, but they have no more Wills. The woman there did, however, show me a magazine called *Teddy Bear and Friends* which covers everything from Teddy Artists to Teddy Bear Jamborees. There are also lots of ads about bears for sale from stores and from individuals. I have no idea what the prices would be, but I thought I'd send along some of the possibles. If either of you would like a closer at the magazine, I'll be happy to send it snail mail. Here are some stores that mention VIBs specifically: Bears by the Sea (805)-773-1952 Teddy Bear Junction (804)-564-7623 The Bear Tree (714)-527-1411 Shirley's Dollhouse (708)-537-1632 ("Largest inventory of old VIBs") There are quite a few personal or small-store ads offering VIBs for sale, some mentioning rather ominously "best offer." Two mention Shakesbear himself: Urbanski Bears (312)-831-2769 Holly (307)-745-8481 Three sources offer retired VIBs: Teddy Bear Country (817)-624-7007 Unnamed (718)-761-8147 Second Childhood (717)-875-2851 Hope this helps. Again, if you'd like to see the magazine, I'll be glad to send it. Terry (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 95 13:42:07 EDT Subject: Many thanks Just wanted to let you know that I'll probably have a bear made or else surrender my attempt a whimsey and settle for giving a bottle of Scotch as a graduation gift. I have found all the lore about bears quite charming and all the enthusiastic help quite touching. Thank you so much for making this sort of inquiry possible. It's really brightened my June knowing that so many folks are willing to help out! Fran T. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 13:08:06 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0463 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0463. Friday, 9 June 1995. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 1995 10:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0458 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing (2) From: Michael Swanson Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 11:33:10 -0400 Subj: Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing (3) From: Michael Best Date: Friday, 9 Jun 1995 10:02:10 -0700 Subj: Early directors (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 1995 10:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0458 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing Hold the mirror up to nature, yes; but Polonius's best advice, to actors and all, is: "By indirections find direction out." Jim Schaefer schaefej@guvax.georgetown.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Swanson Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 11:33:10 -0400 Subject: Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing While I agree with Chris Bergstrasser's comment that Hamlet's advice to the players needs to be considered in light of that character's situation and his objectives for staging "The Mouse-Trap," I would also submit that the very fact that Hamlet gives advice at all suggests that there was some practice of giving such advice -- whether as acting coaching or as directing -- in the Elizabethan theatre. Had no one done it before Hamlet, it would seem to be difficult, if not impossible, for Hamlet to do it. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Friday, 9 Jun 1995 10:02:10 -0700 Subject: Early directors Two thoughts on directors in early drama. Chris Bergstresser is surely right to question Hamlet's speeches on acting as somehow expressing a norm for the period, or even Shakespeare's attitude to the best acting style. It is true that the actors and their play come in for a bit of gentle satire (the old-fashioned diction of Gonzago's Revenge is a good pointer), but it is also true that Hamlet, university student, has less than Shakespearean taste in literature -- witness his admiration for the turgid Senecanism of the Pyrrus speech. The Parnassus plays remind us that university taste was not that of the authors for the general stage, and it is certainly possible that Shakespeare's taste(s) in acting styles were somewhere between Hamlet's and the Player King's. In a different direction on directors, is there a parallel between directors in acting companies and conductors in orchestras? The conductor arrived at the end of the eighteenth / beginning of the nineteenth century when orchestras got bigger and the music more complex -- before then performances were usually led by the harpsichordist or organist providing the continuo, the principle violinist, or the soloist (the film Amadeus is cheerfully anachronistic on this in all but one scene where Mozart is shown conducting from the piano). It's all mixed up no doubt with the shift in perception of the individual and the group that we usually blame on the romantics? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 13:25:06 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0464 Re: Discovering Ham; Miss-Begetting; RSC Peer Gynt Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0464. Friday, 9 June 1995. (1) From: Edna Boris Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 95 11:41:10 EDT Subj: Discovering Hamlet (2) From: Gayle Gaskill Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 11:53:51 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Miss-Begetting (3) From: Joanne Walen Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 22:14:52 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0454 Re: Peer Gynt, etc. (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edna Boris Date: Thursday, 08 Jun 95 11:41:10 EDT Subject: Discovering Hamlet If the video called "Discovering Hamlet" has been discussed in this forum, I missed seeing the discussion, but the tape is so well done that I'd like to make sure that people know about it. It's 53 minutes long, so manageable to show during one class period and shows Derek Jacobi in his first directing experience with Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet in a Birmingham production. Though no one will agree with all the decisions and choices that they make, the director and actors' reasoning for key choices is explained and we get to see the process by which a performance is readied from earliest rehersals to opening night. It is effective in its own right and as a spark for all kinds of classroom discussion. The box lists it as distributed by PBS Video with a 1991 copyright, Unicorn Projects in Washington, D.C. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gayle Gaskill Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 11:53:51 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Miss-Begetting The Miss-Begetting discussion, with its equation of sexual vigor to the production of the y-chromosome, may provide a reading of Macbeth's demand or request, "Bring forth Men-children onely" (1.7.72). Let me ask someone who cited Edmund's defense of bastards to explain the legality of legitimacy in Shakespeare' England. Edmund asserts he is "some twelve or fourteen moonshines / Lag of a brother" (1.2.5-6), and Gloucester has confessed "there was good sport at his making, and the whoreson must be acknowledged" (1.1.23-24). Is Edmund the older or the younger brother of the legitimate Edgar? If he is younger, then twelve or fourteen moonshines--though they would deprive him of inheriting his father's title--would not in themselves make him a whoreson. Are we to assume the sons had the same mother--in other words, that subsequent marriage would not legitimize a child already born to a couple? That would give legal significance to the "twelve or fourteen moonshines lag" but give "whoreson" a peculiarly misogynistic reading, especially in this motherless play. Or are we to guess that Gloucester, who introduces his adult bastard son to his old acquaintance, Kent, has only recently discovered that Edmund exists? Who can explain this point of law? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 22:14:52 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0454 Re: Peer Gynt, etc. According to my summer schedule for RSC, *Peer Gynt* previews at the Young Vic in London from 30 August, closes on 14 October. And I quite agree with your opinion that Alex Jenning's performance was amazing. The *Henry V* of Iain Glen is also not to be missed; it previews at the Barbican from 31 August, closing on 16 November. I base these opinions on the performances I saw last summer in Stratford, but I suspect that they have strengthened rather than suffered by the move to London. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 13:27:54 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0465 RFD: Newsgroup Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0465. Friday, 9 June 1995. From: Marty Hyatt Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 20:18:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 2nd RFD: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare Summary: Poetry, plays, history of Shakespeare Proposed by: Marty Hyatt This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) on the subject of creating an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare This message initiates a discussion period to consider the creation of a humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare newsgroup. Discussion will take place on news.groups. All follow-up posts on Usenet should be made to news.groups. This is the second RFD for this group. The first RFD used the name, humanities.literature.english.shakespeare. As a result of the first discussion (see Rationale below), the name has been changed to humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare and another discussion period (of at least seven days) is required due to the name change. RATIONALE Shakespeare has been discussed frequently in rec.arts.theatre.plays and occasionally in rec.arts.books. There is also a moderated listserv list, SHAKSPER, devoted to Shakespeare. But there is no Usenet newsgroup specifically for the discussion of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. The new group humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare will be unmoderated. There are no plans to gate the new group to the listserv list. The creation of humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare will initiate a humanities.lit.* hierarchy (lit = literature). During the first discussion period, ".lit." was favored over ".literature." for the second level of the name (by 48:17 in a straw poll). The creation of this group will also establish humanities.lit.authors.* as a possible location for other single-author newsgroups. During the discussion period, ".authors." was favored over ".english." for the third level of the name because this is likely to prevent arguments over the names of future single-author newsgroups. Although ".english." seems a good fit for Shakespeare, other authors are not so easy to categorize. A straw poll favored ".authors." over ".english." for the third level of the name by a vote of 44:4. The creation of humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare will not preclude future division of the humanities.lit.* hierarchy by language or other subjects as will be determined by future newsgroup votes (e.g. it is possible that humanities.lit.english.misc will be created some day). During the first discussion period, few or no objections were raised to the Charter itself. Discussion focused on what to use for the name of the new group. CHARTER The unmoderated newsgroup humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare will be for discussion of: 1> the plays and poems of William Shakespeare and other English writers of the 16th and 17th centuries. 2> the life and times of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. 3> the production, staging, and acting of Shakespeare's plays, including current and past productions. 4> Shakespeare's influence and impact on subsequent literature and culture. 5> Shakespeare's authorship including his sources, allusions in his works, publication of his works, possible collaborations, and possible pseudonymity. NOTE THE FOLLOWING This is NOT a call for votes. A Call For Votes (CFV) will be posted after a discussion period of at least 7 days and will be conducted by an independent third party. This RFD is being cross-posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, humanities.misc, rec.arts.books, and rec.arts.theatre.plays. It is also being posted to the listserv list, shaksper@utoronto. Followups on Usenet should be made to news.groups. -- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Marty Hyatt = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 13:40:48 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0466 Q: Citations from SHAKSPER Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0466. Friday, 9 June 1995. From: Norman J. Myers Date: Thursday, 8 Jun 1995 13:25:04 -0400 Subject: Citation from SHAKSPER What is the proper etiquette for quoting from postings to a discussion list such as this one? (I've already written directly to the individual from whose posting I would like to quote.) Since postings to a list rather than to an individual are meant for all the world - or at least all the SHAKSPER world - to see, does one need to get such direct permission? I could have asked Hardy only, but I thought the answer might be of interest to all. Also, what is the proper citation form. Thanks in advance. E-mail direct or post to the list, whichever you think appropriate. [Editor's Note: Let me start the discussion. There are no hard and fast rules; however, proper etiquette is indeed to write directly to the contributor and ask permission to quote. As for the actual format itself, check the latest edition of the *MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers*, 4th. ed., 1995. I would give a page number but left my copy in one of my other offices. I am proud to announce, nonetheless, that the example of a citation from an electronic conference that is included in the *MLA Handbook* is from SHAKSPER. Further, now that I have the opportunity, let me also point out that SHAKSPER is given an entry in the latest *World Shakespeare Bibliography: 1993*. --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 10:09:36 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0467 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0467. Saturday, 10 June 1995. (1) From: Elizabeth Y. Zeria Date: Friday, 9 Jun 95 13:34:24 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0459 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? (2) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 9 Jun 95 17:29:47 EST Subj: [Was Shakespeare Catholic?] (3) From: David Glassco Date: Friday, 09 Jun 1995 23:16:25 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0459 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? (4) From: Mack Carter Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 00:07:12 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0459 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Y. Zeria Date: Friday, 9 Jun 95 13:34:24 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0459 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? I've been on-line/off-line and more off than on lately, so please excuse me if I repeat anything already said... Who says Shakespeare was necessarily a firm believer in any particular religious denomination? He might very well have been (and in my reading of the plays I've gotten the strong impression that he very likely was) questioning rather than professing. It has seemed to me that almost every contemporary approach to religion (or politics, or philosophy, or cosmology...for that matter) was addressed and analyzed, usually found wanting, at some point in his works. I've thought him more interested in exploring, taking apart, playing with and wondering at, than in espousing. (and actually, at the risk of doing some professing of my own, I've developed the pretty strong opinion that WS was disillusioned with institutionalized religion as a whole...that his plays tend more and more over his writing career to portray institutionalized religion as a hindrance to spiritual and moral development. Lear seems to me not so much to deny God in favor of gods, or atheism, as to expose institutionalized religion as a dressing-up of deity in quite changeable fashions...whatever fashion suits the politics of the time or individual desires...but that's the stuff of the paper I'm supposed to be writing as I sit here playing on the Internet instead!) Just one opinion...but an opinion which would certainly help account for the ability of the texts to support such a variety of other opinions! Intermittently yours, Liz (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 9 Jun 95 17:29:47 EST Subject: [Was Shakespeare Catholic?] Let me second remarks to the effect that we need to interrogate statements such as, "Shakespeare was a Catholic"--or an Anglican or a Puritan or an atheist, even. Some of the biographical data suggest that he grew up in a Catholic household and led a life in London compatible with recusancy. The plays exhibit some carryovers from Catholic theology and polity--auricular confession in _Rom_, purgatory in _Ham_, monasticism in _MM_; they also celebrate English domination over religious affairs at the expense of papal authority (Jn, H8), discomfit Puritans (TN), expose episcopal intriguing (1 and 2H6, H5), make fun of rural clergy (LLL, AYL), and anatomize the use of ostentatious piety as a political device (R3). On this basis it is difficult to speculate with any comfort about Shakespeare's own private religious thought and practice. But in any case, and especially at this point in history, that was likely to be a complex and unstable set of ideas, feelings, habits, attitudes, and activities, changing with time and circumstance, and not necessarily at any point the least bit reliable or coherent. For all that, the question remains interesting not only in the People Magazine sense, as helping us to attach this author and this work to our own (no doubt equally complex and unstable) frame of religious reference, but critically. The most important relationship is not, I think, that between the protean playwright and the multiple masks of his text, but between the text, as enacted, and the equally protean audience. How might the responses to the Ghost's invocation of purgatory or Isabella's conventual vocation have differed as between Anglican and recusant spectators (perhaps even a wayward Puritan or two); if different, how might the differences have affected responses to other elements of the play? The questions begin to turn back toward the dark box of authorship, of course, when we begin to wonder about the calculation involved. Is it all part of a more-or-less conscious exploitation of unorthodoxy, for instance--dabbling in off-limits theology right there with incest, insanity, and regicide as part of a deliciously naughty package of _epatage des bourgeois_ (Luc Borot will pardon my French, I hope, if it's out of line). For these reasons, the inquiry, inconclusive as it has been, seems to me worth carrying further. Imp-iously, Dave Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Glassco Date: Friday, 09 Jun 1995 23:16:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0459 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? Don't know whether S was an RC and don't much care. What we do know from the plays is no position is ever advanced without alternative possibilities being explored. One word for his sensibility might be "sceptical". Among the major targets of his scepticism one would want to include both dogmatism in all it forms and the various posturings--and brutalizations--of authority. Whether this is a sensibility that would call itself Catholic seems to me more a question for the historian of the Church than for the student of Shakespeare. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mack Carter Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 00:07:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0459 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? I can't believe a question with a simple answer could cause so much debating fluff. Why don't we just stereotype the poor guy as a "Catholic" and breath all the views of that stereotype into his works for ourselves. In the end the person and the works won't be changed and two hundred years from now another person can read an Encyclopedia to find he was Catholic to draw their own opinions. I know that when that happens the stereotype will have changed and the views done with that bias with it. It seems all this conversation is too much art and little matter. We seem to be losing the fact Shakespeare had a broad focus in his work with this question. If you look at a T.V. to close you will see nothing but blue, green and yellow dots. If you look at Shakespeare to close like that T.V. you will see only small peices of that larger picture. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 10:19:55 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0468 Re: Humor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0468. Saturday, 10 June 1995. (1) From: John Owen Date: Friday, 9 Jun 1995 13:05:00 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0460 Re: American and British Humor (2) From: James Schaefer Date: Friday, 09 Jun 1995 16:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0460 Re: American and British Humor (3) From: Thomas A. Berson Date: Friday, 09 Jun 1995 23:22:11 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0460 Re: American and British Humor (4) From: Pam Powell Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 10:29:47 GMT +2:00 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0460 Re: American and British Humor (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Friday, 9 Jun 1995 13:05:00 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0460 Re: American and British Humor This is as good an occasion as any to throw out a pet theory of mine (certainly not new): British comedy (performed humour rather than written), seems to be funniest when it is verbal. American comedy works best visually. Benny Hill was always funniest when performing one of his songs, monologues or two-person skits. He was at his weakest during those lamentable silent comedy knockoffs culminating inevitably in a pointless chase sequence. Monty Python thrived on verbal mishaps, and with a few notable exceptions (American Terry Gilliam's animations), was weakest in skits where the humour was primarily visual. The American tradition of comedy was fueled by urban immigrant cultures where the English language was either unlearned or distorted into a hybrid with the immigrant's original language. Hence, successful comedy skipped the problem of language altogether, and American comics developed a vein of sophisticated nonverbal humour. This trend reached its highest peak with the success of the American silent film comics, Keaton, Lloyd, et al. As much as this has changed since the earlier part of the century, I think this represents a vein which still has influence. Now, to go back on topic -- Is there a tendency in American productions of Shakespeare to emphasize visual comedy -- pratfalls, prop business, etc., and a corresponding British facility with the Bard's verbal comedy? John Owen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Friday, 09 Jun 1995 16:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0460 Re: American and British Humor To Robert C. Evans: In your course on humor and satire, you MUST include Brian O'Nolan, AKA Flann O'Brian, AKA Myles naGopaleen (if I've spelled that correctly). *At Swim Two-Birds* is one of the funniest books in English -- written, of course, by an Irishman. My paperback copy has quotes in it (I'm working from memory here:) from Joyce, calling it a very funny book, and this from Dylan Thomas: "This is the sort of book to give your sister if she's a dirty, noisy, boozy girl." For those of a post-modern bent, there is a book-within-the-book, being written as we read, by an author who keeps his characters imprisoned in a hotel. They revolt during a cattle raid on Dublin (complete with cowboys with "shootin' irons"). It is a wild mixture of Irish mythology, American Westerns, the undergraduate novel, and *Dubliners* *The Third Policeman* is funny the way Beckett is funny. *The Poor Mouth* is funny the way *King Lear* is funny -- the end is outrageous and devasting all at once. *The Best of Myles* collects O'Nolan's newspaper columns under such headings as "The Poor People of Ireland, "The Brother" (who knows everything and never pays retail), and "The Myles naGapoleen Cathechism of Cliche." His life, alas, was not a funny as his art. Jim Schaefer Georgetown University schaefej@guvax.georgetown.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas A. Berson Date: Friday, 09 Jun 1995 23:22:11 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0460 Re: American and British Humor In 6.0460 Robert C. Evans wrote: >I am specifically interested in non-dramatic works ... Many of my British friends find Jerome K. Jerome's 1889 classic _Three Men in a Boat_ to be very funny. When I moved to the UK in 1971 I was told that I simply must read it. I did. But it took several years of living in the UK before I knew why it was funny, and then several additional years to actually find it so. There is a Penguin edition. (Mine cost 30p. Was anything ever that inexpensive?) From the publisher's blurb: "'We agree that we are overworked, and need a rest - A week on the rolling deep? - George suggests the river -' And with the co-operation of several hampers of food and a covered boat, the three men (not forgetting the dog) set out on a hilarious voyage of mishaps up the Thames. When not falling in the river and getting lost in Hampton Court Maze, Jerome K. Jerome finds time to express his ideas on the world around - many of which have acquired a deeper fascination since the day at the end of the last century when this excursion was so lightly undertaken." Have a look at it. Best, --T (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pam Powell Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 10:29:47 GMT +2:00 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0460 Re: American and British Humor Dear An Sonjae, I hope I have spelt your name correctly. Who is Wendy Cope and could you give me the title of any of her publications? Anything that makes me laugh, I'm all for it and I've never heard of her. Thanks Pam Powell South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 10:37:20 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0469 Directing; MLA; Shakesbear; Newsgroup; Miss-Begetting; WWW Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0469. Saturday, 10 June 1995. (1) From: Stephen Orgel Date: Friday, 9 Jun 1995 11:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0463 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing (2) From: James J. Hill Date: Friday, 9 Jun 1995 14:47:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: *MLA Handbook* (3) From: Debra Fiorini Date: Friday, 09 Jun 1995 15:02:34 E Subj: one more bear message (4) From: John Cox Date: Friday, 09 Jun 1995 15:43:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0465 RFD: Newsgroup (5) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Friday, 9 Jun 1995 14:40:05 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0464 Re: Miss-Begetting (6) From: Peter Scott Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 05:59:08 -0600 (CST) Subj: The Theater At Monmouth (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Orgel Date: Friday, 9 Jun 1995 11:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0463 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing Surely the problem with taking Hamlet as a norm for the Elizabethan director is his contempt for the groundlings, who comprise half the paying spectators. Wouldn't those lines simply have been hooted at in the Globe? Or were they inserted only for the performances at Oxford and Cambridge that Gabrial Harvey refers to, where they would have been designed to flatter the elite audience? S. Orgel (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James J. Hill Date: Friday, 9 Jun 1995 14:47:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: *MLA Handbook* At home with my *MLA Handbook*, I located the citation on p. 165 [see 4.9.3.a.] for your information. (:-) Jim (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Debra Fiorini Date: Friday, 09 Jun 1995 15:02:34 E Subject: one more bear message The "Vermont Teddy Bear Company" makes bears to order dressed as anything and anyone under the sun. (They have have "bear counselors" who prepare them for their trip via UPS to their new owners). When I returned from school in England, my cousins had one sent to me dressed in a graduation cap and gown holding a British flag and the quality of it is fantastic. I've been getting the catalogs ever since and the range of bears to choose from is great. They could make a Shakesbear for anyone - all you have to do is ask them for it. If anyone wants their address, I could look it up at home (I'm currently at work.) Debra (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Friday, 09 Jun 1995 15:43:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0465 RFD: Newsgroup I don't see why you want an additional list devoted to Shakespeare. There are obvious advantages to a moderated list, and SHAKSPER is an excelelnt forum. I need more explanation as to why you think an unmoderated list is necessary. John Cox Hope College (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Friday, 9 Jun 1995 14:40:05 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0464 Re: Miss-Begetting My understanding is that more than subsequent marriage would be necessary to legitimize children born to a couple not married. They could be legitimized, of course, but that's a separate legal procedure. And anyway, Edmund, like Spurio, is definitely the younger son, different mother, result of adultery (the source--Sidney's Arcadia--is pretty clear about this, as is the text.) Melissa Aaron University of Wisconsin-Madison (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Scott Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 05:59:08 -0600 (CST) Subject: The Theater At Monmouth The Theater At Monmouth, The Shakespearean Theater of Maine, is proud to announce its 1995 Summer Season. http://www.biddeford.com/~pinetree/tam/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 10:40:42 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0470 Q: *The Reign of King Edward III* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0470. Saturday, 10 June 1995. From: Robert Page Date: Friday, 9 Jun 1995 3:25:29 PDT Subject: Re: Reign of King Edward III Back in the 70's, while radio was still a viable form for drama, I took a number of plays off Public Radio onto reel-to-reel - they were played once by NPR and then erased. They were a classic series presenting a wide variety of plays from Plautus to 19th C. Among them was a play I've always wanted to ask about (as the announcer says "The Reign of King Edward III, a play published in quarto in 1596 and now thought in part to be writ by Shakespeare." The announcer then tells about the conditions of publication and first production. Since I've heard nothing about the play since, I'm assuming this was a tiny little tempest in a teapot. Anyone know of any word on this play? If you want you can reply to me, pager@fsa.wosc.osshe.edu - and many thanks. Bob Page ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 15:52:14 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0471 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0471. Monday, 12 June 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 10:41:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0459 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? (2) From: David Wilson-Okamura Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 10:14:27 -0500 Subj: Was Shakespeare Catholic? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 10:41:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0459 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? Thank you Terence Ross for shedding light on this subject--- Though there are "catholic" vs. "protestant" and even "puritan" debates and/or jokes in Shakespeare--there of course are also the "pagan" tendencies that occue alot--especially moreso in the comedies---and what do people make of the "last supper" scene in ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA--it could almost be considered 'sacriligous" to a hardcore religious--whether catholic or protestant-- Shakespeare's theatre does not seem to subordinate itself to any religion---Of course, I may be bringing my 20th century prejudices into this--(be they Wallace Stevens' views on the function of art "in the absence of a belief of a god" or John Lennon's "the beatles are bigger than...")--but even John Skelton, a man of the cloth as it were, preceding Shakespeare by a good 100 years, seemed to get away with things that otherwise would have been considered heresy in his writing--- (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Wilson-Okamura Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 10:14:27 -0500 Subject: Was Shakespeare Catholic? With regard to those who see the debate about Shakespeare's religious affiliation as "so much ... fluff," "much art and little matter": if (as you remind us) "Shakespeare had a broad focus in his work," why do you want to shut down a conversation on one aspect of that work? If you are not interested in the question, it is very easy to delete the "Was Shakespeare Catholic" messages without reading them. There is no need to talk down to the rest of us who are interested, as if we had not the intelligence to distinguish a good question from a stupid one. Yours faithfully, David Wilson-Okamura ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 17:46:09 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0472 Re: HUmor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0472. Monday, 12 June 1995. (1) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 10:43:15 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0468 Re: Humor (2) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 14:18:26 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0468 Re: Humor (3) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 13:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0468 Re: Humor (4) From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Sunday, 11 Jun 1995 11:35:48 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Humour (5) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 11 Jun 1995 17:03:46 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0468 Re: Humor (6) From: An Sonjae Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 09:13:06 +0900 (KST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0468 Re: Humor (7) From: Alistair Scott Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 13:00:25 +0200 Subj: American and British Humour (8) From: Robert C. Baum Date: Monday, 12 Jun 95 14:22:09 EDT Subj: Monty Python as superior visual comedy (9) From: Terrence Ross Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 09:04:04 -0400 Subj: American and British Humor (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 10:43:15 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0468 Re: Humor I'd like to second the vote on *Three Men in a Boat* as absolutely hilarious. However, I have to honestly say that I thought it was funny right away. There was a TV version with Tim Curry as J about 15 years agoo--the scene in which they try to open a tin of lobster with knives, mallets and their oars is enough to refresh the most careworn. Melissa Aaron University of Wisconsin-Madison (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 14:18:26 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0468 Re: Humor John Owen's theory about the verbal British vs the physical American humorist is like many kinds of pets -- rather more charming to the owner than to others. A few names suffice to call it in question -- Charlie Chaplin, Stan Laurel, Groucho Marx, Richard Pryor, Woody Allen, Phyllis Diller. Not to mention the infamous inventor of the Silly Walk, John Cleese. The case of Benny Hill is worth considering at more length -- for me gloriously naughty Benny, the best analysis of whose humo(u)r is George Orwell's "The Art of Donald Magill," was funniest not when _telling_ a joke, nor when mugging once it was told, but in the gleeful moment immediately before it was told, when he looked at the camera, and you knew that he knew that you knew that he knew that what he was about to say was scandalous and ribald. There was a very complicated transaction of mutual knowledge and enjoyment in that moment which seems to me the essence of one kind of communal comedy (the one analyzed especially well by Robert Weimann for its place in Shakespeare's plays). It goes deep into the class experience of British life, of course as Orwell points out, and it's this above all, it seems to me, that distinguishes British humor from American where distinctions can be found (there are exceptions, RoseAnne Barr being a recent example). Even early on, for instance -- it's a true truism that Chaplin's work tends to revolve around class antagonisms where Keaton's focuses on individual effort (contrast "The Cameraman" or "The General" with "City Lights" or "Modern Times"). I was very sorry when Benny Hill died -- by all accounts a painfully shy and self-effacing presence to whom I owe much childhood mirth. His sketch of the agent receiving a call from Shakespeare remains with me, especially the following exchange: Hill (as agent):....about a Dream, Will, is it? That's good....In a forest at night? Well, Will...Fairies? In a forest at night...? Will, I don't think the audiences...Well...oh, one of them's a woman. What's her name? Tit-ania....Now Will, I see a small problem there... No, I don't think the Lord Chamberlain will....What? There's a funny man? That's good Will, audiences always like a good laugh. What's he called? (deadpan) Bottom. No, I'm sorry Will, we can't have that. No. No. "Buttock" maybe or even, possibly "Bum", but "Bottom"? It's lewd, Will. The public will never understand, Will.... Or words to that effect. It's worth recalling that this was broadcast on prime-time TV to gales of laughter from the live audience. Hard to imagine now. Cheers, Tom (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 13:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0468 Re: Humor For John Owen: I thought your theory was interesting, but I doubt that the development of a cinematic language of comedy can be directly associated with American ethnicity. It is true, however, that self-identified ethnic comedy (the Yiddish comics of the Catskills, some of the black comics of today) emphasize the spoken word as an in-language expressing an in-humor. And it is also true that, ethnic considerations apart, popular American culture has by and large created a mass visual literacy that far exceeds its verbal literacy. I'm sure that every American stage director today has to begin with the problem that his "audience" has had more training in spectatorship than in auditing, that it is better with pratfalls than with puns, and easily visually bored. The association of the development of visual comedy with multi-ethnicity is suggestive; but then again, the visuality of American film was created to reach across national boundaries as well as ethnic divisions, and has a lot to do with the success of the Hollywood culture worldwide, Great Britain included. (Chaplin of course was British, and so were a number of other "American" silent film stars.) Moreover, to return, as your interesting argument seems to do, through the back door to the idea of "national character" (the British again turning out to have a superior or at least "different" comic intelligence) seems to occlude the real issues behind the development and distribution of cultural production. The uses of comedy are various; so are the users. In order to teach worldwide audiences to require the enormously rapid, complex, and expensive visual stimulation that only a global culture industry can supply, the industry itself first had to educate its "audience" in visuality, and addict it to the thrills of its language. I think there's a sense in which the Elizabethan stage industry was also educating its audience in a certain kind of literacy, and in certain uses of humor -- uses which grew out of various "folk" traditions but which were also suited to a somewhat diverse, non-folkish but hierarchically organized audience. They developed a language of comedy which had to be somewhat broad, but which had to gesture in the direction of certain social authorities and values, and observe certain conventions of censorship and self-censorship, a language which was predominantly verbal, but verbal in a certain way. In a word, the comedy developed by shakespeare and company was "neutral" in much the same way that Hollywood comedy attempts to be "neutral." It wasn't neutral at all, even if it was developed to reach a newly fashioned, broadened audience, and even if by comparison with the comedy of the modern american culture industry its products still seem adventurous or naughty. I don't think that the sustaining of comic traditions in certain national or ethnic communities can be looked at as a neutral expression of national or ethnic differences either. -- Robert Appelbaum (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Sunday, 11 Jun 1995 11:35:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Humour I'm not sure that John Owens's distinction between visual and verbal holds as a division between American and British humours (subjects, indeed, dear to my heart). I can think of many examples that suggest otherwise. Isn't (my current US favourite) "Frasier" largely verbal comedy? And how about "Fawlty Towers" and Cleese's tortured physical humour (culminating, perhaps, in the show when he thrashes his car with a shrub). I saw the RSC's production of Ben Jonson's "Epicoene" in 1989? and I felt that a great deal of the play's success was a result of the visual/physical humour -- Sir Amorous La Foole's "tweaks by the nose sans nombre" are still with me -- and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. The National Thetare's 1989 production of "bartholomew Fair," even. The most memorable discussion of Renaissance comedy in terms of contemporary British comedy (well, it's more of a "mention" than a discussion) is by Brian Gibbons in his first edition of "Jacobean City Comedy." He cites Frankie Howerd's remark that to be a comedian "these days" required a university education (commenting, I suppose, on the rise of the "Python" generation of comedians), which Gibbons, if I remember correctly, paralleled with the "university men" of the Renaissance stage. Obviously, I'm citing from dim memory. Wouldn't this be an interesting distinction to debate? The reason I find Python so amusing is the juxtaposition of high and low culture (the "All-England Summarise Proust Competition," "the Germany vs. Greece Philosophy/Soccer final," the trip to see Jean Paul and Betty-Muriel Sartre...) Simon Morgan-Russell Department of English Bowling Green State University (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 11 Jun 1995 17:03:46 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0468 Re: Humor I second James Schaefer's advocacy of Brian O'Nolan, and offer a topical extract from his 'Cruiskeen Lawn' column in the Dublin Times: Examinations are in the air again. The papers once more demonstrate the curious immutability of examination marks. Nobody denies that the pound is now about half its pre-war value and that all other values have altered pari passu. Yet the examination marks are exactly the same as they were ten years ago. Take this example from the current Leaving Certificate paper in Arithmetic: 'A person holds a Bill of Exchange for 31,450 pound payable in six months and hence. He gets the Bill discounted in a bank at 4% per annum and invests the proceeds in a 10% Stock as 245. What will be his half-yearly dividend? (30 marks.)' You see? Only 30 marks. Leave aside the fact that the first sentence has no meaning, forget even the indelicate reference to G. S. R. Surely it is ridiculous to offer a paltry 30 marks, at present market levels, for calculations so laborious and recondite as those implied in the question? Another consideration arises. The whole theory of awarding marks is misconceived psychologically. Walk into a pub and take a look at one of those electric pin-tables. You can shoot six balls for a penny and your score will depend on whether you have the skill to direct your ball into certain channels more highly valued than others. But suppose you know nothing about the game and with your first ball score the absolute minimum. To your delight you will find that you have scored 1000. Thus encouraged, you keep on and make possibly 5000. Even if you are aware that the total score possible is 48000, you think that you have done very creditably for a beginner. After all, 5000 is a lot of points. You insert another penny. Students should be encouraged the same way. I know of no reason why the question given above should not carry 3000 marks. And if there is a reason, does it not also apply to 30? Why not 3? (No answer, of course.) Benny Hill? I wouldn't give him house-room! Gabriel Egan (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: An Sonjae Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 09:13:06 +0900 (KST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0468 Re: Humor I'm not sure if this should go to the list or to Pam Powell privately but since the query "Who is Wendy Cope" came out on the list and since I am sure quite a lot of others have the same question, let me just say that her two volumes of poems (and parodies, she has an alter ego she calls Jason Strugnell who writes some of the best bad poetry you can imagine) were published by faber and faber (that's how they write it) "Making Cocoa for Kingsley Amis" in 1986 and "Seious Concerns" in 1992. Her autobiographical sketch adds little, except that "she went to St. Hilda's College, Oxford, where she learned to play the guitar" and she was a primary-school teacher for 15 years. Let me just add that as a child in Cornwall I used to laugh more over "Three Men in a Boat" than over anything I ever read. Come to think of it, some of the humour (!) is similar. An Sonjae (not my original name, I fear, but a Korean version) anthony@ccs.sogang.ac.kr (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alistair Scott Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 13:00:25 +0200 Subject: American and British Humour Bob For your course on humour and satire how about one of the short stories by 'Saki' (H.H. Munro). My favourite is 'The Unrest Cure' which has a Pythonesque flavour. Then another very 'British' author giving masses of choice is P.G. Wodehouse. And ... will the course only deal with texts that were originally written in English? Translations considered? Can you address satire and leave out 'Candide'? Cheers Alistair (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert C. Baum Date: Monday, 12 Jun 95 14:22:09 EDT Subject: Monty Python as superior visual comedy John Owen wrote---- This is as good an occasion as any to throw out a pet theory of mine (certainly not new): British comedy (performed humour rather than written), seems to be funniest when it is verbal. American comedy works best visually. Benny Hill was always funniest when performing one of his songs, monologues or two-person skits. He was at his weakest during those lamentable silent comedy knockoffs culminating inevitably in a pointless chase sequence. Monty Python thrived on verbal mishaps, and with a few notable exceptions (American Terry Gilliam's animations), was weakest in skits where the humour was primarily visual. --- end of quoted material --- Hello all-- (I apologize for any mispellingszzzzz. . .) Benny Hill's pointless chase sequences became "old" before they began. However, the theory that Monty Python "was weakest in skits where the humor was primarily visual" is simply untrue. Two great examples of successful (primary) visual comedy are the "How Not Not To Be Seen" and "The Fish Slapping Dance" sketches. If you recall, the first has John Cleese narrating a series of field (trees, bushes, etc.) visuals. The first person stands from behind a bush when called and is shot. He can be seen. Another segment shows a single bush in a field. Therefore this person can be seen (you can guess where he/she is) and is blown into smithereens, as he/she releases a very satisfying high-pitched yelping bird call screem. When there are multiple places to not be seen, they are all blown up until the same screem is heard from the center explosion, to which Cleese says, "It was---the middle------one." If this isn't superior visual comedy. . .I don't know what is. A second example is "The Fish Slapping Dance". To extremely festive (almost carnival) music, Palin tip-toe dances up to Cleese with fish in his crossed hands and slaps him in the face; tip-toes back and repeats this crossing and uncrossing slap assault until the music stops. Clease remains the straight man. Upon the conclusion of the happy song, Clease cracks Palin across the face with a ten foot fish (scroddddd perhaps?), sending him off their platform and into the river. (Although this unhumorous description fails to convey the comic merit of the sketch, if you've seen it or do come across it, you will see visual comedy at its best.) I agree also that Gilliam's animation could get old before it started, but occasionally he hit home--the friars hopping and diving into a pool created by the alteration of a medieval typeface character in _The Holy Grail_ or the man rudely awakened by the sun, moon, clouds and trees jumping to the intermitant sounds of a timpani and shouting, "Yeaaaa---up" (or something like that); I also think of the baby carriage which devoured unsuspecting pedestrians and immediately marvel at Gilliam's imagination. Is it funny? I think so. . .but I can also in a heartbeat watch Beavis and Butthead and have a good chuckle or two. . . . .(why do I have the feeling that I just opened myself up to relentless criticism and a mailbox full of flames?) The only fair generalization of Monty Python is that they were not only visual and verbal masters, but their irreverance to sacred tradition in religion ("The Spanish Inquisition" and "The Bishop", in particular), literature ("Wuthering Heights" in semaphore) and politics (the sports and popular culture trivia game with Karl Mark, Ghengis Kahn, Lenin, Mao and Che Guevara) placed them at the forefront of American and British comedy. If my memory serves me right, some of the Pythons guest starred in Saturday Night Live skits, attended world premieres in New York City, and were very popular on both continents. The blurring of the sacred and the absurd (the crucifixion kick line number in _The Life of Brian_), bastardized textuality, ("Oh. . .bless'd are the meeeeek. That's noice. They 'ave a 'ell of a toime" or "Bless'd are the cheesemakers" in the same film), reversal of dramatic tradition, (the sketch with the novelist father and laborer son), and numerous other examples of the unexpected and the irreverent appeal to my comic sensibilities. But then again. . . I like Beavis and Butthead! Cheers, Bob robert.c.baum@dartmouth.edu (9)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terrence Ross Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 09:04:04 -0400 Subject: American and British Humor Robert C. Evans should consider the 19th Century American parodist, Phoebe Cary for his course on humor and satire. She kills me, what can I say? On the broader question, whether there are distinctively national senses of humor: I've known Americans who, upon seeing Peter Cooke's "Frog and Peach," laughed so hard that their scalps hurt. On the other hand, Abbot and Costello's "Who's on First?" would probably seem unfunny to most Englishmen who know nothing about baseball. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 18:18:08 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0473 Ed 3; Miss-Begetting; Shakesbear; Directing; Newsgroup Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0473. Monday, 12 June 1995. (1) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 22:47:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0470 Q: *The Reign of King Edward III* (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 11 Jun 1995 23:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0431 Q: Miss-Begetting (3) From: Elizabeth Blye Schmitt Date: Sunday, 11 Jun 1995 14:42:43 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0455 Re: William Shakesbear (4) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 09:34:09 SAST-2 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0463 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing (5) From: Robert C. Baum Date: Monday, 12 Jun 95 14:01:05 EDT Subj: additional Shakespeare list-- (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 10 Jun 1995 22:47:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0470 Q: *The Reign of King Edward III* Edward III is still considered by some to be (in part or wholly) by Shakespeare. Kenneth Muir has an essay on the topic; Proudfoot has explored the idea, and Karl Wentersdorf's Ph.D. thesis is on the authorship of the play (1960). Eliot Slater, The Problem of The Reign of King Edward III: A Statistical Approach (Cambridge UP, 1988), is well worth consulting. I'm a believer. Yours, Bill (The Believer) Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 11 Jun 1995 23:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0431 Q: Miss-Begetting This doesn't entirely relate to Gareth Euridge's initial question concerning Beaumont and Fletcher's line about that the better the sex the more likely the child is to be a boy---whether there were prdemoniant believes about such (or whether that tells us much about the kind of person--Jacamo-"a buff soldier"--is), but I am reading W.T.Mcrary's book about Shakespeare's comedies and in talking about erotic transvetism in Shakespeare's plays he brings up Sidney's Pyrocles as a man who disguises himself as a woman---of course, we never see this in Shakespeare (unless we take the actor-character transvetism as more important--a "hidden meaning"--than we do the on-stage reverse transvetism)---If Shakespeare's moves are "more conservative" than Sidney's in the sense that it enacts ONLY the staged-relation, that of woman to man, and thus falls into the "men as mere observer" ....OR should we posit the meta-dimension of the disguise as a way of calling attention that MAN IS THE THING ITSELF (as either Timons or LEAR puts it). Nonetheless, the social and political world IN Shakespeare's plays is played out by the woman as man 9and this meaning is only undercut by the more-meta meaning of man as woman if we don't consider the possibility that Shakespeare was trying to expose the difference between "life" and "the theatre"--- The fantasy of the male world expressed by Beaumont and Fletcher and by Shakespeare was NOT queasy--(at least compared to many more recent apologists, who are based more on fear than on lust if not love)--It may even be that the "lascivious wails" Caesar complained of Antony indulging in 9as he longed for the days of Antony's more physical, spectacular "horse piss drinking"--which certainly seems more "lascivious" than anything we ever see Antony and Cleo doing---people watching, etc--), that these "wails" are really a debauchery of WORDS---like Berowne letting of the women into the tent---Oh--I guess i got off the topic--- But this, too, is a kind of procreation myth--a kind of "birthing"--the parthenogenesis, etc---Chris Stroffolino (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Blye Schmitt Date: Sunday, 11 Jun 1995 14:42:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0455 Re: William Shakesbear Must add my two cents worth to the Shakesbear discussion as I have been an avid collecter of NA Bears for almost 10 years. It is true that once a bear is "retired" the value on it skyrockets. Most of my collection are the smaller Muffy Vanderbears--some of which have gone for over $700 at auction. The numbers listed earlier with "best offer" are your best bet, but don't expect less than $500 to be asked. NAB collecters are a serious bunch. I, too, have a Queen Elizabear. She is protected by a special BeefEater bear dubbed Edmund Blackadder. Oh, the Shakesbear was still available as a XMAS ornament last year (about 3" high) and at one time on a NAB coffee mug. (Have both.) Beary much amused by the discussion, Elizabear Schmitt (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 09:34:09 SAST-2 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0463 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing Robert Weimann (who was mentioned recently as a Marxist critic worth reading--a position I fully endorse--) suggests that there are two different traditions of acting and representation at work in _Hamlet_ specifically and in the Elizabethan theatre as a whole, and that much of the dynamic complexity of the theatre arises from a tension between these two traditions. Hamlet, to put it crudely, as Weimann does not, represents a humanist conception of acting as mimesis--as the representation of something beyond the actor which directs and controls his (sic) actions and speech. The other tradition is the non- mimetic, self-expressive mode of popular ritual and festival, and it is precisely this expressive tradition that Hamlet _opposes_ in his advice to the players to speak no more than is set down for them. For this reason alone, Hamlet's advice cannot be taken at face value as representative of general theatrical theory or practice. Weimann goes on to show, in _Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theatre_ (Johns Hopkins), how the tension and interaction of these two modes of representation inform _Hamlet_ itself, and especially, Hamlet as chracter and actor, so that Hamlet "himself" at times contradicts "his" own advice. I have mentioned this before, but it's seems worth repeating. It will come as no surprise to anyone who has any experience of a theatre that, both materially and philosophically, is not tied to Western, metropolitan conceptions of staging, casting, writing, or directing that one could "produce" a complex piece of theatre without a director, or even a writer. Black South African actors have been doing it for years. In a new South Africa in which pressure is being placed on those teaching "metropolitan" literature like Shakespeare to "get relevant" it strikes me that Shakespeare and his theatre is in many ways materially, culturally and ideologically far closer to people living in township slums than those who make annual trips to Stratford keep up with "the Bard". David Schalkwyk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert C. Baum Date: Monday, 12 Jun 95 14:01:05 EDT Subject: additional Shakespeare list-- --- John Cox wrote: I don't see why you want an additional list devoted to Shakespeare. There are obvious advantages to a moderated list, and SHAKSPER is an excelelnt forum. I need more explanation as to why you think an unmoderated list is necessary. --- end of quoted material --- Here, here! An on-line (USENET) newsgroup would be one thing, but a mailbox full of "Could you please answer this question so I can get an 'A' on my term paper?" questions and "Uh-huh; uh-huh. . .I really like Hamlet" would be awfully tedious. SHAKSPER arranges the downloads and eliminates such nonesense. SHAKSPER is the only subscription I have held for more than one week simply because of the superior organization and lumped downloads. Therefore, when I'm working and have my blitzmail up I don't have twenty random messages coming in over an hour long period with seemingly endless irrelivancies. Unmoderated downloads from random posters are (IMHO) a disaster and cause more clutter and wasted disk space for all. I would certainly support a USENET shakespeare group; but in a way that would be redundant because I have been extremely satisfied with the discussions and information and reference sharing on SHAKSPER. --Bob robert.c.baum@dartmouth.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 18:23:42 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0474 Qs: Electronic *Edward 2*; Shakespeare CD-ROM DB Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0474. Monday, 12 June 1995. (1) From: Skip Shand Date: Sunday, 11 Jun 1995 12:34:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Electronic E2? (2) From: Bruce Young Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 13:11:58 -0700 (MST) Subj: Shakespeare CD-ROM Database (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Shand Date: Sunday, 11 Jun 1995 12:34:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Electronic E2? I thought you might have a fast answer to this one. If not, let's post it to the list: I've had a query from an Edmonton director who is seeking an old-spelling *Edward 2*, with original punctuation/lineation, on disk. He has in mind something like Neil Freeman's Shakespeare Folio scripts (indeed, his phone message requested a "Folio Edward 2"!), which he can then adapt for performance at the Edmonton Fringe. I take it that edited old-spelling texts like Brooke or Bowers wouldn't suit, even if they were available on disk, and neither would a photographic facsimile of Q. Don't know whether the asker is on e-mail, so I guess I'm the conduit for any info you might have. Thanks. Skip Shand (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 13:11:58 -0700 (MST) Subject: Shakespeare CD-ROM Database The library at my university is considering buying the "Shakespeare Database" on CD-ROM by H. Joachim Neuhaus. Does anybody have experience with the database or information on it that might be helpful to us in making a decision? (I already have the brochure on the database, and I've located a home-page as well. So I'm looking for information--especially about usefulness--beyond these.) Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 07:15:04 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0475 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0475. Wednesday, 14 June 1995. (1) From: John Mucci Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 19:01:53 -0400 Subj: Was Sh a Catholic? (2) From: Sandye Chisholm Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 21:22:24 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0471 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? (3) From: Dave Beenken Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 20:47:24 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0459 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mucci Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 19:01:53 -0400 Subject: Was Sh a Catholic? I am truly astonished at those members who aver it makes no difference whether Shakespeare was of the Catholic faith or not. The question was one of tremendous importance centuries previous, enough to have William Henry Ireland try to settle the matter by concocting one of his Shakespeare manuscript forgeries as a "Testament of Faith" to prove he was an Anglican. If Shakespeare were Jewish, wouldn't it matter tremendously so far as his concept of Shylock goes? If he had *no* faith, wouldn't it cast a more cynical light on the manner in which he treats his character's religious expressions? Certainly in Hamlet we see the character worrying about swearing by his sword, worrying about sending Claudius to heaven if slain unawares, worrying about going to hell if he commits suicide, worrying about burying a suicide, Ophelia, in consecrated ground. He avoids the name "Jesus" as such, using the more Latinized "Iesu", and that only once (unless you count his apocryphal authorship in "Good friend, for Iesus sake forbeare..."). The comfort with which he writes about friars and priests is one which sympathizes with them, not mocks them, as so many other depictions of them are in literature of the time. If these are not the concerns of a practicing Catholic author, they are those of a lapsed one. It is indeed an emotional issue, not because one group or another feels Shakespeare should have been "on our side," as it were, but we tend to feel that the author was such an Everyman that pinning him down to one spiritual tenet or another is demeaning to his universality. On the contrary, I think more speculation about him as a person with relevance to the plays themselves is important to the study of his works: moreso than the endlessly block-deletable disquisitions on Benny Hill or teddy bears. J.Mucci (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sandye Chisholm Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 21:22:24 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0471 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? Is it not a bit anachronistic to think of Shakespeare as "having" or "not having" particular religous leanings--either Catholic, Protestant, or even Pagan--and dismissing their existence as "so much fluff" as someone noted, when Shakespeare lived in one of the most highly-charged religious centuries? All aspects of life were determined by religion...consider the economics of the dissolution, the drama of life and death during the Henrician, Edwardian and Marian reformations...why, it seems that the entire Elizabethan mindset is the creation of a world with a confused and questioning sense of order. How can his religious affiliation *not* affect both his world-view and how society measured up to it? Can we not consider the entire "spiritual malaise" a representation of religious upheaval itself? Shakespeare is no more immune to that upheaval than any yeoman or monarch would have been. Sandra Chisholm Penn State University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Beenken Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 20:47:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0459 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? >Shakespear could have been an atheist, a conclusion some have drawn after >seeing King Lear. > >Yours, Bill Godshalk What came first, *Lear* or the bard's 'Last Will & Testament'? I would think that after taking a gander at Will's will, one would rule out atheism. guessingly/questioningly, Dave Beenken ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 09:25:39 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0477 Re: Miss-Begetting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0477. Wednesday, 14 June 1995. (1) From: David Crosby Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 21:59:47 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0454 Re: Miss-Begetting (2) From: Helen Vella Bonavita Date: Tuesday, 13 Jun 1995 10:05:23 +0800 (WST) Subj: Re: Miss-Begetting, legitimacy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Crosby Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 21:59:47 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0454 Re: Miss-Begetting Robert Dennis writes: >Myth is a way of dealing with data and ideas for which we have no other >vocabulary. An excellent contemporary example of myth is the cosmology of the >Big Bang. This is entirely a mythical expression in contemporary terminology, >of events for which we simply have no adequate vocabulary. Possibly we do not >even have a glimmer of the right mechanisms. But the myth (the Big Bang >theory) expresses what we _do_ observe and what we interpret as reality from >>our equations. That particular myth has won not a few Nobel Prizes for good >myth-tellers. One might add evolution theory on the list of very-strongly-held >contemporary myths. I would just like to second Bob's gentle corrective. Too often we lose sight of the myths that permit us to think about our world and the rituals that help us celebrate it. Competitive team sports being the ritual most expressive of our belief in the Darwinian myth that those best adapted to their environment survive through competition. We might add the myth of the marketplace (goods, services, ideas) to the list of those informing modern culture. David Crosby (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Vella Bonavita Date: Tuesday, 13 Jun 1995 10:05:23 +0800 (WST) Subject: Re: Miss-Begetting, legitimacy The problem of legitimacy in the case where the marriage has taken place after the birth of children (or child) is that by common law, the marriage does not render the children legitimate. By church law, however, it does. I don't have the reference on me right now, but Bracton discusses it in great detail, and in 1296 (I think) there was actually a council where it was suggested that the church ruling on the subject be accepted into common law; this was however rejected, and as a result court christian was simply permitted to rule on whether a marriage was or was not valid, rather than on legitimacy. The most notable case of legitimation was of course the Beaufort children, but even then it required a separate act of parliament, as well as the marriage of Swynford and John of Gaunt. In any case, as far as Edmund goes, I do agree that it's pretty plain that he and Edgar do not share a mother. What does happen is that if Edmund is younger than Edgar, he must have been born in adultery, rather than in simple fornication - these are two different cases of bastardy, and bring with them different legal penalties. Also, of course, it compounds Gloucester's guilt. Hope this is of interest, Helen Vella Bonavita ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 10:17:25 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0479 Re: Directing and Directors; William Shakesbear Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0479. Wednesday, 14 June 1995. (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 15:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0469 Directing (2) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 13 Jun 1995 14:50:17 GMT Subj: Re: William Shakesbear (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 15:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0469 Directing Professor Orgel: But just because Hamlet doesn't have much respect for the groundlings doesn't mean they won't have any respect for him. I spent five years in Maritime Canada doing my undergraduate and MA, and it's most popular music, as well as humour, is self-deprecating, making fun of Newfies, Capers, and Bluenosers. I also went to high school in northern Ontario, where saying you hate northern Ontario was the sine qua non of sophistication. Hamlet's despisal of the groundlings might have only elicited their admiration. Sincerely, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 13 Jun 1995 14:50:17 GMT Subject: Re: William Shakesbear There is, of course, THE TEDDY BEAR MUSEUM, located, believe it or not, at 19, Greenhill Street, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire CV37 6LF. They stock William Shakespeare bears, made to order (perhaps not inappropriately) by a German company. The price is #60.00 sterling per bear and they operate a world-wide mail-order service. Rather better value than the RSC theatre I'd say, despite the limited character-development. The telephone number is 01789 293160. This is what we cultural materialists mean by research. If a Francis Bearcon answers, don't hang up. Terence Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 09:11:51 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0476 Re: Humor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0476. Wednesday, 14 June 1995. (1) From: Joe Nathan Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 17:25:37 -0700 Subj: Humour (2) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Monday, 12 Jun 95 20:32:15 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0460 Re: American and British Humor (3) From: David Jackson Date: Tuesday, 13 Jun 95 10:29:31 est Subj: Re: SHK 6.0472 Re: Humor (4) From: Anna Cole Date: Tuesday, 13 Jun 1995 17:25:19 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0472 Re: Humor (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Nathan Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 17:25:37 -0700 Subject: Humour Since this subject has gone so far afield, and humorous poetry has been mentioned, I wonder if I could be lucky enough to get the name of a British book of humorous poetry I loved as a child. I know not the author. But one of the poems starts: If anyone knows this delightful book, I would be so grateful for info. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Monday, 12 Jun 95 20:32:15 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0460 Re: American and British Humor A bibliography item for giddy thoughts about satire: John R. Clark, FORM AND FRENZY IN TALE OF A TUB. Clark is at University of South Florida, I believe, and I haven't been tracking what he's been writing over the last bunch of years, but he himself writes with Swiftian wit and immense good cheer. He tracks the forms -- plots, strategies, rhetoric, local devices -- in a wide variety of satiric writings. He and spouse (a Classicist) produced an anthology of satiric literature in the 1970s. Classes I took with him in 1967 and '68 crackled with tough laughter. I still owe him for how he gleefully led us through the rollercoasters of Juvenal, Pope, and Swift. Steve Not-So-Swiftowitz (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Tuesday, 13 Jun 95 10:29:31 est Subject: Re: SHK 6.0472 Re: Humor Tom Bishop's posting left out one of Benny Hill's lines (as WS's agent): ".... and there's a fairy called WHAT?" On the topic of Brit vs. American humor, while I still adhere to the view that there are stylistic differences (a lot of it has to do with delivery and emphasis), I think that both cultures have their verbal and physical elements. Furthermore, as the Benny Hill debate reveals, it is simplistic to attribute a single level or style to even an individual comedian. BH was at times subtle and witty, at others crass and infantile (but that can be funny, too). Leslie Nielsen can be funny delivering a deadpan line, but he also raises hoots woth a whoopee cushion. Peter Cook and Dudley Moore lampooned the social classes with clever wordplay, but anyone who's heard their "Derek and Clive" recordings will be aware that comedy can be based almost entirely on the repetition of a couple of four-letter words (I often refer people who adore the wit of Cook and Moore to "Derek and Clive", and imagine them listening with baffled expressions as the barrage of expletives proceeds); still, this can be very funny in the right context, as WS knew ("her Cs, her Us and her Ts; why that?"; "country matters", etc.), so long as the delivery is right. This raises an issue that has interested me for some time: How to treat WS's comedy in performance. Specifically, when you have a line that probably had the crowds rolling in the aisles four hundred years ago, but is completely meaningless to modern audiences (except those who know the double-meaning of the obsolete word in the punchline), what should you do? My first instinct as a director is to cut it, but I'll sometimes save it if it can be made funny in the delivery. For example, Touchstone may be a delight in many people's eyes, but he has some of the unfunniest (today) lines in Shakespeare. But I've seen people laugh at words they clearly didn't understand because of the timing and manner of their delivery. Sometimes this bothers me, because the actor could just as well be saying the ingredients list from a cereal box and still get the same laughs, but if it's the only way to make the lines effective in this day and age, perhaps it's ok. If the biggest laughs in a Shakespeare production come from a drawn-out bit of clowning and choreography that has almost nothing to do with the dialogue, is the text somehow diminished, inasmuch as the director appears to be saying "this isn't funny enough, let's add some shtick."? Don't get me wrong--I love shtick, and use it a lot; I just wonder what others' thoughts are on all this. Finally, on the issue of satirical writing, I recommend Martin Amis' "London Fields" as one of the best satires on fin-de-siecle England (and, to some extent, America). Also, as students of Tourner, Webster and Wharfinger will know, Thomas Pynchon's "The Crying of Lot 49" is a modern classic (a 30-year-old one, at that -- how time flies). (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Cole Date: Tuesday, 13 Jun 1995 17:25:19 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0472 Re: Humor Re Alistair Scott's advocacy of Saki (H.H.Munro): I entirely agree, he is a superb humorist and wit and I cannot understand why he is not much more widely read. Perhaps it is because a great deal of his writing has a very savage edge and people seem terribly sensitive these days and recoil from "cruel" humour. It might also be his uncompromisingly literary style. My own favourite short story is The Schartz-Metterklume Method, but I heartily commend the entire oeuvre to all who value fine writing. If any Shakespeareans do decide to read Saki for the first time I would be delighted to hear what they make of him. Since this thread has strayed somewhat from the Bard and his works perhaps any correspondents may care to post to me rather than the conference. As you like it! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 10:25:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0480 Announcements: CFP - Sh. at Kalamazoo; TEI Workshop Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0480. Wednesday, 14 June 1995. (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 20:41:20 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Call for papers (2) From: Eric Dahlin Date: Tuesday, 13 Jun 95 11:11:45 PDT Subj: TEI Workshop (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 20:41:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Call for papers Call for Papers SHAKESPEARE AT KALAMAZOO Thirty-first International Congress on Medieval Studies Kalamazoo, Michigan, May 2-6, 1995 SHAKESPEARE AT KALAMAZOO has organized programs at the International Congress since 1989. Two sessions have been proposed for the 31st Congress in 1995, 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 explore evidence in Shakespeare's play of medieval ideas of theater and of medieval practices and dramaturgical conventions. Papers for Session 2 should focus on the representation in Shakespeare's play of late medieval and early modern cultural trends. Papers are invited from scholars in teh fields of art history, music, folklore, history, philosophy, theater history, the history fo science, law, and more--as well as literature, both English and continental. The Congress on Medieval Studies provides a unique milue for an exchange of insights on Shakespeare's place in the continuum of culture. For further information, please contact 1996 program organizer Michael Shapiro, 208 English Building, University of Illinois, 608 South Wright St., Urbana, IL 61801, FAX 217-333-4321/e-mail mshapiro@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu He will accept abstracts for papers that can be delivered in 20 minutes. Note: please cross-post this announcement on any other relevant lists. Thank you very much (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Dahlin Date: Tuesday, 13 Jun 95 11:11:45 PDT Subject: TEI Workshop * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ANNOUNCEMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * REGISTRATION INFORMATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TEXT ENCODING FOR INFORMATION INTERCHANGE A Tutorial Introduction to the Text Encoding Initiative A workshop to be held at ACH/ALLC '95 in Santa Barbara The organizers of ACH/ALLC '95 are pleased to announce a pre-conference workshop on the Text Encoding Initiative Guidelines. Title: Text Encoding for Information Interchange: A Tutorial Introduction to the Text Encoding Initiative Date: 10 July 1995, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Place: UCSB Microcomputer Laboratory Instructors: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Lou Burnard, David Chesnutt Registration fee: $50 This workshop will introduce the encoding scheme recommended by the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) in its Guidelines for Text Encoding and Interchange. The main focus will be on introducing the tag set defined in the Guidelines, but the context within which the TEI Guidelines were developed and general problems of text markup will also be addressed. Topics to be covered include: 1. General Principles of Text Markup: What is markup for? Varieties of markup; effect of markup. What are electronic texts for? Markup and interpretation. Markup as a means of enabling intelligent retrieval. 2. Basics of SGML: What it is and isn't; the case for using it. Basic SGML syntax for the document instance (tags, entity references, comment declarations). Examination and explication of simple examples. 3. Document Analysis: What document analysis is, and why it is an essential part of any e-text project. Phases of document analysis. Group document analysis of a sample text. 4. Basics of the TEI: origins and goals of the TEI, overall organization of the TEI encoding scheme, basic structural notions of the TEI DTD and the pizza model: the base, additional, and core tag sets, and how they may be extended, modified, and documented; group tagging of the sample document. 5. Hands-on Session: introduction to standard commercial or public-domain SGML-aware editor. 6. Putting the TEI into Practice: types of software available for SGML, how the adoption of TEI encoding affects the practical work of an e-text project, and a review of where to go for further information. The Text Encoding Initiative The Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) is an international cooperative research effort, the goal of which is to define a set of generic Guidelines for the representation of all kinds of textual materials in electronic form, in such a way as to enable researchers in any discipline to interchange texts and datasets in machine readable form, independently of the software or hardware in use, and also independently of the particular application for which such electronic resources are used. The first full version of the TEI Guidelines was published in May, 1994, after six years of development in Europe and the US. It takes the form of a substantial reference manual, documenting a modular and extensible SGML document type definition (DTD), which can be used to describe electronic encodings of all kinds of texts, of all times and in all languages. It is sometimes said that the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML: ISO 8879) provides only the syntax for text markup; the TEI aims to provide a semantics. Computer-aided research now crosses many political, linguistics, temporal, and disciplinary boundaries; the TEI Guidelines have been designed to be applied to texts in any language, from any period, in any genre, encoded for research of any kind. As far as possible, the Guidelines eschew controversy; where consensus has not been established, only very general recommendations are made. The object is to help the researcher make his or her position explicit, not to dictate what that position should be. Viewed as a standard, the TEI scheme attempts to occupy the middle ground. It offers neither a single all-embracing encoding scheme, solving all problems once for all, nor an unstructured collection of tag sets. Rather it offers an extensible framework containing a common core of features, a choice of frameworks or bases, and a wide variety of optional additions for specific application areas. Somewhat light-heartedly, we refer to this as the Chicago Pizza model (in which the customer chooses a particular base -- say deep dish or whole crust -- and adds the toppings of his or her choice), by contrast with both the Chinese menu or laissez-faire approach (which allows for any combinations of dishes, even the ridiculous) and the set meal approach, in which you must have the entire menu. Materials and Presenters All participants will be provided with a printed introductory summary guide to the TEI scheme, and supporting materials on PC disks, including full versions of the TEI DTDs, public domain SGML software and sample TEI texts. Subject to availability, participants may be able to acquire the CD-ROM of the TEI Guidelines at a discounted price. The tutorial will be taught by three instructors: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen (Computer Center, University of Illinois at Chicago), Lou Burnard (Oxford University Computing Services), and David Chesnutt (Dept. of History, University of South Carolina). ======================================================================== Registration Form ----------------- (please return before July 1, 1995) TEI Tutorial University of California, Santa Barbara Monday, July 10, 1995 9 am to 4 pm UCSB Microcomputer Laboratory Fee $50 Registration for the TEI Tutorial will take place in the lobby of Anacapa Hall on Monday, July 10, from 8 to 10 am. Those staying on-campus at UCSB during ACH/ALLC '95 and wishing to arrive early for the purpose of attending the TEI Tutorial may check in after noon on Sunday and stay an additional night for $29 double or $42 single, no meals included. Meals may be purchased separately. Name: Affiliation: Address: Phone: Fax: E-mail: Payment of Fees: ---------------- Payment in U.S. Dollars may be made by: Personal Check Money Order Bank Check [Checks must be drawn on a U.S. Bank and should be made payable to U.C. Regents.] Credit Card: VISA or MASTERCARD International Wire Transfer (in U.S. Dollars) from your bank to: Bank of America San Francisco Commercial Banking, Office (#1499) 555 California Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Account #07805-00030 Regents of University of California Santa Barbara. Reference: ACH/ALLC [If using this latter method of payment; please add an additional $10 to the total to cover the bank's fee for this service.] Payment (please check appropriate box): ___ Personal Check ___ Money Order ___ Bank check is enclosed ___ Wire Transfer [please enclosed a copy of the wire transfer receipt with your registration] Please charge to my credit card: ___ MasterCard ___ Visa Credit Card #: Expiration Date: Signature: Date: Please complete and return this form with your remittance to: TEI Tutorial, ACH/ALLC '95 c/o Campus Conference Services University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106-6120 Phone: (805) 893-3072 Fax: (805) 893-7287 E-mail: hr03conf@ucsbvm.ucsb.edu For questions regarding accommodations and registration, please contact: Sally Vito Phone: (805) 893-3072 E-mail: hr03vito@ucsbvm.ucsb.edu Please check applicable items below ------------------------------------ ___ $50 fee for TEI Tutorial ___ $29 On-campus housing, double occupancy ___ $42 On-campus housing, single occupancy ___ Total ================================================================= ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 10:10:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0478 Qs: Gallathea; AYL; Sh's Appeal; Sh's Biases; H6 Plays Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0478. Wednesday, 14 June 1995. (1) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 13 Jun 1995 09:52:36 +1000 Subj: Lyly's Gallathea (2) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Monday, 12 Jun 95 21:13:47T Subj: Request for AYLI suggestions (3) From: Mack Carter Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 19:17:04 -0800 (PST) Subj: Question: How did Shakespear write to appeal to popular culture? (4) From: Mack Carter Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 19:29:46 -0800 (PST) Subj: Q: Was Shakespeare's view done purely with the bias of the Catholic Church? (5) From: Charles Edelman Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 95 10:08:00 EDT Subj: Dissertations in Progress (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 13 Jun 1995 09:52:36 +1000 Subject: Lyly's Gallathea Not strictly on the subject of Shakespeare, but close. I'm directing a production of John Lyly's _Gallathea_ shortly, and would be interested in any advice/comments/references anyone cares to cast in my direction. (We're doing it as a joint production between Theatre Studies and a local boys school, with (roughly sopeaking) boys playing the mortals, our students playing nymphs etc and some older actors playing Neptune, Diana etc.) Reply direct to me or to the list--whatever is appropriate. Incidentally, does anyone know of any recent productions? Thanks Adrian Kiernander (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Monday, 12 Jun 95 21:13:47 EDT Subject: Request for AYLI suggestions Sara Bodi, Literary Analyst at the Long Wharf Theatre, asks for suggested books and articles that would be helpful for a production of AS YOU LIKE IT. John Tillinger will be directing, sometime in the fall. Please send replies directly to jenbo@minerva.cis.yale.edu. Thanks for your help. (I met Ms. Bodi at a session of a three-week-long conference of young professional directors sponsored by the Theatre Communications Group at Lincoln Center. This particular day was run by Mark Lamos. Lamos showed the kinds of things he looks at, and he was infinitely generous in bringing the young colleagues into creative collaboration as he stepped through opening lines of ROMEO AND JULIET. The directors were charmed and charming; no preening, no cantankerousness, lots of modest exuberance and imaginative suggestions. And they easily acknowledged NEED for information and guidance from scholars about text, social codes, traditions of production, . . . all the things we generally find interesting. Let's find ways to reach out to them through the ivy curtains.) Again, Sara Bodi's e-address is jenbo@minerva.cis.yale.edu Sincerely, Steve Urkowitz (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mack Carter Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 19:17:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Question: How did Shakespear write to appeal to popular culture? It is noticable that writer must write for the times in which they live. How did Shakespeare do this for his time and why do we still read him? (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mack Carter Date: Monday, 12 Jun 1995 19:29:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Q: Was Shakespeare's view done purely with the bias of the Catholic Church? We have determined that Shakespeare was a Catholic, but was this the only view he showed concern with? What other views did he use in writing his plays? (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Edelman Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 95 10:08:00 EDT Subject: Dissertations in Progress I have a post-graduate student embarking on his Ph.D. thesis on an aspect of the Henry VI plays. While we are well aware of the means of finding out if any previous work has been done on the topic, such as Dissertation Abstracts International, I doubt that I know of ALL the means of learning of dissertations which may be IN PROGRESS at this time. (This is a constant concern of Ph.D. students and their supervisors.) I'm sure other members of SHAKSPER as well as myself would appreciate feedback from anyone who knows which journals, databases, etc., provide lists of Shakespeare theses in progress. Regards to all from a surprisingly cold Perth, Australia Charles Edelman Edith Cowan University C.Edelman@cowan.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 12:12:28 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0481 Re: Humor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0481. Thursday, 15 June 1995. (1) From: Gareth Euridge Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 09:14:11 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0472 Re: Humor (2) From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 95 09:24:16 est Subj: Re: SHK 6.0476 Re: Humor (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gareth Euridge Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 09:14:11 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0472 Re: Humor Gabriel Egan's comments on Frankie Howard's suggestion that, to be a comic today in England, requires a "university education" made me ponder, especially as there seems such a rigid, though floppy, distinction in British comedy between university wits and the likes of Benny Hill and Howard. The crossovers interest me most. There is an episode in _Blackadder III_ in which Blackadder's servant Baldric burns the only copy of Dr. Johnson's dictionary which the author had brought to the prince for patronage. Blackadder decides that the only way to avoid death at the hands of Johnson and his cronies (Byron, Shelley, Keats, suitably high, melodramatic, and syphilitic) is to re-write the dictionary himself over night. This is achieved, although Johnson ultimately does not care too much because he hopes to make a fortune from _Edmund: A Butler's Tale_, a potboiler sensation penned by Blackadder himself under a female pseudonym (Jane Austen is, according to the show, a "great bearded Yorkshireman.") Ultimately, both of these great texts are lost to the flames. The episode depends, clearly, on a pretty thorough knowledge of English lit., or else many of the jokes would be lost--"there's nothing artistic about swanning around Italy in a baggy white shirt trying to get laid," and I imagine that anyone without a BA in English would be for the most part adrift. Yet this series enjoyed great popular acclaim, at least in England if not in the States, which, quite frankly, I cannot explain. Now, I have at least a BA in English, and enjoyed the show greatly, though I suspect much of that enjoyment was knowing that others would not get it all. But, I am also a twisted, bitter, and class envying swine, and, if I did not have the privilege of an education which opened this text to me, I would be offended and bitter. Why do not vast numbers of the British viewing public take clubs to BBC house? Or, at least, refuse to pay their license! And, to segue to EMD--perhaps a parallel. I assume that most of the audience of that time were not fully versed in classical lore and that the primary audience was not the university crowd (Gurr, Barroll, Finkelpearl). So why so much classical allusion which so many would not understand--I know that my students (and I) grow quickly tired (and angry) of it all. Perhaps the Globe really fell prey to anarchist arsonists? Finally, as a Brit in the US, I baptize many of my friends with _Fawlty Towers_ and, with others on the net, do not understand why the response is so often anxiety. I find the show relaxing . . . Gareth M. Euridge geuridge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 95 09:24:16 est Subject: Re: SHK 6.0476 Re: Humor Re: British Humor/poetry. The verse quoted is unfamiliar, but it sounds like Hillaire Belloc. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 12:17:24 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0482 Re: Miss-Begetting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0482. Thursday, 15 June 1995. (1) From: Renee Pigeon Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 09:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0477 Re: Miss-Begetting (2) From: Milla Riggio Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 13:22:21 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0477 Re: Miss-Begetting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Renee Pigeon Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 09:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0477 Re: Miss-Begetting Couldn't Edmund have been born as a result of "simple fornication" if Edgar's mother were dead (perhaps as a result of childbirth)? I know Shakespeare doesn't address this, but as long as we're speculating . . . (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 13:22:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0477 Re: Miss-Begetting Thanks to Robert Dennis and David Crosby for the gentleness of their remonstrance, somewhat at odds it would seem with the prevailing mode of response and debate on SHAKESPER but nevertheless appreciated by the person being "corrected," namely me. What is clear is that in my reference to Renaissance "myths" about conception and, by implication, about girl children and women, I was referring to the modern sense of the term "myth" as meaning "an unfounded or false notion." The importance of cultural mythic narratives as encoders of value is, it seems to me obvious. Indeed, I am working on a book now on the idea of the Abraham/sacrifice story as one such central mythic narrative for Jewish/Christian/Muslim cultures. Far be it from me to deny the power of myth, but the idea that an energetic conception would more likely produce a boy child seems to me to fall into the area of "false notion." Can you explain how such an idea as this fits the category of mythic narrative that you are rightly insisting on? It is true that this "false notion" or "myth" derives from assumptions that are sanctioned by cultural myths: such notions as the idea that physical vigor and prowess are masculine, for instance. And there are stories galore to support such assumptions. But there are also derivative and secondary and FALSE ideas about people, gender, etc. that may be sanctioned and explained by mythic narrative but are themselves merely "myths" in the sense of untruths. No? At least, if memory serves me correctly at this great distance, my daughter was somewhat more vigorously conceived than my son. But there they both are! Milla Riggio ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 13:23:47 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0483 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0483. Thursday, 15 June 1995. (1) From: Mack Carter Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 10:51:33 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0475 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? (2) From: Daniel P. Tompkins Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 14:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0475 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? (3) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 18:21:53 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0475 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mack Carter Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 10:51:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0475 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? It seems that Shakespeare had many men of the cloth in his comedies. I can't see their use as a benefit to the Catholic Church and a sign of a person who didn't question the "most highly charged religious centuries." The the play "Loves Labor" Sir Nathaniel is noted as "a great feast of languages and stolen the scraps." Then in "As You Like It" Sir Oliver Martext is called, "a most wicked Sir Oliver...a vile martext." Then of course everyone is blind in the "Twelfth Night" including the priest who you would think could of had some wisdom by God to tell the difference. Unfortunately, that would change the play but, I don't recall Shakespeare saying it was a young priest to be easily fooled. I'm certain there are other characters that don't meet with the desired view of a Catholic Church. His views shown in the character of Shylock the Jew of "The Merchant of Venice" are things the Catholic Church wouldn't have wanted said at the time. Remember, to the Catholic Church Jews have been vermin bring diseases for the past 1900 years. Who can read the "Merchant of Venice" and not say the Jew had a reason to hate the Church. This character had to be barb in the wheels of the Catholic Church. I will still call most of the conversation a bunch of "fluff" as people try to make a man more Catholic by his work. How many of us have our true religious nature know by the people we work with? Shouldn't they know better than a person who reads our work? I have friend that's Catholic, avoids using Christ's name in vain but, if the truth be known he'll say Alla is equal in his teachings and with him. When my friend dies he's going to be known as a Catholic and little else as the public sees him. People seem to mis the fact plays of the time were written for the time as many books are today. Characters and scenes may hav even been deleted at times to prevent conflict with the audience. These are just needed tools of the theatre world Shakespeare helped develop. Was Shakespeare a Catholic? He was from a Catholic family and baptised one, that's public record. The thing that makes him great is that he worked his plays for his audience and with held the absolute answer to that question. We can't find anything of "matter" beyond a few bias scraps that he was Catholic, so we turn to his "art" to try to learn it. Yet, his art is sprayed with different views that are all valid as Shylock's and his plays are noted to have been made for the audience of the time giving the work a needed bias. If the views of Catholic Religion are of such importance to Shakespeare why would the man make fun and point out its flaws to the public. In the end the only person who knew Shakespeare's religious view was himself. I know only a fraction of my friend's and I've know him for 6 years, we won't know a man's who lived hundreds of years ago. It's better to look at the political and social structures Shakespeare wrote for and against to have a light understanding of the man. I don't think you will ever find concete matter from his art to his religion and really isn't it a shame to label a person taking them away from others who may think of him as like themselves. His works won't change and there's no need for the label since the reasons of his writtings can be explained for other reasons than religious ones. Continue the discussion but, realize that if you label a person you make them less than they might really be. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel P. Tompkins Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 14:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0475 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? Maybe someone already mentioned this, but I think the father in Long Day's Journey into Night insists that Shakespeare was an *Irish* Catholic. Dan Tompkins (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 18:21:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0475 Re: Was Shakespeare a Catholic? Yes, the author of the Shakespeare canon spent much of his life as a Catholic. Having promised not to open questions of authorship, I will say no more. Anyone who is interested in a fuller explanation can contact me directly at: shughes@lynx.neu.edu. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 13:35:28 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0484 Re: Directing; Shakesbear; Newsgroup Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0484. Thursday, 15 June 1995. (1) From: Suzanne Westfall Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 95 11:37 BST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0451 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing (2) From: David Jackson Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 95 13:48:14 est Subj: Re: SHK 6.0479 Re: William Shakesbear (3) From: Marty Hyatt Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 11:39:49 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Usenet Shakespeare Newsgroup (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Suzanne Westfall Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 95 11:37 BST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0451 Re: Elizabethan Directors and Directing In regard to directors, I know that William Cornish was paid for "his pageants" at the court of Henry VII. Many master of the Chapel were, I believe, playwrights, designers, and most likely directors, especially for the children. Chamberlains in the Great Households were responsible for organizing processions and revels, we know from precise orders in household books. Whether the latter were more akin to contemporary stage managers than directors is food for further thought. As an actor and director myself, I know that the actor frequently lacks an objective view of the play or the blocking, thought I too have done the quick reblocking on tour routine. The mechanics of acting (voice, blocking, gesture) are fairly easy for the actors to handle. The overall artistic unity, however, is another matter. Directors, or very organic companies can manage this. Whenever I've worked without a director, I find that individual styles and interpretations rarely mesh. But maybe Shax's gang didn't care so much for unity of style anyway, and went more for the star turn. Suzanne Westfall westfals@lafayette.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 95 13:48:14 est Subject: Re: SHK 6.0479 Re: William Shakesbear If you strike out on the bear, and are still looking for something Shakespearish, try the Bard-In-The-Box. I was given one for my birthday, and it's certainly something worth having on one's desk. (For those unfamiliar with it, it's a wooden box, about 6" on each side, from which pops a stuffed WS holding a quill pen and a sonnet.) I think they run about $20. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marty Hyatt Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 11:39:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Usenet Shakespeare Newsgroup Fellow SHAKSPERians: There seems to be some confusion regarding the proposed Usenet newsgroup. The proposal has nothing to do with SHAKSPER, the mailing list, except that the announcements regarding the group creation are being posted on SHAKSPER as a courtesy for everyone's information, since the listmembers have an obvious interest in Shakespeare. The proposal is merely to create a new Usenet newsgroup with Shakespeare as the topic of discussion, NOT to change the SHAKSPER list in any way. Please help the people that want the new Usenet group, even if you will never take a look there yourself. Some people cannot join mailing lists or cannot join any more mailing lists without mailbox overload. They can look in on a Usenet group from time to time as they please without any mailbox consequences. Some of us on the SHAKSPER list will also look in on the new group. The Call for Votes will be posted soon. Nobody is forced to vote. But it only takes a one line email message to help create something useful for some fellow Shakespeare lovers (hint hint!). Martin Hyatt ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 15:32:42 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0485 Shakespeare at Kalamazoo; ACH/ALLC '95 Program Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0485. Thursday, 15 June 1995. (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 15:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakespeare at Kalamazoo (2) From: Eric Dahlin Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 95 12:31:27 PDT Subj: ACH/ALLC '95 program (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 15:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare at Kalamazoo [Note: There were a few errors in the original posting that have been corrected here. --HMC] Call for Papers SHAKESPEARE AT KALAMAZOO Thirty-first International Congress on Medieval Studies Kalamazoo, Michigan, May 2-6, 1996 SHAKESPEARE AT KALAMAZOO has organized programs at the International Congress since 1989. Two sessions have been proposed for the 31st Congress in 1995, 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 explore evidence in Shakespeare's play of medieval ideas of theater and of medieval practices and dramaturgical conventions. Papers for Session 2 should focus on the representation in Shakespeare's play of late medieval and early modern cultural trends. Papers are invited from scholars in teh fields of art history, music, folklore, history, philosophy, theater history, the history fo science, law, and more--as well as literature, both English and continental. The Congress on Medieval Studies provides a unique milue for an exchange of insights on Shakespeare's place in the continuum of culture. For further information, please contact 1996 program organizer Michael Shapiro, 208 English Building, University of Illinois, 608 South Wright St., Urbana, IL 61801, FAX 217-333-4321/e-mail mshapiro@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu He will accept abstracts for papers that can be delivered in 20 minutes. Abstracts must be submitted by 1 Sept 1995 Note: please cross-post this announcement on any other relevant lists. Thank you very much (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Dahlin Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 95 12:31:27 PDT Subject: ACH/ALLC '95 program ******************************************************************** ACH/ALLC '95, July 11-15, 1995 University of California, Santa Barbara ======================================= Tentative Program (subject to change) Sunday, July 9 -------------- 1 pm onward dormitory check-in Anacapa Hall Monday, July 10 --------------- 1 pm onward dormitory check-in Anacapa Hall 8 to 10 am registration for TEI workshop Anacapa Hall 9 am to 4 pm TEI Workshop Microcomputer Lab Tuesday, July 11 ---------------- 9 am onward dormitory check-in Anacapa Hall 8 to 10 am ALLC Committee Anacapa Hall 10 am to 12 noon ACH Executive Council Anacapa Hall 1 to 4 pm tour of Santa Barbara [departing from] 2 to 7 pm registration Anacapa Hall 5:30 pm opening session [location] Welcome: Nancy Ide, President, ACH; Susan Hockey, Chairman, ALLC Opening address: Walter E. Massey, Provost and Senior Vice President, Academic Affairs, University of California "Surfing the Net: What New Technologies Mean for Education" 7:00 pm reception Lagoon Patio 8:00 pm banquet Corwin Room Wednesday, July 12 ------------------ 8 am to 3 pm registration Corwin Lobby 9 to 10:30 am Plenary Session Corwin West Keynote address: Stanley Katz, President, The American Council of Learned Societies "Constructing the Humanities Community for the Digital Age" 10:30 to 11 am coffee break [location] 11 am to 5:30 pm software demonstrations, Corwin East posters, book and vendor displays 11 am to 12:30 pm Sessions 1-A and 1-B Session 1-A, 11 am to 12:30 pm [location] Computational lexicons, corpora Chair: [name and affiliation] Mining COMLEX for Syntactic Data: An On-line Dictionary as a Resource for Research in Syntax for Linguists at Large Catherine Macleod, Adam Meyers, and Ralph Grishman, New York University Constructing A Knowledge Base for Describing the General Semantics of Verbs Sophie Daubeze, IRIT-CNRS, URACOM Parc Technologique du canal; Patrick Saint-Dizier, IRIT-CNRS; Palmira Marrafa The Corpus and the Citation Archive--Peaceful Coexistence Between the Best and the Good? Christian-Emil Ore, University of Oslo Session 1-B, 11 am to 12:30 pm [location] Stylistics Chair: [name and affiliation] Mapping the "Other Harmony" of Prose: A Computer Analysis of John Dryden's Prose Style Mary Mallery, The Center for Electronic Texts in the Humanities Neural Network Applications in Stylometry: The Federalist Papers F. J. Tweedie, S. Singh, and D.I. Holmes, University of the West of England, Bristol Language and Style in Golding's _The Inheritors_: An Eclectic, Computer-Assisted Approach David L. Hoover, New York University 12:30 to 2 pm lunch 2 to 3:30 pm Sessions 2-A and 2-B Session 2-A, 2 to 3:30 pm [location] Panel Chair: Nancy Ide, Vassar College The Information Superhighway and the Humanities: Will Our Needs Be Met? Charles Henry, Vassar College; Nancy Ide, Vassar College; Stanley Katz, The American Council of Learned Societies; Elli Mylonas, Brown University Session 2-B, 2 to 3:30 pm [location] Linguistics (software) Chair: [name and affiliation] Behind the Scenes: Building a Tool for Verb Classification in French Rachel Panckhurst, Universite Paul Valery, Montpellier III From Linguistic Resources to Applications With the ZStation: A New Approach to Linguistic Engineering in Research and Teaching Henri C. Zingle, LILLA, University of Nice The Linguistic Postprocessor of SCRIPT: A System for the Recognition of Handwritten Input Using Linguistic and Statistical Filter Mechanisms as well as a Crossword Lexicon Bettina Harriehausen-Muhlbauer, IBM Germany, Science Center 3:30 to 4 pm coffee break [location] 4 to 5:30 pm Sessions 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C Session 3-A, 4 to 5:30 pm [location] Panel Chair: [name and affiliation] Collaboration Between Humanities Scholars and Computer Professionals John Unsworth (moderator), John Dobbins, Susan Gants, Jerome McGann, and Thornton Staples, Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities(IATH), University of Virginia Session 3-B, 4 to 5:30 pm [location] Encoding issues Chair: [name and affiliation] You Can't Always Get What You Want: Deep Encoding of Manuscripts and the Limits of Retrieval Michael Neuman, Georgetown University Using the TEI to Encode Textual Variations: Some Practical Considerations Gregory Murphy, The Center for Electronic Texts in the Humanities Implementing the TEI's Feature-Structure Markup by Direct Mapping to the Objects and Attributes of an Object-Oriented Database System Gary F. Simons, Summer Institute of Linguistics Session 3-C, 4 to 5:30 pm UCSB Demonstrations [to be announced] 6 pm ACH open meeting [location] 8 pm Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) [location] open session Thursday, July 13 ----------------- 9 am to 5:30 pm software demonstrations, Corwin East posters, book and vendor displays 9 to 10:30 am Sessions 4-A and 4-B Session 4-A, 9 to 10:30 am [location] Panel Chair: [name and affiliation] The Information Superhighway and the Humanities: An International Perspective Jane Rosenberg, NEH; [other panelists and affiliations] Session 4-B, 9 to 10:30 am [location] Computer Assisted Instruction Chair: [name and affiliation] Architext: A Hypertext Application for Architectural History Instruction Mark R. Petersen, Clarkson University Teaching Critical Thinking with Interactive Courseware: An Experiment in Evaluation Jill LeBlanc and Geoffrey M. Rockwell, McMaster University Watching Scepticism: Computer Assisted Visualization and Hume's _Dialogues_ Geoffrey M. Rockwell, McMaster University; John Bradley, University of Toronto 10:30 to 11 am coffee break [location] 11 am to 12:30 pm Sessions 5-A and 5-B Session 5-A, 11 am to 12:30 pm [location] Internet, World Wide Web, Hypertext Chair: [name and affiliation] TACT & WWW: Argument and Evidence on the Internet John D. Bradley, University of Toronto; Geoffrey M. Rockwell, McMaster University Art History and the Internet Michael Greenhalgh, Australian National University The Labyrinth, the World Wide Web, and the Development of Disciplinary Servers in the Humanities Deborah Everhart and Martin Irvine, Georgetown University Session 5-B, 11 am to 12:30 pm [location] Annotation Chair: [name and affiliation] Man-Machine Cooperation in Syntactic Annotation Hans van Halteren, University of Nijmegen Man vs. Machine--Which is the Most Reliable Annotator? Gunnel Kallgren, Stockholm University Standards in Morphosyntax: Towards a Ready-to-Use Package Nicoletta Calzolari and Monica Monachini, Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale (CNR), Pisa 12:30 to 2 pm lunch 2 pm to 3:30 pm, Sessions 6-A and 6-B Session 6-A, 2 pm to 3:30 pm [location] Project session Chair: [name and affiliation] ACCORD: a New Approach to Digital Resource Development Using the Testbed Method Mary Keeler, University of Washington; Christian Kloesel, Indiana University Yearning to be Hypertext: The Cornell Wordsworth and the Limits of the Codex Bruce Graver, Providence College The Shakespeare Multimedia Project: An Exploration in Constructivist Pedagogy Leslie D. Harris, Susquehanna University Session 6-B, 2 pm to 3:30 pm [location] Text Databases Chair: [name and affiliation] Problems of Multidatabase Construction for Linguistic and Literary Research Richard Giordano and Carole Goble, University of Manchester; Gunnel Kallgren, Stockholm University A Data Architecture for Multi-lingual Linguistic Corpora Nancy Ide, Vassar College; Jean Veronis, Laboratoire Parole et Langage, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence; David Durand, Boston University On the Text Based Database Systems for Public Service Shoichiro Hara and Hisashi Yasunaga, National Institute of Japanese Literature 3:30 to 4 pm coffee break [location] 4 to 5:30 pm, Sessions 7-A, 7-B, and 7-C Session 7-A, 4 to 5:30 pm [location] Panel Chair: [name and affiliation] Model Editions Partnership Panel David R. Chesnutt, University of South Carolina; Ann D. Gordon, Rutgers University; C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, University of Illinois at Chicago Session 7-B, 4 to 5:30 pm [location] Translation, computational lexicography Chair: [name and affiliation] The Terminology of Bioenergy: A Project in Progress Lisa Lena Opas, University of Joensuu LOCOLEX: The Translation Rolls Off Your Tongue Daniel Bauer, Fridirique Segond, and Annie Zaenen, RANK XEROX Research Centre Parallel Corpora, Translation Equivalence and Contrastive Linguistics Raphael Salkie, University of Brighton Session 7-C, 4 to 5:30 pm UCSB Demonstrations [to be announced] 6 pm ALLC open meeting [location] Friday, July 14 --------------- 9 am to 5:30 pm software demonstrations, [location] posters, book and vendor displays 9 to 10:30 am, Sessions 8-A and 8-B Session 8-A, 9 to 10:30 am [location] Special session: Humanities Computing Support Chair: Espen Ore, University of Bergen World Bank Support for the Development of Foreign Language Education at Lajos Kossuth University, Debrecen, Hungary Laszlo Hunyadi, Lajos Kossuth University Application of Computers in Language Training in the Post-Soviet Ukraine Peter I. Serdiukov, Kiev State Linguistic University Creating a Multi-Lingual Hypertext: A CSCW Project in the Humanities Catherine Scott, University of North London Session 8-B, 9 to 10:30 am [location] Word studies, statistics Chair: [name and affiliation] Experiments in Word Creation Michael Levison and Greg Lessard, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario A Multivariate Test for the Attribution of Authorship F.J. Tweedie, University of the West of England, Bristol; C. A. Donnelly, University of Edinburgh The Randomness Assumption in Word Frequency Statistics R. Harald Baayen, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands 10:30 to 11 am coffee break [location] 11 am to 12:30 pm, Sessions 9-A and 9-B Session 9-A, 11 am to 12:30 pm [location] Panel Chair: [name and affiliation] Electronic Resources for Literary Studies Kathryn Sutherland, Nottingham University; Lou Burnard and Alan Morrison, Oxford University Computing Services Session 9-B, 11 am to 12:30 pm [location] Corpus Linguistics Chair: [name and affiliation] Perception Nouns in the Italian Reference Corpus: Argument Structure and Collocational Uses Adriana Roventini and Monica Monachini, Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale (CNR), Pisa Investigating Verbal Transitions with P.R.O.U.S.T. Tony Jappy, University of Perpignan A Corpus-Based Study of Nonfinite and Verbless Adverbial Clauses in English Magnus Ljung, Stockholm University 12:30 to 2 pm lunch 2 to 3:30 pm, Sessions 10-A and 10-B Session 10-A, 2 to 3:30 pm [location] Authorship attribution Chair: [name and affiliation] Word-Type at "Sentence" Beginning and End: A Reliable Discriminator of Authorship of Latin Prose Texts? Bernard Frischer, University of California, Los Angeles Wordprinting Francis Bacon Noel B. Reynolds and John L. Hilton, Brigham Young University The "Federalist" Revisited: New Directions in Authorship Attribution David Holmes, University of the West of England, Bristol Session 10-B, 2 to 3:30 pm [location] Literature, Literary Theory Chair: [name and affiliation] Categories, Theory, and Literary Texts Paul A. Fortier, University of Manitoba Tracing the Narrator: Parenthesis and Point-of-View in Joseph Conrad's _Heart of Darkness_. Thomas Rommel, University of Tuebingen The Perception of Biblical Texts in Modern Literature, Illustrated by the Lyric Poetry of Christine Busta Susanne Bucher-Gillmayr, University of Innsbruck, Austria 3:30 to 4 pm coffee break 4 to 5 pm Discussion Groups 1 and 2 Discussion Group 1, 4 to 5 pm [location] The Future of HUMANIST Willard McCarty, University of Toronto (discussion leader) Discussion Group 2, 4 to 5 pm [location] Perspectives on the Need for Behavioral Change in the Humanities: Response to the Information Age Mary Keeler, University of Washington (discussion leader) 6 pm beach barbecue Goleta Beach Saturday, July 15 ----------------- 9 to 10:30 am Sessions 11-A and 11-B Session 11-A, 9 to 10:30 am [location] Hypertext, Text Editing Chair: [name and affiliation] Screen and Page: Some Questions of Design in Electronic Editions Michael Best, University of Victoria, British Columbia Translation Project for Vincent of Beauvais' _Speculum Naturale_ Carol Everest, King's University College, Edmonton, Alberta; Caroline Falkner, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario; Kevin Roddy, University of California, Davis Text, Hypertext or Cybertext--A Typology of Textual Modes Using Correspondence Analysis Espen Aarseth, University of Bergen Session 11-B, 9 to 10:30 am [location] Linguistics, corpora Chair: [name and affiliation] Maestro2: An Object-Oriented Approach to Structured Linguistic Data Greg Lessard, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario; Colin Gajraj, Bell Northern Research, Ottawa; Ian Macleod, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario A Program for Aligning English and Norwegian Sentences Knut Hofland, The Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities Contractions in ARCHER: Register and Diachronic Change Joe Allen, University of Southern California 10:30 to 11 am coffee break [location] 11 to 11:30am closing session [location] Remarks: Nancy Ide, President, ACH; Susan Hockey, Chairman, ALLC; Espen Ore, ALLC, Local Organizer, ALLC/ACH '96, University of Bergen 12 noon to 1 pm lunch 1 to 5:30 pm winery tour [departing from] Demonstrations -------------- (See separate schedule) Cinema Studies and Interactivity: A Multimedia Computer Model Robert Kolker, University of Maryland CoALA-An Intelligent System for Language Acquisition Combining Various Modern NLPTtechnologies Bettina Harriehausen-Muhlbauer, IBM Germany, Science Center SHAXICON--Mapping Shakespeare's "Rare Words" Across the Canon Don Foster, Vassar College Computerizing the Buddhist Scriptures Supachai Tangwongsan, Mahidol University Computing Center, Thailand ADMYTE, A Digital Archive of Spanish Manuscripts and Texts Charles Faulhaber, University of California, Berkeley SYNTPARSE, For Parsing English Texts SYNTCHECK, For Orthographical and Grammatical Spell-Checking of English Texts SOFTHESAURUS, An English Electronic Thesaurus LINGUATERM, A Multilingual (English, German, French, Spanish) Electronic Thesaurus of Linguistic Terminology GEOATLAS, A Multilingual (English, German, French, Italian) Electronic Thesaurus of Related Place Names Hristo Georgiev-Good, Good Language Software, Switzerland TUSTEP: A Scholarly Tool for Literary and Linguistic Analysis Winfried Bader, University of Tuebingen From Linguistic Resources to Applications with the ZStation: A New Approach to Linguistic Engineering in Research and Teaching Henri C. Zingle, LILLA, University of Nice OrigENov: Integration of Multimedia into the Teaching of Comparative Literature at Luton University Clementine Burnley, Barbara Heins, and Carlota Larrea, University of Luton Posters ------- (See separate schedule) Bringing SGML and TACT Together: sgml2tdb John Bradley, University of Toronto NEACH Guide to World Wide Web Heyward Ehrlich, Rutgers University The Provenance of Christian Doctrine, attributed to John Milton: An Evaluation of Alternative Statistical Methods F.J. Tweedie, University of the West of England, Bristol; T. Corns, University of Wales, Bangor; J. Hale, University of Otago; G. Campbell, University of Leicester; D.I. Holmes, University of the West of England, Bristol Developing an Electronic _Thesaurus Linguae Latinae_ Ann F. DeVito, University of Saskatchewan, Consortium for Latin Lexicography A PROLOG Approach to Montesquieu Pauline Kra, Yeshiva University From Text to Test--Automatically: A Computer System for Deriving an English Language Test from a Text David Coniam, Chinese University of Hong Kong An Integrated Multimedia Network for Scholarly Discovery, Pedagogical Authoring, and Professional Presentation in the Field of Music Peter G. Otto, University of California, San Diego; Nancy B. Nuzzo and Michael Long, State University of New York at Buffalo APL-Simulation for I Ching Hexagrams' Order Explanation Pavel Luksha, Russia A Minimalist View on Binding and Language Acquisition Lily Grozeva, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences/Groningen University OrigENov: Integration of Multimedia into the Teaching of Comparative Literature at Luton University Clementine Burnley, Barbara Heins, and Carlota Larrea, University of Luton ******************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 15:43:15 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0486 Qs: Kingsley's *Hamlet*; *Metamorphoses* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0486. Thursday, 15 June 1995. (1) From: Lindsay Bell <011302B@axe.acadiau.ca> Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 16:54:17 AST4ADT Subj: Kingsley's Hamlet (2) From: Jung Jimmy Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 95 10:39:00 PDT Subj: Ovidee, Ovida, Life goes on. (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lindsay Bell <011302B@axe.acadiau.ca> Date: Wednesday, 14 Jun 1995 16:54:17 AST4ADT Subject: Kingsley's Hamlet Hello, just a wee query. I have been using Rosenberg's `Masks of Hamlet' as a valuable reference for my research thesis, however I am unable to find silly things like the dates of the performances he mentions, as well as the name of the actress who played Ophelia! So, my query is this...does anyone know the date of Ben Kingsley's Hamlet, (the year will suffice) and the name of the actress who played Ophelia? Cheers, Lindsay Bell Acadia University 011302b@axe.acadiau.ca ps. Also, why is it that the actress who played Ophelia is referred to merely as `Kingsley's Ophelia'? Does she not warrant the decency of a name? I realize that we (royal, and otherwise) recognize certain performances via the protagonist/star, but surely this is rather archaic? I thought that women had gained some ground and freedom in the theatre wonder-world. Apparently not. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jung Jimmy Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 95 10:39:00 PDT Subject: Ovidee, Ovida, Life goes on. Is there a preferred "Metamorphoses," if your interest stems from Shakespeare? jimmy jung ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 12:03:06 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0487 Re: Why Biography? (Comment on Catholic); Kingsley's Hamlet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0487. Friday, 16 June 1995. (1) From: Victor Gallerano Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 13:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Why biography? (2) From: Marie Myers Date: Friday, 16 Jun 1995 08:36:49 -0500 Subj: Kingsley's Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Victor Gallerano Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 13:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Why biography? Last week Ed Pechter wrote one of the many comments on the question, "Was Shakespeare Catholic?" He observed that one, we can't answer the question. Two, that our best speculations about Shakespeare's Catholicism do not help answer any practical or theoretical questions about the plays. And finally, he wonders why we are so interested in such a useless undertaking, that is, in biography? I don't know if we can or can't answer the question, "Was Shakespeare Catholic?" And I agree that whatever the answer, it cannot do duty as an interpretation of the plays. I do think that our interest in biography might be related to the pleasure we take in novels, but that pleasure is more than an appetite for gossip. So what is it? Why do we care about biography? "Tell me," writes Ed Pechter, "he or she that knows." I think that here, as with many things, it may be of some help to consult our friend, Michel de Montaigne. In _de Livre_ Montaigne says that he prefers this kind of history (biography) because its writers, "...ammuse and busie themselves more about counsels than events, more about that which commeth from within, than that which appeareth outward..." It is there that he finds "man with whom I desire generally to be acquainted" and, in particular, "the diversitie of the meanes of his collection and composing, and of the accidents that threaten him." Montaigne is not, I think, talking about the collection and composing of man in his political arrangements, but those personal acts of collection and composition of virtues and vices by which he constitutes himself a self: the elements, that is, of character. It is precisely that inward "constitution" of character that the outward "accidents" of history threaten to undo. And, according to Montaigne, the great biographers are able to select and judge (better than most of us) what went into the collection of those parts; how they were composed into whole selves; what accidents of circumstance threatened to unravel them; and, most importantly, how those selves succeeded or failed in preserving that wholeness. Not every biographer is competent to make those judgments, thus he who would learn the things that Montaigne says he wants to know has to test the biographer's judgment by his own. This means scavenging the chronicles of gossip and frivolous opinion, as well as those materials that bear the warrant of true evidence. In effect, readers like Montaigne are trying to make judgments that stand on their own and that could form the foundation for what he considers the best kind of biographical writing. At it s best I think that is the attraction we still feel for biography, and it is not unlike the attraction we feel for both good and bad novels. Thus, one does not write the history of a life, one writes a life. Biography is more like poetry than history, that is, it is more like philosophy because, although it may not rise to a precise knowledge of human beings, it rises to judgment (beyond which Montaigne says he is too lazy to seek.) In the case of our biographical interest in Shakespeare: I am not interested because I think his biography will explain his plays, but because writing the way he did, where and when he did is remarkable in its own right. It is remarkable as the "action " of an individual "collected and composed" of various, recognizably human parts. And those of us who are interested enough to scavenge up the scraps (both the likely and wholly untrustworthy) of information about things like his Catholicism, are trying to see the whole man. We are all trying to make judgments that would serve the still-to-be-written biography of Shakespeare. Ed Pechter is struck by Shakespeare's "usurious, uncharitable, litigious, self-serving figure." Jonathan Bate recently described him as "the most cautious dramatist of his generation" not only because he avoided the political persecution that afflicted most of his early rivals, but also because he avoided their poverty. I'm not sure that focusing on his venalities or his "caution" says enough about Shakespeare's character. Those terms are too reductive, too limited for any of us. In Shakespeares's case, he seems to me more a study in prudence...something that conventional wisdom does not lead us moderns to expect from poets precisely because our modern, conventional wisdom about the virtue of prudence is as limited as our modern, conventional wisdom about poets and poetry. ("Our modern, conventional wisdom" comes in two varieties of the same: on the one hand there is the atomizing pedantry that Montaigne attributes to Asinius Polio, and on the other, the historicist (whose name is now legion) for whom, like Hegel's valet, no man is a hero. "Not because [the man] is not a hero, but becasue the valet is a valet.") The evidence indicates that the greatest poet was "collected and composed" of more that the ability to write _Lear_. He was able to make money; he may well have been a Catholic; he was not too proud to "collaborate." Putting all those things together raises questions about what we think we know about human beings. They are legitimate and important questions in their own right and not less so for being difficult, daunting, and perhaps impossible to answer. Thinking about Shakespeare's biography calls, finally, for a judgment that does not explicate _Lear_, but might help us to understand some of the same things that _Lear_ helps us to understand. (By the way, thank you, Ed Pechter. Whether any of the foregoing is a satisfactory answer to you, your question was quite helpful to me.) Vic Gallerano (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marie Myers Date: Friday, 16 Jun 1995 08:36:49 -0500 Subject: Kingsley's Hamlet Colin Chambers, Other Spaces: New Theatre and the RSC (Methuen, 1980), gives the opening night of Buzz Goodbody's production of Hamlet as April 8, 1975. Chambers fails to mention the actress playing Ophelia. Marie Myers chalc@www.olemiss.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 12:14:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0488 Re: Humor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0488. Friday, 16 June 1995. (1) From: Jesus Cora Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 19:37:24 UTC+0200 Subj: SHK 6.0481 Re: Humor (2) From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 95 15:42:56 est Subj: Re: SHK 6.0481 Re: Humor (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 16 Jun 1995 00:28:40 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0481 Re: Humor (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 19:37:24 UTC+0200 Subject: SHK 6.0481 Re: Humor Come, come! (Beware, this is acid criticism) If football yobs can get their drug on TV, if such never-ending trash as *Coronation Street* and *Eastenders* is bombarded on the majority of the population and they enjoy it, why shouldn't we get our own stimulant share on the box? Everyone is entitled to be paid some attention by the BBC or, for that matter, any public television network. Ethnic minorities get their space -last time I was in England, there were Indian and Chinese series on-, so do sexual 'sexual minorities'. Academics -even cultural prigs- are another minority and are perfectly entitled to be paid some attention and respect with nice, sparkling, series and programs that are ego-boosting and create feelings of solidarity and community among those who can understand cultural, literary, mythological, religious, you-name-it references. Why should everything on TV be populistically boring? Here's a provoking thought. Jesus Cora fmjca@filmo.alcala.es (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 95 15:42:56 est Subject: Re: SHK 6.0481 Re: Humor I am quite surprised at the suggestion that one needs a university education to understand references to Byron, Austen, and the like. As another transplanted Brit, I have often been surprised at the limited range of authors "taught" in many schools in this country, as if students who are expected to understand Robert Frost could not handle Keats. But I know many people here of various ages who have read a variety of dead authors, without the benefit of a university education. In Britain, it is still customary to "teach" Shakespeare, Austen, Shelley, Byron, or other dead writers, in the equivalent of junior high and high schools. Standards may have declined in recent years, but the books required to be read for "O" level (10th grade) or "A" level (12th grade) Eng. Lit. when I was in school included works by such authors as Graham Greene, J.D. Salinger, William Faulkner, WS, Ben Jonson, T.S. Eliot, Henry James, Hemingway, Austen, Bronte, and Marlowe, to name but a few. By the time I was in college I wasn't required to read any fiction (because I didn't study Literature there). I never studied Russian or French literature in school or college, but somehow I still read Flaubert and Gogol, and although I've only read a little Dostoevsky I could still understand an allusion to his style. I never studied music in college, but I can distinguish Mozart from Tchaikovsky, as can my 12-year-old son. I knew what people meant when they talked about Hemingway's style before I'd ever read him. So you don't have to read Byron or Shelley to understand allusions to their lives (and deaths). I've never read Dr. Johnson (this is turning into a litany of my ignorance), but I still get the Blackadder jokes. My mother left school at age 16 but she's read more Bronte (any of them) and Hawthorne than I have. I watched Blackadder once with her and she got the jokes too. My point is that a culture is not defined solely by its educational structure, and that people can acquire knowledge in a variety of ways. Just as in the theatre it is a mistake to "talk down" to an audience, we should not underestimate the capacity for comprehension of those less "educated" than ourselves. I suspect think that if Shakespeare or Austen applied for a vacant post in a modern university English Literature department, they would be rejected because they lacked the requisite degrees. P.S. I think Frankie Howard's tongue was in his cheek. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 16 Jun 1995 00:28:40 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0481 Re: Humor Gareth Euridge writes >Gabriel Egan's comments on Frankie Howard's suggestion that, to be a comic >today in England, requires a "university education" made me ponder... Alas I said no such thing, but I think Simon Morgan-Russell did. If it turns out to be a highly popular and attractive thing to say then I will gladly claim it for my own. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 12:24:12 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0489 Qs: Shakespeare's Library; Taylor/Jowell Argument: *MM* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0489. Friday, 16 June 1995. (1) From: Bob Leslie <8913241l@arts.gla.ac.uk> Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 15:31:50 +0100 Subj: Shakespeare's library (2) From: Michael Friedman Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 15:33:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Taylor and Jowell's Argument re: *MM* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Leslie <8913241l@arts.gla.ac.uk> Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 15:31:50 +0100 Subject: Shakespeare's library In trying to trace other literary influences upon Shakespeare, one often ends up inferring such by reason of his acquaintance with the likes of John Florio etc. While Florio's library is at least partly catalogued by the man himself in his *World of Words*, I know little of other libraries which might have been available to Mr.S. Are there any records regarding his personal book collection? Is there a catalogue of Southampton's library? Whose copy of Holinshed did W.S. use? Are there any books extant bearing a scrawled "This buke hath been stolen from Willum Shagsper"? I confess a personal interest: I'm part-converting my thesis into a book on *Shakespeare and Italian Renaissance Comedy* so obviously Shakespeare's personal copy of Boccaccio would be a somewhat useful find! Any Spanish links would be helpful too (I know about Cardenio, thanks very much!). Bob Leslie (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 15:33:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Taylor and Jowell's Argument re: *MM* I have a query for the group. I just finished the middle section of Gary Taylor and John Jowett's *Shakespeare Reshaped 1606-1623*, which argues, in a nutshell, that the Folio version of *Measure for Measure* contains two later interpolations by hands other than Shakespeare's: 1) the opening 77 or so lines of 1.2, featuring the banter between Lucio, Mistress Overdone, and the two gentlemen (probably written by Middleton), and 2) the opening of 4.1 (the moated grange scene) including the song (by Fletcher) and the rest of the dialogue until the entrance of Isabella (probably by Webster). I won't go into the arguments here, but suffice it to say that there is enough objective stylistic evidence to make the hypothesis seem disconcertingly possible. My question is, does anyone know of any reviews of this book that have responded to Taylor and Jowett's analysis of *Measure*'s textual status? The 1993 SQ Bibliography mentions two newspaper reviews, but I'm wondering if any scholarly accounts have appeared more recently. Alternatively, if any of our textual scholars have comments to offer, I would be interested to hear them. Thanks in advance, Michael Friedman University of Scranton ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 12:32:34 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0490 Qs Arising from Miss-Begetting Discussions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0490. Friday, 16 June 1995. (1) From: Michael Friedman Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 15:53:50 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0482 Re: Miss-Begetting (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 20:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0482 Re: Miss-Begetting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 15:53:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0482 Re: Miss-Begetting I seem to recall reading somewhere in the body of *Lear* criticism the idea that Edmund's status as both a younger and bastard son is important because it indicates that Gloucester sought extramarital sex even though he already had a legitimate son. According to this critic, the Elizabethans winked at the sin of a man who fathered a child out of wedlock if his wife had been "unable to produce a son for him"; but Gloucester's adultery is more clearly blameworthy because he already has Edgar. Can anyone confirm this? Michael Friedman University of Scranton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 20:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0482 Re: Miss-Begetting Dear Milla Riggio-- The idea of the Abraham-Isaac "myth" in connection with "birth" is fascinating. If one considers "male anxiety" about not being able to give birth as a possible factor (as so many psycho-analytic feminists are wont to) that generates the fantasy of "gain through sacrifice" (as well as "sex- as-death"), and if we place such a dilemma onto a strictly intellectual or artistic plane (in which babies become "ideas" and "artifacts" respectively), are we back in the same old conundrum in which "culture" becomes gendered male? Is this kind of gendering more prevalent in most Renaissance texts than the offhanded idea that vigor in sex will produce a male offspring ?? What I find provovcative is speculations on the possible mythic (rather than just 'practical") significance of the desire for male children more than women children that was more prevalent in the renaissance. But I am wondering about what the GENDER-IMPLICATIONS (if any) are of the ABRAHAM-ISAAC myth? If we're speaking from a "male perspective" in citing such a myth, it seems to serve a similar function to the myth of Narcissus--That sacrificing Isaac is "breaking the mirror" so one may see ones reflection in multiplicity and may question the authenticity of the "essential self" as but a product of singular mirror (or MONOTHEISTIC god). My question for you, MILLA (though I'd love to hear you ramble on in other directions), is whether there are more gendered versions of this myth, or female analogues, and if there's not, is because women, in so far as they were subjects, had to translate the terms of Abraham-Isaac back into matriarchal terms in which "birth" was more central than 'death"? Thanks, Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 12:42:24 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0491 Re: Shakespeare's *Metamorphoses*; Rutland in *3H6* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0491. Friday, 16 June 1995. (1) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 15:15:35 +0200 Subj: Re: *Metamorphoses* (2) From: Carmine Di Biase Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 95 22:46:54 CDT Subj: Shakespeare's Ovid (3) From: David R. Maier Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 12:21:06 -0700 Subj: Rutland in HVI Part3 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 15:15:35 +0200 Subject: Re: *Metamorphoses* In reply to Jimmy Jung's query, the 1567 translation by Arthur Golding would be an appropriate one to look at. Melissa Aaron (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carmine Di Biase Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 95 22:46:54 CDT Subject: Shakespeare's Ovid To Jimmy Jung: The English Metamorphoses that Shakespeare read was Golding's, which should be in print still, probably in a Norton paperback. You might also read Jonathan Bate's new book (Oxford, 1994), Shakespeare and Ovid, which is a lucid, accessible, acutely sensitive study of influence and allusion. If you have any interest in Cymbeline and Ovid's Cephalus and Procris, you might read my article on the subject in Cahiers Elisabethains (October, 1994). I think that story is at the bottom of the play's layers of Ovidian allusion. Carmine Di Biase (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David R. Maier Date: Thursday, 15 Jun 1995 12:21:06 -0700 Subject: Rutland in HVI Part3 In its 1995-96 season Tygres Heart Shakespeare Company (Portland, Oregon) will be presenting an original adaptation of the three Henry VI's, condensing them down to one 2-1/2 hour performance. This adaptation will be the work of artistic director Jan Powell and company member Doug Miller. In researching the plays and in making initial scene/casting decisions, an interesting disparity has come to light. From the references in the text, it would seem that the Duke of York's son, Edmond, Earl of Rutland, was a young boy: I. iii.: Rut.: Ah! gentle Clifford, hear me speak before I die: I am too mean a subject for thy wrath; Be thou reveng'd on men, and let me live. Clif.:In vain thou speak'st, poor boy; my father's blood Hath stopp'd the passage where thy words should enter. Rut.: Then let my father's blood open it again: He is a man, and, Clifford, cope with him. I. iv.: Mar.: Look, York: I stain'd this napkin with the blood That valiant Clifford with his rapier's point Made issue from the bosom of the boy. *** York: O tygres heart wrapp'd in a woman's hide! How couldst thou drain the life-blood of the child, To bid the father wipe his eyes withal, And yet be seen to bear a woman's face? *** These tears are my sweet Rutland's obsequies, And every drop cries vengence for his death... When Margaret literally rubs York's nose in Rutland's death she characterizes each of York's sons, furthering the impression that Rutland is a young thing: "Where are your mess of sons to back you now? The wonton Edward, and the lusty George? And where's that valiant crook-back prodigy, Dicky your boy, that with his grumbling voice Was wont to cheer his dad in mutinies? Or, with the rest, where is your darling Rutland?" In productions we have seen Rutland has been typically played by a young boy, furthering the impression that he was one of York's youngest children. However, in geneology charts, Rutland turns out to be York's next oldest child, some four years older than Richard (the future Richard III), who was in fact York's youngest male child. In my copy of The Yale Shakespeare the editor notes, with resepct to Rutland's statement that the death of Clifford's father occurred before Rutland was born: "The author has altered the relative ages of the Duke of York's sons. Edmund, Earl of Rutland, was next to Edward the heir. He was twelve years old at the time of his death and seven when the elder Clifford was killed at St. Albans. Richard of Gloucester, on the other hand, who is represented in the play as a mature warrior, was not born till 1452, and was but eight years old at the battle of Wakefield." We would appreciate any comments or information which might shed light on this disparity. Why the disparity between the text and lineage? Or are we reading too much into the text when we cast Rutland as a young boy? Is there more to this than just literary license? Any insights would be appreciated. -- David Maier dmaier@ednet1.osl.or.gov ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 10:28:23 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0492 Kingsley; Matamorphoses; Rutland; Catholic Ch; Sh Library Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0492. Monday, 19 June 1995. (1) From: M.S. Burton Date: Friday, 16 Jun 1995 09:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0486 Qs: Kingsley's *Hamlet* (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 16 Jun 1995 13:19:48 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Which Metamorphoses (3) From: Gavin H Witt Date: Friday, 16 Jun 95 12:05:21 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0491 Re: Rutland in *3H6* (4) From: Brendan P Murphy <71055.3340@compuserve.com> Date: Sunday, 18 Jun 95 03:44:56 EDT Subj: The Catholic Church (5) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 18 Jun 1995 19:46:26 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0489 Qs: Shakespeare's Library (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: M.S. Burton Date: Friday, 16 Jun 1995 09:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0486 Qs: Kingsley's *Hamlet* > From: Lindsay Bell <011302B@axe.acadiau.ca> > So, my query is this...does anyone know the > date of Ben Kingsley's Hamlet, (the year will suffice) and the name of the > actress who played Ophelia? 4-75 at The Other Place (Stratford), 1-76 at The Roundhouse. Ophelia was played by Yvonne Nicholson. I don't know any other credits for her, aside from playing several other roles for the RSC that season. In retrospect, Buzz Goodbody's "little" Hamlet looks quite the star-studded occasion: George Baker as Claudius, Mikel Lambert as Gertrude, Griffith Jones as the Ghost, Stuart Wilson as Laertes, Bob Peck doubling the Gravedigger and First Player, and Charles Dance doubling Reynaldo and Fortinbras (and garnering one of the only Hamlet reviews I can recall, where the Reynaldo got a mention....) m.s. burton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 16 Jun 1995 13:19:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Which Metamorphoses Yes, it is the Golding translation. The first four books of the eight book translation, the first translation of The Metamorphoses into English, was published in 1565 (if memory serves), the second installment about two years later. It was attributed to Arthur Golding, but his authorship is questionable since Ovid is a work of rollicking pagan sensuality and the rest of Golding's life would be devoted to translating Calvin. It was immensely popular and went into edition after edition. Many years passed before another translation was attempted (by Sandys, I believe, in the mid-1700s). But in any case, Golding's Metamorphoses is still far and away the best of all English translations, an absolute delight. Ezra Pound called it the "most beautiful book in the language." It is absolutely the best source for ancient Greek myths in English, free from the Victorian obfuscations of most available versions. If you are lucky enough to find it in your school library, read and enjoy. Stephanie Hughes P.S. The authorship of The Metamorphoses touches on the authorship question itself, that is, the authorship of the works of Shakespeare. As I have promised to keep that issue out of this arena, if you'd like to know more, write me at shughes@lynx.neu.edu. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gavin H Witt Date: Friday, 16 Jun 95 12:05:21 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0491 Re: Rutland in *3H6* To David Maier regarding the discrepancy between the theatrical age of Rutland as Shakespeare portrays him and the actual age of the child in the historial record. I'm sure you'll hear much on this subject, but suffice it to say you're not reading in more than you should, you're simply finding another instance of Shakespeare's constant--and effective--dramatic license. In the same way that he chooses to make Hostspur and Hal both of an age in _1 Henry IV_, though historically they were decades apart in age, he obviously felt he gained in dramatic impact and, I'd guess, audience sympathy for the piteous victim if he reduced Rutland to a mere stripling. Of course, it could have just been careless, too. At any rate, aside from knowing the truth, I wouldn't guess that it need alter your production decisions at all to be aware of the historical inaccuracy. The histories are as full of these as they are full of direct borrowings from the chronicle sources. Whatever suits. It sounds like a fascinating and difficult project. On what basis have you all chosen to cut material--trying to reduce the whole to a distillation of the original narrative, or focusing on particular elements at the expense of others? And with what size cast will it be presented? Gavin Witt ghwitt@midway.uchicago.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brendan P Murphy <71055.3340@compuserve.com> Date: Sunday, 18 Jun 95 03:44:56 EDT Subject: The Catholic Church I understand that this list is a place for comments and debate on matters directly concerning Shakespeare, but Mack Carter's ignorant and baseless comments regarding the Catholic Church deserve to be challenged in the same forum in which they were propagated. Mr. Carter avers that "[t]o the Catholic Church Jews have been vermin bring (sic) diseases for the past 1900 years." Such a sweeping statement calls for some clarification. Are you prepared to name names, Mr. Carter, or is the whole Church so rotten to the core with anti-Semitism that such a list would be redundant? Are you prepared to present quotes from Church documents -- papal encyclicals and the like -- from the past 1,900 years that refer to Jews as "vermin"? What about the writings of the Doctors of the Church? You have plenty of material to quote from, given your wide time frame, so please, Mr. Carter, dazzle us with your knowledge of the Church's irrational hatred of the Jews. Like many ignorant prejudices, it is simply accepted as a matter of fact by many people that the Catholic Church bears ill will towards the Jewish people. Granted, individual Catholics -- including priests and bishops -- have in the past made known their personal (and reprehensible) feelings towards the Jews, but the Church has NEVER endorsed these sinful prejudices, and has, in fact, never ceased to condemn them for what they are. For the record, The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Jewish faith...is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ; for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." (839) I'm all for free speech and discussion, but I would hope that we would all attempt to keep our ugly prejudices under wraps. I agree with Mr. Carter "that if you label a person you make them less than they might really be," and I would hate to label anyone a bigot. Brendan Patrick Murphy (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 18 Jun 1995 19:46:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0489 Qs: Shakespeare's Library In four hundred years of intense investigation, no one has ever turned up a single piece of evidence that William Shakespeare of Stratford owned a book. It is questionable whether or not he knew how to read or write.The only writing extant by him is six signatures on legal documents that look as though they were scrawled by someone who had only the vaguest idea of how to sign his own name. In that time when books were expensive, particularly the ones Shakespeare used as reference, he named no books in his will. Of even the least important writers there is evidence of their attendance at grammar schools, university or inns of court; there is no evidence of Shakespeare ever attending any school. It seems apparent that no members of his family, father, mother, wife, or daughters, knew how to read or write. This among many other oddities has driven a number of those interested in the greatest of all writers in English to consider the possibility that in that day and age of subterfuge and obfuscation, someone else did the writing. Nudge nudge wink wink, say no more, say no more. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 10:35:38 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0493 Re: Taylor/Jowell Argument: *MM* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0493. Monday, 19 June 1995. (1) From: James Harner Date: Friday, 16 Jun 1995 13:05:24 -0500 (CDT) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0489 Qs: Taylor/Jowell Argument: *MM* (2) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 18 Jun 1995 16:09:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0489 Qs: Taylor/Jowell Argument: *MM* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Harner Date: Friday, 16 Jun 1995 13:05:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0489 Qs: Taylor/Jowell Argument: *MM* RE: Taylor and Jowett, _Shakespeare Reshaped_ Additional reviews: Dickerson, D. O. _Choice_ 31 (1993-94): 1583; Howard-Hill, T. H. _Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America_ 88 (1994): 522; McCabe, Richard. _Theatre Research International_ 19 (1994): 269-70; Vosevich, Mathia A. _Sixteenth Century Journal_ 25 (1994): 912-13; White, R. S. _Notes and Queries_ 41 (1994): 560-61; Champion, Larry S. _English Studies_ 76 (1995): 102-3. Jim Harner World Shakespeare Bibliography (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 18 Jun 1995 16:09:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0489 Qs: Taylor/Jowell Argument: *MM* >I have a query for the group. I just finished the middle section of Gary >Taylor and John Jowett's *Shakespeare Reshaped 1606-1623*, which argues, in a >nutshell, that the Folio version of *Measure for Measure* contains two later >interpolations by hands other than Shakespeare's: 1) the opening 77 or so lines >of 1.2, featuring the banter between Lucio, Mistress Overdone, and the two >gentlemen (probably written by Middleton), and 2) the opening of 4.1 (the >moated grange scene) including the song (by Fletcher) and the rest of the >dialogue until the entrance of Isabella (probably by Webster). I won't go into >the arguments here, but suffice it to say that there is enough objective >stylistic evidence to make the hypothesis seem disconcertingly possible. In reply to Michael Friedman's question about reviews of the Taylor/Jowett argument, I haven't seen any, but that should not discourage us from talking about the argument here. Jowett and Taylor have to date the manuscript from which the Folio MM was set after Shakespeare's death. "Only in Measure for Measure does a convincing instance of theatrical botching coexist with independent and convincing evidence that the Folio text derives from a manuscript prepared after Shakespeare's death -- a manuscript, moreover, probably copied from the company's prompt-book [by Ralph Crane]" (123). Jowett and Taylor then select several passages that have been seen as textual cruxes, and suggest that these cruxes can be solved if we assume that the play was revised for a later revival. They suggest five emendations to the Folio text (231). Can we tell the difference among "prompt-book," "foul papers," and "fair copy" by analyzing a printed playscript? As you know, Bill Long has cast a great deal of doubt on our ability to do this. Seventeenth century promptbooks do not look like nineteenth century promptbooks. So how can we be sure that the ms. standing behind the Folio text was a promptbook with later interpolations by Middleton, Fletcher, and Webster? Well we have parallels in language and usage. We have historical arguments and evidence from other playscripts. Jowett and Taylor present a long and complex argument, and I suppose it should be analyzed point by point. If Don Foster is monitoring this, I wonder what his software says about the possible interpolations in MM. Any blips on the screen? Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 10:43:27 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0494 Abraham-Isaac Analogues Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0494. Monday, 19 June 1995. (1) From: Gavin H Witt Date: Friday, 16 Jun 95 11:57:37 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0490 Qs Arising from Miss-Begetting Discussions (2) From: G.L. Horton Date: Saturday, 17 Jun 1995 13:57:52 +0059 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0490 Qs Arising from Miss-Begetting Discussions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gavin H Witt Date: Friday, 16 Jun 95 11:57:37 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0490 Qs Arising from Miss-Begetting Discussions Regarding Chris Stroffolino's questions about female analogues to the Abraham-Isaac myth and its gender implications ("breaking the mirror"?): probably the most familiar of these is the sacrifice of Iphigenia by Agamemnon. Whether taken in its original form, in which the daughter is actually killed, or later manipulations (as in _Iphigenia at Tauris_) where she was replaced by a deer and taken off to be the priestess of Diana sacrificing any Greek man who came along, I'd say the gender implications are rife. At the same time, there are universal elements common to all versions. Rather more gender-neutral but far more loaded with cultural, religious, and artistic implications is the New Testament parallel to Abraham-Isaac, the crucifixion of Jesus. Just some thoughts, Gavin Witt ghwitt@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: G.L. Horton Date: Saturday, 17 Jun 1995 13:57:52 +0059 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0490 Qs Arising from Miss-Begetting Discussions I'm not at all sure I understand what, exactly, the proposed discussion of Abraham/Isaac is about: but I would nominate the "daughter of Jeptha" story as the female analogue. It is an interesting variation, in that the sacrifice isn't proposed directly, but as a bargain: "The first living creature" to Jehovah in exchange for victory over his enemies. As if Jeptha (and Jehovah) didn't know who'd come dancing out at the head of the victory celebration. G.L. Horton ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 10:54:55 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0495 Re: Why Biography? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0495. Monday, 19 June 1995. (1) From: Ed Pechter Date: Saturday, 17 Jun 1995 20:25:04 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0487 Re: Why Biography? (Comment on Catholic) (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 18 Jun 1995 21:01:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0487 Re: Why Biography? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pechter Date: Saturday, 17 Jun 1995 20:25:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0487 Re: Why Biography? (Comment on Catholic) Vic Gallerano thanks me for asking why we're interested in Shakespeare's biography. I should be thanking him for providing a set of answers much more interesting than the question. Or questions--because there are different ones involved. One is, why are we interested in biographies? I take it Vic Gallerano's answer is consistent with the idea that we enjoy seeing how people's lives shape up (or fall apart), and that we can even learn from what we see. I think this is consistent with the beginning of *The Poetics* where Aristotle talks about how we like seeing similitude and how it's central to the way we learn. If you think that S's plays are enjoyable the same way, then character comes back (what would I do in Edgar's situation? etc), and even ethical stuff (is that a good thing to do in these circumstances?). Whether that's true or not, the question why we are interested in Shakespeare's biography is a different question. Vic Gallerano says it's not because his biography will explain the plays, but I don't know what else it could be. That's the most interesting thing about Shakespeare--that he wrote all those great plays. The trouble is, there seems to be no way of connecting the life with the works--or rather, too many ways, and no principle that can regulate them. Even if you assume that Shakespeare is expressing himself in the plays (which is a very implausible assumption--round up the usual historical and theoretical suspects by way of showing how implausible), there's just not enough biography to work on. There's a lot we know about Shakespeare, thanks to the tremendous research of people like Chambers and Schoenbaum and Honigmann etc, but it's not the right stuff. Vic complains that the self-serving or prudential Shakespeare isn't very good because it doesn't get us anywhere with *King Lear*. (Well it does, actually: don't let the kids have the power till after you die, what Fool says; or look to your linen, as Rymer says--but I agree, there's more to the plays than that.) But that's the point. There's no way to get there from here. In effect, such work short circuits the biographical connection, and since the biographical connection in place is the sweet swan of Avon, and the Life of Allegory, etc, anything that will get us away from this and over to other ways of trying to account for the plays' tremendous power to engage our interest is a giant leap forward. Ed Pechter (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 18 Jun 1995 21:01:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0487 Re: Why Biography? I confess I am totally at a loss to understand the current disdain for biography. We study chimpanzees and whales to get a better understanding of who we are and where we came from. But what can we study to get a better understanding of what we can be and where we are going if not the lives of those who surpassed the ordinary and mundane, those who blazed the trails of our quantum leaps in understanding, of ourselves, the universe, of nature and how to manipulate it to our advantage? The lives of people like Mozart, da Vinci, Newton, Joan of Arc, Edison, Freud, carry important messages about who we are, about what it means to be human that we can get in no other way. I can't help but think that it is in part due to the ambiguous nature of the biography of the greatest English writer that ever lived that current scholarship has turned away from biography as a source of insight. How could the man who wrote "who steals my purse steals trash", who made a hero of Antonio in The Merchant of Venice, a noble character of Antonio in Twelfth Night, who portrayed the heroic self defeat brought on by the generosity of Lear, etc., etc., have left as a paper trail only a handful of litigations over a matter of pounds, have been held up for vilification as a hoarder of grain in time of famine, and have a left a gift in his will to the local loan shark! The only possible answer is, he couldn't! Awake, awake, ye scholars of the bard, and smell the coffee! Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 11:00:01 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0496 Re: Humor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0496. Monday, 19 June 1995. (1) From: Stephen Gagen Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 06:58:55 +1000 (EST) Subj: Humour, British (2) From: Pam Powell Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 08:57:52 GMT +2:00 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0481 Re: Humor (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Gagen Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 06:58:55 +1000 (EST) Subject: Humour, British On the subject of British humour, "Three men in a Boat" has long been one of my favourites. As a matter of fact, I am listening to a splendid sound recording of it at this moment, narrated by Hugh Laurie, published in a series called "Talking Classics" from Orbis, which my wife subscribes too. I would also recommend "Three Men on the Bummel", a kind of "Three Men in a Boat II", set in Germany. And the contemporary "Diary of a Nobody", which has a similar flavour (I forget the author's name). Regards from Steve Gagen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pam Powell Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 08:57:52 GMT +2:00 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0481 Re: Humor Dear Gareth, I can only say that I enjoy Blackadder immensly and that it is very popular here in South Africa with the British community and also with some South Africans and Zimbabweans of British descent too. Perhaps if you don't know English lit, you would lose a bit of the humour but the British population here is quite large and most of us read a lot of English literature at school, whether educated here or in Enland. Pam Powell Univ of the Witwatersrand ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 11:02:37 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0497 Re: Why Biography? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0497. Tuesday, 20 June 1995. (1) From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 11:31:03 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0495 Re: Why Biography? (2) From: David Wilson-Okamura Date: Monday, 19 Jun 95 11:33:22 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0495 Re: Why Biography? (3) From: John Owen Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 11:12:50 -0700 Subj: RE: Why Biography? (4) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 16:51:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0495 Re: Why Biography? (5) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 11:17:54 GMT Subj: Re: Why Biography? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 11:31:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0495 Re: Why Biography? If someone discovered that Mary Arden had a part-time job as a fishmonger, can you not imagine the smug, knowing, meta-theatrical chortles and glances from those spectators who had read about it, when the word occurs in a performance of *Hamlet*? Oh, dear. It would do sweet damn all for the play. Harry Hill (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Wilson-Okamura Date: Monday, 19 Jun 95 11:33:22 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0495 Re: Why Biography? Stephanie Hughes writes: > How could the man who wrote "who steals my purse steals trash", who > made a hero of Antonio in The Merchant of Venice, a noble character of > Antonio in Twelfth Night, who portrayed the heroic self defeat brought > on by the generosity of Lear, etc., etc., have left as a paper trail > only a handful of litigations over a matter of pounds, have been held > up for vilification as a hoarder of grain in time of famine, and have > a left a gift in his will to the local loan shark! The only possible > answer is, he couldn't! There is, I think, another possible answer, and that is "How odd of God!" The film *Amadeus* is, in my opinion, instructive here. If we look around us, or look into the biographies of successful people (including successful poets or composers), we cannot but be struck by the fact that our Creator does not always bestow his gifts on those that we would deem most worthy of them. Mozart and Wagner were both, in my opinion, great artists, but they were not good men; neither, in my opinion, was Picasso. Babe Ruth was a great baseball player, but he was a terrible husband. Do I make my point? I don't mean to say that biography has no place in criticism; quite the contrary. But I do think there are mysteries in life, and if what you say about the man from Stratford is representative, then this is one of them: "Good bard, great bard--and yet not greatly good." Yours faithfully, David Wilson-Okamura dswilson@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 11:12:50 -0700 Subject: RE: Why Biography? Regarding Stephanie Hughes' recent postings on Shakespearean biography -- 1. There seems to be an unstated assumption on Stephanie's part that authorship of a work may be disproven based on a certain level of inconsistancy with the rest of the attributed author's work, or with known biographical details. I agree that this evidence may be useful; the most damning evidence against the Baconian theory was always the complete incompatibility of Bacon's work with Shakespeare's. However, I would avoid basing any conclusion on this type of reasoning. In the absence of corroborating biographical evidence, I could argue that Rev. Dodgson was incapable of writing both dry mathematical treatises and nonsense verse/children's literature. Or, I could claim that the eminent divine, Dr. Donne, couldn't possibly have written the early love poetry "attributed" to him. To address this, I would appreciate it if Stephanie made clearer her views regarding authorial consistancy, avoiding if possible the specific example of Shakespeare. 2. Shakespeare values generosity highly in - a. King Lear, when the king gives his kingdom to his daughters. b. MoV, where the selfless Antonio is a hero. c. Twelfth Night, where the generous Antonio is presented in a positive light. Right, well -- in Lear, the King is being self-indulgent and irresponsible, not generous. In MoV, the author, through Portia, is at great pains to demonstrate to Bassanio and Antonio (titular but hardly heroic) the perils of undervaluing possessions and, through them, oneself (Act V). Which leaves Twelfth Night, which I'll grant. So how much theory shall we hang on a one dimensional minor character? Finally, how can the Stephanie Hughes who promises on Friday not to revive the authorship debate, do exactly that on Sunday? Examine these two quotes: "I have promised to keep that issue (authorship) out of the arena" "This . . . has driven a number of those interested . . .to consider the possibility that . . . someone else did the writing." The answer is simple. She couldn't. I therefore propose that we either question the authorship of the Sunday posting, or at least adopt the provisional measure of identifying two separate stylistic threads, to be named Stephanie A and Stephanie B. No offense, John Owen (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 16:51:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0495 Re: Why Biography? Dear Stephanie Hughes--The problem with the bibliographical is not a problem distinct to Shakespeare. Given much of the current academic climate (in which people can get hired having done 'vulgar' analysis of Yeats' "fascist metrics"), one may do well to consider the fact that there are so little facts on the historical Shakespeare actually a boon in terms of employing Shakespeare's "oeuvre" to, as old critic Harold Goddard said, "inspire and rebuke the present." One may even wonder if Shakespeare PURPOSELY buried the facts of his biography because he knew it could get in the way. This is not to say I am not interested in "the man behind the text"--only that "the man behind the text" is often a fantasy structure (which is not to demean it), a projection of "the ideal author" or "the ideal reader." Speculating on the subjectivity that emerges from engagement with the plays IS a valuable activity--but how this ties in to the pre-existing social grid of christianity, or whatever, is more of an intellectual (abstract) issue considering various discourse systems than it is about the plays. ART is not the handmaiden of religion!-- It "competes" with it, and just as harold Bloom said "perhaps we should do a Sakespearean reading of Freud" etc--so does this hold for the biographers (be they biographers of Shakespeare or of contemporary poets like Frank O'Hara)....Chris Stroffolino (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 11:17:54 GMT Subject: Re: Why Biography? The answer to Stephanie Hughes is that objective, transparent and non-manipulative accounts of the lives of the great and the good do not and cannot exist. At best, biography is one of the forms that fiction takes. At worst, it is propaganda with a college education. Terence Hawkes PS This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get the names right. The greatest comedian of the 20th century was Frankie HOWERD (not Howard). [Editor's Note: I'll take credit for this error. Apologies to all. --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 11:15:20 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0498 Re: *Metamorphoses*; Shakespeare's Library Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0498. Tuesday, 20 June 1995. (1) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 12:01:16 -0400 Subj: Re: Metamorphoses (2) From: David Wilson-Okamura Date: Monday, 19 Jun 95 11:13:40 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0492 Sh Library (3) From: David Kathman Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 23:13:35 +0100 Subj: Shakespeare's library (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 12:01:16 -0400 Subject: Re: Metamorphoses The baleful authorship question rears its head around poor old Arthur Golding in Stephanie Hughes post on Ovid, where she asserts that Golding's "authorship is questionable since Ovid is a work of rollicking pagan sensuality and the rest of Golding's life would be devoted to translating Calvin." This is a perfect example of the kind of thing that misleads interested people on the "authorship question" itself. It seems invidious, as well as inaccurate, to deprive Golding of what little fame he has because his work on Ovid is perceived to be inconsistent with an interest in Calvinist morals. (No doubt we shall shortly hear that Ovid was in fact translated by that paragon of "rollicking pagan sensuality" Edward de Vere). But in fact Ovid was very widely read in this period as a profound and searching moralist, whose metamorphic fables yielded the wisdom of pagan sensibilities (such as it was, and it was substantial, if not complete) in allegorical form. Sandys' later translation even provided moral signposts in case readers got lost. Although Marlowe might have read Ovid for "rollicking" purposes, it's dollars to donuts that many didn't. Golding's translation is wonderful although, "Ezra Pound notwithstanding", occasionally rather clunky, but it isnt exactly "rollicking" -- stately, earnest, fulsome and vivid yes -- the work of a similarly earnest moral imagination. Shakespeare read its English deeply and lastingly, much more so than the Latin original. But leave the laurels to Golding please, and dont confuse the unwary with semi-historical judgments on what rollicks and what doesn't. Tom Bishop (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Wilson-Okamura Date: Monday, 19 Jun 95 11:13:40 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0492 Sh Library Stephanie Hughes comments on Golding's translation of the *Metamorphoses*, >It was attributed to Arthur Golding, but his authorship is questionable >since Ovid is a work of rollicking pagan sensuality and the rest of >Golding's life would be devoted to translating Calvin. I don't really think there are any grounds to question Golding's authorship in this instance. First, because "the rollicking pagan sensuality" of Ovid's poem was frequently subject to moral allegorization, and in fact Golding himself published an allegory of the poem with his translation. Second, I don't think it's quite fair to oppose "pagan sensuality" to Calvinism. To take just one famous example, the early Milton was a Calvinist, and it is the early Milton who would appear to revel most in "pagan sensuality" and myth. In fine, there need not have been any contradiction between Golding the translator of Ovid and Golding the translator of Calvin. (Obitaneously, I don't think "rollicking" is quite word for the sensuality in Ovid's poem, either; it's mostly just rape.) Yours faithfully, David Wilson-Okamura dswilson@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Kathman Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 23:13:35 +0100 Subject: Shakespeare's library I see that Stephanie Hughes has been testing the limits of Hardy's ban on discussion of the a-word (hint: begins with "a", ends with "p", and has "uthorshi" in the middle) by means of a mini-blitz of postings. I know we've all agreed that this is not the forum for this stuff, but Ms. Hughes' posting on Shakespeare's library contained so many inaccuracies that I hope I will be forgiven for attempting to correct some of them, after which I will retire to the shadows once again; if anyone, including Ms. Hughes, wishes to continue the discussion over private e-mail, I'd be happy to do so. Most of this stuff has been gone over on this list numerous times, so please forgive the repetition. I'll try to be as brief as possible; more details are available on request. SH: In four hundred years of intense investigation, no one has ever turned up a >single piece of evidence that William Shakespeare of Stratford owned a book. DK: I would dispute this statement. For one thing, there is a 1596 memorandum from a lawsuit involving two Stratford widows, Margaret Young and Joan Perrott, which lists some disputed property; among this is "one book" belonging to "Mr. Shaxspere". This could refer to either William or to his father John, but in either case it does not support the idea that this was a family of illiterate bumpkins; if the book belonged to John, I think the default assumption would be that his eldest son could also read. In any case, I think this has to count as evidence that at least one of the Shakespeare men owned at least one book. Another piece of evidence is the Folger Shakespeare Library's copy of William Lambarde's *Archaionomia*, a treatise on Anglo-Saxon law. This has a signature on the title-page which many, many very knowledgeable people believe to be that of William Shakespeare. I will not attempt to summarize the evidence here, but it is summarized by Samuel Schoenbaum's *William Shakespeare: Records and Images* (1981), and by Giles Dawson in an article he wrote for *Shakespeare Quarterly* a few years ago (1992?), a couple of years before his death. Schoenbaum, a notorious skeptic, believes that the signature is more likely to be genuine than not (and for him, that's saying a lot), and Dawson believed flat-out that the signature is genuine. I think the evidence is pretty persuasive; if the signature was forged, the forger was one of the best ever. Now, true, even if you accept the signature as genuine, it doesn't *necessarily* mean that Shakespeare ever owned or read the book, but it's *evidence* pointing in that direction. SH: It is questionable whether or not he knew how to read or write.The only writing extant by him is six signatures on legal documents that look as though they were scrawled by someone who had only the vaguest idea of how to sign his own name. DK: Five of the signatures were made under less-than-ideal circumstances: the three on the will when he was very likely dying, and the two on the Gatehouse documents had to fit on narrow parchment seals. Even given this, experts in Elizabethan handwriting find them to be entirely typical examples of the Elizabethan secretary hand, except for the "p" in "Shakespeare", which he wrote in the newer italic hand. To a modern observer ignorant of the history of English handwriting, even the most meticulous examples of secretary hand can look like chicken scratch. SH: In that time when books were expensive, particularly the ones Shakespeare used as reference, DK: No, sorry. Some books were expensive, but many were very cheap and within the reach of anybody. Shakespeare undoubtedly had access to books published by his friend Richard Field, some of which are known to have been used for the plays. Ben Jonson gave himself the best classical education in England while working as a bricklayer's apprentice for several years; Thomas Dekker was notoriously poor and spent several years at the peak of his career in debtor's prison, yet his plays show that he read many, many books. Other examples could be given. Shakespeare was fairly well-off, and there is no reason to doubt that he had access to the books he used. SH: he named no books in his will. DK: Neither did a long list of the most learned scholars and literary men of the time whose wills have survived, including Francis Bacon, Richard Hooker, Reginald Scot, Samuel Daniel, and Shakespeare's friend Thomas Russell. Doesn't mean a thing. People just didn't list every little thing in their wills, unless they were making a special bequest of a specific item. SH: Of even the least important writers there is evidence of their attendance at grammar schools, university or inns of court; DK: This is flat-out false. Ben Jonson was the most famous and learned writer of the day, yet there is no contemporary record of his having attended any school of any kind. The same goes for John Webster, George Chapman, Henry Chettle, Robert Daborne, Thomas Dekker, Michael Drayton, Thomas Heywood, and many others I could name. Those are just some of the reasonably important ones who were active during Shakespeare's lifetime. To be fair, in some of these cases (such as Jonson) there is some scrap of evidence that leads modern scholars to believe that the person attended a certain school, but the records of the school (in Jonson's case, Westminster) are silent on the matter. SH: there is no evidence of Shakespeare ever attending any school. DK: No, but of course all records of students at the Stratford Grammar School before 1700 have been lost. The *circumstantial* evidence that William Shakespeare attended this school is pretty extensive, quite apart from his having later become a playwright. SH: It seems apparent that no members of his family, father, mother, wife, or daughters, knew how to read or write. DK: We had this thread a few months ago. His daughter Susannah could certainly sign her name, from which we can infer that she was literate. His father may well have been literate despite signing all surviving documents with a mark. All right, I'm done; sorry for taking up this space. I'll be good now, Hardy. When the Shakespeare Usenet group gets going, we can take this stuff over there. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 11:18:28 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0499 Q: A Cook's Garment Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0499. Tuesday, 20 June 1995. From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 18 Jun 1995 23:13:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Cook's Garments] Question: what was the color of a cook's garment in the late sixteenth century? Was it traditionally white? In the last scene of Titus Andronicus Titus is dressed as a cook. In the first scene of the play, he is offered a white Palliament -- which he apparently does not put on. I'm wondering if there's some kind of play on white garments between the two scenes: Titus refuses the white Palliament in the first scene, but assumes the (white?) garments of a cook in the final scene. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 11:33:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0500 Re: Citing SHAKSPER; Catholic Church; Humor; Rutland Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0500. Tuesday, 20 June 1995. (1) From: Tom Clayton Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 14:51:25 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0466 Q: Citations from SHAKSPER (2) From: Corey Ross Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 16:51:54 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0492 Catholic Ch (3) From: Kate Wilson Date: Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 17:08:48 +1000 (EST) Subj: HUMOR (4) From: Louise Nichols Date: Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 11:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Rutland in Henry VI (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 14:51:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0466 Q: Citations from SHAKSPER Since list postings are communications no less public than printed publications, I don't see why they require more "proper etiquette" than other publications. It is of course more convenient to seek permission electronically than through the post (as for printed publications), but it is burdensome all the same, and I cannot see that it is warranted, except perhaps as a personal courtesy shared between those who think of themselves as closely akin by virtue of their participation in the electronic conference. Courtesies undoubtedly lubricate civility, and I am all for both. But there are all too many administrative calls upon the time of most of us to make still more desirable when redundant, like many of their counterparts just re- ferred to. Best wishes, Tom (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Corey Ross Date: Monday, 19 Jun 1995 16:51:54 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0492 Catholic Ch While the discussion seems to have drifted slightly away from Shakespeare I feel an obligation to respond to Brendan Patrick Murphy's sharp defence of the Catholic Church from allegations of (gasp) anti-semetism. Mr. Murphy seems quite ready to admit that there may be or have been the occassional anti-semite attatched in some way to the Catholic Church over the past 1900 years, however, that in the words of the Church anti-semitism is wrong and theologically, Jews are okay. Well, the truth is that there have been a plathora of anti-semites involved at all levels in the catholic church over the past 1900 years and there should really be no need to cite them individually to prove it (Spanish inquisition ring a bell?). While the words Mr. Murphy quoted sounded encouraging, I'll reserve my judgement until I see action. Until the Catholic church releases Jewish art and documents siezed during the Holocaust to the state of Israel, and until they stop building convents at Aushwitz as survivors and the world Jewish community has been pleading with them to do, and until the Church actively removes anti-semites (such as Polish cardinal Glemp) from the Church I'm afraid Mr. Murphy will have a hard time convincing Jews that the Catholic Church is a friend. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kate Wilson Date: Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 17:08:48 +1000 (EST) Subject: HUMOR This is the thread that won't go away...however, from a British-derived Australian perspective, it seems to me that much English (not sure if it's universally Brit) humour and many English comedians (Hill, Emery, the Pythons, Kenny Everett et al) rely on drag (female impersonation) for laughs. From recollection, only one female performer ever appeared in all of the years of the Monty Python series...the lads did the drag. There's also a tendency towards what my mother would call "lavatory humour"...any mention of bums, titties and especially knickers is bound to get a huge laugh. Any thoughts on the connections to Shakespeare in these terms? As to how this differs from American humour (US variety), I can't call to mind too many American comics, sit-coms, texts etc which relish drag and bum-jokes quite as the English do. OK bombard me! (Yes, *Priscilla Queen of the Desert* shows her post-colonial English pedigree!) Bottoms up! Kate (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louise Nichols Date: Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 11:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Rutland in Henry VI In response to David Maier's query re. Rutland, I suppose one could say that just as you're adapting Shakespeare's three plays of *Henry VI* to suit your purposes, Shakespeare too adapted history to suit his. Hence, the young Rutland. Louise Nichols ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 09:56:13 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0501 Re: Issues Surrounding Biography Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0501. Thursday, 22 June 1995. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 12:50:38 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0498 Re: *Metamorphoses* (2) From: Terrence Ross Date: Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 13:59:01 -0400 Subj: Why biography (3) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 21 Jun 1995 14:32:34 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0497 Re: Why Biography? (4) From: Michael Yogev Date: Thursday, 22 Jun 95 09:18:35 IST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0495 Re: Why Biography? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 12:50:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0498 Re: *Metamorphoses* Sorry Everybody; David Kathman has handed me a fistful of arguments surrounding my recent post regarding the authorship issue, and he, and others who responded privately, are correct in taking me to task for opening this issue when I had promised not to. He is right that we will soon have another forum for this, and I will wait until then to respond. Penitently yours, Stephanie Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terrence Ross Date: Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 13:59:01 -0400 Subject: Why biography David-Wilson Okamura cites the movie "Amadeus" as justification of his low opinion of Mozart. I suggest he look at Maynard Solomon's new biography, which is at least meant to be a plausible chronicle of Mozart's life. If "Amadeus" is persuasive as biography, perhaps we should decide matters of Shakespearean biography by reference to the old Second City TV skit "Shake & Bake," in which WS and Bacon were crime-fighting buddies when they weren't writing "Hamlet." (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Wednesday, 21 Jun 1995 14:32:34 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0497 Re: Why Biography? Poor Stephanie Hughes, strayed onto the Stratfordian turf and couldn't make it around the block without getting slugged and mugged by the same old doorstep sitters, knowing nothing new, wanting to know nothing new, having no new insights and a real attitude about strangers traveling to know more of Shakespeare and his world and his life. She might have been warned by Thomas Carlyle, his Heroes and Hero- Worship and the Heroic in History. He considers Shakespeare along with Dante: "Shakespeare and Dante are saints of poetry; really, if we think of it, *canonized*, so that it is impiety to meddle with them." He admits to the nothingness of his biography, the total nowhere and nowhen that connects him with being a writer of the poems and plays, but that's ok with Carlyle: "How much in Shakespeare lies hid...Speech is great; but silence is greater." On the other hand, the Oxford group has invited a well-known Shakespearean/Stratfordian scholar to discuss with us his arguments and findings. We can't always agree, of course, but he is being treated with courtesy, and there are things to learn from him, and I believe we consider him an asset to our discussions. But the greater part of speech on the subject of Shakespeare's biography, is silence on this line, therefore.... (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Thursday, 22 Jun 95 09:18:35 IST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0495 Re: Why Biography? Just a few mainly chastened thoughts about the issue of biography as far as Shakespeare is concerned. The desire to connect the man with his works is indeed one born of our interest in such artistic figures as Mozart, Freud, etc. but as Stephen Orgel points out ("What is a Text?" in, I think, _Shakespeare Reproduced_), the problem with making links of Shakespeare's life or presumed character is that his texts are a very compromised mixture of his own papers, the cuts and changes suggested by players or directorial interventions in the heat of rehearsals for production, and the myriad hands of editors and other playwrights who took it upon themselves to add to or amend the plays. As a result, the texts we would like to use to figure Shakespeare the man are just not (as poststructuralist critics endlessly reiterate) "authored" in anything close to the same fashion as are Mozart's works or Freud's writings. The interest in constructing Shakespeare the man pales, in my mind, compared to the fascination with the subjectivities his texts suggest and subvert. Yours in dis-content, Michael Yogev University of Haifa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 10:26:07 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0502 Re: A Cook's Garments Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0502. Thursday, 22 June 1995. (1) From: Sarah Cave Date: Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 16:52:15 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0499 Q: A Cook's Garment (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 21 Jun 1995 00:42:36 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0499 Q: A Cook's Garment (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Cave Date: Tuesday, 20 Jun 1995 16:52:15 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0499 Q: A Cook's Garment Regarding the cook's garments in TITUS: The Palliament used in the Atlanta Shakespeare Tavern production of this show (Nov. 1994) was indeed a white sheath with gold trim. When Titus donned cooks raiment, he wore a leather apron and a white hat. It worked well and was easily recognizable by the audience, but I don't know how chronologically accurate it was. Yours, Sarah Cave Agnes Scott College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 21 Jun 1995 00:42:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0499 Q: A Cook's Garment Dear Bill Godshalk---I wish I knew the answer to your question. Hopefully someone else will--because if the fact is true, it's easy to see the thematic importance in TITUS of his finally accepting what he refused in the beginning of the tragedy--in ways that could be considered more complex and interesting than Lear's analogous rejection and acceptance of Cordelia. Besides, there are other things in Titus that seem to support the reading you give--but they are more thematic "internal textual evidence"- This could actually be an instance in which "new historicists" could be helpful. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 10:32:43 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0503 Q: Allusions to *The Tempest* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0503. Thursday, 22 June 1995. From: Ulle Lewes Date: Wednesday, 21 Jun 1995 10:11:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Allusions to The Tempest in Popular Culture A member of our English faculty asked me to submit this post to the list. Please reply directly to her at the address following the post. I seek allusions and take-offs on Shakespeare's The Tempest, be they comic books, films, poems, titles, books, etc. I see The Tempest as a germinal tale for western culture, touching on forbidden knowledge (Faustus), island shipwreck (Crusoe), revenge tales set on an island (Ten Little Indians), drunken slapstick (numerous silent films), love as a game of chess, patriarchal obsession with daughter's sexuality, postcolonial interpretations (e.g., Gunesekera's Reef), etc. Please help! All specific references used in the article will be acknowledged. This resource should turn out to be not only useful but fun! Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. Dr. Ulle Lewes English Department Ohio Wesleyan University Delaware, OH 43015-2370 FAX: (614) 368-3299 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 10:35:10 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0504 Announcement: Upstart Crow 1995-96 Season Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0504. Thursday, 22 June 1995. From: Timothy Reed Date: Wednesday, 21 Jun 1995 10:23:25 -0600 Subject: SHAKSPER: Play announcements Of interest only to those in a limited geographical area The Upstart Crow Theatre Company in Boulder, Colorado announces its 1995-1996 Season. Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare), August 4-12, 1995 The Second Maiden's Tragedy (Middleton), August 25-September 16, 1995 The Oratorio of Lear (Shakespeare, edited by J. Crouch), October 13-28, 1995 Heartbreak House (Shaw), November 10-December 2, 1995 Much Ado Aout Nothing (Shakespeare), January 26-February 17, 1996 The Wild Duck (Ibsen), April 26-May 25 The Upstart Crow Theatre Company is a classical theatre company that emphasizes the beauty of the language of the playwright's text. For information about The Upstart Crow or any of its performances, call (303) 442-1415. Timothy Reed The Upstart Crow Theatre Company Boulder, Colorado ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 10:37:27 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0505 Re: Jowell/Taylor Argument: *MM* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0505. Thursday, 22 June 1995. From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 21 Jun 1995 14:41:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0493 Re: Taylor/Jowell Argument: *MM* Last night I spent some time analyzing the Jowett/Taylor argument that the Folio MM was set from a transcription by Ralph Crane of a "prompt-book." Part of their case rests on the assumption that TLN 1248 (3.1.43), "Enter Isabella." is a misreading. They claim that the following speech "is without doubt spoken within" (114) -- "within" -- i.e., not on stage. They believe that Isabella enters six lines later, and that Crane misinterpreted a premonitory direction written in the margin by the bookkeeper. There is no reason to accept their assertion that this speech is "without doubt spoken within" (114). Bevington in his edition has Isabella enter at TLN 1248 -- and supplies a stage direction to indicate how this entrance can be handled onstage. (The Signet Classic brings her on at the same place without comment.) So Jowett and Taylor are wrong about "without doubt." There are other problems with the Jowett/Taylor argument. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 10:46:28 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0506 Announcement: New Format for SHAKSPER MEMBERS File Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0506. Thursday, 22 June 1995. From: Hardy M. Cook or . ******************************************************************************* Shakespeare Electronic Conference Members -- 6/22/95 mdaaron@STUDENTS.WISC.EDU Melissa D. Aaron hardin_aasand@DSU1.DSU.NODAK.EDU Hardin Aasand abartisc@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU Caesarea Abartis abbottm@SCHOLAR.WABASH.EDU Michael Abbott rabrams@PORTLAND.MAINE.EDU Rick Abrams gypsymike@AOL.COM Michael Addison charlesadler@DELPHI.COM Charles D. Adler tangente@AOL.COM Wendy Adler rahern@DGS.DGSYS.COM Richard Ahern akeym@EOSC.OSSHE.EDU Mark Akey hazama@GOKUMI.J.KISARAZU.AC.JP Hazama Akio aaliboz@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU Alan Alibozek SOLON@BEACH.CSULB.EDU Todd Allaria allenr1@TEN-NASH.TEN.K12.TN.US Ray Allen ammermaj@ELWHA.EVERGREEN.EDU John Ammerma allison@LCLARK.EDU Allison Anderson andersonj@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU James B. Anderson kmur-and@ACS.BU.EDU Kathryn Murphy Anderson JANEY@UCS.INDIANA.EDU John T. Aney sandange@VILLAGE.CA Sandra Angelini app3500@UCLINK.BERKELEY.EDU Robert Applebaum mc9034@MCLINK.IT Patrizia Ardemagni haarlen@STUDENTS.WISC.EDU Hillary Arlen voxpro@INTERLOG.COM Eric Armstrong aronson@THE-COLLEGE.IWCTX.EDU Donna Aronson asarnow@UOFPORT.EDU Herman Asarnow GRACE.E.ASPINALL@WILLIAMS.EDU Grace E. Aspinall RASTLEY@GALLUA Russell Astley athas8482@FREDONIA.EDU Selene Athas bruce_avery@MACMAIL.UCSC.EDU Bruce Avery payers@KEAN.UCS.MUN.CA Peter Ayers nina@PAGE1.COM Nina Ayoub rbaiesu@BUC.SOROS.RO Radu Baiesu tb0edb1@CORN.CSO.NIU.EDU Euel Bailey Nancy.Bailey@VUW.AC.NZ Nancy Porter Bailey cbaldwin@PHOENIX.KENT.EDU Charles Baldwin balma@DELPHI.COM Larry Balmagia jbangham@KUDZU.WIN.NET Jerry Bangham dab@ARTS.GLA.AC.UK David Bank sbarron@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU Seth Barron p01250@PSILINK.COM Allison S. Bartlett shaul@UNIVE.IT Shaul Bassi yku02847@YORKU.CA Josie Battaglia 0006155953@MCIMAIL.COM Eric Baum robert.c.baum@DARTMOUTH.EDU Robert Baum g.beattie@KILO.UWS.EDU.AU Gordon Beattie k.f.beedham@LIBRARY.HULL.AC.UK Kathy Beedham stan@UNBC.EDU Stan Beeler trek330@WN.ST.MSC.EDU Dave Beenken 911643b@AXE.ACADIAU.CA Jonathan Beers 011302b@AXE.ACADIAU.CA Lindsay Bell kmbenedi@EMAIL.UNC.EDU Kathryn Benedict bennett@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU Alexandra G. Bennett claudius@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Bradley S. Berens TBER@MUSIC.STLAWU.EDU Thomas Berger eberry@SOL.UVIC.CA Edward Berry berson@ANAGRAM.COM Thomas A. Berson best@UVVM.UVIC.CA Michael Best romab@VAX.OX.AC.UK Roma Bhattacharjea FCD2@JSUMUS Carmine G. Di Biase scat@HOLONET.NET Jeffery Bihr tb11@CORNELL.EDU Timothy Billings TGB2@PO.CWRU.EDU Thomas G. Bishop tblackb1@CC.SWARTHMORE.EDU Tom Blackburn cbergstr@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Roy Blount bytebloc@DELTA1.DELTANET.COM Carol Boettger bbogert@DNAI.COM William Bogert ETBJR@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU Edward T. Bonahue helenvb@UNIWA.UWA.EDU.AU Helen Vella Bonavita ujboni@UXA.ECN.BGU.EDU John Boni BOELG@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Edna Boris LB@ALOR.UNIV-MONTP3.FR Luc Borot BOSS@CWIS.UNOMAHA.EDU Judith E. Boss tim@CLOVIS.FELTON.CA.US Timothy Bowden bowen@IDX.IDX.COM Christopher Bowen ma_bowlen@APOLLO.COMMNET.EDU Clark Bowlen charlesboyle@DELPHI.COM Charles Boyle wboyle@TIAC.NET William Boyle seagb@AOL.COM Gerry Bresslour rosita@U.WASHINGTON.EDU Kimberly Bridgman Jean.Brink@ASU.EDU Jean R. Brink BROCKLAN@S1500.BC.PEACHNET.EDU Margaret Brockland-Nease brown_s@MSMAIL.MUOHIO.EDU S. Brown X6P1@MUSIC.STLAWU.EDU Nicole Van Brunt db17@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU Douglas Bruster gt9863a@PRISM.GATECH.EDU Craig Bryant dbuchanan@RUNT.DAWSONCOLLEGE.QC.CA Douglas Buchanan jbuch@TENET.EDU James Buchanan pbuchanan@PIANO.MECN.MASS.EDU Patricia Buchanan p.buckridge@HUM.GU.EDU.AU Patrick Buckridge budra@SFU.CA Paul Budra karen@BUGNO.FIE.COM Karen Bugno smb@UNLINFO.UNL.EDU Stephen Buhler rbunn@METZ.UNE.EDU.AU Rex E. Bunn LHB6V@FARADAY.CLAS.VIRGINIA.EDU Laura Hayes Burchard BURKE@VAX1.ROCKHURST.EDU Robert R. Burke ARCHIVE@VAX.OXFORD.AC.UK Lou Burnard gailmburns@AOL.COM Gail Burns kburton@WAM.UMD.EDU Kila Burton suburton@U.WASHINGTON.EDU M. S. Burton rebecca@REALITY.SAS.UPENN.EDU Rebecca W. Bushnell r2bjb@DAX.CC.UAKRON.EDU Brian Butler alc@JOE.ALB.EDU Al Cacicedo breadline@AOL.COM Robert Caisley CJ511695@HOPE James Calahan sh377413@SCVAX.WVNET.EDU Peter Callahan callum@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU Robert Callum u30373@UICVM.UIC.EDU Michael T. Calvert cc192@COLUMBIA.EDU Colin Campbell kcampbell@AUSTINC.EDU Kathleen Campbell canevit@UTKVX.UTK.EDU Craig Canevit cannonw@CENTRAL.EDU Walter W. Cannon mc7918@MCLINK.IT Marcello Cappuzzo u5496851@NMSUVM1.NMSU.EDU Jimmy Carillo carnegie@MATAI.VUW.AC.NZ David Carnegie jbc4m@HOLMES.ACC.VIRGINIA.EDU John B. Carr mcarter@EWU.EDU Mack Carter Kent_CARTWRIGHT@UMAIL.UMD.EDU Kent Cartwright mcosdon@EMERALD.TUFTS.EDU Mark Casdon ANNAL@VM.TEMPLE.EDU Annalisa Castaldo pnc9454@UTARLG.UTA.EDU Pamelyn Casto z940917@CORN.CSO.NIU.EDU Michael Caulfield scave@ASC.SCOTTLAN.EDU Sarah Cave skmah-o@SERVIS2.NET.TR Adnan Cevik chambers@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU David Chambers achance@UNIWA.UWA.EDU.AU Ann Margaret Chance cher0002@GOLD.TC.UMN.EDU Margaret Cherne cheshire@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU Linda Cheshire CHEVALIE@UREGINA1 Noel Chevalier gchew@NCSA.UIUC.EDU Gregory Chew HDCHICKERING@AMHERST Howell D. Chickering sac116@PSU.EDU Sandye Chisholm mjchristophe@HCACAD.HOLYCROSS.EDU Chael Christopher sbc14@COLUMBIA.EDU Sharon Cinnamon inglese@CESIT1.UNIFI.IT Fernando Cioni idsxc@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU T. Scott Clapp aclark@UTM.EDU Anna H. Clark dclark@TRMX3.DOT.CA.GOV Dave Clark mlccc@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Marlene Clark Michael.Clark@CYBER.WIDENER.EDU Michael Clark paulc@COMP.UARK.EDU Paul E. Clark clary@SMCVAX.SMCVT.EDU F. Nicholas Clary 9164931c@ARTS.GLA.AC.UK Joannan Clayton TSC@VX.CIS.UMN.EDU Thomas Clayton bcoggin@UMMAC01.MTY.UDEM.MX Bruce Coggin cohen@SABLE.ADELPHI.EDU Lance Cohen lymond@NETCOM.COM Michael E. Cohen FAC_RCOHEN@VAX1.ACS.JMU.EDU Ralph Alan Cohen rscohen@UCI.EDU Robert Cohen mimic@GAS.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU Mimi Colcord bill@DRAKEWOD.DEMON.CO.UK Anna Cole dcole@EMERALD.TUFTS.EDU Denise Cole roz@GOLD.CHEM.HAWAII.EDU Rosalind Cole kcoley@HARP.AIX.CALPOLY.EDU Karen Coley schedoni@MN.WASEDA.AC.JP John Collick pcolling@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Philip Collington dacollin@BLUE.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU Dan Collins gcollins@COSY.EDU.YORKU.CA Greg Collins KCATTJ@AOL.COM Ken Colston mfdlc@UXA.ECN.BGU.EDU Dan Colvin MCONNER@KRISTINA.AZ.COM Michael Conner connolly@HUMANITAS.UCSB.EDU Jon Connolly eon@CUBE.CLAS.SUFFOLK.EDU Thomas Connolly hmcook@BOE00.MINC.UMD.EDU Hardy M. Cook fmjca@FILMO.ALCALA.ES Jesus Cora dcorbett@UOGUELPH.CA D. Craig Corbett cordell@VAX.EDINBORO.EDU Tim Cordell bc21@CORNELL.EDU Barbara Correll bjc@MAIL.NGC.PEACHNET.EDU Brian Jay Corrigan ccostell@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Charles Costello ncouch@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Nena Couch cacouche@UNIWA.UWA.EDU.AU Christine Couche cox@LIBSCI.LAN.MCGILL.CA Ann M. Cox COX@HOPE John D. Cox craigcom@SAGE.CC.PURDUE.EDU Marty Craig DIVHMF1@NCCVAX.WVNET.EDU Terry Ann Craig crawford@HOLLY.HSU.EDU John W. Crawford Jonathan.V.Crewe@DARTMOUTH.EDU Jonathan V. Crewe wcrocker@IX.NETCOM.COM Warner Crocker crosbypd@AOL.COM David L. Crosby James.Crowley@MVS.UDEL.EDU James Crowley ccrupi@ACAD.ALBION.EDU Charles Crupi shakespr@AOL.COM Carey Cummings dcummins@PANAM1.PANAM.EDU Doug Cummins cunico@BRADLEY.BRADLEY.EDU Juliette Cunico curriel@SPLAVA.CC.PLATTSBURGH.EDU Lou Currier curtisp@UMONCTON.CA Paul Curtis fld@U.WASHINGTON.EDU Leo Daugherty sls0q@CC.USU.EDU Sara Davey hdavies@GPU.SRV.UALBERTA.CA Richard Davies davist@UMIS.UPENN.EDU Tad Davis hbeng054@HUEY.CSUN.EDU Todd Davis kdaw@KSCMAIL.KENNESAW.EDU Kurt Daw billday@USNET.US.NET Bill Day smiley@PRIMENET.COM Steven Dees eafg091@EA.OAC.UCI.EDU David Demarco denning@DECUS.ORG Bill Denning rdennis@ORBIT.NESDIS.NOAA.GOV Robert Dennis wderoche@CAPACCESS.ORG William DeRoche EJMASO@ROOT.INDSTATE.EDU Tom Derrick cdesmet@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Christy Desmet csdessen@EMAIL.UNC.EDU Cynthia Dessen ldessne@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU Lawrence Dessner dey_angela@MERCURY.CSG.PEACHNET.EDU Angela Dey katy@ENG.SUN.COM Katy Dickinson radicus@KAIWAN.COM Jorge Diez u63495@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU Michael Dobson dodd@UNISI.IT William Dodd mythos@TELEPORT.COM Ian Doeschser ldohaney@EMERALD.TUFTS.EDU Linda Dohaney pdolan@ARAP.COLORADO.EDU Patrick T. Dolan psdlit@ATHENA.MIT.EDU Peter S. Donaldson DORENKAMP@HCACAD.HOLYCROSS.EDU John H. Dorenkamp pdoria@AX.APC.ORG Pedro Doria jd1@FORTH.STIRLING.AC.UK John Drakakis drtina@PEMBVAX1.PEMBROKE.EDU Jon A. Drtina jd121@COLUMBIA.EDU Julie Dubiner gpdblf@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU Stephanie DuBose david.ducheyne@RUG.AC.BE David Ducheyne vxpt92c@PRODIGY.COM Chip DuFord mattsu@ESSEX.AC.UK E. J. M. Duggan dumkec@ELWHA.EVERGREEN.EDU Christine Dumke DUDAJ%UNION.DECNET@GAR.UNION.EDU Jean Duna dunne-bob@CS.YALE.EDU Bob Dunne durha001@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU Lonnie J. Durham b.duval@GENIE.GEIS.COM Beth Duval shaxper@EWORLD.COM Jad Duwaik nduy@BOSSHOG.ARTS.UWO.CA Nicole Duy dweller@GVSU.EDU Ronald Dwelle dwyerj1@MAIL.FIRN.EDU John Dwyer dynes@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU William Dynes c.edelman@COWAN.EDU.AU Charles Edelman edelnantj@ISCSVAX.UNI.EDU Jay Edelnant bedels@AOL.COM Barry Edelstein EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.SYR.EDU Ellen Edgerton g.i.egan@BHAM.AC.UK Gabriel Egan kegerton@EMAIL.UNC.EDU Kate Egerton dce93en@SOTON.AC.UK David Ellis gehrett@CNI.ORG Gehrett W. Ellis tiellis@DELPHI.COM Thomas I. Ellis fsspe@AURORA.ALASKA.EDU Scott P. Empric aee@SVANE.DTI.DK Ditte Enersen lars-engle@UTULSA.EDU Lars Engle engler@URZ.UNIBAS.CH Balz Engler enriquezj@GUVAX Jon Enriquez mensrud@INFORMNS.K12.MN.US Mark Ensrund geuridge@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Gareth Euridge evansb@TEN-NASH.TEN.K12.TN.US Brenda Evans b21u@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA Jesse Evans ptervin@NEWS1.YASUDA-U.AC.JP P. Timothy Evans bobevans@KAOS.AUM.EDU Robert Evans d.evett@CSUOHIO.EDU David Evett sshakespea@AOL.COM Shenandoah Shakespeare Express rfarabaugh@UMBC2.UMBC.EDU Robin Farabaugh nccowboy@AOL.COM Chris Fassler hotspur@MCS.COM Michael Faulkner feiertag@UCSU.COLORADO.EDU Ruth Feiertag sfelger@INDYUNIX.IUPUI.EDU Susan Felger bferguso@CLN.ETC.BC.CA Bill Ferguson rfergus836@AOL.COM Ray Ferguson lferrari@LYNX.DAC.NEU.EDU Lisa Ferrari jferry@HOOKED.NET John Ferry lfeuer@DHVX20.CSUDH.EDU Lois Feuer befield@ASU.EDU Bonnie E. Field pmf@RESOURCE.CA.JHU.EDU Michael Field ba07230@BINGSUNS.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU Priscilla Finley fiorini@MARYWOOD1.MARYWOOD.EDU Debra Ann Fiorini b-fisher@BETHEL.EDU Barrett Fisher wfisher@SAS.UPENN.EDU William Fisher sarafi@MICROSOFT.COM Sara Fitzsimmons FLANNAGA@OUACCVMB Roy Flannagan flower@ROCKVAX.ROCKEFELLER.EDU Ann Flower saxman@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU Douglas Flummer popa0547@PO-BOX.MCGILL.CA Wes Folkerth jforse@OPIE.BGSU.EDU James H. Forse R1AMF@AKRONVM Antonia Forster forsythe@BRANDONU.CA James Forsythe fortunat@SAS.UPENN.EDU Michelle Fortunato FOSTER@VAXSAR.VASSAR.EDU Donald W. Foster ldf2@CUNIXA.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Leah D. Frank Paul.J.Franssen@LET.RUU.NL Paul J. Franssen eng3jmf@HIBBS.VCU.EDU Janet Maloney Franze elizabet@VMS.HUJI.AC.IL Elizabeth Freund cfrey@U.WASHINGTON.EDU Charles Frey friedmanm1@JAGUAR.UOFS.EDU Michael Friedman froud@VAX.LIBRARY.UTORONTO.CA Margot Froud QUARK@BUCSF.BU.EDU Paul Fu, Jr. fuller@INST.AUGIE.EDU Ivan Fuller GAGEN@OZEMAIL.COM.AU Steven Gagen shakespe@PIONEER.NEVADA.EDU Evelyn Gajowski pjg1@ACPUB.DUKE.EDU Peggy Jo Galbraith gale0011@GOLD.TC.UMN.EDU Richard Gale pgallagh@LIFE.JSC.NASA.GOV Patricia E. Gallagher VGALLERA@OSF1.GMU.EDU Victor Gallerano DLG8X@FARADAY.CLAS.VIRGINIA.EDU David L. Gants gaojeng@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU Jie Gao sfbt@CRL.COM John Gardiner ggarloch@FRODO.OKCU.EDU Gail Garloch ggaskill@ALEX.STKATE.EDU Gayle Gaskill penny.gay@ENGLISH.SU.EDU.AU Penny Gay gebhard@ACD.TUSK.EDU Caroline Gebhard lgeller@DHVX20.CSUDH.EDU Lila B. Geller stephan.genn@YALE.EDU Stephan Genn rhandel@KENTVM.KENT.EDU Daniel German lngbmg@ADMIN.AC.EDU Brain Germann egero@MASON1.GMU.EDU Edward Gero gertsch@ENS.UNIBE.CH Christian Gertsch egieskes@ACS.BU.EDU Edward Gieskes jgift@PRIMENET.COM Jonathan Gift oshaugh@AOL.COM Tom Gilboy J.Gillies@LATROBE.EDU.AU John D. Gillies gilmorec@U.WASHINGTON.EDU Christine Gilmore rsginghe@HAMLET.UNCG.EDU Bob Gingher ginsborg@CLASS.ORG Michael Ginsborg dglassco@TRENTU.CA David Glassco William.Godshalk@UC.EDU W. L. Godshalk markgla@DELPHI.COM Mark Goldman Robert.Zimmer@BRUNEL.AC.UK Joanna Gondris goodmana@OLIN.CENTRE.EDU Anna Joell Goodman gordo003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU Christine Mack Gordon FGORFAIN@OCVAXA.CC.OBERLIN.EDU Phyllis Gorfain goua@ALCOR.CONCORDIA.CA Antoine Goulem gourlaps@SNYONEVA.CC.ONEONTA.EDU Patricia Southard Gourlay enjg@KUDU.RU.AC.ZA John Gouws kgraham@NMSU.EDU Kenneth Graham GRAINGER@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Greg Grainger vag018@NWU.EDU Valerie Gramling alyson@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA Alyson Grant billgra@WELL.SF.CA.US Bill Grantham crgray@AOL.COM Christine Gray tgray@COYOTE.CSUSM.EDU Terry Gray green@AUGSBURG.EDU Douglas Green p00968@PSILINK.COM Martin Green rtgreen@TELEPORT.COM Richard Green HAG@UVMVM.UVM.EDU Hope Greenberg jcg3525@USL.EDU John C. Greene sally@MENTO.OIT.UNC.EDU Sally Greene greenfield@UPS.EDU Peter Greenfield D.C.Greer@DURHAM.AC.UK David C. Greer greggd@GATE1.SBCC.CC.CA.US Deanna Gregg samnmegan@AOL.COM Sam Gregory grewar@UFHCC.UFH.AC.ZA Andy Grewar dagrier@GWUVM.GWU.EDU David Grier hep2@AOL.COM Heilan Yvette Grimes egg@TEETOT.ACUSD.EDU Eric George Grischkat rdgross@COMP.UARK.EDU Roger D. Gross mgroves@TELEPORT.COM Michael Groves jongu@RHI.HI.IS Jon Emil Gudrandsson pguithe@RS6000.CMP.ILSTU.EDU Peter G. Guither sgunter@BVILLE.NWSC.K12.AR.US Steve Gunter l.guntner@TU-BS.DE Lawrence Guntner celineg@LIB.RPSLMC.EDU Celine T. Gura A.J.Gurr@READING.AC.UK Andrew Gurr lewisg@U.WASHINGTON.EDU Lewis Guterson ihabib@NEVADA.EDU Imtiaz Habib haigha@OLIN.CENTRE.EDU Anthony R. Haigh layamon@AOL.COM John Halbrooks jhalio@BRAHMS.UDEL.EDU Jay L. Halio uthall@UXA.ECN.BGU.EDU Thomas Hall emi@PO.IIJNET.OR.JP Emi Hamana clh6w@FARADAY.CLAS.VIRGINIA.EDU Carole L. Hamilton Hamilton__Jim_at_PC-irm3@CCMAIL.NCSC.NAVY.MIL Jim Hamilton HAMMOND@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA Anthony Hammond enrbd@CSV.WARWICK.AC.UK R. Hampton-Reeves mh@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU Michael Hancher rdh@CHRISTA.UNH.EDU Robert D. Hapgood JLH5651@VENUS.TAMU.EDU James L. Harner harrawoo@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU Michael Harrawood lharris@EINSTEIN.SUSQU.EDU Leslie D. Harris jch@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU John C. Harrison hart@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU Michael Hart eng013@UKCC.UKY.EDU Joan Hartwig HASENFRA@UCONNVM Bob Hasenfratz rhatch@SOL.UVIC.CA Robert Hatch dh05@LEHIGH.EDU David Hawkes SENTFH@CARDIFF.AC.UK Terence Hawkes hawk@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA Paul Hawkins cam@POST.DUNGEON.COM Nicholas Haworth conted01@SABLE.OX.AC.UK Yoshiyaa Hayashi haynal@UHUNIX.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU Richard Haynal haynesr@DELPHI.COM Robert Haynes a1904906@ATHENA.RRZ.UNI-KOELN.DE Alexandra Heinrich atjph@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU James P. Helfers f.helphi@MSUACAD.MOREHEAD-ST.EDU Frances Helphinstine jhelsinger@AOL.COM Jim Helsinger kirkhk@AOL.COM Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer DIANAH@MIDD.MIDDLEBURY.EDU Diana E. Henderson margo@MACMAIL.UCSC.EDU Margo Hendricks rhenke@ARTSCI.WUSTL.EDU Robert Henke ghenry@ADPC3.ADP.IASTATE.EDU Gregg Henry hepps@CVAX.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU Marica Hepps 73632.1117@COMPUSERVE.COM Glen Hersey jhibbard@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU Jack H. Hibbard HILHAR@CONU2 Harry Hill e7e4jjh@TOE.TOWSON.EDU James J. Hill wthill@TWICS.COM Tom Hill kln101@URIACC.URI.EDU Mathilda M. Hills wehiltj@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU Wayne Hilt a00514@CC.HC.KEIO.AC.JP Katsuya Hiromoto julian@HIRSH.DEMON.CO.UK Julian Hirsh hoblitj@U.WASHINGTON.EDU Jason Hoblit tehodges@PCAD-ML.ACTX.EDU Thomas E. Hodges ton.hoenselaars@LET.RUU.NL Ton Hoenselaars choff@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU Cynthia Hoffman HOLBERMA@SNYPOTVA Stanley M. Holberg SHONAMAN@UMIAMI Sarah Honaman ahorton@UCLINK2.BERKELEY.EDU Alison Horton TOM@SAILFISH.CSE.FAU.EDU Thomas Horton hrkach@ITHACA.EDU Jack Hrkach mhudgens@SILVER.SDSMT.EDU Michael Thomas Hudgens shughes@LYNX.DAC.NEU.EDU Stephanie Hughes bardonia@AOL.COM Michael Hull hchunt@INFINET.COM H. Clayton Hunt jhunt@MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU Joshua Hunt hyatt@DUQ3.CC.DUQ.EDU Martin B. Hyatt phyland@JULIAN.UWO.CA Peter Hyland hhynick@CHARLIE.USD.EDU Harold Hynick jinman@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU James Inman civic@BOSSHOG.ARTS.UWO.CA Chris Ivic djackson@BNA.COM David Jackson jrjst7+@PITT.EDU Jeremy Jacobs 76645.3610@COMPUSERVE.COM Beverly Jacobson JACOBUS@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU Lee A. Jacobus jslj@AOL.COM John Jafferl cecile.mlbmhs@MHSGATE.MLB.ILSTU.EDU Cecile Jagodzinski izzyyg4@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU JC (Jan) Stirm tjensen@PTC.ES.COM Tom Jensen j.johnson@HERTS.AC.UK Jennie Johnson NORAJ@UCLINK.BERKELEY.EDU Nora M. Johnson gjones@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA Gordon Jones jjones@UNIXG.UBC.CA Joseph Jones kjones@BOWSHER.DEMON.CO.UK Ken Jones RJONES@FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU Rick Jones martje.wil@INTER.NL.NET William de Jong traherne@ARIEL.UCS.UNIMELB.EDU.AU Richard D. Jordan jungj@BAH.COM Jimmy Jung dubroff@UHUNIX.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU Shirley Kagan djk1@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU David J. Kathman dral@AOL.COM Alan Katz terrance@CC1.UCA.EDU Terrance B. Kearns keegan@PACIFIC.PACIFIC.NET Susan Keegan keever@PHANTOM.COM Thomas Dale Keever skeilen@LELAND.STANFORD.EDU Sean Keilen nkeinanen@CC.HELSINKI.FI Nely Keinanen bfkelly@AFTERLIFE.NCSC.MIL Blair Kelly WKEMP@S850.MWC.EDU William Kemp ckendall@DENVER.CARL.ORG Chris Kendall gkendall@SMITH.SMITH.EDU Gillian Murray Kendall ukkendri@UXA.ECN.BGU.EDU Kathleen Kendrick jkennedy@ACADEMIC.STU.STTHOMASU.CA Judith Kennedy rkennedy@EDNET1.OSL.OR.GOV Richard J. Kennedy ijkern@NETCOM.COM Iver Kern yku02824@YORKU.CA Wendy Kerr wjkerwin@EMAIL.UNC.EDU William Kerwin HARRY@ALPHA.FDU.EDU Harry Keyishian gjk@PANIX.COM George Khairallah akiernan@METZ.UNE.EDU.AU Adrian Kiernander rtaklaut@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU Richard Klautsch kleinhol@EDVZ.SBG.AC.AT Holger Klein KLEIN005@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU Penelope Klein jklene@SAINTMARYS.EDU Jean Klene KLIMANB@SNYFARVA Bernice W. Kliman knapp@REED.EDU Robert Knapp djknauer@SAGE.CC.PURDUE.EDU David J. Knauer dknight@UCI.EDU Dudley Knight JOHNK@MAIL.KIDS.USYD.EDU.AU John Knight tristram@NETVISION.NET.IL David Knoll knowles@MIND.NET Denis Knowles mknowles@TIAC.NET Mary Tyler Knowles koy@MATRIX.NEWPALTZ.EDU Yu Jin Ko dkodmur@OCF.BERKELEY.EDU Daniel Kodmur kogermal@STUDENT.MSU.EDU Malia Koger dankois@EMAIL.UNC.EDU Daniel Kois mxk17@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Melissa F. Kolar kxk4@PO.CWRU.EDU Kirsten Komara skozikow@ACAD.BRYANT.EDU Stanley Kozikowski cfk@STRAUSS.UDEL.EDU Catherine Fitzmaurice Kozubei ujkraft@UXA.ECN.BGU.EDU Jan Kraft jerryk@ON-RAMP.IOR.COM Jerry Kraft kramm002@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU Maggi Kramm sekeg@JAZZ.UCC.UNO.EDU Susan E. Krantz markk@UMD5.UMD.EDU Mark Krasnansky bakrasze@GROVE.IUP.EDU Barbara Kraszewski krebser@ERG.SRI.COM Karen Krebser xmkrell@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Mary Krell-Oishi kremer53@AOL.COM Michael Kremer kreps@CLI.UNIPI.IT Barbara Kreps H594@NEMOMUS Tonya Kreuger knkreutzer@AOL.COM Kenneth Kreutzer akroman@MASON1.GMU.EDU Alice Marie Kroman mwkuster@DOSUNI1.RZ.UNI-OSNABRUECK.DE Marc Wilhelm Kuester lacy@MMC.MARYMT.EDU Beth Ann Lacy bgsl@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA Dave Laing ian@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Ian Lancashire 75540.653@COMPUSERVE.COM William Lane chrisls@NETCOM.COM Chris Langland-Shula dml3@CHRISTA.UNH.EDU Douglas Lanier larner@HENSON.CC.WWU.EDU Daniel Larner latouret@STUDENT.MSU.EDU Ryan Latourette John_Lavagnino@BROWN.EDU John Lavagnino SEAN@NETINFO.UBC.CA Sean Lawrence cwl@PRIMEU.CPUC.CA.GOV Cleveland Lee JONGSOOK@KRSNUCC1 Jongsook Lee kelee@EDEN.RUTGERS.EDU Kenneth Lee STUART@VAX.OXFORD.AC.UK Stuart D. Lee gl68@COLUMBIA.EDU Gail Lerner 8913241l@ARTS.GLA.AC.UK Robert Leslie levesqum@ELWHA.EVERGREEN.EDU Mitchell Levesque davol@AOL.COM David Levine mlevith@SKIDMORE.EDU Murray Levith LEWIS@MSUS1.MSUS.EDU Piers Lewis TMLIDH@EMAIL.UNC.EDU Todd M. Lidh LIEBLER@APOLLO.MONTCLAIR.EDU Naomi Liebler elin@SUNSPOT.SSL.BERKELEY.EDU Erika Lin eng6dl@ARTS-01.NOVELL.LEEDS.AC.UK David Lindley link@CC.AOYAMA.AC.JP L. T. Link 00wtliston@BSUVC.BSU.EDU William Liston jnlobley@STUDENTS.WISC.EDU James Lobley jlockett@HANSZEN.RICE.EDU Joseph L. Lockett david.loeb@QM.CHOATE.EDU David Loeb yu103957@YORKU.CA Alexander Lofthouse mlomo@AOL.COM Mike LoMonico plord@SUNSITE.OIT.UNC.EDU Paul Lord patrl@SULAW.LAW.SU.OZ.AU Patricia Loughlan loughlin@JANE.CS.FREDONIA.EDU Tom Loughlin luckyj@AC.DAL.CA Christina Luckyj FFJL@AURORA.ALASKA.EDU Janis Lull LJ#4@LAFAYACS James Lusardi dalelyles@AOL.COM Dale Lyles JLYNCH@ENGLISH.UPENN.EDU John Lynch s_lynch@CAM.ORG Shaun Lynch HF.CHL@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU Charles R. Lyons 901606m@AXE.ACADIAU.CA Paul MacDonald MACDONALD@SMITH.SMITH.EDU Ron Macdonald omeara@CLIO.RZ.UNI-DUESSELDORF.DE Eric Mace-Tessler ifm5u@FARADAY.CLAS.VIRGINIA.EDU Ian F. Macinnes jmaclell@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Janet C. MacLellan Karin_Magaldi-Unger@MACMAIL.UCSC.EDU Karin Magaldi-Unger lmagnuss@WATARTS.UWATERLOO.CA Lynne Magnusson jmm@ALOR.UNIV-MONTP3.FR Jean-Marie Maguin JWM1000@IONA John W. Mahon dmaier@EDNET1.OSL.OR.GOV David Maier 057295@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA Greg Maillet m.d.mangan@LUT.AC.UK Michael Mangan manley@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU Lawrence Manley R.J.Manning@QUEENS-BELFAST.AC.UK John Manning emarecki@UMDACC.UMD.EDU Elizabeth A. Marecki ga.marino@AGORA.STM.IT Gabriella Marino ashlando@AOL.COM Carol Marshall marshall@VAX.RHODES.EDU Cynthia Marshall amartin@MN.WASEDA.AC.JP Anthony Martin bennison_martin@MSMAIL.MUOHIO.EDU Bennison Martin martin@CS.UCHICAGO.EDU Charles Martin martinmh@GUSUN.ACC.GEORGETOWN.EDU Michael Martin STSMART@UMSLVMA Terence Martin tmartin@MACE.CC.PURDUE.EDU Thomas L. Martin jemartin@INDIANA.EDU Jeffery Martinek smarx@CYMBAL.AIX.CALPOLY.EDU Stephen Marx jmassa@SPONSORED-PROG-PO.DSP.UIOWA.EDU John S. Massa massi@WSUVM1.CSC.WSU.EDU J. M. Massi smather@PHOENIX.KENT.EDU Susan Mather mmathew1@EXPLORER.CSC.COM Susan Mathews engl5101@NEXUS.YORKU.CA Stephen Matsuba mayadunn@UNIXG.UBC.CA Anthony Mayadunne wrm2b@FARADAY.CLAS.VIRGINIA.EDU William Russell Mayes cmazer@SAS.UPENN.EDU Cary M. Mazer mazzetti@SMTP.FOLGER.EDU Kate Mazzetti louis@SUNYIT.EDU Louis Mazzucco MCCARTHY@CUA.EDU William J. McCarthy mmcclint@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Michael McClintock mccluske@COMP.UARK.EDU Peter M. McCluskey CERBERUS@SABLE.OX.AC.UK Moray McConnachie mcfad@ELEARN.EDU.YORKU.CA David W. McFadden gmcfarl@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU Ken McFarlane billmci@AMERICA.NET William McIntyre 3074bmac@UCSBUXA.UCSB.EDU Bruce McIver mckeague@STAT.FSU.EDU Ian McKeague mckennji@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU James McKenna mary.mckenzie@ANU.EDU.AU Mary McKenzie SDMGLA@RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU Stanley D. McKenzie usr10166@TSO.UC.EDU William McKim rose@ESKIMO.COM Rose McManus MCNAMAR@WVNVM Gregory McNamara fm30@COLUMBIA.EDU Fiona McNeill dmac@UNM.EDU David McPherson mwm9389@TNTECH.EDU Bill McRae gregory@ALCOR.CONCORDIA.CA Gregory McSweeney MEANEY@CC.JOENSUU.FI Kenneth Meaney bonniem@CC1.UCA.EDU Bonnie Melchior merians@HP800.LASALLE.EDU Linda E. Merians metskers@DUCKS.ENG.SEMATECH.ORG Steve Metsker dmeyer@WORLD.STD.COM David Meyer chalc@CHMRS6.CHEM.OLEMISS.EDU Marie Meyers mnmeyers@MCS.COM Michael Meyers ncmich@VAX1.BEMIDJI.MSUS.EDU Nancy Carolyn Michael gateway@NCW.NET Landon Michaelson dmiddlet@VM1.TUCC.TRINITY.EDU David Middleton miles.linda@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU Linda Miles mjmiller@SPARTAN.AC.BROCKU.CA Mary Jane Miller smiller@ACCESSNV.COM Scott Miller smiller@ASTRO.OCIS.TEMPLE.EDU Shannon Miller UDLE031@BAY.CC.KCL.AC.UK Stephen Roy Miller jmills@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU John Mills rmmill00@UKCC.UKY.EDU Rose M. Mills anna.sauter@UC.EDU Jasson Minadakis minchew@ACT-WASHDC-PO.ACT.ORG Daniel Minchew JAYM@FUJI.SED.STEL.COM Jay Minnix miola@LOYOLA.EDU Robert S. Miola nmiseroc@ABACUS.BATES.EDU Nathan Miserocchi amisseldine@ADRIAN.ADRIAN.EDU Albert Misseldine dust1@AOL.COM Dustin Mithaug Dave_moh@DTC.HP.COM David Moh kathryn-moncrief@UIOWA.EDU Kathryn M. Moncrief anne@SOBACK.KORNET.NM.KR Marlene Mondalek rmontgom@BENFRANKLIN.HNET.UCI.EDU Robert Montgomery mooreed@AC.GRIN.EDU Edward M. Moore mikemoor@MERCURY.SFSU.EDU Michael Moore cmoravec@RISD.EDU Cynthia Moravec lisa.morey@K12.UEN.GEN.UT.US Lisa Morey morey@BUTLER.EDU Shari L. Morey SMORGAN@ANDY.BGSU.EDU Simon Morgan-Russell gsamam@NCCSEQ.NOCTRL.EDU Marissa Morrison morton@UWPG02.UWINNIPEG.CA Mark Morton mosherm@NBNET.NB.CA Marilyn Mosher mosley@UNCMVS.OIT.UNC.EDU George Mosley oberon@EMAIL.UNC.EDU Grant Moss rmoyer@CHARLIE.USD.EDU Ronald L. Moyer aktr@AOL.COM Doyne Mraz john.c.mucci@GTE.SPRINT.COM John C. Mucci MartinMueller@NWU.EDU Martin Mueller motley@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU Michael Mullin munkelt@VES101.UNI-MUENSTER.DE Marga Munkelt BRENDAN_MURPHY@LIVEWIRE.COM Brendan Murphy c392779@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU Diane Musgrove nmyers@ANDY.BGSU.EDU Norman J. Myers joebabe@CERF.NET Joseph Nathan AXNNCE@RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU Tony Naturale pneal@MOOSE.UVM.EDU Patrick Neal wneary@DELPHI.COM Walter Neary rlneblet@ARTSCI.WUSTL.EDU Robert L. Neblett NELSENPD@MARLBORO.EDU Paul Nelsen NEUHAUS@NWZ.UNI-MUENSTER.DE H. J. Neuhaus NEUMAN@GUVAX.GEORGETOWN.EDU Michael Neuman NEURINGER@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU Charles Neuringer nichollj@MICRONET.WCU.EDU James Nicholl glen_nichols@UQAC.UQUEBEC.CA Louise Nichols rnip8039@URIACC.URI.EDU Ronald Nipps hnishino@TANSEI.CC.U-TOKYO.AC.JP Haruo Nishinoh iana@ALTAMIRA.COM Gail Noble knolan@UBMAIL.UBALT.EDU Kimberly Nolan Alan.Nordstrom@ROLLINS.EDU Alan Nordstrom manorman@HAMLET.UNCG.EDU Michael Norman IOWASHAKES@AOL.COM Lisa Norris pnovak@SCUACC.SCU.EDU Peter J. Novak NOVELLI@LEMOYNE Cornelius Novelli NYHOFF@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Jeffrey L. Nyhoff aohair@MERCURY.SFSU.EDU Amy O'Hair omalley@UHUNIX.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU Lurana O'Malley ocoreng@DURRAS.ANU.EDU.AU Robert F. O'Connor tmoshea@ACD.TUSK.EDU Thomas O'Shea us_upper@JCVAXA.JCU.EDU William O'Neil jim.oates@CANREM.COM Jim Oates eno1@COLUMBIA.EDU Elizabeth Nancy Olesh g9655kolse@UMBSKY.CC.UMB.EDU Kristen Olsen klo3@PO.CWRU.EDU Kristen Olson orgel@LELAND.STANFORD.EDU Stephen Orgel 071mro@MUSE.ARTS.WITS.AC.ZA Martin Orkin r2edo@DAX.CC.UAKRON.EDU Eugene Ortiz leosborn@COLBY.EDU Laurie E. Osborne OSTOVICH@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA Helen Ostovich newkeesa@AOL.COM Shelly Otis OTTENHOFF@ALMA.EDU John Ottenhoff JOHN.OWEN@AMD.COM John Owen owens@MIT.EDU Tom Owens avitaloz@CCSG.TAU.AC.IL Avraham Oz CSP07321@UKANVM Cheryl Pace dpacheco@MATH.MACALSTR.EDU David Pacheco pager@FSA.WOSC.OSSHE.EDU Robert Page ppalermo@DREW.DREW.EDU Patricia E. Palmero paolucci@YORKU.CA Peter Paolucci dpatters@KEENE.EDU Daniel L. Patterson EHPEARLMAN@CASTLE.CUDENVER.EDU E. H. Pearlman PECHTER@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA Ed Pechter dpeck@WORLD.STD.COM David Peck pehme@DELPHI.COM Kalev Pehme eperkins@IX.NETCOM.COM Eric Perkins jperry@CEBAF.GOV John Perry pesta@MACE.CC.PURDUE.EDU J. Duke Pesta JPETER@BUCKNELL.EDU Jean Peterson julius@NEVADA.EDU David Phillips phillips_michele@MERCURY.CSG.PEACHNET.EDU Michele Phillips yku02825@YORKU.CA Phylistsa Phyactou fpiechos@STUDENTS.WISC.EDU Franicis E. Piechoski opietro@MERCURY.SFSU.EDU Owen Pietrokoesky rpigeon@WILEY.CSUSB.EDU Renee Pigeon IVAD@UTMARTN Daniel Pigg pilzerkl@CTRVAX.VANDERBILT.EDU Kay Pilzer pinnow@STOLAF.EDU Timothy Dayne Pinnow tfaust@VAX1.BEMIDJI.MSUS.EDU Troy Poetz jpollard@EWU.EDU Jacqueline Anne Pollard MP0384@ALBNYVMS Mary Beth Portley lpotter@BACH.UDEL.EDU Lois D. Potter powellp@ZEUS.MGMT.WITS.AC.ZA Pam Powell lilith@AC.DAL.CA Debra Power v273fs6s@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Charlotte Pressler LL61@NEMOMUS Arnold Preussner jprice@WPOFF.WCU.EDU Joseph Price pricem@MACE.CC.PURDUE.EDU Michael W. Price dprimm@TELALINK.NET Denise Primm michael.prince@ENG.UIB.NO Michael Prince 75537.1572@COMPUSERVE.COM Charles Proctor gproehl@UPS.EDU Geoff Proehl jpuin@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Jennifer E. Puin randal.putnam@LIBCOM.DPS.COM Randall Putnam g_pywell@ACAD.FANDM.EDU Geoff Pywell quic0003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU Fiona Quick prackin@DEPT.ENGLISH.UPENN.EDU Phyllis Rackin jerager@AMHERST.EDU John Rager krrahimz@EMAIL.UNC.EDU Kevin Rahimzadeh raleyd@IX.NETCOM.COM David Raley libmar@GSUSGI2.GSU.EDU Mary Ann Ramey r1nr@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU Nicholas Ranson FAJR@NMU.EDU Jim Rapport rawsont@SCHOOLS.MINEDU.GOVT.NZ Tom Rawson dlr@UCLINK2.BERKELEY.EDU Deborah Reed freed@SACAM.OREN.ORTN.EDU Frances Reed reedjw@SAGE.CC.PURDUE.EDU John Reed treed@BALL.COM Timothy Reed sreid@PHOENIX.KENT.EDU S. W. Reid reifsnyd@UCSU.COLORADO.EDU David Reifsndyer dareinheimer@UCDAVIS.EDU David Reinheimer INKSHED@UNB.CA James A. Reither RELIHCO@MAIL.AUBURN.EDU Constance C. Relihan allen@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU Allen Renear bigben100@AOL.COM Kate Reynolds Scott_Reynolds@DSC.UMICH.EDU William Scott Reynolds FEINMAN@SNYBKSAC FEINMAN RICHARD jrichard@CS-ACAD-LAN.LAKEHEADU.CA John Michael Richardson eafg066@EA.UCI.EDU Sara Elizabeth Richardson dmr@CHRISTA.UNH.EDU David Richman riggio@ADS.TRINCOLL.EDU Milla Riggio a0range@DELPHI.COM William Ring gloria@IBMPCUG.CO.UK Penelope Rixon droane@IGLOU.COM Diana Roane roberts@VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU Katherine Roberts crobert@UNIX.CC.EMORY.EDU Christina Robertson n211800@SLIM.SLNSW.GOV.AU Helen Robinson library@KNOX-EMH1.ARMY.MIL Rick Robinson robitai@TARLETON.EDU Marilyn Robitaille elrocklin@CSUPOMONA.EDU Edward Rocklin john.rogers@YALE.EDU John Rogers jrogers@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Judith K. Rogers cr06@ACADEMIA.SWT.EDU Cliff Ronan mrose@HUMANITAS.UCSB.EDU Mark Rose f24113@VM.BIU.AC.IL Alan Rosen rosscs@MACE.CC.PURDUE.EDU Charles Ross bj635@FREENET.BUFFALO.EDU Terrence Ross krothwel@MOOSE.UVM.EDU Kenneth S. Rothwell 71773.2527@COMPUSERVE.COM Barry Rountree ROWAN@UNB.CA Don Rowan krowe@YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU Kathrine Rowe bblq@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA Hilary Rowland rowlett_d@HCCS.CC.TX.US Douglas Rowlett ftskr@AURORA.ALASKA.EDU Shawna K. Rudio rulonmil@TSCVM.TRENTON.ED Nina Rulon-Miller russell@URVAX.URICH.EDU Anthony Russell drutledg@MCS.CAPITAL.EDU Douglas Rutledge bh724@FREENET.CARLETON.CA Michael Ryan SABINSON@CCVAX.UNICAMP.BR Eric Sabinson sabotka_bob/4r00_missilesysdept@OM.NSWSES.NAVY.MIL Robert Sabotka JSAEGER@DEPT.ENGLISH.UPENN.EDU James P. Saeger saengerr@VOYAGER.BXSCIENCE.EDU Robert Saenger sakaino@ARIEL.EDU.IWATE-U.AC.JP Naoki Sakaino dsaliani@CBE.AB.CA Dominic Saliani cyws@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA Denis Salter rensande@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU Richard K. Sanderson sandona@NIMUE.HOOD.EDU Mark Sandona zsasaki@QUARTET.IPC.AKITA-U.AC.JP Kazuki Sasaki nancys1948@AOL.COM Nancy Sassaman JSAUER@JAGUAR1.USOUTHAL.EDU David K. Sauer ksaupe@URSA.CALVIN.EDU Karen Saupe j.h.sawday@SOTON.AC.UK Jonathan Sawday yku02866@YORKU.CA Charlotte Scalpello SCHAEFEJ@GUVAX James F. Schaefer, Jr. schalk@BEATTIE.UCT.AC.ZA David Schalkwyk scheedrl@ACF2.NYU.EDU Louis Scheeder fswbs@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU Will Schendel jamess@TIGER.HSC.EDU James Schiffer a2271001@ATHENA.RRZ.UNI-KOELN.DE Andreas Schlenger SJ#3@LAFAYACS June Schlueter barbara.schmidt@TARLETON.EDU Barbara Schmidt waschmidt@DELPHI.COM William Schmidt ebs0001@JOVE.ACS.UNT.EDU Elizabeth Schmitt pola_jes@ACCESS.OECN.OHIO.GOV Joan Schmitzer peter.schmuckal@EXAR.COM Peter Schmuckal Ben.R.Schneider@LAWRENCE.EDU Ben R. Schneider lschnell@MOOSE.UVM.EDU Lisa Schnell peter-paul.schnierer@UNI-TUEBINGEN.DE Peter Paul Schnierer scschu01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU Stephen C. Schultz lschwart@PLAINS.NODAK.EDU Lawrence Schwartz SCHWARTZ@URVAX.URICH.EDU Louis Schwartz mjs2@CORNELL.EDU Mathew Schwartz vbscinta@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Vanessa Scinta scolnic@CCSG.TAU.AC.IL Hanna Scolnicov Alistair.Scott@WWF-INT.CH Alistair Scott david.scott@VUW.AC.NZ David Scott scottp@JESTER.USASK.CA Peter Scott pseary@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Peter Seary z910149@CORN.CSO.NIU.EDU Jerry Sebold eseddon@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA Elizabeth Seddon debselden@UH.EDU Deborah Selden John_Senczuk@MS-GW.UOW.EDU.AU John Senczuk JRSn%TsPm%PS@BANGATE.PGE.COM James Serchak uenms@GEMINI.OSCS.MONTANA.EDU Michael Sexson nyu-shakespeare@NYU.EDU NYU Shakespeareans cshambur@PEGASUS.RUTGERS.EDU Chris Shamburg shand@VENUS.YORKU.CA Skip Shand msharpston@WORLDBANK.ORG Michael Sharpston lshatkin@ROSEDALE.ORG Laurence Shatkin sheltonj@UHURA.TRINITY.TORONTO.EDU Jennifer Shelton skot@PANIX.COM Scott Shepherd tsheppar@FOX.NSTN.NS.CA Sheila Sheppard SHERSHOW@PUB2.BU.EDU Scott Shershow rshield@ANDY.BGSU.EDU Ronald E. Shields 00046089@EX.ECIP.OSAKA-U.AC.JP Shuho Shiratsuchi curt11@IX.NETCOM.COM Curtis Shumaker siemens@UNIXG.UBC.CA Raymond Siemens wayback@NETCOM.COM Paul Silverman tsimpson@PINC.COM Tom Simpson esincoff@CS.STANFORD.EDU Erik Sincoff v219jclc@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Mark Andre Singer sinowitz@PILOT.NJIN.NET Jonah Sinowitz dbs@SRUVM.SRU.EDU David Skeele engmik@HUM.AAU.DK Michael Skovmand SKURA@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU Meredith Anne Skura bhm9@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA Jessica Slights ENSLOAN@ALPHA.NLU.EDU LaRue Sloan DAVIDSMALL@DELPHI.COM David Small SMIGEL@HWS.EDU Libby Smigel alexd@MERLE.ACNS.NWU.EDU Alexander Smith SI#0@LAFAYACS Ian Smith slsmith@VNET.IBM.COM Larry Smith SHAKESPR@SMITH SHAKSPEReans at Smith smithsb@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU Shawn Smith GODOT@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU Shawn Smith drm_tfs@SHSU.EDU Thomas Soare soller.larry@A1.PC.MARICOPA.EDU Larry S. Soller anthony@CCS.SOGANG.AC.KR An Sonjae 76415.161@COMPUSERVE.COM Kristen Sorensen RSPACEK@UNB.CA Richard A. M. Spacek TJ0AJS1@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU Anne J. Spencer asponberg@EXODUS.VALPO.EDU Arvid Sponberg dna@PROD.VIP.BEST.COM Dana Lloyd Spradley keziav@AOL.COM Kezia Vanmeter Sproat stap@UNIXG.UBC.CA Paul G. Stanwood SCUT024@TWNMOE10 David Steelman uenss@NEWTON.MATH.MONTANA.EDU Sara Jayne Steen steggle@VAX.OX.AC.UK Matthew Steggle mhdupuis@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Margaret Helen Steinke a1967703@ATHENA.RRZ.UNI-KOELN.DE Anke Steinmeir rstenber@CC.HELSINKI.FI Rannvi Stenberg yku02876@YORKU.CA Scott Stephens stephenh@GUSUN.ACC.GEORGETOWN.EDU Heather Stephenson stessel@VOYAGERCO.COM Philippe Stessel gstewart@K12.OIT.UMASS.EDU Geoffrey Stewart pstewart@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Patricia Stewart still007@GOLD.TC.UMN.EDU Peter Still kay.stockholder@MTSG.UBC.CA Kay Stockholder jstone@UCLINK2.BERKELEY.EDU James Stone rlstrick@RS6000.CMP.ILSTU.EDU Ronald Strickland LS0796@ALBNYVMS Chris Stroffolino SXSUBBAR@OCC Suba Subbaro sue@SI.GUNMA-U.AC.JP Michiko Suematsu fsmas3@AURORA.ALASKA.EDU Maureen Sullivan sutph001@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU Joyce Sutphen c0sutt01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU Catherine Sutton projim@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Jim Swan swanson@NEWTON.FRANKLINCOLL.EDU Michael Swanson swearingen@LIBLAN.UAMS.EDU David Swearingen tz2m-tkm@J.ASAHI-NET.OR.JP Michio Takumi at93e184@NOTREDAME.AC.JP Aeka Tatsaki GR4302@SIUCVMB Jeff Taylor metaylor@DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU Miles Taylor fteague@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Fran Teague rteeter@NETCOM.COM Robert Teeter teplitz@PHYSICS.UCLA.EDU Harry Teplitz g9017477@MCMAIL.MCMASTER.CA Jeff Tessier katetens@MSU.EDU Kristan Tetens hthimmesh@TINY.COMPUTING.CSBSJU.EDU Hilary D. Thimmesh mthomas@BLUE.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU M. Thomas lthomson@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Leslie Thomson tidwellg@MAIL.FIRN.EDU Gale Tidwell timmons@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Gregory Timmons AGTODD@CCNET.COM Anthony Todd sdutoit@DORDT.EDU Simon du Toit jntolva@ARTSCI.WUSTL.EDU John Tolva pericles@ASTRO.OCIS.TEMPLE.EDU Daniel P. Tompkins marie210@AOL.COM Dee Toole torikian@RUSUN.CS.REITAKU-U.AC.JP Merwyn Torikian yku02829@YORKU.CA Aaron Tornberg bht0@LEHIGH.EDU Barbara Traister traister@POBOX.UPENN.EDU Daniel Traister ETRIB@TEMPLEVM Evelyn Tribble Marion_S_Trousdale@UMAIL.UMD.EDU Marion S. Trousdale ulen852@UIDAHO.EDU Amy Ulen JURBAN@NORDEN1.COM Joseph Urban SURCC@CUNYVM Steven Urkowitz lvecchi@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA Linda Vecchi velkejm@OKRA.MILLSAPS.EDU J. Matthew Velkey viator@ELAN.ROWAN.EDU Timothy Viator nc500156@NCCVAX.WVNET.EDU Barry Vincent DVITKUS@EGAUCACS Daniel J. Vitkus CAVITT01@ULKYVM Chet Vittitow dvolker@COSI.STOCKTON.EDU Dawn Volker wade@COURIER4.AERO.ORG Kay Wade walen001@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU Denise Walen shaxpur@AOL.COM Joanne Walen walk5962@VARNEY.IDBSU.EDU Kerri Walker mwalker@ACS.BU.EDU Michael Walker nwalker@LYNX.DAC.NEU.EDU Nancy Walker dwall@EWU.EDU Don Wall GW2@VAXB.YORK.AC.UK Geoffrey Wall rlwqc@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Richard Wall WARKENT@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Germaine Warkentin warley@EDEN.RUTGERS.EDU Christopher Warley michael_warren@MACMAIL.UCSC.EDU Michael Warren r.j.c.watt@DUNDEE.AC.UK R. J. C. Watt awatts@ANDROMEDA.RUTGERS.EDU Ann Watts Carolyn_Weaver@NEB.VOA.GOV Carolyn Weaver rvcmpwebb@AOL.COM Michael P. Webb br00126@BINGSUNS.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU A. S. Weber mwebster@UTXVMS.CC.UTEXAS.EDU Mark J. Webster weingust@UCLINK.BERKELEY.EDU Don Weingust srwelch@ALEX.STKATE.EDU Susan Welch R.D.Headlam-Wells@ENGLISH.HULL.AC.UK Robin Headlam Wells swerner@SAS.UPENN.EDU Sarah Werner werstine@UWOVAX.UWO.CA Paul Werstine KWEST@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Katherine West westfals@LAFAYETTE.EDU Suzanne Westfall wilbur@PANIX.COM Michael Weston HWHALL@HCACAD.HOLYCROSS.EDU Helen Whall lngtfw@ADMIN.AC.EDU T. Fred Wharton wheeler@SCF.USC.EDU Jeffrey Wheeler DS001451@VM1.NODAK.EDU Ray Wheeler ffw@UTS.CC.UTEXAS.EDU Frank Whigham JWHITE@CMSUVMB D. Jerry White whitel@IRIS.UNCG.EDU Laurie White whiter@CITADEL.EDU Robert A. White whitney@NEVADA.EDU Charles Whitney ENGXW878@KSUVXA.KENT.EDU Cassandra Whittington widmann@SPOT.COLORADO.EDU R L Widmann mwikand@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU Matthew H. Wikander WILDER@GUVAX.GEORGETOWN.EDU Jim Wilderotter pwillett@INDIANA.EDU Perry Willett m_williams@AM.ATD.CRA.COM.AU Mark Williams williams_r@SUNYBROOME.EDU Roberta Williams TB0WPW1@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU William Proctor Williams jenise@BOE00.MINC.UMD.EDU Jenise Williamson RWILLIS@UKANVAX Ron Willis GWILSON@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Geoffrey T. Wilson gwilson@AHS.ABERDEEN.K12.MS.US Gloria Wilson wilsonk@ZEUS.USQ.EDU.AU Kate Wilson dswilson@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU David Scott Wilson-Okamura cynthia_l_wimmer@UMAIL.UMD.EDU Cynthia L. Wimmer nwinship@EWU.EDU Nunn Winship nwinstan@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Nicola Winstanley dtw@DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU David Wintersteen ghwitt@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU Gavin H. Witt clw@URIACC.URI.EDU Christian Wittwer jennw@IX.NETCOM.COM Jenn Wolfe woof0001@GOLD.TC.UMN.EDU Martha Woofter jackw@UCLINK3.BERKELEY.EDU Jack Wooster worth@UTKVX.UTK.EDU Jennifer C. Worth bwright@VMS1.CC.UOP.EDU Brian Wright laurence@AARDVARK.RU.AC.ZA Laurence Wright rhle503@UVM.HAIFA.AC.IL Michael Yogev syom@DEPT.ENGLISH.UPENN.EDU Sue Sun Yom alan.young@ACADIAU.CA Alan R. Young youngb@JKHBHRC.BYU.EDU Bruce Young mwy@EUCLID.DNE.WVNET.EDU Michael Young ENYOUNGBERG@AUGUSTANA.EDU Karin Youngberg jayoungr@FIREFLY.PRAIRIENET.ORG Juliet Youngren cato@SAKURA.CC.TSUKUBA.AC.JP Kato Yukio LALALIB@IX.NETCOM.COM Martin Zacks ZAROBILA@JCVAXA.JCU.EDU Charles Zarobila zeigere@UCSU.COLORADO.EDU James Zeiger eng3eyz@HIBBS.VCU.EDU Elizabeth Y. Zeria ziegler@MAIL.FOLGER.EDU Georgianna Ziegler zucker@VOYAGERCO.COM Adam Zucker zurko@OSF.ORG Mary Ellen Zurko (Mez) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 13:48:48 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0507 Next Shakespeare Theatre Season; *MND* in VT Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0507. Sunday, 25 June 1995. (1) From: Christine Gray Date: Thursday, 22 Jun 1995 23:52:05 -0400 Subj: [Next Shakespeare Theatre Season] (2) From: Cathy Czapla Date: Thursday, 22 Jun 1995 12:29:12 -0400 Subj: Announcement of Performance (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Gray Date: Thursday, 22 Jun 1995 23:52:05 -0400 Subject: [Next Shakespeare Theatre Season] Does anyone know what plays the Folger Theater is presenting next season? Christine Gray [Editor's Note: I can answer this one. The Shakespeare Theatre (formerly the Folger Shakespeare Theatre) has just announced its 1995-96 Season: *Macbeth* with Stacy Keach as Macbeth and Ed Gero as Banquo *Henry 5* with Derek Smith as H5 and Kelly McGillis as Katherine *All's Well* with Kelly McGillis as Helena *Volpone* with Pat Carroll as Volpone Throughout the year, Shakespeare is still performed at the Folger Library's Elizabethan Theatre. Currently, for instance, Michael Tolaydo (a former member of the resident company years back) is Shylock in a "Source Theatre" production of *Merchant*, directed by Joe Banno. I should also add that tonight is the last night of the Shakespeare Theatre's Free for All -- Michael Kahn's revisiting of *12th Night* from a few seasons back with Kelly McGillis as Volia. Also, the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express is at the Source Theatre through July 2, performing *Hamlet*, *The Tempest*, and *Twelfth Night*. What a summer feast. --HMC] (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathy Czapla Date: Thursday, 22 Jun 1995 12:29:12 -0400 Subject: Announcement of Performance I wished to announce an upcoming performance of A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM in Burlington, VT. As you may remember, the University of Vermont held a Shakespeare festival every summer for thirty years, until it ended 8 years ago. This performance will mark the first successful attempt to re-establish summer Shakespeare on the east side of Lake Champlain. The Champlain Theatre Arts Company - professional actors, directors and designers who live and teach in Vermont - will present A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM July 13th through 16th at 7:30 each evening, and a matinee at 2:00 pm on the 15th, at the Alumni Auditorium of Champlain College, one block south of Main St., at the corner of South Willard and Maple Streets in Burlington. Tickets are $9.00 and $12.00 with discounts available for seniors and children; they are available at the Flynn Box Office, or by calling 1-800-86-FLYNN. The auditorium is air-conditioned and handicapped-accessible. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 13:55:05 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0508 Re: Allusions to *The Tempest* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0508. Sunday, 25 June 1995. (1) From: Yvette Grimes Date: Thursday, 22 Jun 1995 18:18:19 -0400 Subj: Tempest Allusions (2) From: Imtiaz Habib Date: Friday, 23 Jun 1995 00:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0503 Q: Allusions to *The Tempest* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Yvette Grimes Date: Thursday, 22 Jun 1995 18:18:19 -0400 Subject: Tempest Allusions The Science Fiction film Forbidden Planet is a rewriting of The Tempest. --Yvette (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Imtiaz Habib Date: Friday, 23 Jun 1995 00:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0503 Q: Allusions to *The Tempest* Look at SHAKESPEARE'S CALIBAN: A CULTURAL HISTORY. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 14:07:43 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0509 Re: Abraham-Isaac Analogues; Humor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0509. Sunday, 25 June 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 22 Jun 1995 21:55:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0494 Abraham-Isaac Analogues (2) From: Gail Burns Date: Friday, 23 Jun 1995 17:22:37 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0496 Re: Humor (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 22 Jun 1995 21:55:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0494 Abraham-Isaac Analogues Thank you gavin Witt and G.L. Horton for the Iphigenia and Jephtha a analogues to the Abraham-Isaac story. I'll have to see if this relates ----thanks for the leads. Chris Stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gail Burns Date: Friday, 23 Jun 1995 17:22:37 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0496 Re: Humor "Diary of a Nobody" was written by George Grossmith, best known as the originator of most of the Gilbert and Sullivan character roles. There may have been a co-author... ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 14:12:18 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0510 Q: Word Games in the *Sonnets* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0510. Sunday, 25 June 1995. From: Carole L. Hamilton Date: Friday, 23 Jun 1995 15:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Sonnets Could we start a thread on Shakespeare's sonnets? Last year during a talk she gave at Univ. of Virginia, Helen Vendler explained that many (most?) of his sonnets contain word games such that each line (most lines? a pattern?) will contain one word or concept that gets repeated throughout the poem. For instance, in sonnet #116, "Let me not to the marriage of true minds" lines 1-6 have clear and direct references to trueness: true mines (1), impediments (2), alteration (3), bends (4), ever-fixed (5), never shaken (6), and the ending couplet concerns trueness in terms of a kind of oath: If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved. I would love to read about other sonnet word games, if you know of them. Also, has Helen Vendler written about Shakespeare anywhere? I haven't found any articles, and yet she was so knowledgeable about the sonnets that I'd be surprised if she hasn't. Thanks, Carole Hamilton clh6w@virginia.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 14:40:24 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0511 Richard Field; Shakespeare's Library; Why Biography? (END) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0511. Sunday, 25 June 1995. (1) From: Bob Leslie <8913241l@arts.gla.ac.uk> Date: Saturday, 24 Jun 1995 21:36:43 +0100 Subj: Richard Field and Shakespeare's Library (2) From: Thomas Dale Keever Date: Friday, 23 Jun 1995 18:41:47 -0400 Subj: Shakespeare, the businessman (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Leslie <8913241l@arts.gla.ac.uk> Date: Saturday, 24 Jun 1995 21:36:43 +0100 Subject: Richard Field and Shakespeare's Library Thanks to David Kathman for the info. Can anyone tell me where I can find out about books published by Richard Field? And does anyone have any more information on "W.S.'s library"? Has a comprehensive list ever been assembled, using literary exegetic techniques, of Shakespeare's personal bibliography? I'd be grateful for anything on this. Bob Leslie [Editor's Note: As a beginning for Richard Field, see the following: Stephens, Leslie and Sidney Lee, eds. *The Dictionary of National Biography*. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1921: 6.1276-77. McKerrow, R. B., Ed. *A Dictionary of Printers and Booksellers in England, Scotland and Ireland, and of Foreign Printers of English Books 1557-1640*. London: Bibliographical Society, 1910. Plomer, Henry R. *Abstracts from the Wills of English Printers and Stationers, from 1492 to 1630*. London: Bibliographical Society, 1903. Schoenbaum, Samuel. *Shakespeare's Lives*. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Schoenbaum, Samuel. *William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life*. New York: Oxford UP, 1977. Schoenbaum, Samuel. *William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life*. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. There is also a facsimile from the early 20th-C. of the Stationer's Register and, of course, the STC. --HMC PS: Apologies to others for jumping the gun here, but I'm currently writing an introduction to an electronic edition of VEN-Q1.] (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Dale Keever Date: Friday, 23 Jun 1995 18:41:47 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare, the businessman I heartily second Stephanie Hill's call to attend to literary biography but warn her to drink deep of that Hyperion spring or risk the dangers of facile and shallow conclusions. Wider reading in the works, lives and times of successful writers in Early Modern and subsequent ages might cure Miss Hill and her friends of their wide-eyed naive incredulity at the idea that a gifted writer could rage against greed and avarice in his work and then turn right around and manage his personal business affairs as if his or his family's future security depended on it. They would find, for example, the loftiest, and sincerest, moral sentiments cohabiting effortlessly in one fine mind with the thought, "No one but a block head ever wrote except for money!" Though modern illustrations from Byron and Dickens to Dylan and Amis abound I will cite but one. (Forgive me if I get a detail wrong. I am as usual on tour, this week in Columbus, OH, and far from my library.) A provincial troupe was caught mounting an unauthorized production of one of George S. Kaufman's plays. His agents sternly ordered them to cease, desist, and strike the set. Convinced that the author of YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU would never countenance such mean-spirited dollar-driven pettiness they appealed to the writer himself to let their show go on. After all, they pointed out, "we're just a small, insignificant little theater company." Very well, Kaufman replied sympathetically, "we'll send you to a small, insignificant little jail." "The Stratford Man" couldn't have put it better. [For an excellent effort at clarifying this and other issues in light of Shakespeare's times I recommend Irvin L. Matus' 1989 book SHAKESPEARE, IN FACT.] ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:15:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0512 Re: Word Play in the *Sonnets* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0512. Monday, 26 June 1995. (1) From: Howell Chickering Date: Sunday, 25 Jun 1995 16:32:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0510 Q: Word Games in the *Sonnets* (2) From: Tom Connolly Date: Sunday, 25 Jun 1995 18:55:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0510 Q: Word Games in the *Sonnets*: (3) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 00:47:37 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0510 Q: Word Games in the *Sonnets* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Howell Chickering Date: Sunday, 25 Jun 1995 16:32:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0510 Q: Word Games in the *Sonnets* Yes, Carole Hamilton, Helen Vendler has written eloquently, in an essay that I would suspect is genetically related to the talk you heard, about her 40+ year love-affair with reading the *Sonnets*; her quasi-auto-biog. essay is entitled "Reading, Stage by Stage: Shakespeare's *Sonnets*,' in *Shakespeare Reread; The Texts in New Contexts*, ed. Russ McDonald (Ithaca and London: Cornell Univ. Press, 1994), pp. 23-41. The next essay in this terrific collection (McDonald is a splendid writer on Shakes., himself) is equally pertinent to your interest in word-play in the *Sonnets*: Stephen Booth, "Close Readiing without Readings," pp. 42-55. Howell Chickering Amherst College HDCHICKERING@AMHERST.EDU (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Connolly Date: Sunday, 25 Jun 1995 18:55:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0510 Q: Word Games in the *Sonnets*: Helen Vendler has just published a book on them. She has taught them for several years. Tom Connolly tconnol@emerald.tufts.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 00:47:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0510 Q: Word Games in the *Sonnets* Dear Carole Hamilton--Vendler has a pretty famous article on Sonnet #128 (I think, the one about "music" and "jacks") and also read here last year from her sonnets (I have "bootlegged" tape) and said she will have a book out on them. I find her interesting but the CHELSEA HOUSE Harold Bloom, ed volume devoted to the sonnets deals with "word play" on another level--- as does Sigurd Burckhardt's chapter to his SHAKESPEAREAN MEANING--which actually treats Sonnet 116--the one you quote--in a way that borrows concepts from the theatre for its terms---"Fool" and "Priest"--though this meta-level may go beyond "word play" I think the categories actually fuse at a certain point---For instance, take a look at the "agreement problem" in SONNET 8 between singular noun and plural verb (or vice versa-- I forget)--That "word play" is actually integral to the thematic meaning about "singleness as plurality"--and the "meaning" of that does NOT just resonate on the vulgar level (in which we're told the whole poem is an exhortation to a "fair youth") but actually becomes a self-reflective act about the creative process itself (though I don't mean to deny the existence of the "vulgar level" of meaning as well)---Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:29:55 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0513 Re: Field; Library; Biography (THE LAST WORD) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0513. Monday, 26 June 1995. (1) From: David Kathman Date: Sunday, 25 Jun 1995 20:55:13 +0100 Subj: Shakespeare's library (2) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 25 Jun 1995 22:28:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0511 Richard Field; Shakespeare's Library; (3) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 00:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Shakespeare the Businessman (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Kathman Date: Sunday, 25 Jun 1995 20:55:13 +0100 Subject: Shakespeare's library In response to Bob Leslie's query for sources on Richard Field, I have just a few additions to Hardy's suggested readings: Stopes, Charlotte Carmichael. *The Bacon-Shakespeare Question Answered*. London, 1889. [In an appendix she lists some of the more interesting books Field published, including North's Plutarch, Harington's Orlando Furioso, Ovid's Metamorphoses, many books on Italy and France including English translations of an Italian grammar and a history of Italy, etc. etc.] Stopes, Charlotte Carmichael. *Shakespeare's Warwickshire Contemporaries*. Stratford-on-Avon, 1907. [Has a pretty complete biography of Field, including a more complete list of the books he printed.] Eccles, Mark. *Shakespeare in Warwickshire*. Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1961. pp. 59-60. [A compact but informative biographical sketch of Field, as part of a section on the Stratford boys born within a few years of Shakespeare, who we can assume were his schoolmates.] As for the second question, the standard reference for the sources Shakespeare used is Geoffrey Bullough's *Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare*, which lists and excerpts certain, probable, and possible sources for the plays and poems, as well as literary parallels. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 25 Jun 1995 22:28:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0511 Richard Field; Shakespeare's Library; Books published by Richard Field can be found in the index of the second edition of the Pollard and Redgrave Short Title Catalogue, or, if you have access to the STC on line, you can request a complete list to download. Regarding Shakespeare's reading, there is an older book by Anders called Shakespeare's Reading -- if my memory serves me correctly. And, as I recall, it wasn't very helpful. You might try Geoffrey Bullough's Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare and Kenneth Muir's The Sources of Shakespeare's Plays. Also you might look at the footnotes of the first and second Arden editions. (Forget Arden three if you're interested in scholarship. It's definitely theatre-oriented.) Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 00:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Shakespeare the Businessman Thomas Dale Keever; Your choice of comparisons seems poor. Certainly neither Byron nor Dickens would have hoarded grain in time of famine. (Dylan? Amis? Which ones?) The Kaufman anecdote is unfortunate as well. Apart from Kaufman's being a very different sort of writer than the author of the Shakespeare canon, and the anecdote being what it is, an anecdote, clearly meant to amuse, so that one can't help but question its literal truth (while the accusations of grain hoarding are a matter of record), Kaufman was certainly within his moral rights to insist on protecting his work. Shakespeare of Stratford, on the other hand, appears to have allowed just about anyone to publish his work without giving him any credit for it. Odd behavior for an astute businessman. Nor does the unkindness of refusing to allow a poor acting company to use one's material for free compare in any way, morally or businesswise, with hoarding grain in time of famine. You may have a better example. If so you may want to save it for the new usenet group opening up in late July where questions of authorship will be acceptable. I promised to keep quiet, and to wait until the flak died down, but the condescending tone of your post required some response. I look forward to continuing the discussion in late July. Stephanie Hughes (not Hill) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:50:53 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0514 Re: Tygres Heart Adaptation H6; Humor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0514. Monday, 26 June 1995. (1) From: David R. Maier Date: Sunday, 25 Jun 1995 13:00:23 -0700 Subj: Tygres Heart adaptation of H6 (2) From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 09:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0509 Re: Humor (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David R. Maier Date: Sunday, 25 Jun 1995 13:00:23 -0700 Subject: Tygres Heart adaptation of H6 In response to an earlier post regarding the Tygres Heart Shakespeare Company's upcoming production of Henry VI Part Only, Gavin Witt said: "It sounds like a fascinating and difficult project. On what basis have you all chosen to cut material--trying to reduce the whole to a distillation of the original narrative, or focusing on particular elements at the expense of others? And with what size cast will it be presented?" The principal focus of the adaptation will be the leadership trajectory from the height of Henry V to the depths of Richard III. Tygres Heart has produced one history each season in order (commencing with King John in its initial season!!!!). The focus has been on the issues of power and the question which haunts all of the histories, i.e., what makes a good leader? Through a variety of production concepts the company has highlighted the idiosyncracies presented in each of the histories, always looking at those leadership qualities which work and those which don't, at least as seen through lens of Shakespeare's work. Henry V represents the pinnacle of leadership and Richard III represents the depths. Between these two are the H6 plays. Jan Powell's goal in the adaptation is to focus on those elements in the three parts, both foreign and domestic, which illuminate the incredible slide to the dark side. With respect to the size of the cast, the principals have been cast but until the editing is complete it will not be clear how much doubling will be possible. It is expected to be in the range of 20. -- David Maier dmaier@ednet1.osl.or.gov (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 09:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0509 Re: Humor Dear Gail Burns, I'm glad that you brought up THE DIARY OF A NOBODY, an absolutely hilarious account of the true misery of life in Victorian suburban England. Poor Mr. Pooter and his dear wife, Carrie, and friends, Comings and Gowing, etc., perhaps can only be appreciated by other authentic nobodys, with nightmarish social lives. Originally sketches in PUNCH, my edition has as co-author with George Grosssmith, Weedon Grosssmith. It's Bristol: Arrowsmith, 10th ed., 1935. I'm indebted to the good friend, and fellow Shakespearean, who led me to it. Yours for more of comings and goings, Ken Rothwell ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 11:14:32 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0515 Q: The Parts Shakespeare Played Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0515. Monday, 26 June 1995. From: William Proctor Williams Date: Sunday, 25 Jun 95 22:35 CDT Subject: Q: The Parts Shakespeare Played I have spent the evening trying to find out what we know, or think we know, about the parts Shakespeare took in the plays he wrote. I know I have seen references to this subject in the past (not on the list) but cannot now find them. Could any well-meaning scholars please let me know what they know on this subject. I know he was probably the Ghost in +Ham+ and that he was probably Adam in +AYL+, but I am sure I have read, somewhere, he did more. Any help will be appreciated. Please reply to me, and +not+ to the list. Thanks! William ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 09:37:31 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0516 Q: RSC Elderhostel Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0516. Tuesday, 27 June 1995. From: Gail Lerner Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 14:06:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RSC Elderhostel query Can anyone help me with a question? A friend (I promise it's not me; it's really for a friend) has applied for the RSC Stratford and Barbican ten-day program from July 21-31 with a program for adult non-theater professionals. It's an intensive acting workshop called the Elderhostel. In his enthusiasm to sign-up, my friend neglected to find out who the teachers are for that session. Does anyone know? Or has taken this program? Or is going this summer? Any information can be sent directly to me (gl68@columbia.edu). Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 09:44:48 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0517 Re: Shakespeare's Reading; Field; Q: On-line STC Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0517. Tuesday, 27 June 1995. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 16:11:47 +0100 Subj: Shakespeare's reading (2) From: Andrew Gurr Date: Tuesday, 27 Jun 1995 12:33:15 +0100 (BST) Subj: Shakespeare's Library (3) From: Naomi Liebler Date: Tuesday, 27 Jun 95 01:15:00 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0513 Re: Field; (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 16:11:47 +0100 Subject: Shakespeare's reading re: Bob Leslie's query about the publications of Richard Field, and about Shakespeare's reading: The Appendix (vol. 3) of the revised *STC* will give you a complete listing of Field's publications (or of any other stationer's booklist, 1475-1640). On "Shakespeare's library": Although Shakespeare's library has not survived, the electronic age is making it possible for us to track much of the poet's reading (and, indeed, to check which other writers read Shakespearean texts). There are two ways to track Shakespeare's reading, one using the OED, the other using electronic archives; both require SHAXICON: SHAXICON can be used to generate a list of words in Shakespearean text X that appear nowhere else in the canon (i.e., words unique to text X), and another list of words that appear in the canon nowhere *earlier* than text X. Take *AYL* (A.D. 1599) as an example. The "unique" words in *AYL* include *abandoned* (ad.), *abruptly* (adv.), *allottery* (n.), and so on, through *wrangling* (n.) and *wrastling* (n.) (the last of which appears in Fletcher's assigned portion of *TNK*, but nowhere in canonical Shakespeare outside *AYL*. Let's take this as our first checklist: canonical words unique to *AYL*. Next let's take the words appearing in Shakespeare nowhere earlier than *AYL*, thereby generating a word-list that will include *accoustrement* (n.), *adoration* (n.), etc., through *to warp* (v.) and *whetstone* (n.). We can now investigate whether Shakespeare in 1599 simply made up these words off the top of his pate, or whether he borrowed many of them from some other text. It takes some manual labor, but one can collate both checklists against two other kinds of resources: (1) the OED (preferably the OED on CD-rom) and (2) archives of machine-readable texts (I've assembled my own archive, but you can begin building yours from the Oxford Text Archive). Let's begin with the OED. One potential problem with the OED is that it depends heavily on Shakespeare *as* a source of citations. We may take virtually any Renaissance text, and look up all of its unusual words in the OED, only to discover that Shakespeare supplies more citations than any other author. This mad "method" has been used in the past to prove that Shakespeare wrote texts that Shakespeare didn't write. Finding a large number of Shakespeare-citations in the OED for anonymous text Q doesn't mean that Shakespeare wrote text Q: it only means that Shakespeare supplies more citations for the OED than other authors. But when one first isolates the unique or first-time Shakespeare words for a bonified Shakespearean text, and runs those words past the OED to look for previous citations, one effectively eliminates Shakespeare as a source. What one discovers by this method is that the OED yields a spotty but often legible record of Shakespeare's reading. Not surprisingly, Holinshed supplies a disproportionate number of pre-Shakespeare citations for the Shakespeare history plays, North's Plutarch for the Roman tragedies, and so on. Non-narrative sources are indicated as well. Using only the SHAXICON/OED strategy, one might fairly conclude that the poet read Gerard's *Herbal* in 1597, Harsnet's *Declaration* in 1605, Dent's *Pathway to Heaven* in 1606, and that he did a lot of thumbing through Cotgrave's French-English dictionary in 1611-12. Moreover, by consulting two mutually exclusive word-lists, one has a built-in cross-check: if the same handful of texts seem to be supplying a disproportionate number of the words that Shakespeare never uses elsewhere, or never prior to writing text X, then we've got a strong presumption that Shakespeare was reading those texts during or before his composition of text X. One can perform the same kind of search using an archive of machine-readable texts. Depnding on which and how many texts you've gathered into one archive, one learns that Shakespeare read various texts by Greene, Spenser, Daniel, Jonson, Marston, and Ford; that Ford in turn read Shakespeare; and so on. This is a time-consuming labor, but it's one of many tasks that SHAXICON will help to perform when SHAXICON is ready to perform (I'm shooting for 1996 publication). In the meantime, hold your queries. I'm pedaling as fast as I can. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Gurr Date: Tuesday, 27 Jun 1995 12:33:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: Shakespeare's Library Richard Field published a book at Xmas 1598 which has a piece about Henry V's killing of the Agincourt prisoners. Since H5 was being written then, it suggests some use by Shak. of Field's resources. See my edn. of H5, pp.235-7. The book is Richard Crompton's Mansion of Magnanimitie. Andrew Gurr. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Tuesday, 27 Jun 95 01:15:00 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0513 Re: Field; Bill Godshalk refers to an on-line access to the STC. Bill, can you tell us how to get that access? Is it available only within certain university library LINK systems or is there some public access available by e-mail, WWW, or telnet? Thanks. Naomi Liebler ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 10:20:43 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0518 End of Why Biography Thread Discussions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0518. Tuesday, 27 June 1995. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 21:57:51 +0100 Subj: RE: Shakespeare the good businessmen (2) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 18:59:31 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0513 Re: Biography (THE LAST WORD) (3) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, June 27, 1995 Subj: The End of This Particular Thread (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 21:57:51 +0100 Subject: RE: Shakespeare the good businessmen Stephanie Hughes says that "Shakespeare of Stratford...appears to have allowed just about anyone to publish his work without giving him any credit for it. Odd behavior for an astute businessman." Doesn't this assertion rest on the belief that publishing was lucrative? What evidence is there that much money could be made in publishing plays? Given that print runs were limited by law to 1250 (or ?1500) and a single full-house at a single public amphitheatre was possibly as much as 3000 persons, performance and not publishing was the mass-media. Shakespeare clearly paid greater attention to the former - which is good business. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 18:59:31 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0513 Re: Biography (THE LAST WORD) One wonders about Shaksper, the stature of the man, for every piece of information is valuable. He had hazel eyes, I remember that from somewhere, but was he fat, or thin, and was he really lame, and so forth.... Perhaps no one has ever considered this piece of evidence. When he was caught hoarding grain, it was suggested that he should be hanged from his door. Now, allowing for a stout hook to loop the rope on, and about six or eight inches rope so that he might dangle properly, and allow two inches for the knot, I would guess that to keep his toes off the threshold he would be a man of less than ordinary height, about 5 feet 6 inches at the tallest. I don't know how to calculate his weight, but certainly it was enough so that he might strangle. Otherwise, the suggestion would have been pointless. Kennedy (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, June 27, 1995 Subject: The End of This Particular Thread I have tried to be as patient as I could during this exchange. I have perhaps not so subtly attempted to end this thread with notes in the Subject line. However, I have not been successful. Stephanie Hughes is absolutely correct that the USENET group announced earlier, which will probably start in July, is the place that authorship issues can be discussed freely. In fact, I would speculate that providing a platform to discuss authorship is probably one of the driving forcing in proposing this news group. In any case, this discussion has become an "authorship" discussion and it is now over. Hardy M. Cook Editor of the Moderated SHAKSPER Conference ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 10:31:13 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0519 Re: Shakespeare's Parts; Word Games in *Sonnets* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0519. Tuesday, 27 June 1995. (1) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 19:25:03 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0515 Q: The Parts Shakespeare Played (2) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 20:38:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0510 Q: Word Games in the *Sonnets* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 19:25:03 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0515 Q: The Parts Shakespeare Played Actually, if no one else minds, I'd like to see some of the replies to this. I read somewhere that Shakespeare specialized in kingly roles, but don't know any details. Melissa Aaron University of Wisconsin-Madison (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 26 Jun 1995 20:38:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0510 Q: Word Games in the *Sonnets* Many years ago, I noticed a play on I/eye in Sonnet 149, lines 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12. See Stephen Booth's edition of the Sonnets (2nd ed.) for more information about Shakespeare's "super-subtle exercise on I and eye" (583). Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 02:16:23 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0520 Re: *MM* Revisions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0520. Wednesday, 28 June 1995. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Tueesday, 27 Jun 1995 10:43:39 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0493 Re: Taylor/Jowell Argument: *MM* (2) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 27 Jun 95 13:48:00 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0489 Qs: Taylor/Jowell Argument: *MM* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Tueesday, 27 Jun 1995 10:43:39 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0493 Re: Taylor/Jowell Argument: *MM* In answer to the recent queries about revision in *MM*: SHAXICON indexes three possibly distinct lexical pools in *MM*, identified as "MM" (most of the play), "MM-b" and "MM-c" (possibly containing late additions or revisions). These three index terms can be processed together (thereby constituting the entire "rare word" lexical pool of MM-F1), or separately (to investigate the issues raised by Jowett and Taylor and others). A typical SHAXICON reference looks like this: Dx3> resemblance (n.): MM-b 4.2.188 [DkVi-b]. WT 5.2.36 [3GentWn]. R3-fz 3.7.11 [Buck-fz]. <> Those of you who are unfamiliar with SHAXICON will find this bewildering; but to be as brief as possible: It appears to SHAXICON as if Jowett and Taylor are right, at least in part, concerning late revision in *MM* (but see the refinements of George Williams, in his edition of Fletcher's *Rollo*, especially concerning the song in 4.1). SHAXICON identifies MM-b and MM-c as the most likely sites of late revision (one must not suppose, however, that "MM" represents a perfectly stable and untainted "original" text, or that "MM-b" and "MM-c" represent precise and self-contained alterations or additions): MM-b II.ii.1-6 II.iv.17b-30a IV.ii.21-59, 172-195 MM-c I.ii.1-81, 187-192 III.ii.261-282 IV.i.16-25 The bulk of the play (indexed in SHAXICON under "MM") finds its sharpest peak in lexical overlap with Shakespearean works acted in 1601-2 (thus influencing the lexical composition of *MM*), and with Shakespearean works written in 1603 ff. (texts thus influenced *by* the lexicon of *MM*). Moreover, the lexical pool indexed under "MM" registers the mnemonic influence of the Shakespeare roles through 1602. The only defensible conclusion from these data is that MM (the bulk of F1 *MM*) represents a text written by Shakespeare ca. winter 1602/3. The MM-b and MM-c strands, however, find their highest lexical overlap, by far, with Shakespearean works written or acted in 1611/12 (MM-b) and 1612/13 (MM-c). This alone doesn't tell us much. Some well-informed textual scholars may say that it tells us nothing at all. But MM-b quite strongly, and MM-c somewhat less strongly, both register an otherwise unexpectedly high overlap with the designated Shakespeare roles from 1591-1611 (including Antigonus and 3.Gent. in *WT*). That the vocabulary of MM-b/c is markedly later that the rest of the play will not surprise those who have already concluded that these passages represent late additions or revisions; but that the vocabulary of both MM-b and MM-c appear to register the mnemonic influence of the designated Shakespeare roles through 1610 is partly at odds with Taylor and Jowett's argument, for it would seem to indicate that the material represented by MM-b and MM-c were written by Shakespeare not long before his retirement--and yet MM-c in particular contains some apparent confusion in the reviser's mind, and some pretty wretched writing to boot (not unlike, say, the Fool's Merlin speech in F1 *Lr,* which SHAXICON similarly identifies as very-late Shakespeare). On the evidence of SHAXICON, I have come to the Shakespeare late in his career may have revised some of his own plays, and he may have made a mosh of it. Other F1 texts that appear (to SHAXICON) to contain very late and sometimes botched but probably authorial revisions include F1 *Lr*, *Tim*, *Mac,* and *AWW.* This is not to say that *MM* couldn't have been tinkered with in 1622, as Taylor and Jowett have argued. MM-c, which T & J take to be non-Shakespearean, tests as less certainly Shakespeare's than either MM or MM-b when using SHAXICON; then, too, the very small lexical pools for MM-b and MM-c yield results that are necessarily less dependable than for the larger lexical pool represented in SHAXICON by MM; nor is it possible to suppose that MM-b and MM-c, as operationally defined, precisely delineate the lexical pools contributed by supposed revision, since we have only one version of the play (*MM*-F1) from which to make such judgments. But SHAXICON seems to indicate, pretty strongly, that all or most of the passages represented in SHAXICON by MM-b and MM-c were *not* part of the original play. This will sound lamentably disintegrationist to those who still hold to a belief in a stable text, and there is indeed good reason to be cautious. But SHAXICON does afford various ways to test for accuracy in dating separate lexical strands within a single-text play such as F1 *MM* (as also in Q1 *LLL*, *MND*, and *MV*); and I'm pretty sure that T & J are right in the broad outlines of their case, though probably wrong about the song and perhaps also about the date and provenance of the revisions. Related matters: SHAXICON suggests that there may have been fairly brief "runs" of *MM* ca. 1603-4 (proably interrupted by plague) and 1608 (1608/9 was another severe plague-year), and a more extended run in 1610/11, with Shakespeare playing Escalus in all runs. It appears not unlikely (though not at all verifiable) that *MM* in the winter of 1611/12 continued in repertory, but with Shakespeare switching from Escalus to play the minor role of Friar Peter. Escalus continues to exert strong influence upon the texts and revisions of 1612-13, but the sudden appearance of lexical influence from Friar Peter, a bit role, is in keeping with the sharp reduction in Shakespeare's stage activity after 1611 as registered by SHAXICON. Don Foster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 27 Jun 95 13:48:00 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0489 Qs: Taylor/Jowell Argument: *MM* To: Michael Friedman re: Measure Grace Ioppolo's forthcoming edition of MM for Harvester-Wheatsheaf will take up this very issue in its textual introduction. The projected publication date is 1997. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 02:31:44 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0521 STC On-Line; Q: SHAXICON; *Tmp.* Allusion Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0521. Wednesday, 28 June 1995. (1) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 27 Jun 95 13:58:00 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0517 Q: On-line STC (2) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 27 Jun 1995 19:51:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0517 Q: On-line STC (3) From: Margaret B Cherne Date: Tuesday, 27 Jun 1995 08:56:18 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0517 Re: Shakespeare's Reading (4) From: Douglas Flummer Date: Tuesday, 27 Jun 95 22:33:34 CST Subj: SHK 6.0508 Re: Allusions to *The Tempest* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 27 Jun 95 13:58:00 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0517 Q: On-line STC In response to Naomi Liebler who asked about on-line access to STC: the STC is part of a large database on RLIN (the Research Library Network) that includes WING and ESTC as well. The whole thing is now known as ESTC (English Short-Title Catalog) and is eminently searchable by author, title, and even date and place of imprint, printer's names, etc. Many universities now offer RLIN searching as part of the package available to faculty and students via their local OPAC system. RLIN accounts themselves are institutional and expensive, but if you can hook into a university that offers this service (even at a fee) it would be worthwhile. Among other things, it's a quicky way to find out the reel numbers of books microfilmed by UMI for their STC and WING projects. Georgianna Ziegler Folger Library (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 27 Jun 1995 19:51:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0517 Q: On-line STC Concerning the STC on line, I know that it's available through RLIN libraries, and I've been told that individuals can subscribe, paying so much per search. Unfortunately, I do not have the address at hand -- and I can't remember where I filed it. As I recall, I got the information through a discussion on FICINO. Can anyone help Naomi further? As you may guess, a very helpful librarian (Rosemary Franklin) does my searches for me. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret B Cherne Date: Tuesday, 27 Jun 1995 08:56:18 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0517 Re: Shakespeare's Reading Don Foster mentions the Shaxicon. How and where does one subscribe to this? It sounds very useful. Thanks in advance Beth Cherne (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Flummer Date: Tuesday, 27 Jun 95 22:33:34 CST Subject: SHK 6.0508 Re: Allusions to *The Tempest* If I remember correctly, "Prospero's Books" was a version of the Tempest. It starred Sir John Gielgud and was directed by Peter Greenway (sp?), who also did "The Cook, the thief, His Wife, and Her Lover". A rather controversial director who did the movie in the same visual style as "The Cook...". I found it rather interesting, especially once I realized what it was. Douglas Flummer Civil Servant Southern Illinois University at Carbondale p.s. This is the first time I have responded to a subject on here, so I should probably say "howdy". I do enjoy the information that comes through here, especially the moderated tone after 6 months in the "Politics" discussion list. Bravo to one and all for an excellent list. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 13:03:24 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0522 Qs: Jesuit Quotation; *Prospero's Books*; Weimann Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0522. Thursday, 29 June 1995. (1) From: David Wilson-Okamura Date: Wednesday, 28 Jun 95 17:16:12 CDT Subj: Shakespeare's reading (2) From: Stacy Mulder <00ssmulder@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Date: Wednesday, 28 Jun 1995 12:37:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0521 *Tmp.* Allusion (3) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 1995 14:20:12 SAST-2 Subj: Re: Weimann: locus and platea (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Wilson-Okamura Date: Wednesday, 28 Jun 95 17:16:12 CDT Subject: Shakespeare's reading I really don't have any reason to believe that Shakespeare read this book, but it's summer and I will therefore beg your indulgence. . . I am looking for a book written by a contemporary of Machiavelli, a Jesuit, the subject of which is something like "how to live a good life in an evil world." Has anyone heard of such a volume--either the title or the author? If you have, I'd be very grateful if you dropped me a (private) note at dswilson@midway.uchicago.edu. Yours faithfully, David Wilson-Okamura dswilson@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stacy Mulder <00ssmulder@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Date: Wednesday, 28 Jun 1995 12:37:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0521 *Tmp.* Allusion I found it interesting that Douglas Flummer referred to Peter Greenway's "Cook, Thief" in speaking of "Prospero's Books," etc. Greenway IS indeed a very controversial director but a very good one (and I think the spelling is perhaps Greenaway, though I have myself misstyped it now twice). In an article by Karrie Jacobs ("For Peter Greenaway, Movies are a Dutch Treat." _NYT_ 21 Apr. 1991), Greenaway speaks of his aesthetics in "Cook, Thief": I believe Greenaway's debt to MND is obvious: "You have the cold exterior of the car park, which is blue. It's the nether regions where the dogs howl at night. There is the green kitchen, which represents the omnipotent jungle from where all the food comes. There is the carnivorous, violent red dining room where all the aggression occurs. The toilets, which are blindingly white, where the lovers met for the first time, could indicate heaven." I am not familiar with "Prospero's Books," but I would like to be. I am interested to see what Greenaway has done with it. Stacy Mulder Ball State University Muncie, Indiana 00ssmulder@bsuvc.bsu.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 1995 14:20:12 SAST-2 Subject: Re: Weimann: locus and platea Could anyone help with the following question? Whereas I have heard vague charges that Weimann's work on representation and the popular tradition of the Elizabethan theatre, his distinction between the locus and platea in particular, is "outdated", "overstated", or just plain wrong, I know of no sustained critique of this aspect of his work. Does anyone know of any, and if so, could you let me have the references? Thanks. I can be contacted directly at SCHALK@BEATTIE.UCT.AC.ZA DAVID SCHALKWYK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 13:12:02 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0523 Re: Weimann; Parts; STC On-Line Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0523. Friday, 30 June 1995. (1) From: John Cox Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 1995 10:28:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0522 Qs: Weimann (2) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Thursday|, 29 Jun 1995 15:55:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0519 Re: Shakespeare's Parts; (3) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 1995 16:35:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0517 Re: On-line STC (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 1995 10:28:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0522 Qs: Weimann The best "sustained critique" of Weimann's argument is Hans Jurgen Diller's *The Middle English Mystery Play: A Study in Dramatic Speech and Form* trans. Frances Wessels (Cambridge, 1992). I don't remember if Diller addresses the distinction between locus and platea in particular. I too would be interested to know of other sustained critiques of Weimann, par- ticularly the argument that David Schalwyk mentions. Please reply via the network, in case others are interested. John Cox Hope College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Thursday|, 29 Jun 1995 15:55:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0519 Re: Shakespeare's Parts; Melissa Aaron asks about the parts Shakespeare played. Schoenbaum discusses the evidence in William Shakespeare: A Compact Life and seems skeptical. Shakespeare was supposed to have played Adam in As You Like It and Hamlet's Ghost: "characters with one or both feet in the grave" (202). Schoenbaum's skepticism nothwithstanding, Don Foster's research with SHAXICON seems to support the idea that Shakespeare played the roles of old or older men like Escalus, minor roles rather than major roles. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 1995 16:35:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0517 Re: On-line STC Our English bibliographer, Rosemary Franklin, advises writing or calling the Research Library Group for information about the STC online. I came up with the following addresses: bl.ric@rig.stanford.edu and bl.ric@rgl.bitnet; and the following telephone number: 800-537-7546. I hope this information helps. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 13:21:13 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0524 Re: *Prospero's Books* with Editor's Note Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0524. Friday, 30 June 1995. (1) From: Douglas Flummer Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 95 20:04:56 CST Subj: SHK 6.0522 Qs: *Prospero's Books* (2) From: G.L. Horton Date: Friday, 30 Jun 1995 09:46:25 +0059 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0522 Qs: *Prospero's Books* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Flummer Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 95 20:04:56 CST Subject: SHK 6.0522 Qs: *Prospero's Books* Greenaway (that is the correct spelling, I now remember) used many of the same aesthetics in doing "Prospero's Books" that Stacy quotes him on. One that I found particularly touching was his use of music throughout both films. He used similar avant guarde classical themesthat focused on wordless vocal, I believe sung by a young male soprano. He paced the films so that the plot moved rather quickly (I had to work to keep up with it). It has been several years since I have seen either film, so my memory fades a bit, but I would call Greenaway's adaption to be a rather interesting interpretation that calls for as much imagination on the part of the viewer as there is on film for the most enjoyment. I would expect that if a person does not care for the avant guarde, then it might be difficult to enjoy. But I do, and I did, so I recommend it highly. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: G.L. Horton Date: Friday, 30 Jun 1995 09:46:25 +0059 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0522 Qs: *Prospero's Books* Prospero's Books is available on video. It is well worth seeing if you are in the right mood --when I saw it, none of my companions was willing to put up with the stream-of-consciousness imagery, even given the plethora of gorgeous bodies: the most patient of them last half an hour, and only I stuck it out to the end. The perversities -- Gielgud reciting Miranda's lines while a naked satyr child swing back and forth on a trapeze, urinating into the swimming pool -- quickly become tiresome, but frame by fame the film is almost unimaginably beautiful G.L. Horton [Editor's Note: *Prospero's Books* has been discussed several times in the past on SHAKSPER. Anyone interested in reeading them can located them with the DATABASE Function. --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 13:24:16 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0525 CFP: Post-Coloniality Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0525. Friday, 30 June 1995. From: Martin Orkin <071MRO@muse.arts.wits.ac.za> Date: Friday, 30 Jun 1995 09:55:11 GMT + 2:00 Subject: Announcement ANNOUNCEMENT Shakespeare - Post-coloniality - Johannesburg 1996 University of the Witwatersrand June 30 - July 4 1996 CALL FOR PAPERS The original impetus for this conference emerged from a group of cultural materialist, gay, feminist and new-historicist Shakespeare scholars who expressed interest in the shape and direction of cultural developments in the new South Africa. Rather than holding a narrowly-based conference at which metropolitan scholars would speak to other metropolitan scholars, the conference organizers are attempting to structure the event as an intellectual exchange between continents and disciplines. The conference will begin by exploring Shakespeare in relation to issues of post-coloniality. How do issues of post-colonialism/anti-colonialism/multi-culturalism intersect with the Shakespeare text? How does one approach issues of `race', resistance, `nation', travel, empire, sexuality and gender in this context? Is the issue of a `post-colonial' Shakespeare the same in different geographical locations? We envisage these concerns opening up into a consideration of Shakespeare within the broader framework of English Literary Studies, Education, Performance; their academic and social legacies and questions of local and global knowledges. We hope that these papers will pave the way for a critical engagement with certain tenets of post-colonial theory. We also hope that an important strand of the conference will focus on performance. Please send abstracts for twenty-minute papers (by 30 September 1995 at the very latest) and any enquiries to Martin Orkin Conference Co-ordinator Africa/Shakespeare Committee University of the Witwatersrand Private Bag 3 PO Wits 2050 South Africa Fax: 011 403 7309 e-mail: 071MRO@muse.arts.wits.ac.za Thanks Hardy, for your help Best wishes Martin Orkin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 10:42:37 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0526 Re: Weimann; Tmp. Allusion; California Sh. Festival Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0526. Monday, 3 July 1995. (1) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 30 Jun 1995 23:02:05 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0523 Re: Weimann's Locus and Platea (2) From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Sunday, 02 Jul 95 10:17:19 EDT Subj: Another TEMPEST allusion (3) From: Peter Scott Date: Saturday, 01 Jul 1995 05:50:38 -0600 (CST) Subj: California Shakespeare Festival (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 30 Jun 1995 23:02:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0523 Re: Weimann's Locus and Platea O.K. I admit it: I remember Weimann speaking about locus and platea -- at least, I think I remember -- but I don't remember the distinction in any detail. And beyond my foggy recollection, I don't own a copy of his book, and so I'd have to travel through hot, steamy Cincinnati to the library in order to find out the difference between locus and platea. Can some kind scholar save me the trip? Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Sunday, 02 Jul 95 10:17:19 EDT Subject: Another TEMPEST allusion Percy Mackaye wrote and staged an outdoor, TEMPEST- inspired production called CALIBAN BY THE YELLOW SANDS in 1916. It was performed at the College of the City of New York's stadium to commemorate the tercentenary of Shakespeare's death. The text included scenes from other Shakespeare plays besides THE TEMPEST, Mackaye was the son of James Morrison Steele Mackaye (1842-1894), the energetic painter /actor /producer /playwright /inventor who gave London its first American Hamlet and the theater its first overhead electric lighting and folding seats. The younger Mackaye wrote numerous plays, including the story of the Wife of Bath s pursuit of Chaucer and the tetralogy THE MYSTERY OF HAMLET, KING OF DENMARK - OR WHAT WE WILL, which presents the lives of Shakespeare's characters in the years leading up to the action in HAMLET. His THE SCARECROW is an unjustly neglected American gem. He pioneered the out-door public dramatic spectacle, a uniquely American form that has all but disappeared except in the various Paul Green-style historical epics and Anne Hamburger's En Garde Arts productions in New York. In his theater writings he opined that the large-scale, municipally supported, dramatic production reinforced American values of democracy and community. CALIBAN was not typical of the pageants Mackaye produced, which more often used local history or folklore themes. It is an example, though, of how Shakespeare was enlisted as the embodiment of national patriotic values in America as it was in Britain in the WWI era. I know of no modern re-printing of Mackaye's CALIBAN. The only copy of the original edition I've ever seen is the one I bought. You will probably have to look in a good research library to find it. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Scott Date: Saturday, 01 Jul 1995 05:50:38 -0600 (CST) Subject: California Shakespeare Festival Linkname: California Shakespeare Festival Filename: http://www.via.net/~csf/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 10:49:44 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0527 Q: *R2* at National Theatre Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0527. Monday, 3 July 1995. From: John Cox Date: Saturday, 01 Jul 1995 10:20:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Richard II at the National Theatre I recently read a review of Fiona Shaw's appearance as Richard in the Cottesloe's (National Theatre's) current production of *Richard II*. It sounds wonderful, and I'd like to know more about ticket information. How long will it run? Anyone have a box office number? Incidentally, the review is in TLS for June 16. John Cox Hope College ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 10:54:07 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0528 Announcement: ACH/ALLC '95 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0528. Monday, 3 July 1995. From: Eric Dahlin Date: Sunday, 2 Jul 95 09:12:50 PDT Subject: ACH/ALLC '95 ACH/ALLC '95 July 11-15, 1995 Association for Computers and the Humanities Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing University of California, Santa Barbara ================================================= If you've sent in your registration for this year's conference but haven't yet received a confirmation, please call or send a note to: Sally Vito Campus Conference Services University of California Santa Barbara, California 93106-6120 Phone: (805) 893-3072 Fax: (805) 893-7287 E-mail: hr03vito@ucsbvm.ucsb.edu She'll be able to make sure that your registration has been received and that everything is in order. Eric Dahlin Local Organizer ACH/ALLC '95 HCF1DAHL@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 10:41:28 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0529 Re: *R2* at the National Theatre Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0529. Tuesday, 4 July 1995. (1) From: Dawn Massey Date: Monday, 03 Jul 95 16:45:22 BST Subj: Re: Fiona Shaw as R2 (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 3 Jul 1995 22:01:42 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0527 Q: *R2* at National Theatre (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dawn Massey Date: Monday, 03 Jul 95 16:45:22 BST Subject: Re: Fiona Shaw as R2 The box office number at the National is 0171 928 2252. The hours are, I be- lieve, noon - 4pm. The run may have been extended as the show is enormously popular. You may also be interested in the Antony Sher Titus Andronicus also at the National for a very limited run some time in mid July. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 3 Jul 1995 22:01:42 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0527 Q: *R2* at National Theatre My leaflet lists performances of R2 at the National Theatre London up to Monday 28 August. The 'phone numbers given in the leaflet are: 0171 928 2252 (National Theatre, 10am-8pm Mon-Sat) 0171 497 9977 ('First Call', 24hrs 7days, booking fee) These numbers are for calls originating in the UK, and will need to be 'internationalized' by adding/subtracting something. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 10:48:22 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0530 Re: Weimann's Locus and Platea Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0530. Tuesday, 4 July 1995. (1) From: Dawn Massey Date: Monday, 03 Jul 95 16:54:49 BST Subj: Re: Reply to Query locus v. platea (2) From: David Reinheimer Date: Monday, 3 Jul 1995 11:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0526 Re: Weimann (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dawn Massey Date: Monday, 03 Jul 95 16:54:49 BST Subject: Re: Reply to Query locus v. platea Weimann draws the distinction between locus and platea in "Performing at the Frontiers of Representation: Epilogue and Post-Scriptural Future in Shakespeare's Plays," contained in The Arts of Performance in Elizabethan and Early Stuart Drama, Eds. Biggs, Edwards, et al. He writes, ". . . at one moment this stage was able to project the dramatic locality of a throne, a tent, a house, a battlefield as some locus of textual fiction and dramatic illusion; at another moment this locus . . . collapses into the material reality of a neutral (nonrepresentational) platform stage in bright daylight." These moments are foregrounded in the epilogues where the leave-taking from the dramatic illusion seems to take place in a more open (medieval) platea like space where the boundary between the actor and the audience is being continu- ally negotiated, "the actor so distances the fiction of leave-taking that, on some platea-like space, he can interrogate the representational use of the signs of the signs of parting." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Reinheimer Date: Monday, 3 Jul 1995 11:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0526 Re: Weimann Bill, I don't have a copy of Weimann with me either, but I don't think he has his own special definitions. The locus and platea are ternms from fixed, ployscenic performance of medieval cycles: the locus is another word for a mansion, and the platea is an indeterminate playing area that surrounds the loci. Have a good day! Dave Reinheimer UCDavis dareinheimer@ucdavis.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 10:57:11 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0531 Re: Shakespeare's Parts; *Tmp.* Allusion Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0531. Tuesday, 4 July 1995. (1) From: Peter J. Callahan Date: Monday, 03 Jul 1995 11:58:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakespeare's Parts (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 03 Jul 1995 16:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0526 Tmp. Allusion (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter J. Callahan Date: Monday, 03 Jul 1995 11:58:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare's Parts I hope that this is still of interest to some people. The reason I haven't sent this message before is because I had a problem with my mail. I could receive, but I could not send. I do not know if it is a system problem, or a problem with my E-mail account through the school. Anyway, I have a book called *On Producing Shakespeare* by Ronald Watkins, in this book Watkins lists all the parts of Shakespeare's plays in the third appendix. Unfortunatly, I do not have the book with, like I did the last three or four hundred times I tried to respond, (slight inflated numbers). If this message does go out, and people are still interested, I will bring the book in and list the parts that our Bard has played, according to Watkins. Peter J. Callahan Shepherd College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 03 Jul 1995 16:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0526 Tmp. Allusion Re the talk on Mackaye's CALIBAN---though I haven't read it, a significant portion of a chapter of a new book TALKING BACK TO SHAKESPEARE (Martha Rozett) is devoted to it--I don't know how "reliable" her reading is-- she links it to Emerson and cites, somewhat disapprovingly, its nationalistic patriotic tendencies (and its conservative reading of Caliban). Chris S. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 07:00:02 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0532 Re: Weimann's Locus and Platea Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0532. Thursday, 6 July 1995. (1) From: John Cox Date: Tuesday, 04 Jul 1995 10:59:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0530 Re: Weimann's Locus and Platea (2) From: Peter S. Donaldson Date: Tuesday, 04 Jul 95 13:16:15 Subj: Re:SHK 6.0526 Re: Weimann, locus and platea (3) From: Skip Shand Date: Wednesday, 05 Jul 1995 11:39:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0526 Re: Weimann (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Tuesday, 04 Jul 1995 10:59:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0530 Re: Weimann's Locus and Platea Dave Reinheimer is right that Weimann borrows the terminology of locus and platea from early English religious drama, particularly *The Castle of Perseverance*. But Weimann has his own theory about the terms, and he carries the theory over from religious drama to its successor on the London commercial stage. I'm working from memory here, not from the book, but I believe Weimann suggests that the locus is not only theatrically but socially elevated: it's the place where high society types are represented. Its counterpart in the commercial theater is the upstage area, thrones, etc. The platea is the fluid space surrounding the loci, and it is distinguished not only by being physically lower but socially lower--the place of peasants, commoners, devils, and vices, who are more apt to engage in direct address to the audience and are therefore closer socially as well as theatrically to commoners in the audience. The commercial counterpart in London theater is downstage, which is also theatrically and socially closer to the "groundlings." It's a fruitful insight, but exceptions to the general theory are so many as to make the theory itself questionable. For careful and painstaking elaboration of some of the theory's problems, see the book by Hans Jurgen Diller that I mentioend earlier. John Cox Hope College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter S. Donaldson Date: Tuesday, 04 Jul 95 13:16:15 Subject: Re:SHK 6.0526 Re: Weimann, locus and platea Well, here's a half remembered version of Weimann's locus and platea -- when the weekend is over we can check out the book. Weimann claims that the 16th century English stage inherits a kind of doubleness from its medieval ancestry. Locus, the sacred "place" of medieval drama (Bethlehem or Jerusalem) translates spatially as the upstage area of the Elizabethan stage. Here the actors are more likely to inhabit their roles as historical or fictional characters, and less as performers. This is the space of history, of representational closure, of theatrical and social decorum. Platea -- roughly downstage -- is the margin of representation, where direct audience address is common, where decorum (theatrical and social) is less strict, and where the players are seen, or tend to be seen as performers, and even, occasionally, as their real life (RL) selves. This margin might, in medieval drama, be the edge of the cleared space in a town center at which audience and spectacle met. At that margin, the role of a player within the drama might merge with the actualities of the performance -- e.g. those who played the Roman soldiers at the crucifixion might be those (larger) members of the company who actually cleared and controlled the crowd. Weimann's distinction is also, roughly, a class distinction. I've found all this very useful, though I don't know if it holds water for the Medieval period, or, if it does, whether the argument concerning the continuity of Elizabethan practice with Medieval can be made convincing. Perhaps Weimann's insight is not much different from S.L. Bethell's "dual consciousness" of actor and role. Weimann attempts to historicize this notion, and to make it the basis of a theory of double representation, and, in a later article (SQ 1991?) of "bifold authority" on the Elizabethan stage. Before Weimann, Olivier portrayed theatrical practice at the Globe in very similar terms in his Henry V film, where, as I have argued, the locus/platea distinction is mapped onto the relationship between film and theater. One distinction between the relatively indecorous theatrical space and the solemnities of filmed epic is, for Olivier, the use of transvestite boys in women's roles. For the scenes in "France" he uses "real" actresses. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Shand Date: Wednesday, 05 Jul 1995 11:39:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0526 Re: Weimann Michael Mooney has a very accessible applied take on Weimann's stuff in his *Shakespeare's Dramatic Transactions* (Duke, 1990). The book presents Weimann-based studies of R3, R2, Hamlet, Othello, Lear, Macbeth and A&C. It does not, obviously, venture into a critique of Weimann. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 07:18:33 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0533 SHAXICON 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 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 07:23:36 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0534. Thursday, 6 July 1995. From: Paul Castillo, Jr. Date: Tuesday, 4 Jul 1995 18:49:44 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare bust Hello: After reading the mail about ShakesBEAR, it brought to mind my fiancee's quest to find a Shakespeare bust. There is a bust of Shakespeare on a pedestal at the Huntington Library in San Marino, CA, but they don't sell busts of him in their gift store. When we were at the Folger Library in Washington, D. C., I don't believe they had any Shakespeare busts as well. Anyone know of a place where we can find a bust of the bard? Thanks, Paul Castillo, Jr. Irvine673@AOL.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 07:28:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0535 *Othello* Film and Question Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0535. Thursday, 6 July 1995. From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 5 Jul 1995 22:29:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Othello So now it's official, according to today's paper. Branaugh is Iago, for 11 million dollars, and Fishburne is Othello, probably for less. I have not had the opportunity to see many performances of *Othello*, but I have seen performances where the part of Othello was played strongly, and performances where Iago was given a strong performance. And I don't think I have ever seen a performance where Othello and Iago were played equally strongly. Is that normal? Is this play one person's story or another's, but not both's? Is that a director's decision, or an accident of talent? Can two equally strong actors and the right director remedy the problem? Or is my own limited experience creating a problem where none really exists? I'd like to hear from some real theatergoers (and actors and directors) about this. --Robert Appelbaum ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 07:59:12 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0536 Re: Shakespeare Bust Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0536. Friday, 7 July 1995. (1) From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 09:05:49 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust (2) From: LaRue Sloan Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 9:07:32 -0500 (CDT) Subj: shakespeare bust (3) From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 06 Jul 95 16:14:00 BST Subj: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust (4) From: Michael Conner Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 08:52:51 +0000 () Subj: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust (5) From: Karin Youngberg Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 11:17:43 CST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust (6) From: Peter J. Callahan Date: Thursday, 06 Jul 1995 12:53:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust (7) From: Balz Engler Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 19:54:28 +0200 Subj: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust (8) From: Alan G. Alibozek Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 22:14:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Skakespeare Busts (9) From: Tom Gilboy Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 16:11:47 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust (10) From: Gail Burns Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 16:08:14 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 09:05:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust I can't count the number of Shakespeare busts that I've seen in second-hand/ junk stores -- though they're usually priced at more than I would be willing to pay. You might be better off trying this market than newer museum shops. I've always fancied having a bust of Jonson to go with my Herford and Simpson, but I suspect busts of Ben are rarer than hens' teeth. Simon Morgan-Russell Department of English Bowling Green State University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LaRue Sloan Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 9:07:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: shakespeare bust In response to Paul Castillo, Jr.'s query about where to find a bust of Shakespeare for purchase: A couple of weeks ago, the gift shop at the Alabama Shakespeare Festival had several lovely ones of two different varieties. The Theatre complex there is beautiful, by the way, and well worth the trip. Current rep shows are 1 Henry VI, shown in conjunction with Shaw's *Saint Joan*, Much Ado, Night of the Iguana, and The Circle. The number for the ASF Box Office is 1-800-841-4273. I'm sure they could put you in touch with the gift shop there in the complex if you'd like to inquire about ordering by mail. And the new brochures are out for next season--their 25th anniversary. Hope this helps. A loyal ASF fan. LaRue Sloan ensloan@alpha.nlu.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 06 Jul 95 16:14:00 BST Subject: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust Yes Paul Castillo jnr. If you spend a night or two at the Hilton Hotel in Stratford-upon-Avon they might place a chocolate bust of Shakespeare on the table before you. On sunny days it perspires! One word of warning...don't eat the chocolate! Best wishes, John Drakakis (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Conner Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 08:52:51 +0000 () Subject: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust They have several busts from about 4 inches to ones that are approximately life sized at the the Tudor Guild gift shop of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. I didn't look at them this year, but I think the prices range from about $25 for the smallest to $100 for the largest. The shop is nonprofit and returns much of the money back to the festival to support productions. Address: Tudor Guild Gift Shop 15 South Pioneer St Ashland, OR 97250 (503) 482-0940 (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karin Youngberg Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 11:17:43 CST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust The Toscano (I think I've got the spelling right) Gallery in Chicago has replicas of the Huntington bust--in two different sizes. They also have a reproduction (about 16"x20") of the wonderful Folger Library window based on Jacques' All the World's a Stage speech. I'm sure they have an 800 number which you can easily get. Karin Youngberg Augustana College (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter J. Callahan Date: Thursday, 06 Jul 1995 12:53:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust Paul, I was at the Folger last year and I saw in the small room in the gift area a small selection of Bard Busts. By small I mean about 4" tall. I remember my dad having a bust, now in pretty bad shape, but I have no idea where he got it. I know, no help to you, but at least you know they exsist. Peter J. Callahan Shepherd College (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Balz Engler Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 19:54:28 +0200 Subject: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust There is a shop in Stratford-upon-Avon (on the Market Square) that sells little Shakespeare busts--made of Welsh coal- Balz Engler (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan G. Alibozek Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 22:14:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Skakespeare Busts In response to Paul Castillo, Jr.'s search for a bust of the bard: I know that the Shakspeare Theater in Washington, D.C. sold busts in the lobby. The bust was a small one (maybe 6 inches high), but was inexpensive. Perhaps someone in D.C. could check for us? Hope this helps! Alan G. Alibozek Department of English West Virginia University email: AALIBOZ@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (9)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Gilboy Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 16:11:47 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust Paul Castillo writes: >When we were at the Folger Library in Washington, D. C., >I don't believe they had any Shakespeare busts as well. >Anyone know of a place where we can find a bust of >the bard? My wife ordered a Shakespeare bust from the Folger Library two years ago, a dark aged-bronze-look piece about eight or ten inches high. A definite sense of earthiness to it; I like it. She says Folger also offered a small statue. Tom Gilboy (10)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gail Burns Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 16:08:14 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust No busts here, but I know where you can get a really nice pillow of the Bard's bust (if that makes sense.) Let me know if you're interested and I'll stop by the store and get the particulars (price, who made it, etc.) Gail Burns GailMBurns@ aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 08:14:48 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0537 Re: *Oth.* Film; Othello v. Iago Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0537. Friday, 7 July 1995. (1) From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 95 18:30 EDT Subj: *Othello* film news correction (2) From: Debra Fiorini Date: Thursday, 06 Jul 1995 12:22:03 E Subj: RE: SHK 6.0535 *Othello* Film and Question (3) From: John Owen Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 18:20:24 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0535 *Othello* Film and Question (4) From: Douglas Flummer Date: Friday, 7 Jul 95 00:21:21 CST Subj: SHK 6.0535 *Othello* Film and Question (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 95 18:30 EDT Subject: *Othello* film news correction Contrary to previous reports, Kenneth Branagh is >not< receiving $11.5 million for starring in Oliver Parker's *Othello* film. Reuters erroneously reported this yesterday and has since issued a correction. The film's total budget is $10.5 million and it has not been reported how much Branagh is getting (they had reported he was being paid 7 million pounds, which I agree is an eye-brow raiser). Irene Jacob is Desdemona. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Debra Fiorini Date: Thursday, 06 Jul 1995 12:22:03 E Subject: RE: SHK 6.0535 *Othello* Film and Question Robert, I agree with you that Iago and Othello are rarely both made strong characters in the same production, but I think they should be...and in one production that I saw, they were. The concept of them both being strong individuals, but strong in different ways worked out very nicely. The overall production was not one of the best and Desdemona was lacking in sustance, but the characters of Iago and Othello were very engrossing. One aspect of the particular production that I saw (in 1993) was that Emilia was not a victim of Iago, but a willing participant in his schemes. I had envisioned her that way when I first read the work, and it came across nicely on the stage and worked well. However, although Iago and Othello can both be strong characters, I believe it is usually either the choice of the director to make one overpowering - or - the fact that if one is played by a major star, then that one becomes the strongest character. I have a feeling that in the new film, Branagh as Iago may come across as the most forceful and up-front character. Debra (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 18:20:24 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0535 *Othello* Film and Question Opinion is fairly common that Othello is a contest in which either the Iago or the Othello must prevail, preferably at the other's expense. This idea has been encouraged by promoters of theatrical duels. The 19th century gave us the spectacle of Irving and Booth alternating the protagonists, and the Old Vic, in the late 50's presented John Neville and Richard Burton playing first Othello then Iago to each other. Olivier's Othello at the National Theater, so controversial in other respects, gave us at least a respite from this business. In that production, Frank Finlay's Iago was not a smoothly attractive super-villain, but an envious little man temporarily elevated by the intensity of his selfishness. This put the focus properly on Othello, where it belongs -- he of the great heart and great tragic destiny. We are attracted by Iago's cunning, but make no mistake -- the play stands or falls by the strength of the Moor and by the extent to which we are able to identify with his dilemma. John Owen (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Flummer Date: Friday, 7 Jul 95 00:21:21 CST Subject: SHK 6.0535 *Othello* Film and Question Based on my experiences with "Othello", it is my impression that central to the plot is Iago's envy of Othello, the manner in which he puts that envy to action through the manipulation of the other characters, and the way in which Othello perceives Iago's manipulation of him and the other characters, with the resulting action. Therefore, I would think that the ultimate "Othello" would have a very strong Iago--not overbearing, but one who aptly demonstrates the strength of will and emotion to force Desdemona, Othello, and Cassius to do things that they would not normally have a mind to do. The ultimate "Othello" would also have a strong Othello, one who can display the great battlefield of emotions that is his mind. Of course, it could be said that my experiences with Othello might be just as limited as yours. I would say, though, that the one version of Othello that I was really impressed with (I have only seen it performed twice, and have read it more than I have seen it) was with Anthony Hopkins as Othello. I thought he did very well in showing the great distance that lay in between what Iago was driving him to and what his conscience told him in response. It was a BBC production, and I remember none of the other actors. I would love to hear what others have to say on this. Douglas Flummer Civil servant, computer operator, and Shakespeare lover Southern Illinois University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 08:22:03 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0538 Shakespeare and Company Workshop; Summer Novels Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0538. Friday, 7 July 1995. From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 95 09:43:04 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare & Co workshop; summer reading Greetings, fellow Shakespeareans! I have returned from the wilds of western Massachusetts and the month-long training workshop at Shakespeare & Company. I would be happy to provide details if folks are interested, but did want to say to everyone that it was an incredible experience and one that I recommend without reservation to anyone interested in Shakespeare. I'd also like to recommend a novel that someone on the list mentioned a while back: George Garrett's *Entered from the Sun,* which is "about" the murder of Christopher Marlowe. A wonderful book, with lots of interesting insights into/reflections on the period. Also just finished Carlo Ginsburg's *The Cheese and the Worms,* which I highly recommend to anyone interested in medieval/renaissance history. I've downloaded the last month or so of posts, but haven't had an opportunity to read them yet. That will be pleasure reading over the next week or so! Regards to all, Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 09:43:04 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0539 Re: Shakespeare's Parts; SHAXICON Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0539. Friday, 7 July 1995. (1) From: Peter J. Callahan Date: Thursday, 06 Jul 1995 13:50:04 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakespeare's Parts (2) From: John Owen Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 17:39:39 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0533 SHAXICON (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter J. Callahan Date: Thursday, 06 Jul 1995 13:50:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare's Parts As per request. I am going to list the parts that Shakespeare has played according to Ronald Watkins book *On Producing Shakespeare* , Citadel Press; New York, 1965. This may coincide with Don Foster's list, but it won't be as detailed. Thanks to Don Foster for putting in the time and research. According to Watkins, in appendix III of his book, the list that follows is A selection from T.W. Baldwin's conjectural cast-lists is given below. For the complete lists the reader is referred to *Organization and Personnel of the Shakespearean Company*. Then he goes on to list the parts. RIII - Not listed MidS- Not Listed KJohn- Not Listed RII - Not Listed 1H4 - Not Listed 2H4 - Not Listed MoV - Duke R&J - Escalus MADO - F.Francis H5 - Charles JC - ?Poet Cinna ? Cicero AYLI - Adam (Known from external evidence) 12N - Sea-Captain Ham - Ghost (Known from external evidence) MWW - Not Listed Big O- Duke M4M - Peter KLear- Not Listed Macb - Duncan A&C - Lepidus That is all the plays that Watkins lists. I am sure that Don Foster's information is more accurate than what I have, even though Watkins book is a Second Ed, the first being from 1950. Again, I hope that this is helpful. Peter J. Callahan Shepherd College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Thursday, 6 Jul 1995 17:39:39 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0533 SHAXICON I am surely not the only reader tantalized by Dan Foster's summary report on SHAXICON. The roles assigned to Shakespeare have a pleasing consistency -- in relation to each other and to the scanty biographical information available. However, I do have a few questions. 1. Clearly, Mr. Foster used external sources after SHAXICON's stats were generated in order to supplement or correct the apparent assignment of roles. My question is, how much of this was incorporated during the program's design. In other words, is this data truly a raw count of rare words, or are we somehow getting a synthesis of what we already expected to find? 2. Does Mr. Foster have any references to provide background for SHAXICON's assumptions? Even if SHAXICON's data is meaningful, I am not sure I understand why it should be. If Shakespeare is playing a part, the words in that part will be reused more frequently than others in the plays Shakespeare writes during the run of the play he is appearing in. This may be tested by making queries against relatively unusual words in the plays. It sounds reasonable, but can the validity of this method be confirmed (has it been?) by some type of textual experiment outside the Shakespeare corpus, preferably where we have more external information with which to corroborate the results? 3. How does Mr. Foster rate the evidence provided by SHAXICON? Should it be used to correct, confirm, or supplement already existing scholarship? Let me put this another way: SHAXICON supports John Aubrey's statements about Shakespeare's performances, (Ghost in Hamlet, Adam in AYL). If they were to disagree, would Dan be confident enough to submit his version in place of the traditional account? Finally, I hope Mr. Foster will keep us updated about his appearances and publications. This sounds like great stuff. John Owen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 13:10:47 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0540 Q: Prospero's Children Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0540. Friday, 7 July 1995. From: Peter S. Donaldson Date: Friday, July 7, 1995 Subject: Prospero's children I'm looking for material on Prospero as Caliban's father --e.g. articles, records of productions. Especially versions of "this thing of darkness I acknowledge mine" in which literal paternity is implied. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 10:44:19 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0541 Re: Oth. Film; Othello v. Iago; Shakespeare Bust Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0541. Sunday, 9 July 1995. (1) From: Carol Marshall Date: Friday, 7 Jul 1995 15:35:35 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0535 *Othello* Film and Question (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 07 Jul 1995 09:46:21 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0537 Re: *Oth.* Film; Othello v. Iago (3) From: Patsy Claxton Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 09:16:27 CST6 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Marshall Date: Friday, 7 Jul 1995 15:35:35 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0535 *Othello* Film and Question Is this true? Othello movie with Branagh and Fishburne at those salaries ?(11 million) I suppose since Shakespeare was so popular during his time (so was "pop culture" in essence,) them his works should command the same "90's" salaries now, but boy, what is next, "the Comedy of Errors" becoming a Paully Shore vehicle? Hope the salaries are the only "pop culture" thing about the production. I don't "blame" Branagh for taking the money, let's face it we all would but the salaries do not seem to go along with quality art is my concern. But perhaps it is a good sign that Shakespeare would command that kind of money for its actors, someone must have faith the movie will sell tickets-eh? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 07 Jul 1995 09:46:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0537 Re: *Oth.* Film; Othello v. Iago If Emilia is a willing participant in Iago's schemes, wouldn't that require changing the play significantly (not just directorially interpreting--but actually cutting lines)? I'm curious why you think IT WORKED WELL---How did they deal with the ending??? ---Another more general question--- Will EMMA THOMPSON Be Emilia? CS (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patsy Claxton Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 09:16:27 CST6 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust There is bound to be someplace that sells busts of famous people. The one we have in the library came from Gale Research, Inc. It was one of their promotional perks several years ago. If "x" number of books were purchased you would receive a bust of the author of your choice. There were several to choose from including: Faulkner, Twain, Shakespeare, etc. I think they might have offered some of famous individuals such as Martin Luther King and FDR. It's been a number of years. Gale is still offering a few selected busts of authors, but now it is for placing standing orders for books such as 20th Cent. Lit. Crit., Contemporary Lit. Crit., etc. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 10:47:29 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0542 Re: Prospero's Children Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0542. Sunday, 9 July 1995. From: Tom Ellis Date: Saturday, 08 Jul 1995 17:19:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0540 Q: Prospero's Children To Peter Donaldson: I don't have any information about Prospero taken as Caliban's "literal" father, although the concept is intriguing, especially as he refers to Caliban, obviously without any knowledge of the latter's paternity, as a "bastard." (How would he know?) You might be interested, however, in a recent book by Alden T. & Virginia M. Vaughan called *Shakespeare's Caliban: A Cultural History* (Cambridge U. press: 1991) which reviews the theatrical history of stage representations of Caliban from Shakespeare's time to ours. I am interested these days in Shakespeare's portrayal of Caliban as an early prototype of the English cultural mindset, right at the start of the Virginia colony, which was later to evolve into a rationalization for slavery. It is noteworthy, for example, that Prospero's reference to Caliban's "vile race" is (to my knowledge) Shakespeare's only use of the word "race" to denote a (non-European) human subtype--the very usage that was later to evolve into the rationalization for slavery--especially since Linneus and the other 18th Century philosophes routinely used "race" as a synonym for "species," thus setting up the context for the rhetorical tropes of racism and slavery, which simply conflated (or confused) the two separate meanings "species" and "subgroup" then attached to the pernicious word "race." The line you cite--"This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine"--thus emerges as an early prototype of what was to evolve into Southern Paternalism regarding master-slave relations. All of which leads to another possible variation on the Tempest: How about Prospero as Jefferson...? --Tom Ellis Hampton University ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 10:52:23 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0542 Qs: London Theatre; One-Act Play Index Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0543. Sunday, 9 July 1995. (1) From: Bob Page Date: Saturday, 8 Jul 1995 2:25:48 PDT Subj: Req. for Info (2) From: Lewis Heniford Date: Saturday, 8 Jul 1995 16:05:39 -0700 Subj: One-Act Index (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Page Date: Saturday, 8 Jul 1995 2:25:48 PDT Subject: Req. for Info HELP! ... A friend is making a trip to London in late Jan., early Feb. and wants to know if anyone has any information regarding theatre productions that have been announced for that period of time. You may address me personally if you like at pager@fsa.wosc.osshe.edu Many, many thanks for any help. Bob Page (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lewis Heniford Date: Saturday, 8 Jul 1995 16:05:39 -0700 Subject: One-Act Index I seek citations for an expanded second edition of my current one-act play index (1/2/3/4 FOR THE SHOW: A GUIDE TO SMALL-CAST ONE-ACT PLAYS, Scarecrow Press, 1995, ISBN 0-8108-2605-1). The scope includes plays of any language, genre or medium, published or unpublished, produced or unproduced, that use four or fewer actors (with possible extras). Information necessary for a citation includes name of author, title, genre (and language if other than English), cast size/gender, script source, and rights source. Annotations by citer or author are optional; annotations may include plot description, theme analysis, production history or general comments any helpful relevant information. No other guide focuses on one-act plays this way. Your help in making the next edition even more helpful would be greatly appreciated. Sources of citations will be stated. Please reply to heniford@ix.netcom.com. Thank you. Lewis W. Henford, Ph.D. P. O. Box 299 Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921 (408) 624-6960 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 12:52:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0544 *Oth.*: Q: Emilia; Othello v. Iago; Film Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0544. Monday, 10 July 1995. (1) From: Amy O'Hair Date: Sunday, 9 Jul 1995 10:27:30 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Query: Emilia (2) From: Michael Mullin Date: Sunday, 9 Jul 1995 13:18:37 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0535 *Othello* Film and Question (3) From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Sunday, 9 Jul 1995 16:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0541 Re: Oth. Film; Othello v. Iago; Shakespeare Bust (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy O'Hair Date: Sunday, 9 Jul 1995 10:27:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Query: Emilia Hello! Would anyone be able to point me toward articles dealing with Emilia (_Othello_)? I've been through the MLA with only thin results, and even books I've looked at that attend to the women in Shakespeare seem to send little energy on discussing her. In particular, my interest lies in how she reflects Iago's position in some fashion, along the lines of an anima/animus relationship, and then (perhaps) how she come to transcend this through love -- mirroring and otherness. I am open to all thoughts on her character, though. Any ruminations from the your learned ranks are welcomed. Thanks in advance, ao (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Mullin Date: Sunday, 9 Jul 1995 13:18:37 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0535 *Othello* Film and Question Take a look at Marvin Rosenberg's *Masks of Othello* for details. --MM Michael Mullin (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Sunday, 9 Jul 1995 16:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0541 Re: Oth. Film; Othello v. Iago; Shakespeare Bust In response to Chris Stroffolino's question about the casting of Emilia: I wouldn't be at all surprised if Emma Thompson shows up somewhere in the cast. And no doubt Richard Briers will turn up as Brabantio, Brain Blessed as Montano, perhaps, and the hopeless Keanu Reeves as Cassio. Ugh. Couldn't all concerned SHAKSPERians submit an open letter to Branagh pleading with him to STOP making these movies?? I've heard, quite often, that Branagh's "mission" is "to bring Shakespeare to the people." My students, many of whom are quite happy to have Shakespeare brought to them rather than have to bother seeking him out for themselves, buy this -- anyone know of any pithy, published challenge to Branagh's versions of Shakespeare that I can use to add a little printed authority to my own ranting on this score? Saddened to hear of another of Shakespeare's plays to be despoiled by Branagh's vainglory, Simon Morgan-Russell Department of English Bowling Green State University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 13:02:26 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0545 Re: Prospero's Children; Bust Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0545. Monday, 10 July 1995. (1) From: Timothy Billings Date: Monday, 10 Jul 1995 10:11:18 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0540 Q: Prospero's Children (2) From: Brian Corrigan Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 12:30:54 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0540 Q: Prospero's Children (3) From: Thomas Connolly Date: Sunday, 9 Jul 1995 10:20:31 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Timothy Billings Date: Monday, 10 Jul 1995 10:11:18 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0540 Q: Prospero's Children I have always had the sense that Derek Jarman presents Caliban and Miranda as brother and sister in his Tempest. You might want to (re)consider that intriguing film version in this light. Cheers, Timothy (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Corrigan Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 12:30:54 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0540 Q: Prospero's Children I believe the text makes pretty clear that Caliban was on the Island before the arrival of Prospero and Miranda. Says Caliban, "When thou cam'st first, / Thou strok'st me and made much of me." He goes on to say in I.ii that he originally thought Prospero a god and showed him all the best places of the island. He ironically treats Stephano and Trinculo in the exact same manner in II.ii, and in repeating almost the very words from I.ii repeats the same mistake, thus intimating that he was (as he is now) quite familiar with the Island when Prospero arrived. In III.ii Caliban states that Propero's "cunning hath cheated me of the island." And again he says "by sorcery he got this isle; /From me he got it." In each instance, Caliban plainly indicates that he considered the island his before there was a Prospero to people it and that Prospero took it from him. If an argument is to be made successfully that Prospero mated with Sycorax and thereby got Caliban, these textual problems must be addressed. Brian Corrigan North Georgia College (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Connolly Date: Sunday, 9 Jul 1995 10:20:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0534 Q: Shakespeare Bust The Stratford Ontario Shakespeare Festival peddles Bard busts. So does the San Diego Festival. The San Diego shop is adjacent to its theatre--actually w/in the theatre complex. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 07:20:51 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0546. Tuesday, 11 July 1995. (1) From: Karen Krebser Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 10:41:38 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0544 *Oth.*: Q: Emilia; Othello v. Iago; Film (2) From: James J. Hill Date: Monday, 10 Jul 1995 14:46:47 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Branagh's films (3) From: Anna Joell Goodman Date: Monday, 10 Jul 1995 15:54:04 -400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0544 *Oth.*: Q: Emilia; Othello v. Iago; Film (4) From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Monday, 10 Jul 95 16:18 EDT Subj: *Othello* film misinformation (5) From: Chris Gordon Date: Monday, 10 Jul 95 18:28:39 -0500 Subj: SHK 0544: Kenneth Branagh (6) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 10 Jul 1995 17:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Branagh & Othello (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 10:41:38 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0544 *Oth.*: Q: Emilia; Othello v. Iago; Film In response to Chris Stroffolino's question about the casting of Emilia: I wouldn't be at all surprised if Emma Thompson shows up somewhere in the cast. And no doubt Richard Briers will turn up as Brabantio, Brain Blessed as Montano, perhaps, and the hopeless Keanu Reeves as Cassio. Ugh. Couldn't all concerned SHAKSPERians submit an open letter to Branagh pleading with him to STOP making these movies?? I've heard, quite often, that Branagh's "mission" is "to bring Shakespeare to the people." My students, many of whom are quite happy to have Shakespeare brought to them rather than have to bother seeking him out for themselves, buy this -- anyone know of any pithy, published challenge to Branagh's versions of Shakespeare that I can use to add a little printed authority to my own ranting on this score? Saddened to hear of another of Shakespeare's plays to be despoiled by Branagh's vainglory, Ack! I do believe Professor Morgan-Russell forgot to add "Bah! Humbug!" to his e-mail message! Zounds! I enjoy Branagh's film versions (although "Much Ado" was too concerned with its celebrity cast than it was with a decent presentation of certain characters). I hope he keeps it up, in any event, and I'm glad that popular, widely available versions of these plays are in the public eye (especially the high-school and college-level public eye); it may be a sad commentary on late 20th century American culture that the only way our students come in contact with Shakespeare (or Beethoven or T.S. Eliot or Dorothy Parker or C.S. Lewis) is through film. I prefer to think of it as the best use of a movie camera since "Buckaroo Banzai's Adventures Across the 8th Dimension" ... Of course, we could try trapping them by the busload and shipping 'em off to Ashland... Waiting for "Macbeth," Karen Krebser San Jose State University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James J. Hill Date: Monday, 10 Jul 1995 14:46:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Branagh's films In response to Simon Morgan-Russell's call for all "concerned SHAKSPERians" to write Branagh an open letter"pleading with him to STOP making these movies," I must say NO! I am looking forward to his *Othello* with great anticipation. I thoroughly enjoyed his *Much Ado About Nothing* and his *Henry V* [with minor reservations for each film]; I was disappointed by his *Twelfth Night* [no Branagh and a poor Malvolio; but splendid acting by Viola & Olivia--their scenes together were beautiful]. "Concerned SHAKSPERians" should judge *Othello* when it is released [not pre-damn the film because of newspaper hype]. Jim Hill (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Joell Goodman Date: Monday, 10 Jul 1995 15:54:04 -400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0544 *Oth.*: Q: Emilia; Othello v. Iago; Film In his recent letter, Simon Russell-Morgan took Kenneth Branagh to task for his "vainglory" and asked that he "STOP making these movies." Perhaps I am putting my own cultural respectablity on the line by saying this, but I think that it would be sad, indeed, if Mr. Russell-Morgan's wish came true. As a 23 year-old who has only begun work on her PhD, my opinion may not count for much among the upper echelons of Shakespearian scholarship, but I do know two things about Shakespeare: 1)I love his works enough to devote the rest of my life to studying them, and 2)many of my contemporaries ran in the other direction from Shakespeare, considering him boring and anachronistic, until Branagh's films began to give them glimpses of the beauty that lies within the plays. To be sure, Branagh's films are pop-culture versions of the works, but at least they are there, available to introduce a new generation to the Bard. Although I must admit that I found myself waiting for Reeves to blurt, "Had I my teeth, I would bite, dude," in last year's MAAN, that bit of casting did accomplish something that Shakespeare films have been hard-pressed to do for several decades: it put young people in the audience. Please view the films for what they are before you condemn them. Would we judge HBO's cartoon versions of the plays by the same standards we would a Sam Mendes production in Stratford? I should hope not. It would be unfair to everyone involved. I believe Branagh accomplishes the "mission" which Mr. Morgan-Russell seems to disparage--he brings Shakespeare to the people. I do not think that is so very wrong. Everyone is not as devoted to Shakespearian scholarship as the people on this list, and I think that it would be a sad thing, indeed, if the Bard's works were only seen and appreciated by the intellectaul and cultural elite. I don't think that was Shakespeare's intention when he wrote the plays, and I am very happy that people like Branagh are so eager to share some of the greatest works of the English language--popularized or not--with the masses... Respectfully, Anna Joell Goodman (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Monday, 10 Jul 95 16:18 EDT Subject: *Othello* film misinformation To Simon Morgan-Russell: Kenneth Branagh is not directing the new *Othello* film, and maybe if you'd read the recent posts about it you'd be aware of this fact. The director is Oliver Parker. I have seen a cast list and it does not include any of the people you vented your spleen about. It does include Michael Maloney (presumably as Cassio), and other names I'm completely unfamiliar with. Also, nobody is getting $11.5 million dollars to star. This was incorrectly reported by Reuters and they have issued a retraction. The film's entire budget is $10 million. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Monday, 10 Jul 95 18:28:39 -0500 Subject: SHK 0544: Kenneth Branagh I'm sorry that Simon Morgan-Russell doesn't enjoy Mr. Branagh's Shakespearean films; I'm sure he can find some support for his views somewhere in the academy and elsewhere. For my own part, I love his work, both on stage (I saw productions of *A Midsummer Night's Dream* and *King Lear* that he directed on tour in Chicago in 1990) and in film (with the possible exception of *Mary Shelley's Frankenstein,* which I thought went overboard in its gruesomeness.) My students enjoy his work as well, and many of them who began their studies of Shakespeare terrified of this "idol," found that Branagh's films brought the plays to life in ways that I hope complemented the work we did in the classroom. His films have also persuaded some people I know who have _never_ studied Shakespeare or who have only unpleasant memories of high school introductions the the plays that Shakespeare is, in fact, interesting, amusing, thought-provoking, and relevant to our life in the late 20th century. I look forward to *Othello* with great anticipation, and expect that I will add it to my video collection as soon as that is an option. Mr. Morgan-Russell may, of course, simply avoid these films if he finds them vainglorious. For my money, Branagh could do nothing _but_ Shakespearean films and I would be a very happy person. Chris Gordon University of Minnesota (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 10 Jul 1995 17:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Branagh & Othello Dear Simon, I really don't understand what's bugging you about Branagh. Perhaps you could be more specific. I know that I for my part would probably never have come to feel personally connected to *Henry V* if it weren't for him. And it's hard for those of us who can't afford to fly to London more than once a lifetime or so really "to seek Shakespeare out." The best actors in America make movies like *The Bridges of Madison County* and *Batman.* It's okay by me if some of the best actors in G.B. are still taking it upon themselves to use Shakespeare as their vehicles for stardom; and I personally feel that Shakespeare and film can be rather well suited to one another, each making a contribution to the other. Now if you want to start complaining about Mel Gibson, that's another story. Robert Appelbaum English - UC Berkeley app3500@uclink.berkeley.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 07:27:20 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0547 Re: Prospero's Children; Weimann Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0547. Tuesday, 11 July 1995. (1) From: Michael Swanson Date: Monday, 10 Jul 1995 13:04:22 -0400 Subj: Re: Prospero's Children (2) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 10 Jul 1995 12:01 ET Subj: Weimann (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Swanson Date: Monday, 10 Jul 1995 13:04:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Prospero's Children Some of you may be interested in the British fantasist Tad Williams's take on Caliban, Miranda, and Propsero. It's a novella titled "Caliban's Hour," available in handback from Harper, published in either 1994 or 1995. It's an interesting version of Caliban's perspective on the events leading up to those depicted in "The Tempest," and it depicts later events in the lives of Caliban and Miranda as well. Michael Swanson Franklin College of Indiana (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 10 Jul 1995 12:01 ET Subject: Weimann A late, brief twist to the locus/platea thread: I've found it useful to connect that dyad with Chaucer's of "experience" and "auctoritee." When I teach the Wife's Prol. I wear jeans and a work shirt. "This," I announce from a spot in f ront of the lectern,"is 'experience.' And this"--whipping behind the lectern, taking from it my doctoral gown, and donning it (pun! pun!)--"is 'auctorite.'" I don't remember whether Weimann makes anything of the importance of the word and concept of "locus" in traditional rhetoric, but it feeds nicely into his scheme (pun! pun!). Locally, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 07:33:44 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0548. Wednesday, 12 July 1995. (1) From: Christine Gilmore Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 07:38:14 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films (2) From: Pam Powell Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 17:02:04 GMT +2:00 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films (3) From: Noel Chevalier Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 95 09:19:44 CST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0544 *Oth.*: Q: Emilia; Othello v. Iago; Film (4) From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 12:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films (5) From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 95 13:29 EDT Subj: One further thought on Branagh (6) From: Karin Magaldi-Unger Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 10:57:32 U Subj: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re- Branagh (7) From: Jeff Martinek Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 12:21:00 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films (8) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 11:22:29 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films (9) From: Lawrence S Schwartz Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 16:17:32 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Gilmore Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 07:38:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films Well, may, I agree with some of Simon Morgan-Russell's reservations about Branagh on Shakespeare on film. What redeems the films is that they are Shakespeare and some of the acting; however, in Much Ado About Nothing much of the acting was horrible--Reeves and Leonard in particular. Although Denzel Washington was quite good, quite stately, the color blind casting was too too weird. Even Thompson and Branagh were a bit much, though Emma Thompson looked wonderful. All in all, I'd rather read the play than see that version again. As for Henry the 5th, some elements were quite stirring (could that have been the music?), but in general I found the framing structure illucid (is that a word?). Again, I'd rather read the play. However, Henry wasn't as bad as Gibson's Hamlet. What redeems these film efforts is the Shakespeare. How wonderful it is to watch/read intelligent, clever, thought-provoking dialogue. I do look forward to any new Shakespeare film and this new Othello may well be good even though I can't quite see Branagh as Iago, but if so I'd like to see Emma Thompson as Emilia. With Fishburne as Othello, I'm sure there will be redeeming elements of this version of Shakespeare as well. cg gilmorec@u.washington.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pam Powell Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 17:02:04 GMT +2:00 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films Well said all of you who like Kenneth Branagh. I saw MAAN 5 times and I took people to see it who had been bored with Shakespeare at school and had not bothered with him since and all enjoyed the film version. So where is the harm in that? It was a beautiful, easy to access production and what's wrong with bringing Shakespeare to the masses anyway? I'm all for showing people what they're missing and opening their eyes to Shakespeare's stories, characters and poetry. Let people who don't like Kenneth Branagh stay at home! Pam Powell Univ of Witwatersrand South Africa (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Noel Chevalier Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 95 09:19:44 CST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0544 *Oth.*: Q: Emilia; Othello v. Iago; Film One word to Simon Morgan-Russell: Before we start sending letters to anyone about Branagh's "despoiling" of Shakespeare, I think we have to be very careful to judge these films within their own context. Certainly they're not definitive performances by any means, neither should they be taken as such. Branagh (and Zeffirelli before him), like it or not, do stand in a long tradition of WS adapters and popularisers, a tradition that includes Garrick and Dryden and even (God help us!) Sir Henry Irving. I think there is some intrinsic interest in assessing how the most significant entertainment medium of our own time handles Shakespeare. In many ways, these films are far more faithful to WS than, say, Dryden ever was. And if you prefer a more artistic reading of WS on film, you always have Orson Welles. Or Derek Jarman. Or Peter Greenaway. Film does permit such multiple readings to reach mass audiences in a way that WS could never conceive. I think the only real danger in any film is that the sense of ephemerality is lost, and that less astute viewers (students among them) may tend to think of "the Branagh version" of *Henry V* as *the* version (in the same way that some of my students saw "the Mel Gibson Hamlet" as the definitive version). I know people of another generation who passionately defended Olivier's films of the 1940s as definitive versions, even though Olivier took greater liberties with the text than Garrick. It's an old story, and it's not going to go away. If nothing else, you can see these films as records of popular culture's reaction to the one writer that popular culture still claims. I can certainly be critical of what Garrick did with *Hamlet* and *Lear*; but I'd give my eye teeth to be able to see Garrick on film, if only to judge for myself what all the fuss was about. Noel Chevalier chevalie@max.cc.uregina.ca (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 12:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films Hmm. I suppose I should answer the last posting on this issue, though I'm surprised that the response were completely pro-Branagh. I remember the showing of MAAN at the Atlanta SAA, and my section of the auditorium grumbled throughout the film. So. I suppose it's clear that I dislike Branagh, though I will admit that I don't know much about him, and may have made the age-old mistake of mistaking the actor's character for the character of his role. But I don't think he's a great actor. And I don't like what he does to Sh.'s plays. Perhaps there's a national divide on this issue -- certainly all my American students love him, and my British friends and colleagues dislike him. When I told several British friends here in Bowling Green about *Othello* there were groans, eye-rolling, and even a few cases of horror at the assumption that Branagh might play Othello himself (which I hastily cleared up). It's difficult to explain this reaction in terms of individual misanthropic cynicism. I suppose I don't care for the fact that Branagh is becoming the "canonical" Shakespeare. He was one of the three Hamlets of 88/89 wasn't he? amd then he produced *HV*? And people started talking about him as the "next Olivier" -- indeed, I almost expected a *RIII*. My fear is that Branagh thinks of himself in this way -- that somehow he is the heir to Olivier's Shakespeare (hence, "vainglory"). I'm sure that Branagh's mission to bring Sh. to the people is succeeding, as Ms. Goodman remarks. But who appointed him to this role? I'm not in favour of restricting the circulation of Shakespeare to a cultural elite. I'm from a working-class family in England, and, without the anomalous exception of my grandfather, none of my immediate or extended family have ever read any Shakespeare. They don't miss it. They would argue (and I might agree) that they don't need it. I'm not sure how easily we can determine who the "people" of Branagh's mission are. So what are Branagh's motives for bringing Sh. to the people? I've heard disturbing things of *HV*, for example. Certainly, Olivier's film is partisan. Propaganda. But the message of Branagh's *HV* -- which can come across as "military presence is awful, isn't it, but necessary after all" -- has been contextualised by some viewers with the British presence in Northern Ireland (not my thesis). My call for an "open letter" to Branagh was tongue-in-cheek (the internet doesn't really allow for the transmission of this very easily). I couldn't really argue that Branagh should stop making movies, and I'm happy to have his film as texts for discussion in my class (this Fall, my honours Shakespeare students will be reading Sh's *HV* with Olivier's and Branagh's films and Dekker's *Shoemakers' Holiday*, for example). Ultimately I doubt whether Branagh cares a fig for my opinion of his films. And I know that my students still like his films despite my renowned grumbling about them. And I would like very much to continue to talk about the use of his movies (or as Ellen Edgerton points out, movies in which he stars) in the classroom -- perhaps saving vituperative wrangling for personal e-mail exchange, rather than clogging the list with it. As a parting shot, to all Branagh fans, I say unto you "Peter's Friends". . . . Simon Morgan-Russell Department of English Bowling Green State University P.S. Mr Appelbaum! America's "best actors" in "Batman"! Heavens forfend! (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 95 13:29 EDT Subject: One further thought on Branagh As for Kenneth Branagh somehow being reprehensible or appealing to the least common denominator, which is what the original post seemed to me to be implying and decrying: what's so terrible about the cost of a ticket to see a production of Shakespeare's plays being six or seven dollars? Am I somehow being culturally lazy if I do not have the funds (much less the time) to leave my provincial Northeastern city and embark for London, New York, or Ashland to seek out a "real" production of these plays? Maybe I should just continue struggling with a 20-pound Bevington edition on my lap like I did in high school--obviously, a much more realistic and erudite Shakespearean activity than going to see something like the *Much Ado* film. (And if students are supposed to go out and seek Shakespeare for themselves... what do we need English professors for, I wonder? Or SHAKSPER, for that matter?) Sorry to be such a groundling. (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karin Magaldi-Unger Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 10:57:32 U Subject: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re- Branagh <. . . it may be a sad commentary on late 20th century American culture that the only way our students come in contact with Shakespeare (or Beethoven or T.S. Eliot or Dorothy Parker or C.S. Lewis) is through film. I prefer to think of it as the best use of a movie camera since "Buckaroo Banzai's Adventures Across the 8th Dimension" ... Of course, we could try trapping them by the busload and shipping 'em off to Ashland...> -Karen Krebser, San Jose State University In response to Karen Krebser's comments (at San Jose State): why "trap" your students by the busload & send them to Ashland when you have a nationally known, young, energetic & innovative Shakespeare festival right in your own backyard in Santa Cruz? Shakespeare Santa Cruz eschews museum theater and speaks to today's culture; our mission is very like Branagh's. Tell your students about us & they'll come down here, without restraints!! We're producing The Tempest, King Lear and Ronald Harwood's The Dresser this summer. We open on July 19th. If you don't know who we are, check out the excellent article about our 1994 production of The Merchant of Venice in the July-August issue of American Theatre, or our home page on the WWW: http://arts.ucsc.edu/shakespeare/welcome.html. Better yet, visit us yourself. Karin Magaldi-Unger Shakespeare Santa Cruz Education and Outreach (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Martinek Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 12:21:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films How Silly. There is nothing more unnatural and unhealthy as locking away Shakespeare's plays in the libraries and museums. Branagh's films, while far from perfect, revitalize the bard to a new generation with their lusty and shameless swagger. As a grad students writing my dissertation on the bard, I can't remember ever being as happy as the day I sat in the local theater with a crowd of 15-year-olds watching Mr. Reeves redefine bad acting, studly Denzel leer in his leather breeches, and Ken and Emma play Hepburn and Tracy beyond the hilt. What a glorious piece of work! Sure, some subtlety is lost, but IT'S ALIVE with hormones and slapstick and dirty jokes and the gorgeous Tuscan sun. My step-brother, an electrician with a sub-high school education, saw the film and immediately purchased a 'complete works'---now he lards the lean earth with pithy commentary on Branagh's editorial and directorial choices. As Orson Welles (who made the greatest Shakespeare movie ever) understood, 'high seriousness' in Shakespeare is sterile without its gloriously earthy counterpoint of horny drunks, sarcastic ostlers, and fatuous windbags. I can't wait for Branagh's "Simpson trial" version of Othello. (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 11:22:29 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films Just to throw my .02 cents worth into the fray: I am currently directing "Much Ado About Nothing" as a free outdoor production in Honolulu. The turn out for auditions was stupendous. I have been told by members of my cast that this is because they "loved the movie". Why argue with success? From my own practical point of view of a director, Kenneth Branagh can go through the entire Shakespearean cannon and make as many movies as he wants to if the result is the one that I have seen. "The People" love Branagh's films and as a result, the plays are gaining in popularity. I think that's the best of all possible news. Shirley Kagan University of Hawaii (9)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lawrence S Schwartz Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 16:17:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films One of the posters in the SHK 6.0546 posting writes: "To be sure, Branagh's films are pop-culture versions of the works..." Well, how can you tell? Was Branagh's late-80s production of King Lear also a pop-culture version? Wasn't Shakespeare's retelling of the York-Lancastrian set-to a pop-culture version of history? Didn't he pop-culturise Holinshed? Good heavens, but the air must be rarified in some of your ivory towers, or perhaps you just need more sleep and sunshine. Kenneth Branagh is a bright guy, with the financial backing that allows him to produce his _version_ of some mighty fine plays in _cinematic_ form. Because he is able to produce these works on film, he doesn't NEED to have 5 or 10 people dressed in contrasting costumes run across the frame (screen) at alternate moments, screaming "French pig" or "English dog," representing Agincourt. Nope; he can hire a lot of people to do it, and he can arrange to stick two bits of celluloid together with some adhesive, and make a film. A film is different than a play. The vision of a director in either medium is going to be different than _your_ vision, if the story is known to both of you. Personally, I buy into Branagh's vision, and I'm glad he's been able to assemble casts that (save for Keanu Reeves) seem to revel in their roles, and in the art of acting. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 07:38:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0549 Re: Emilia Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0549. Wednesday, 12 July 1995. From: James Harner Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 9:26:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Query: Emilia In response to Amy O'Hair comment about the lack of discussion of Emilia in _Othello_, here is a list of what I could glean from the _World Shakespeare Bibliography_ database back to 1980: Le Comte, Edward. "Shakespeare's Emilia and Milton's: The Parameters of Research." _Milton Quarterly_ 18, no. 3 (1984), 81-84. [Examines the question of Shakespeare's Emilia in _Othello_ and the Dark Lady of _Sonnets_ as proposed by A. L. Rowse, together with the same "rare name" in Milton's sonnets.] Updated in _Milton Re- Viewed: Ten Essays_. Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 1446. New York and London: Garland, 1991. Torii, Kiyoshi. "Enter Emilia: A Piquancy in _Othello_." _Eibeibungaku-kai-shi_ (Osaka Shoin Women's College) 21 (1984), 35-48. [On Emilia's function. In Japanese.] Chen Ping. "Aimiliyade shenmei jiazhi--_Aoseluo_ daoyan zaji zhiyi [Emilia's Aesthetic Value--Director's Note on _Othello_, Part One]." _Waiguo xiju [Foreign Theatre]- 4 (1986): 30-32. [Unlike Desdemona, Emilia is average until her final heroic moment when her courage transcends her mediocrity and renders her noble.] Allen, John Alexander. "Students, Stereotypes, and Shakespeare." _Hollins_ (Hollins College) 40, no. 1 (1989): 30-32. [Considers how students typically perceive stereotypes in Shakespeare's plays (e.g., Paris in _Romeo and Juliet_, Emilia in _Othello_, and Octavius Caesar in _Antony and Cleopatra_) and the effect familiarity with Shakespeare may have upon these perceptions.] Wiley, Elizabeth. "The Status of Women in _Othello_." _Shakespeare: Text, Subtext, and Context_. Ed. Richard Dotterer. (Susquehanna University Studies.) Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press; London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1989. 124-38. [Offers a character study of Desdemona, Emilia, and Bianca. Reprinted from _Susquehanna University Studies_ 7, no. 3 (1964).] Gajowski, Evelyn. "The Female Perspective in _Othello_." Othello: _New Perspectives-. Ed. Virginia Mason Vaughan and Kent Cartwright. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press; London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1991. 97-114. [Finds that the attitudes and feelings of the women in _Othello_ toward the men in their lives underscore the male treatment of females in the play: "Desdemona's absolute devotion to Othello accentuates his cruel treatment of her; Bianca's genuine affection for Cassio highlights his ridicule of her; Emilia's obedience to Iago likewise underscores his hatred of her, and of all women." Reprinted in Tardiff, _Shakespearean Criticism: Yearbook 1991_.] Kehler, Dorothea. "Shakespeare's Emilias and the Politics of Celibacy." _In Another Country: Feminist Perspectives on Renaissance Drama_. Ed. Dorothea Kehler and Susan Baker. Metuchen: Scarecrow, 1991. 157-78. [Focuses on Emilia _Comedy of Errors_) and Paulina (_Winter's Tale_) as celibate women whose independence both enforces and subverts patriarchal values, and on the Emilias of _Othello_ and _Two Noble Kinsmen_, who subvert but do not wield power. Concludes with a discussion of Emilia Lanier, who finds her voice late in life. For an abstract of this as read at the 1988 Shakespeare Association of America meeting, see _Shakespeare Newsletter_ 39 (1989): 12.] Coleman, Althea M. "The Observer Character in Shakespeare's Four Great Tragedies." _Dissertation Abstracts International_ 51 (1990-91): 3417A (Fordham). [Discusses the functions of Horatio, Cordelia, Kent, the Fool in _King Lear_, Banquo, Ross, Cassio, and Emilia, in analyzing "the critical manipulation of audience through the use of a class of characters called observers."] Perng, Ching-Hsi. "_Ao-tai-luo [Othello]_." _China Daily News_ (Taipei) 16 September 1992, p. 29. [Discusses the powerful momentum of love and jealousy in _Othello_, noting Iago's trickery and the sisterhood between Desdemona and Emilia.] Peltrault, Claude. "'An extravagant and wheeling stranger': Les voix et les voies de l'alterite dans _Othello_." _Difference et identite._ Recueil de communications prononcees lors du Congres d'Aix, de la Societe des Anglicistes de l'Enseignement Superieur (1991)--Ateliers "Shakespeare," "Theatre," "Poesie." CARA [Centre aixois de recherches anglaises] 12. Aix: Publications de l'Universite de Provence, 1992. 75-103. [Considers how Emilia and Desdemona are identified with the infidels, how Othello is characterized as a sodomite, and how the active role of Venetian society all serve to emphasize the Other in _Othello_.] McGuire, Philip C. "Whose Work Is This? Loading the Bed in _Othello-." _Working Papers in Cultural Studies_ 33 (1993): 1-25. [Focuses on how the final moments of _Othello_ have been performed and edited in response to the cultural values and assumptions of a particular era. Considers whether Othello dies on the bed with Desdemona, whether he kisses her before he dies, and whether Emilia dies alongside Desdemona.] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 07:41:59 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0550 Shakespeare Death Mask Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0550. Wednesday, 12 July 1995. From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995 21:59:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare's Bust Guid Rijhoek, Associated Press, reports that Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel, a professor at Mainz University, believes that the disputed death mask of Shakespeare at Darmstadt is genuine. She has had the mask analyzed by a crime lab and the chief doctor of the Wiesbaden Eye Clinic. The crime lab found 17 points of similarity among the mask, the Flower portrait, and the Chandos portrait. The doctor noted that the left eye of the death mask shows a slight swelling, probably a tumor, and notes similar swellings in the portraits. The mask has 1616 etched into it, and there are traces of hair. The mask was brought to Germany in the 18th century by Reichsgraf Franz von Kesselstatt and was purchased by the city of Darmstadt in 1960. Professor Hammerschmidt-Hummel reportedly has the slides and analyses. I, in turn, report this without comment. Jennifer Peters handed me the clipping, but did not identify the newspaper in which she found the report. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 07:42:01 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0551 Re: Shakespeare Death Mask Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0551. Thursday, 13 July 1995. (1) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 95 08:25:43 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0550 Shakespeare Death Mask (2) From: Lars Engle Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 95 22:33:05 CST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0550 Shakespeare Death Mask (3) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 16:31:05 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0550 Shakespeare Death Mask (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 95 08:25:43 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0550 Shakespeare Death Mask I can see the movie now: we'll call it SHAKESPEARIC PARK. With genetic material recovered from a single hair follicle, a band of intrepid scholar entreprene urs from the Deutches Institut fur Bio-literatur GmB clone the Bard. Unpredictably the eruption of creative energy threatens The World as We Know It. Heroic anti-Bard squads weilding metaphor-zapping palmtop computers loaded with the Complete Works in all known languages desperately try to suppress outbreaks of Elizabethan speech forms. Clint Eastwood, Madonna, and Newt Gingrich team up with the supporting staffs of the Royal Shakespeare Company and Sony for a thrilling final reel confrontation between Bard and TWAWKI forces . . . P'rhaps to avoid clogging SHAKSPER with plot suggestions and screenplay treatments we should move further discussion to the forthcoming Shakespeare discussion site promised later this silly season. Steve the Movie Mogul Urkowitz (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lars Engle Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 95 22:33:05 CST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0550 Shakespeare Death Mask >The mask has 1616 etched into it, and there are traces of hair. If so, we have Shakespeare's DNA, and the relatively imminent possibility of genetic reconstitution; Warner Communications might be interested in funding the project . . . Lars Engle University of Tulsa (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 16:31:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0550 Shakespeare Death Mask Somehow two letters have disappeared from the reporter's name: it's Guido Rijkhoek, just in case anyone wants to search for his account. Sorry. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 08:27:28 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0552 Re: Branagh Films Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0552. Thursday, 13 July 1995. (1) From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 95 08:23:41 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0541 Re: Oth. Film (2) From: Greg Grainger Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 09:50:00 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films (3) From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 95 09:52 EDT Subj: Branagh *H5* morals (4) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 10:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films (5) From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 10:35:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films (6) From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 11:39:02 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films (7) From: Bruce Young Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 09:32:27 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films (8) From: Mickie Mosley Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 95 08:53:28 pst Subj: Re: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films (9) From: Peter Greenfield Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 09:33:47 -0700 Subj: Branagh films (10) From: Douglas Flummer Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 95 19:03:38 CST Subj: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films (11) From: John Owen Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 11:23:42 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 95 08:23:41 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0541 Re: Oth. Film I am interested to here more from Carol about why huge salaries do not go along with quality art. Not that I don't think either 11.5 or 7 million pounds or dollars isn't a ridiculous price for acting. But it is actually in line with what movie stars get these days. And both Branaugh and Fishborne are good, as opposed to Pauly Shore. Why should money turn them into cartoons? Annalisa (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg Grainger Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 09:50:00 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films Ellen Edgerton wrote: >As for Kenneth Branagh somehow being reprehensible or appealing to the least >common denominator, which is what the original post seemed to me to be implying >and decrying: what's so terrible about the cost of a ticket to see a >production of Shakespeare's plays being six or seven dollars? Am I somehow >being culturally lazy if I do not have the funds (much less the time) to leave >my provincial Northeastern city and embark for London, New York, or Ashland to >seek out a "real" production of these plays? Maybe I should just continue >struggling with a 20-pound Bevington edition on my lap like I did in high >school-- A side-light - since you're in the Northeast anyway, a very fine set of 'real' porductions can be found in Stratford, Ontario. One of the first and still one of the finest Shakespearian festivals in North America. That aside, your point is a valid one. Greg, good Canadian boy. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 95 09:52 EDT Subject: Branagh *H5* morals > I suppose I don't care for the fact that Branagh is becoming the "canonical" > Shakespeare. He was one of the three Hamlets of 88/89 wasn't he? and then h > produced *HV*? And people started talking about him as the "next Olivier" - > So what are Branagh's motives for bringing Sh. to the people? I've heard > disturbing things of *HV*, for example. Certainly, Olivier's film is partis > Propaganda. But the message of Branagh's *HV* -- which can come across as > "military presence is awful, isn't it, but necessary after all" -- has been > contextualised by some viewers with the British presence in Northern Ireland > (not my thesis). Five years after seeing Branagh's *Henry V* film I'm still amazed at how many people insist on seeing some sort of Thatcherite subtext in the film. (Someone actually wrote a scholarly, dead serious polemic against the film and Branagh and Prince Charles a few years ago; I wish I could remember the publication it appeared in, but the title of the essay was "A Royal Fellowship of Death" or something.) If you're trying to link Branagh's Northern Irish (Protestant) roots with subtexts in the film, I say you're on the right track, but going in the wrong direction. This is one of the most apolitical Shakespeare movies I've ever seen, in my opinion. (Whether it should be or not is another debate.) In examining the past history of productions of *H5* (something which seeing this film drove me to do), especially in the 20th century, especially up to recently, it seems to me that the chain of inspiration running at least as far back as the 1975 RSC production has been what I would call "post-revisionist." I'm really bothered by the willingness of observers of *H5* productions in the 1990s to focus so much on whether or not a production is, or should be, "traditional/patriotic" or "revisionist/ cynical/anti-militaristic." As if this is the main, or perhaps ONLY, axis on which any clear, worthy production should spin. Branagh's film ties directly into a train of thought about *H5* that might have started before the Hands production, but certainly continued through Noble's 1984 staging and beyond -- that *H5* need not simply be a nationalistic or political football to kick around, that it can actually be about people as well. I just get very disappointed to hear people still carping over Branagh's *H5* with various conspiracy theories about it "pretending" to be anti-war while "really" being pro-war...this is utter nonsense. I've picked up bits of information about Branagh over the years and it's shocking at just how personal the film really seems to be. A lot of people have noted surface parallels to Branagh as filmmaker/young lion and Henry as young king; but these are the public faces of both of them. There are more interesting things seemingly going on at a more personal level in this film, for Branagh and his character, and they are totally apolitical in nature. Branagh may have visited Prince Charles to do research on the role, but he obviously played Henry from his own experience as a displaced person. If one wants to view Welles' FALSTAFF as "the long goodbye" that Hal gives to Falstaff and the past, then Branagh's *H5* is the even >longer< goodbye and the scene is now transported to the fields of France and to Henry's own internal struggle to leave the past behind. If you're looking for a political allegory with modern-day Britain, I leave you to it. You're not likely to find it, even about Northern Ireland, in a film made by someone whose chief formative personal experiences seem to be based around shifting environments, and transformed socioeconomic status and ethnic identification. It is not surprising that someone with these experiences should end up playing Henry as a character in transition, caught between states of maturity, between past and future, between sincere embrace of the company of common men and kingly pragmatism and isolation. (Maybe even between identity. When Shakespeare has Henry say, "I am Welsh, you know," it's probably bollocks, but when Branagh's Henry says it, he really means it.) Given this context (which I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed and found resonant), to try and pigeonhole >this< film as taking this or that political position is in my opinion missing out on a lot. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 10:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films As Shakespeare through the pop vehicle of theater was able to preserve and pass along to the groundlings much of the history and mythology that he saw as the foundation of their common culture, a foundation hidden until then from all but the handful who could afford a liberal arts education, so today Kenneth Branagh is passing along to the audience of movie-goers the Shakespeare that is too often hidden in academic seminars. Like the history and myths that lay at the heart of sixteenth century culture, so Shakespeare lies at the heart of our culture of today. Contributor of somewhere between three and five thousand words to the common vocabulary, not to mention commonplace phrases and idioms by the dozens, he also set a standard for competence in the use of language that has resulted in perhaps the greatest literature in the world. His contribution to the language is arguably greater than that of any other single individual, a language that has risen since his time from a small and unimportant vernacular to the most important language in the world. In bringing Shakespeare to life for the groundlings of today he is performing a very important function, and one which I wish he were willing or free to perform more often. I hope that he and Emma can get around to Antony and Cleopatra while they are still young enough to be believable. True, his films aren't perfect. (Everybody groans at Keanu Reeves performance, but no one has mentioned Michael Keaton's inexplicable take on Dogberry. Thank God for the mute button!) Still, Patrick Doyle's wonderful music, moments like the opening of HV, backstage on a modern theater, or the falling in love scene in Much Ado, more than make up for all faults. Stephanie Hughes (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 10:35:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films I feel like the Governor of Harfleur -- beset with Branagh and his colonising hordes, waiting in vain for reinforcements from the Dauphin. Ellen Edgerton seems to think that I accused Branagh of "appealing to the least common denominator" and Martinek seems to suggest I'd prefer to have Sh.'s plays "locked up in museums." I seem to have been constructed as a hoary Shakespearean curmudgeon. Not so! A veritable fresh-faced youth, I'm not much older than Kenneth Branagh when he published his autobiography *Beginnnings* . . . Of course I'm not in favour of locking up Shakespeare behind glass (although locking up Shakespeare behind celluloid is, apparently, OK), and I'm certainly not accusing of Branagh of diminishing Shakespeare, and lovers of his films as groundlings. In fact, I'm questioning Branagh's position in this cinematic transaction. By all means -- make films of Shakespeare's plays ("My Own Private Idaho," Greenaway's "The Tempest," Jarman's "EII" -- all of which I prefer to Branagh's efforts). But to "bring" Shakespeare to "the people" requires that (a) one is in a position to "give" it, implying (doesn't it?) a superior interpretive position and (b) the definition of "the people" as an audience, which is surely a move we should be wary of, as scholar's familiar with the debates about the homo/heterogeneity of Shakespeare's audiences. I'm sure everyone has a favourite exception, but it seems to me that the "the people" consists of American HS/College students and Anglo-philes, largely. I say again, who could argue with the fact that the several versions of Sh.'s plays on film don't allow the possibility of dialogue in the classroom? Scwartz points out, quite correctly, that it's a question of interpretive "vision" -- I don't like the fact that Branagh's vision is becoming the vision of a generation of students. One student of mine balked at the idea of watching both Branagh's AND Olivier's films of *H5* -- Olivier's was "old, and out-of date" compared with Branagh's. Kagan asks "Why argue with success?" To which I respond "Hegemony!" And Pam Powell suggests that if I don't like Kenneth Branagh, I should just stay at home. I guess that's the answer -- but wait, I see I've pluralised "scholars" with an apostrophe earlier in my post . . . a chink in my academic fortifications . . . I hear King Branagh I (or should that be King Olivier II, the Usurper) cry "Once more into the breach . . ." If only the reinforcements from the Dauphin would arrive . . . Simon Morgan-Russell Department of English Bowling Green State University (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 11:39:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films Dear Friends, I was in California for a few days and returned to find my e-mail flooded with comments about Branagh's films, mostly favorable. I was all set to jump in until I discovered that I had little to say that hadn't already been said better. Ironically Olivier was excoriated years ago pretty much the way that "purists" (whatever that means) attack Branagh now. I remember one of my professors having apoplexy over O's HAMLET for reasons I never understood. I assumed the professor was so learned that I couldn't possibly understand him anyway. I use this discussion as an excuse to remind colleagues that SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN continues the work begun by the now defunct SHAKESPEARE ON FILM NEWSLETTER. A section in each issue is devoted to reviews and articles on Shakespeare on screen. If you have something you need to say about Branagh's films, or any other director's, forward your manuscript to June Schlueter or James Lusardi at Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042, or to me at the University of Vermont. We welcome submissions. Hoping to hear from you, Ken Rothwell (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 09:32:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films I've been very entertained by the exchange on Branagh. I just want to add a question and a couple of comments. (1) A question for Jeff Martinek: You say Orson Welles made the greatest Shakespeare movie ever. Which one are you referring to? I'd like to know so I can challenge you if I disagree or see the film if I don't know it. (2) For the record, I like Branagh's Shakespeare films a lot, though I worry he may have been so successful so quickly that he won't be as self-critical as he needs to be. I find his _Henry V_ a stunning film. Though I've pondered the concerns some have about what the film is saying about war, it seems to me almost as ambiguous and open to interpretation on that question as Shakespeare's text is. For me and most of my students, though it celebrates the camaraderie and courage of Henry's soldiers, it is on the whole a moving and realistic revelation of the horrors of war. I knew Olivier's film version pretty well before Branagh did his, and I've done some close comparison of specific scenes. I can only report what seems obvious to me: Branagh's acting is much better--more believable, more engaging, more complex and thought provoking--than Olivier's in almost every scene of the play. (At the same time, I don't deny that Olivier's version has some strong points.) (3) I didn't take to Branagh's _Much Ado_ as quickly and fully as his _Henry V_. But I enjoy the film, and have enjoyed it more with repeated viewings. I may be a bit idiosyncratic in what I like and dislike in the film (at least no one so far has said exactly what I would say). So let me open myself to agreement or disagreement by making my list: (a) Considering the medium and the standard length of films, the editing is pretty good. But I miss some lines that seem to me important for understanding the play. (b) I don't think Keanu Reeves is a great actor (if you want to see him in something REALLY non-memorable, try _Babes in Toyland_). But unlike most of you (it appears), I found him a believable and memorable Don John. He even seemed to understand what he was saying. (c) For me the most irritating thing about the film--I felt this way when I first saw it in Atlanta and every viewing has reconfirmed it--was the treatment of Dogberry and crew. I couldn't understand what Michael Keaton was saying half the time, and I found the wierdness with which he played the part distracting and pointless rather than funny. The scenes struck me as odd, self-conscious, overdone, manipulative--I don't know if I've quite put my finger on what was wrong, but something certainly was. I have seen several stage versions of the play and have always found the Dogberry parts very funny--i.e., a source of deep, spontaneous laughter, and trememendously, charmingly, even heartwarmingly entertaining--when they have been played with simple, straightforward dumbness. For me, the Dogberry scenes were the low point of the film. (d) I especially liked Branagh's treatment of Claudio and Hero. They were strong, believable, likeable (though my teen-aged daughter thinks Claudio is too earnest, emotional, and expressive). I would guess that most who watch the film believe they are genuinely in love, are happy to see them get together at the end, and are willing to forgive Claudio. I know that response is counter to a venerable tradition, which dislikes Claudio and wants to see him and Hero mainly as weak foils to Beatrice and Benedick. But I think the play is much stronger when we give C & H as generous a reading as the text allows. Though thousands of students have written papers claiming that Shakespeare was showing true, mature love in B & B and false, immature love in C & H, I find that a feeble, or at least incomplete interpretation. I think Shakespeare is showing various dimensions of love--positive as well as negative--in both couples. In this respect at least, Branagh's film effectively conveys the richness of the play. (8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mickie Mosley Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 95 08:53:28 pst Subject: Re: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films I have been a theatre professional for some 25 years. The sad reality is that you almost have to bribe people in this country to come and see Shakespeare, with a few exceptions such as Ashland, Oregon. Shakespeare is not taught extensively in schools, it is only paused upon in perhaps 8th or 9th grade and as a result most students never develop any love for Shakespeare or any kind of poetry at all. The wonderful and redeeming thing about Kenneth Branagh is that he is very much getting Shakespeare back into the eye of the public. Whether or not you enjoy the way he does it is irrelevant. If people go to the movies and like what he has done, perhaps they will be interested in reading the plays...and those of us who truly love the works should be grateful for anyone that is steering young people back into the fold, so to speak. Yes, the plays are not exact to the texts....yes, all the performances are not perfect, but the reality is that this man has taken Shakespeare from the text book to the public and I think he deserves a lot of credit for this. We should all be interested very much in continuing the life and breath of these wonderful works and if his contribution is not pure, it is simply one of the best examples of a professional getting these magnificent works back into the homes of most of America. I say Hoorah!! MM (9)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Greenfield Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 09:33:47 -0700 Subject: Branagh films Exclusive from the Clinkside Curmudgeon: Oh, no! Here comes the abominable Mr. B. and miserable stock company again. That's right--as if Richard III and Hamlet weren't enough for vainglorious Burbadge, now he thinks he can play a Moor! And of course, we'll be subjected to Will Kempe mugging at the audience and insisting on doing a jig in the most inappropriate place. I wish someone would point him toward Norwich and give him a shove; at least we'd get nine day's rest. And then there's Shakespeare, turning out his tempestuous drivel, so that Burbadge will let him do his old-man shtick one more time. How long will we have to wait for REAL character actors, like Richard Briers? (10)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Flummer Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 95 19:03:38 CST Subject: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films I have read the commentary submitted over the last couple of days concerning the quality of Branagh's Shakespearian efforts. I am of the opinion that we should be considering his films based on their own merits, rather that try to compare them to what the "ultimate Shakespeare film" would be. Personally, I liked "Henry the 5th" more that I did "MAAN" because I thought that HV had a better result when translated to the screen than did the other. I thought that Branagh did an excellent job of portraying the horrors of war (as did Gibson in Braveheart, I might add) and of an extended military campaign in foreign lands under inclimate weather. I also think that overall, HV was a better effort at portraying the reality of the living conditions that the characters had to deal with than "MAAN", which I saw as being more like a stage production that happened to be outside. In comparison, one might say that I see nothing as being added to what "MAAN" (in terms of adding a film's dimensions and potential), while HV in fact benefitted from it's performance on film. Now, this is not to say that HV could not have been better. In fact, any version of HV, MAAN, Othello, Hamlet, or whatever, will differ widely based on the director and the interpretive decisions that said director makes. But I think that in discussing Branagh's previous work, rather than saying "it could have been this" or "It could have been that", it would be more fair to ask "Did he succeed in doing what he was trying to do" or "Is the film a truly effective portrayal of Shakespeare's work. I also wonder how well an "ultimate Shakespeare film" would succeed in today's culture that seems to be so orientated on what is popular.In music (my own personal forte) the best music is regularly overwhelmed in sales by music that the public can easily relate to. This is true when speaking of rock music (hence the popularity of dance music and the current back-to-the-70's trendin clothes), jazz (can you say Kenny G?) or classical (so much Mahler, so little Shoenberg). I have observed that as a particular artistic endeavor gets closer to artistic purety, it is harder and harder to sell it to the masses. I, in fact, saw this just last night when I attended the St. Louis Lollapaloosa show, when Cypress Hill, a rap group with MTV exposure, had the ampitheatre singing "legalize it"; Hole, a pop group with a famous lead singer with similar MTV exposure, had the audience captivated throughout their performance (which I thought was better than any rap); while Sonic Youth, a band with no MTV exposure but with a highly artistic and somewhat avant guarde method of perfor- mance, had people going out to their cars, although the performance featured almost 100% brand new or recent material and was true to the band's art ethic. I figure that since the high levels of dissonance present throughout the music makes their work somewhat inaccessable except to those who already have a taste for such things, those people who left didn't put forth the effort to enjoy a truly great thing. I know, you are saying, "that is music and we are talking Shakespeare!" I am suggesting, in my typically wordy manner, that the "ultimate Shakespeare film" would probably get the same treatment that Sonic Youth gets. In it's purest form, it would be inaccessable enough to the masses that it might not sell if it were intended to be a major summer blockbuster, but might succeed if it were relegated to the art house circuit. Unfortunately, art house films does not get the same level of distribution as other films that makes millions of bucks. For example, I was lucky to see Greenaway's "Cook, Thief..." in a regular theater, and I was not able to see "Prospero's Books" until our Student Programming Council brought it to the Student Center as a video. No other Greenaway films have I had access to, although I could probably dig up a video somewhere. On the other hand, Branagh gets major advertising, major distribtion, and major bucks to make his picture with. HV was nominated for an Oscar, which in fact led to it's being in my town long enough for me to see it. It sounds like he is in fact successful in making the Bard accessable to the masses. This may, in turn, make it possible for other Shakespearian films to be made (if I remember, Gibson's Hamlet came out a little bit after HV), and for films that put a more artistic interpretation on the work to be more bankable. We must consider that our pop culture is different than it was when Olivier made "Hamlet". Then, artistically challenging pictures were commonly made by directors and actors that received widespread recognition, such as Orson Welles or Olivier. While we still have quality directors today, we would not see films like "Citizen Kane" get the recognition that they did back then. If we want Shakespeare to get a fair shake on film, it has to be shown to the studios that such heavy subject matter is, in fact, bankable. Douglas Flummer Southern Illinois University PS: please send direct e-mail, if desired, to Douglas_Flummer@lotusgw1.siu.edu. The address that I am typing from is on our mainframe system, and I absolutely hate it! On the other hand, my other address is on Windows-based Lotus Notes, and it is much easier to reply from there than it is on here. (Maybe I might switch my subscription from here to there someday.) Thanks. (11)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 11:23:42 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films Well, I have held out as long as I can. I don't see Branagh as being a very severe popularizer. A lot of MAAN: the play is preserved in MAAN: the movie. At San Diego's Old Globe, the fine regional theater where I saw my first Shakespeare as a boy, the Bard has been dealt with far more drastically. There was once a MAAN there during the late 60's, set on the moon, with Friar John as a robot. One more recent production set it in imperial British India (with characters named Don Pedro, etc, speaking Elizabethan verse, heaven help us!). And don't get me started on Brook's Lear, which cut passages out of the play to make it MORE downbeat. Compared to the wild experimentation on stage since 1960, the most radical film versions have been moderate, if not conservative. Maybe dragging the kids to Ashland involves more peril than you think. With this in mind, could someone (preferably Prof. Morgan-Russell) give us a summary of what Branagh has 'done' to Shakespeare which does not amount to merely expressing a vague aversion to his latest films? As far as acting goes, well. The only unqualified failures I saw were the Don John of Reeves and the Dogberry of Keaton (well, never seen a good Dogberry to be honest -- have you?). Ok, and the Antonio of Brian Blessed (I mean, dash it all, the whole point of the character is that he should be so infirm and ancient that his fiery challenge to Claudio is poignantly impracticable -- the gigantic Mr. Blessed looks fully capable of ripping poor Mr. Leonard's head off. The definition of bad casting.) Yes, that is a lot of bad performing, but I defy the purist to find a production where there is no unsatisfactory element. In a way, all Shakespeare performances are, as in Hazlitt's review of Kean, read by flashes of lightning. The dedicated playgoer is addicted to the spendid MOMENTS when Shakespeare's intentions seem to be full y realized. The dedicated actor and director, I hope, strive to produce them. As much as I joy in reading the plays, those moments simply cannot be reproduced on the page. The only other option, audio Shakespeare, has its good points. Pure spoken language, absolute Shakespeare, no loony visual excess, no clodhopper stage business. But something is always missing from that too, some completeness of interaction, some spontaneity Oh yes, back to Branagh. Good actor, better director, excellent producer. And please listen to the spendid BBC radio Lear with Gielgud, before passing immutable judgement on Branagh. John Owen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 09:55:33 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0553 Q: Kevin Cosner in *H5*; Atlanta Sh. Co. WWW Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0553. Thursday, 13 July 1995. (1) From: Cindy Moravec Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 09:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Kevin Cosner in HIV (2) From: Peter Scott Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 05:49:21 -0600 (CST) Subj: Atlanta Shakespeare Company (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cindy Moravec Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 09:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Kevin Cosner in HIV I heard briefly on the radio that Kevin Cosner will be portraying Falstaff in Henry IV. I don't know whether or not this is stage or film. Has anyone else heard this rumor? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Scott Date: Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995 05:49:21 -0600 (CST) Subject: Atlanta Shakespeare Company Linkname: Atlanta Shakespeare Company Filename: http://www.mindspring.com/~lynne/asc ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 11:40:34 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0554 Re: Branagh; Films; Adaptations Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0554. Thursday, 13 July 1995. (1) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 15:10:19 GMT Subj: Branagh or Bust (2) From: Carol Marshall Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 12:31:28 -0400 Subj: Re: #1(2) SHK 6.0552 Re: Branagh Films (3) From: Michael Swanson Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 12:25:48 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films (4) From: Ralph Alan Cohen Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 14:01:05 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 11 Jul 1995 to 12 Jul 1995 (5) From: JC Stirm Date: Friday, 14 Jul 95 01:28 PDT Subj: Casting Cleo/Branagh (6) From: Fiona C Quick Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 12:23:08 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: Shakespeare Films (7) From: Chris Gordon Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 95 17:36:36 -0500 Subj: SHK 6.0552 Shakespearean adaptations (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 15:10:19 GMT Subject: Branagh or Bust Simon Morgan-Russell makes a wholly valid point. Bringing 'Shakespeare to the people' is not and can never be an entirely innocent pursuit. Since we've been considering the Bard's bust, perhaps it's worth recalling a telling moment in J.G.Farrell's novel of the Indian mutiny, THE SIEGE OF KRISHNAPUR. Running out of ammunition, members of the beleaguered British garrison proceed to cut the heads from statuettes of literary luminaries in order to fire these from their rifles at the oncoming hordes. The ballistic performance of Shelley's bust, I recall, proves somewhat compromised because of its its flowing locks. However, Shakespeare's baldness makes him a highly effective missile able to dispatch a number of the mutineers in a single shot. That one Irishman (Farrell) is able, in the matter of cultural hegemony, to perceive what another Irishman (Branagh) cannot is of course one of the continuing ironies of that island's tragic history. I'd have thought that citizens of the Republic (those sans the OBE, at least) have rather less cause for muddleheadedness in such matters. Terence Hawkes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Marshall Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 12:31:28 -0400 Subject: Re: #1(2) SHK 6.0552 Re: Branagh Films I think my initial reaction to the Othello movie was a purists knee jerk reaction, as I now ponder it I believe that it will be wonderful and I hope they pay the actors $100 million. I think Branagh has done wonderul things and should do more. I think Othello has a lot of lessons to tell a modern public. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Swanson Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 12:25:48 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0548 Re: Branagh Films Well, this may open another discussion, but: not only have I enjoyed Branagh's films of Shakespeare, but I thought that Mel Gibson's *Hamlet* was pretty good, too. While I realized that not everyone liked it, I hadn't heard that conventional wisdom had damned it thoroughly. Is this so? If so, why? Certainly, some the script cuts were bad (esp. the 1st scene being cut), and the Hamlet / Gertrude was a bit too Olivier-Oedipal for my taste; but was Mel that bad for a populist film adaptation, again, in the tradition of so much 19th century thearical adaptation of WS? While I expect I won't be persuaded, I'd be interested in hearing the reasons. Michael Swanson Franklin College of Indiana (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ralph Alan Cohen Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 14:01:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 11 Jul 1995 to 12 Jul 1995 Like any Shakespeare teacher or director I have some serious disagreements with Branagh's choices in *Henry V* and *Much Ado*; those disagreements make, I believe, for some good classroom arguments with my students, most of whom take complete delight in Branagh's work. How fine to have them defend a Shakespeare production -- any production -- from me. And how wonderful to be browsing in Blockbusters and to see all of the Zefferelli *Hamlet*s and all of the Branagh *Much Ado"s checked out, even when the university is not in session. When I first heard that the *Much Ado* was coming out, I was worried because the SSE had planned it as part of our repertory for about the same time. What we found out is that Branagh's film brought us customers and made the play's name household in the manner of *Dream* or *Comedy of Errors*. I'm grateful to Branagh for that and for making a film with enough flaws to inspire somebody someday to do it again. And again. The more, as they say, the merrier. Ralph Cohen (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JC Stirm Date: Friday, 14 Jul 95 01:28 PDT Subject: Casting Cleo/Branagh Hi all, I've been reading with interest the recent discussions of Branagh's films, but was startled to see a suggestion that Branagh and Thompson should do *Antony and Cleopatra* before they get too old... (sorry, I don't have the exact quotation, I'm working from memory). While I'd be happy to see Thompson in almost ANY role, I take issue with casting her as Cleopatra; surely *A&C* is deeply concerned with racial and ethnic construction? Following the logic of casting an actor of African origin to play Othello, shouldn't we also cast an actor of color to play Cleopatra? Further, if anything, Thompson and Branagh are both too young for these roles; the play talks about both characters as mature, not 30-sometihng. (Hm, I'd like to hear some suggestions for who could play them NOW.) Best, Jan (taking my 30s in stride) Stirm (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fiona C Quick Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 12:23:08 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Shakespeare Films With the recent discussion of Shakespeare films, I thought I would provide the following information for anyone interested. Currently in production are "Othello" and "Richard III" and another "Hamlet" and a modern-day version of "Romeo and Juliet" is in pre-production Cast/Crew lists (information from "The Hollywood Reporter") follow: Othello: Imminent Films (london):(Cast) Laurence Fishburne, Kenneth Branagh, Irene Jacob, Nathanial Parker, Michael Maloney, Nicholas Farrell, Indra Ove, Anna Patrick; Johnathan Olsber (ExPrd), Luc Roeg, David Baron (Prd); Oliver Parker (Dir/Scr), David Johnson (Cam); Tony Lawson (Ed); Iona Price (UPM); Simon Mosely (AD); Tim Harvey (PrdDes); Debbie McWilliams (Cstg) Distributed by Castle Rock Int'l. Started shooting June 15. Hamlet: Braidwood Films (NY): (Cast) Ernest Abuba, Archer Martin, Pamela Holden Stewart, Gary Paul Wright, Britt Sady, William Rothlein, Don Arrup, Richard Petrocelli, Elizabeth Rossa, Melissa Dale; Andrew Bellware (prd); Ed McNamee (coPrd); Andrew Bellware (Dir); Chris Kondek (cam). Started shooting July 6. Richard III: First Look Pictures/Red Rooster (london): (Cast) Ian McKellen, Anette Benning, Jim Broadbent, Robert DDowney, Jr., Nigel Hawthorne, Kristin Scott Thomas, Maggie Smith, Bill Patterson, Jim Carter, Adrian Dunbar; Ian McKellen, Ellen Little, Richard Eyre, Maria Apodiacos (ExecProds); Stephen Bayly, Lisa Katselas Pare (Prods); Richard Loncraine (Dir); Peter Biziou (Cam); Paul Green (Ed). US Distributor is MGM/UA, International distributor is Mayfair Entertainment. Started Shooting June 26. Romeo And Juliet: 20th Century Fox (Miami): (Cast) Leonardo DiCaprio, Peter O'Toole; Baz Luhrmann (Dir); Baz Luhrmann, Craig Pearce (Scr). US Distributor is 20th Century Fox. No shooting date scheduled. Fiona C. Quick University of Minnesota (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 95 17:36:36 -0500 Subject: SHK 6.0552 Shakespearean adaptations I've enjoyed reading all the posts about Shakespearean films (those of Kenneth Branagh and others), and wanted to concur with Simon Morgan-Russell (glad to hear you're not a curmudgeon!) that *My Own Private Idaho,* *Prospero's Books,* and *Edward II* are wonderful adaptations/interpretations of Shakespeare and Marlowe. I love all three films. But they _aren't_ the plays as written; that's fine for those of us who already know the plays and possibly for people who enjoy interesting films, but if someone wants to see something approaching a production of any of the plays as we have them (always noting that the transmission process over 400 years is hardly perfect), they just won't do. That's one reason I'm grateful to Branagh; he does give us a damn fine reading of the plays as film--not overly interpreted, not with too many quirks (and he's entitled to a few), Shakespeare for people who might not otherwise see the plays. And his films are much better than the majority of the BBC productions; though I love some of those, many of them would not be very appealing to a large audience--they're just a big _too_ faithful, and hence often ponderous. I just hope Branagh's success will encourage other people to try their hand at Shakespeare, whether "faithfully" or wildly interpreted. I'll see them all. Chris Gordon, who liked *Peter's Friends* and thinks Keanu Reeves has real talent (dismiss me if you will!) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 11:47:07 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0555 Re: Shakespeare Death Mask Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0555. Thursday, 13 July 1995. (1) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 13:08:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0551 Re: Shakespeare Death Mask (2) From: Dawn Massey Date: Friday, 14 Jul 95 10:28:54 BST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0550 Shakespeare Death Mask (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 13:08:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0551 Re: Shakespeare Death Mask Okay, okay, laugh if you must. You're making me feel like Falstaff -- "the cause that wit is in other men." All I know is what I read in the newspapers. Yours, Bill (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dawn Massey Date: Friday, 14 Jul 95 10:28:54 BST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0550 Shakespeare Death Mask Given the uniformity of stylistic conventions in Elizabethan portraiture, etc., the identification of 17 points of similarity is unsurprising. I suspect one would find as many points of similarity between any number of portraits, including Shakespeare, the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, and Christopher Marlowe . . . Hey, now there's an idea . . . Also, comparison of portraits and casts is quite different from comparison of photographs and casts. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 11:54:24 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0556 EXTRACT/MAIL Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0556. Thursday, 13 July 1995. (1) From: Renee Pigeon Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 10:26:24 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Kevin Costner? (2) From: Dan Kois Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 23:58:48 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Kevin Costner (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Renee Pigeon Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 10:26:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Kevin Costner? Maybe the radio report Cindy Moravec heard concerned John Goodman playing Falstaff? San Diego's Old Globe is currently staging Henry IV Pts. I & II with Goodman; the LA Times reported this week the best box office in 15 years--just a few scattered seats left for the run. Costner is probably too busy praying that _Waterworld_ isn't the utter disaster it's predicted to be to consider performing Shakespeare! Renee Pigeon CSU San Bernardino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Kois Date: Thursday, 13 Jul 1995 23:58:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Kevin Costner Haven't heard anything about Costner; I think he's too busy desperately trying to sell "Waterworld." John Goodman, however, is (bless his heart) playing Falstaff somewhere - it was in a USA Today sometime this week. Dan Kois UNC-Chapel Hill ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 10:26:44 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0558 Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0558. Tuesday, 18 July 1995. From: Bruce Young Date: Friday, 14 Jul 1995 12:26:19 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0554 Re: Shakespeare (etc.) as cutlural construct I'd like to get something off my chest: I find the exchanges on various issues stimulating and informative, but there's an insistent note struck from time to time that I'm finding less informative than most. It usually happens like this: A discussion is taking place on some issue, and then someone (occasionally a well-known critic) tells us what is "really" going on. What we're really dealing with, he says, is a cultural construct; we've been talking about things as if they had intrinsic substance or value, but in fact these things (including texts, teaching, performances, films, festivals, etc.) are really political/cultural tools accomplishing some cultural purpose (usually to maintain or impose hegemony of some kind). The ideas behind this view are arguable; I think they have some merit. But the result (it seems to me) is always reductive and dismissive. It's as if everything everybody else has said is shown up for what it really is. Those making the "cultural construct" arguments seem (at least momentarily) incapable of enjoying or valuing Shakespeare (and all the associated phenomena) in the same straightforward way as the rest of us mortals. I can't help imagining them looking down on the world like gods, dropping such hints as the rest of us might be capable of understanding. (It's worth asking: If everything is a cultural construct, how would we ever have noticed? How can you see what everything really is if you're a part of "everything"? Hence, my imagining an exalted position for those who see what's going on.) Surely, the political (etc.) is one dimension of all things related to Shakespeare. But (I would claim) only one among many dimensions. The others--including those of simple enjoyment and those involving the ethical (face to face) relation (see Emmanuel Levinas, "Ethics and Infinity," "Totality and Infinity," etc.)--may have as good or better a claim for our attention as the political/cutlural construct dimension. Maybe it's the "hegemonic" tendency of the cultural construct view that I have problems with. As someone once said about Hegel: once you start seeing things this way, you can never again see things any other way. Having read books, listened to presentations, and even attended a seminar led by Terence Hawkes (Tokyo, 1991) on the subject, I've pondered these matters a good deal. And I'd be glad to learn more. I want to make clear that I am not rejecting the ideas outright. It's the dismissive gesture, the tone (sometimes expressing surprise that intelligent people could disagree), the reductionist outcome that concern me. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 10:47:29 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0559 Re: Branagh; Films Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0559. Tuesday, 18 July 1995. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 14 Jul 1995 15:21:31 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0554 Re: Branagh; Antony and Cleopatra (2) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 14 Jul 95 18:05:32 EDT Subj: [Branagh Question] (3) From: Douglas Flummer Date: Friday, 14 Jul 95 22:41:21 CST Subj: SHK 6.0554 Re: Branagh; Films; Adaptations (4) From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Monday, 17 Jul 95 08:19:58 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0554 Re: Branagh; Films; Adaptations (5) From: Seth Barron Date: Monday, 17 Jul 1995 15:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Branagh's terrible films (6) From: Michael Yogev Date: Sunday, 16 Jul 95 08:34:22 IST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0552 Re: Branagh Films (7) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Friday, 14 Jul 1995 13:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Subj: film (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 14 Jul 1995 15:21:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0554 Re: Branagh; Antony and Cleopatra Jan Stirm; I looked up the ages of Antony and Cleopatra at their deaths, and, you're right, they were well out of their thirties, Antony late forties, Cleopatra, 60ish. Still, this is the movies. As for Emma playing Cleopatra, I should think a black wig would do, purely to conform with tradition. Unless there's been some recent research that I've missed, Cleopatra was the last of the Ptolemies, first put in power by Alexander the Great, Macedonians originally, and therefor, white. And even if she hadn't been white historically, if Denzel Washington can play a sixteenth century Italian prince, why not a white actor a black role? Stephanie Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 14 Jul 95 18:05:32 EDT Subject: [Branagh Question] Terence Hawkes' and Simon Morgan-Russell's ideological approach to the Branagh Question provokes this idea for a feature-length animated movie. There's this bright, charismatic Irish puppet, see, who's learning the ideas and values appropriate to performers who are also members of victimized colonial populations from his wise old foster-father. But he succumbs to the worldly blandishments of these seductive English cats--dons, and directors of Establishment theatrical establishments, and financiers--and despite the frantic counselling of his sidekick, a one-winged Welsh raptor named Hegemony Cricketts, he gets drawn into the Show Biz, and he gets turned on to this apparently virtuous but ultimately repressive idea of making feature films of the plays of Shakespeare so that the great cultural icon can become accessible to The People--not just high school and college students (what could be less popular?), but coal miners and and lingerie salespersons and what not. And as he gets further and further into the toils of the powers that be, his round Irish chin gets longer and longer, and his curly reddish hair gets straighter and blonder, and his stocky Irish figure gets taller and leaner, and before long he looks exactly like an Oxford rowing blue, now chained with a lot of others like him to the bow oar of a military galley bent on the destruction of the very puppet shop in which he was originally made, with the don cats and the director cats and the financier cats beating the drum and patrolling the catwalk with their whips. But the plucky sidekick's shrill cries of alarm call down a host of others like him; they fly in the face of the oarsmen and throw them out of rhythm, and persuade the puppet to tear himself free, and with his oar to steer the galley onto a rock, causing it to split apart and sink. He and Hegemony float ashore near the puppet shop; in a close-up we see that his features have returned to their original Hibernian form, and he is free at last to take up his legitimate calling, as a Punch-type taking hit-and-run whacks at the Establishment for little groups of truly popular spectators in marketplaces and fairgrounds and the parking lots of suburban malls. More gravely (a very little more--hey, it's summertime), I would observe (a) that as Frederick Jameson wrote a while ago, ideology informs the arts by troping "real social contradictions [e.g. the struggle in Northern Ireland between Catholic and Protestant interests], insurmountable in their own terms," leading toward "a purely formal resolution in the aesthetic realm" (_The Political Unconscious-, 1981, p. 79) and (b) that if you want to make a bloodless revolution you have to change the views of the ins as well as the outs. I mean, what's to prevent our reading Branagh's H5 as a political allegory promoting separatist views? There's this bright, charismatic king, played by this very Irish-looking actor, see, a loyal son of Mother Church, who leads this raggle- taggle army of thieves and outcasts and, especially, Celts off to war against a very Establishment-looking-and-sounding enemy, across the water, despite the threat of another ancient enemy in the north of his own country, and against overwhelming odds of men and materiel and even weather, wins the victory (not without much regret at the necessary loss of human life), and marries the princess (whose real name and looks and manner of speech and gesture seem extremely C of E to me). More gravely yet, and to answer my own question, I will argue that in ways accessible to both ins and outs, the version of the Chamberlain's Men's play filmed by Branagh and his many collaborators interrogates many important social and political "contradictions" vigorously, even memorably--upper-class self- assertion and treachery, the desperate criminality of the chronically poor, power's hunger for more power, and the way it terribly feeds that hunger with the bodies of subjected men and women. It also movingly and/or delightfully images the age-old antidotes to those age-old horrors, such as cameraderie, love- making, and the singing of hymns. It has, undoubtedly, a powerfully cooptative effect, because no one will make another widely distributed -Henry V_ for a long time. But it seems to me clearly to work at the center of the contradictions rather than at any of the extremes, and that's the place that makes it most possible to get the most people interested and involved. Dave Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Flummer Date: Friday, 14 Jul 95 22:41:21 CST Subject: SHK 6.0554 Re: Branagh; Films; Adaptations Mixed in with the discussion of the merits of Branagh's work has been various comments, mostly disparaging, about the presence of Keanu Reeves in *Much Ado About Nothing*. While I continue to see him as being a "Bill and Ted" type, this much should be said about him: He continues to seek out roles that challenge him to be a better actor. It is easy to find actors or actresses that have loads and load of talent that simply take the easy roles in the movies that are sure to make lots of money. But I think that Reeves has exibited a penchant for taking roles that tend to be risks. Whatever the results may be, I think he deserves credit for putting more effort and daring into his work than many other higher salaried purveyors of his craft. Douglas Flummer, who happens to like "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"...one can't watch serious art 100% of the time. p.s. So Leonardo Dicaprio and Peter O'Toole are the cast of *R&J*. Which one is Romeo and which is Juliet? (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Monday, 17 Jul 95 08:19:58 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0554 Re: Branagh; Films; Adaptations I have several objections to the Gibson *Hamlet* although I do agree that there are some wonderful bits and the film does a good popular version of this most famous and therefore heavily weighed play. I found Zeffirelli's decision to cut long scenes into shorter ones (especially 1.2) distracting, because it also cut into the logic of the plot. Events became disconnected and almost random. That, combined with deep cuts, destroyed (for me) the rhythm of the play. I hated the Oedipal reading when Olivier did it and I hate it here. Of course everyone has an impossible, ideal Hamlet, but I felt Mel failed to show the gentler side of Hamlet, the pre-madness side. The courtesy to those of lower rank, moments of true caring to Ophelia, all these were lost in a wave of sarcasm. And finally, I now realize that Shakespeare knew what he was doing when he did not show Hamlet either boarding the pirate ship or stealing the letters, or dramatize Ophelia's death. These scenes just don't work. Annalisa Castaldo (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Seth Barron Date: Monday, 17 Jul 1995 15:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Branagh's terrible films I have just finished reviewing a week's worth of SHAKSPER-mail and am amazed and nauseated by the amount of defensive and reactive commentary in defense of Branagh's decidedly mediocre films. The shrill and condescending fatuousness about "the people" aside, I find it hard to believe that so many presumably credible people could be anything but bored by Branagh's cheap, flat, un-ironic exercises in trivial spectacle and self-promotion. The key moment for me is in Henry V when, after ruthlessly hanging Bardolph for stealing a pax from a church, Branagh introduces one of his stupid and unilluminating flashbacks to the tavern in order to sentimentalize the king: the cut back to the present shows Branagh-as-Henry with a tear running down his face. Branagh has to have it both ways: he wants to show Henry to be stern and so forth, but can't stand the idea of becoming unsympathetic to the audience because he panders so shamelessly. I agree entirely with the reactionary, even idolotrously fascistic reading of Branagh's film. The scenes with Katherine, those terrible scenes of King Henry's smug coyness, his perfect ease with conquer and rape, scenes which should be dificult for anyone short of Goebbles to read as delighful, are played as frothily as possible by Branagh, who winds up as smug and twee as Henry himself, though obviously unconsciously. As for MAAN, it is hard to respond to all of those effusive and desperate letters about the "aliveness" of Shakespeare, the "mirth" and "warmth" of the Immortal Bard, hard because those letters are so intensely embarrassing to read. Why is it the curse of Shakespeare studies to defend not just the relevance of its object to contemporary society, but its essential humor and general relevance to life, or "Life" as many would seem to have it, Life as an endless and exuberant country dance that we are committed to demonstrating the joy of to as many 14 to 18 year olds as possible? Why do I suspect that on other posts there are not cloying references to the "aliveness" of Milton, or to Dryden's "Warmth"? But as for the film, let me put forward just one question: if it is really so funny, why does Branagh have the characters laugh at their own and each other's jokes so maniacally? The only other movies I have ever seen where people laugh so frantically, with such an intense need to affirm humor where there may be none, are about crazy people. Obviously Branagh is cueing the audience with this absurd laughter, gentle hints from the master of arcane forced fun, alerting us to the presence of horn jokes, so patiently letting us know that, yes, this, _this_ is the Carnivalesque: Enjoy it! To finish let me just suggest that someone who really can deal with the cinematic representation of festivity in an interesting and complex way is Pasolini, who isn't afraid to deal with the morbidity of celebration. Seth Barron (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Sunday, 16 Jul 95 08:34:22 IST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0552 Re: Branagh Films Just to weigh in (on?) with the extensive discussion of Branagh's filmic effort to bring the Bard to "the people" (whoever THEY may be), I've taught MAAN twice over the past year and have found Branagh's film very useful as a means of get- ting students to think hard about the production aspects of what is all-too-oft en just another text they must plow through with my not always inspiring help. Among the issues we raised were those of casting decisions-Denzel Washington as one of the really "hot" Hollywood properties, as well as Michael Keaton just finished with _Batman_, clearly were chosen with a view to the draw--just as Shakespeare the businessman knew that Dogberry was a role Kempe would have a real frolic with. More interesting to me on a theoretical level was the highly erotic and therefore classicly comic opening sequence of the film, perhaps not intentionally making the film much more amenable to analysis as a pure comedy fraught with erotic energy and an undertone of potential tragedy, rather than a Shavian comedy of witty manners. I found that my students, both Arab and Jewish Israelis, made use of the film to construct arguments about potential productions and one trio of them even staged the scene in which Don John plants the seed of doubt in the minds of Claudio and company with Don John as a very campy Biker type, dancing onstage with a boombox playing Michael Jackson's "Bad"--an inspired interpretation of the necessity of a figure like Don John for a comedy in the Greek sense of the term, and also a much better Don John to my thinking than Keanu Reeves managed. As for the H5 debate, I would simply refer readers (if no one else has as yet) to an essay in _Shakespeare Right and Left_ (or maybe it's _Alternative Shak._) on Branagh's two versions of the play, his film having followed his RSC performance in a production heavily favoring the proletarian characters in every aspect of the staging, from emphasizing lines Branagh's film cuts (especially in Henry's reply to William in the famous incognito scene on the eve of Agincourt) to using a drinking song as a plaintive background motif for the later battle scenes. Fine essay--sorry to be so vague on the exact references. Michael Yogev University of Haifa m.yogev@uvm.haifa.ac.il (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Friday, 14 Jul 1995 13:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: film Lest I become responsible for an international incident, where we Yanks are once again made to seem to be playing the buffoons, let me assure everyone that when I referred to "some of the best American actors" making films like *Batman* I wasn't referring to Van Kilmer. I hesitate to name names, but listmembers might pause for a moment to ponder in silence what happened to the career of the man once played the lead role in *Five Easy Pieces* and *Chinatown.* And Professor Hawkes, in a nation which is now beginning to spend more money on prisons than schools, the head of the Bard hurled at us with all the fury of an Irishman comes to us, generally speaking, as an easy, welcome lob. --Robert Appelbaum ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 10:23:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0557 Qs: Calling Hamlets; Locating Lanyer Bio; *Cym.* Masque Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0557. Tuesday, 18 July 1995. (1) From: Tom Loughlin Date: Friday, 14 Jul 95 11:38:51 EDT Subj: *Hamlets* Wanted (2) From: Karen Krebser Date: Friday, 14 Jul 95 09:19:38 -0700 Subj: Aemilia Lanyer biography sought (3) From: Ivan Fuller Date: Saturday, 15 Jul 1995 16:15:14 -0500 Subj: Cymbeline's masque in production (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Loughlin Date: Friday, 14 Jul 95 11:38:51 EDT Subject: *Hamlets* Wanted Dear SHAKSPERians, I am currently in the midst of rehearsal for the Shakespeare in Delaware Park (Buffalo NY) production of *Hamlet*, which opens July 25 and runs for three weeks (dark Mondays). Our Hamlet, Bill Gonta, has asked me to write to you because he would like to correspond with anyone on the list who has *played* Hamlet on stage. He'd just like to pick your brains about your experiences playing the role in an attempt to gain further insight. If there's anyone out there who's played Hamlet and would be interested in talking with Bill, you can write to him at the following e-mail address: inky cloak@aol.com (he tells me the space between "inky" and "cloak" is correct). PLEASE correspond with him directly, as he is not subscribed to SHAKSPER at the moment. If there are any problems contacting him, please contact me at my e-mail address below. Thanks, everyone! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Friday, 14 Jul 95 09:19:38 -0700 Subject: Aemilia Lanyer biography sought Greetings, fellow SHAKSPERians. I am currently exploring the life of Aemilia Lanyer, and I'm wondering if anyone has come across a good biography of her. I've got Suzanne Woods' wonderful edition of Lanyer's "Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum"; the introduction to that volume is very interesting and informative. I'm also aware of A.L. Rowse's theories concerning Shakespeare's Dark Lady (I just haven't read them yet, although Woods makes a good case against him). I seem to be stuck, however, when it comes to a full biography. Thanks in advance, Karen Krebser San Jose State University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Fuller Date: Saturday, 15 Jul 1995 16:15:14 -0500 Subject: Cymbeline's masque in production I am in the initial planning stages for a small-scale production of Cymbeline and would appreciate hearing about how the masque (i.e. Jupiter on the eagle) has been staged. How effective have those presentations of the masque been? Is the scene often cut? Are there any productions of the play currently running or upcoming? Thank you for any feedback you can give me. Ivan Fuller Augustana College Sioux Falls, SD ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 11:01:15 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0560 Qs: Rosalind's Height; Performances; Teaching *Lr.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0560. Tuesday, 18 July 1995. (1) From: H Narushima Date: Saturday, 15 Jul 95 10:18:26 +0900 Subj: Rosalind's Height (2) From: H Narushima Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 95 14:17:14 +0900 Subj: Rosalind's Height2 (3) From: Paul Castillo Date: Saturday, 15 Jul 1995 16:58:22 -0400 Subj: Performances in England (4) From: John F. Keogh Date: Sunday, 16 Jul 1995 23:43:01 +1000 Subj: Teaching King Lear (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: H Narushima Date: Saturday, 15 Jul 95 10:18:26 +0900 Subject: Rosalind's Height Hello, fellow Shakespeareans! I am a Japanese Shakespearean living in Hokkaido, the northern island of Japan. Recently I was admitted to this SHAKSPER, and I'd like to open a discussion if possible. I'd like to ask one question: Which is taller, Rosalind or Celia? If we follow the Folios, in Act 1, Scene 2 of *As You Like It*, Le Beau says, "But yet indeed the taller is his [the Duke's, not the banished Duke's] daughter."(1.2.262, line numbers by the Arden edition). But at the end of the First Act, after Celia's father's (the Duke's) severe sentence of banishment, Rosalind decides to go away in a man's attire, saying "Because that I am more than common tall"(1.3.111). Many editions treat this problem as settled, by blaming Shakespeare's too rapid writing and his forgetfulness. And they emend the first sentence that I quoted to "the shorter is his daughter" in order to make it coherent. But it seems to me that here resides a hidden fatal issue, and I can't let go this unnoticed. As every Shakespearean knows, Rosaline is always dark and short in Shakesperean canon. You can assess this fact by access to LLL, ROM, or other related comedies. And I think that Rosalind is an analogue of Rosaline. Then, my point is, when Shakespeare wrote and depicted Rosalind on the pages in his study, I mean with no boy actor playing Rosalind before him, so that the playwright wasn't aware of the difference of height between the two boys, the writer could make his imagination go astray, holding the first images of Rosaline, a girl who is dark and short, Shakespeare's favorite girl images. Next day, the playwright comes to the stage, to rehearse the scene that he wrote last night, and seeing the two boy actors, he suddenly realizes that the boy who plays Rosalind is taller than the boy who is Celia. So, Shakespeare changes the words in 1.3., making Rosalind taller in the scenario, but he forgot to change the first instance. The fact that Rosalind is taller is very convenient, because he is the one who changes into a boy. Thus, the transvestism is naturally understood and the writer's mistake is forgotten on the stage. Rosalind is called "Rose" by Celia in 1.2., "Therefore my sweet Rose, my dear Rose, be merry"(1.2.21-22). We must remember that in *A Midsummer Night's Dream*, it is Hermia, who is dark and short, to whom these words of Theseus' are directed: But earthlier happy is the rose distilled Than that which, withering on the virgin thorn, Grows, lives, and dies in single belssedness. (1.1.76-78) We must also remember the fact that these sentences resemble the first several sonnets of Shakespeare, especially the ones which are addressed to the Young Man, who is also called "Rose"(Sonnet 1, line2). It goes without saying, in the Sonnets, one dark lady appears, although I admit that her appearance is delayed for about 120 or more sonnets later. These problems that I have shown above are unsettled in me and adhere to be solved with no considerable results yet. But one fact remains: Shakespeare couldn't get rid of the allurement the word "Rose" possessed. Could anyone be my assistant to solve the problem, or am I thinking far-fetchedly? Any of your ideas will be welcomed to this north end of Japan, though it takes a few minutes for your answers to arrive here. Thanks for the technologies! I'd be happy receiving opinions from feminist critics, Bbecause I think here remains the problem of transvestism, which is very fashinable these days in Shakespearean discussions. Thank you. Yours, Fumiyuki Narushima Human Sciences, Kitami Institute of Technology Hokkaido, Japan N15000@cc.kitami-it.ac.jp (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: H Narushima Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 95 14:17:14 +0900 Subject: Rosalind's Height2 The reason why I put the question of Rosalind's height goes two ways. 1) I wanted think this as an issue concerning primogeniture of that age. 2) The meaning of transvestism in the Elizabethan age differs from that of 1) Primogeniture defines the first born as legitimate. When Rosalind is in Celia's house, the new Duke Frederick (Celia's father) very naturally admits that Celia is legitimate. So the text says that when the play begins, Celia is taller, I mean the elder in age is almost naturally taller. We are not sure which of the two girls is older, but when it is defined that Celia is legitimate, she seems to be the taller and older psychologically. Here the contrast of high and low in rank is transposed to high-short contrast of height. This is not so eccentric a hypothesis to posit. Many psychological writings (especially those of dream theories) will be found to support it. After Duke Frederick's sentence of Rosalind's banishment, she independently decides to go away. Here we can observe the two dukedoms part. We will hear later that the banished Duke Senior is not dead, but has built a green-world dukedom of his own which sounds like more comfortable to live in than usual cities. When Rosalind was in Celia's house, she was second in rank, but now in the green dukedom, she is primogeniture. So, she becomes taller now. Almost always in Shakespearean canon, the contrast is made between two persons, the one is fair and tall, the other dark and short. And almost naturally the privilege goes to the former. *The Sonnets* is not exceptional. And in this situation, the lower tries to get the better off successfully. Hermia, the Dark Lady, and Rosaline in LLL defeat Helena, the Young Man, and Catherine. At least in some parts of the plays so. Every legitimate successor is always taller than bastards. Even Cordelia is said to be "little-seeming substance"(LR, 1.1.197), after Lear raged. She is said to be "last, and least . . . young"(82). And Regan, the second born, tries to beat her elder sister, saying "Only she comes too short"(71). Richard the crookback says, "I that am curtailed of this fair proportion" (18). The word "fair" sounds pregnant, because Edmund's mother was said to be "fair" also.(1.1.21-22). In that context, Gloucester blushes to acknowledge Edmund, he has another legitimate son, "yet was his [Edmund's] mother was fair." That is, although base-born, short, and dark, but his mother was fair. These two bastards (if I can call Richard a bastard,) are out of the Wheel of Fortune, not legitimate, not fair, thus dark and short. Bastard of Orleance's height is not made clear in 1H6, but he brings Joan du Pucelle with him, and she used to be "black and swart before"(1.2.83), but now she is fair, because "God's Mother . . ./ Will'd me to leave my base vocation"(78-80). Don John the Bastard "had rather be a canker in a hedge than a rose in his grace"(ADO, 1.3.27-28). Remember that "rose" is a symbol of legitimacy. Often in the pair of girls, in which the one transvestizes, the other is low in rank. Lucetta is the waiting-woman to Julia, Nerissa is so for Portia. Imogen goes alone, but at home she is attended by a girl named Helen. And always the higher in rank changes clothes. The exceptions are Hermia-Helena, and Rosalind-Celia. These two girls are the same in rank, they are friends, and almost homosexual. In the case of Hermia, she doesn't become a man. Helena, who is fair, psychologically becomes a man by chasing the person whom she loves. We should remember that a chasing woman is strange in the Elizabethan age. Venus and Helena in *All's Well* were exceptional. Can I say that the name means a lot here? But even Helena in MND doesn't change clothes. The only transvestist low-rank woman is Rosalind. In fact, she is not base, but temporary so. And as have shown previously, her fairness and tallness went together with her recovery of her legitimacy. It could be an inevitable demand of comedy, whose vector goes from the low to the high, which puts this form to the plays I cited. 2) In the Elizabethan age, there seems to be no transvestism in which men changes into women. Except for Falstaff, I remember none in Shakespeare's comedies. Let me explain the reason why as follows: Men changes into women because they want to be the persons they adore. Especially they adore women's body. And if there is not a body as a model, there will be no transvestism in the modern sense. That seems to be the situation on the Elizabethan stage. Before the actress appeared, there would have been no women's BODY on stage. Then, who wanted to be nothing, if nothing is shown on stage? So, the trans- vestism in that age went one way, only women became men. In the case of Falstaff, the circumstance is particular, but the principle holds. He wants to be a woman, because it is the only way for him to escape safely. Let me make it plain, every man and woman, if he/she does something, he has a motive, and that motive makes him (or he believes it will) happy, not felt degraded. Am I going like Hercule Poirot, or Sherlock Holmes? Give me your answers! Cheers, Fumiyuki Narushima P.S. The problem remains of Mary Frith, the Roaring Girl. But if Frith was on stage, I wonder if her sexuality was a real matter for all the folks who came to see her roar. Her sexuality was always hidden behind her men's clothes, wasn't it? What I mean is that sexuality on the Elizabethan stage derived almost always from the boys. I've heard that the situation around the Elizabethan stage was very similar to that of Japanese Kabuki in the old days. I don't mean that these days such a custom is living, in fact I deny it. But it is true that I've also heard that the boys were sometimes sold on stage. P.S. again I forgot to mention *Arcadia*. Of course, in this Sidney's prose work, a man changes into a woman, and there begins the hurly-burly. But I can't remember when it was played on stage. This brings you to John Day's *The Isle of Guls*, where Lisander(!) changes into an Amazon. But like Britomart unravelling her hair, it is feminine beauty which is foregrounded, not masculine. Thank you. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Castillo Date: Saturday, 15 Jul 1995 16:58:22 -0400 Subject: Performances in England Hello: Does anyone know what Shakespeare plays are being performed in Stratford Upon Avon, London (Barbican, Globe, etc.), and in general the south of England during 22 Aug - 6 Sept 1995? Thanks, Paul Castillo Irvine673@AOL.com (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John F. Keogh Date: Sunday, 16 Jul 1995 23:43:01 +1000 Subject: Teaching King Lear I have been teaching Shakespeare to Year 11 and Year 12 students for over thirty years. *Hamlet*, *Macbeth*, *Othello*, *Antony and Cleo*, the Histories and the Comedies pose no insuperable problems. I enjoy teaching them and my students appear to have enjoyed my lessons. Why can't I cope with *King Lear* ? Why don't I even like the play much? Middleton Murry didn't like it and Thackeray said:- "We all found the play a bore . . . . It is almost blasphemy to say a play of Shakespeare's is bad; but I can't help it if I think so." I'm with Thackeray, I'm not proud of it nor do I want to be with him specially as I have to teach it again this year. Can someone tell me why I cannot like it and what I can do to learn to like it so that I can put the same enthusiasm into King Lear as I do for the others. Has anyone mastered the same problem? I'd be grateful to hear from you. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 11:03:27 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0561 Thanks: Shakespeare Bust Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0561. Tuesday, 18 July 1995. From: Paul Castillo Date: Saturday, 15 Jul 1995 17:01:39 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare Bust Hi there: Thanks for the information on where to get a bust of Shakespeare. We have sent for some catalogs, and have starting looking in antique stores. Paul Castillo and Deborah Ennis Irvine673@AOL.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 11:06:56 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0562 CFV: New Newsgroup on Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0562. Tuesday, 18 July 1995. From: Marty Hyatt Date: Saturday, 15 Jul 1995 23:28:44 -0400 Subject: CFV: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) unmoderated group humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare Newsgroups line: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare Poetry, plays, history of Shakespeare. Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 2 Aug 1995. This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. For voting questions only contact Michael Handler . For questions about the proposed group contact Marty Hyatt . RATIONALE Shakespeare has been discussed frequently in rec.arts.theatre.plays and occasionally in rec.arts.books. There is also a moderated listserv list, SHAKSPER, devoted to Shakespeare. But there is no Usenet newsgroup specifically for the discussion of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. The new group humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare will be unmoderated. There are no plans to gate the new group to the listserv list. During the first discussion period, few or no objections were raised to the Charter itself. Comments focused on the group's name. As a result, the originally proposed name (humanities.literature.english.shakespeare) was modified to the present humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare, which was used for the second discussion period. During the second discussion period, there were very few comments (and all were favorable). CHARTER The unmoderated newsgroup humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare will be for discussion of: 1> the plays and poems of William Shakespeare and other English writers of the 16th and 17th centuries. 2> the life and times of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. 3> the production, staging, and acting of Shakespeare's plays, including current and past productions. 4> Shakespeare's influence and impact on subsequent literature and culture. 5> Shakespeare's authorship including his sources, allusions in his works, publication of his works, possible collaborations, and possible pseudonymity. DISTRIBUTION This Call For Votes (CFV) has been crossposted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, humanities.misc, rec.arts.books, rec.arts.theatre.plays After this Call For Votes (CFV) appears in , it will be sent to the following mailing list(s): * shaksper@utoronto.bitnet HOW TO VOTE One vote counted per person, no more than one per account. Attempts at ballot box stuffing or vote fraud will not be treated lightly. ************************************************************************** *** IMPORTANT: _Addresses_ and _votes_ of all voters will be published *** *** in the final voting results list. UVV voting on Usenet is not done *** *** by secret ballot. If you don't like this, don't vote. *** ************************************************************************** Send email to: Just replying should work if you are not reading this on a mailing list. Your mail message should contain ONE (and only ONE) of the following statements: I vote YES on humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare I vote NO on humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare I vote ABSTAIN on humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare I CANCEL my vote on humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare If you vote ABSTAIN, your vote will be registered and will be shown in the final results posting, but it will not affect the outcome of the vote. It is intended as a form of symbolic protest, nothing more. If you CANCEL your vote, all records of your vote will be purged from the active results file, and your name and address will not be listed in the final results posting. ABSTAIN and CANCEL are nearly the same thing -- the only difference is, with ABSTAIN, your name and address are still listed in the final listing. If you later change your mind you may vote again. Only your last valid vote will count and will be published in the final results posting. Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program. The votetaker will respond to your received ballots with a personal acknowledgement by mail -- if you do not receive one within several days, try again. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly. After the final results are posted to , there will then be a five-day period during which the published vote list may be corrected and any irregularities addressed. OFFICIAL SOURCES OF THE CFV The only official sources of this CFV are: * The copy which was crossposted to * Any copies which were sent to mailing lists by the votetaker (and *only* the votetaker) * One received from the votetaker's automated mailserver To obtain a copy of the CFV from the votetaker's mailserver, send an email message to . This is an automated function, so it does not matter what you say in this message. The text of the message will be discarded. IMPORTANT: If you give anyone copies of the CFV, the copies must be whole and unmodified. Distributing pre-filled in ballots or modified copies of this CFV is considered voting fraud. If this occurs on a large scale or causes voting problems or irregularities, the vote may be canceled. When in doubt, ask the votetaker. -- Michael Handler Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) Usenet Volunteer Votetakers WWW page: ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 10:18:33 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0563 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0563. Wednesday, 19 July 1995. (1) From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 11:45:15 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0558 Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 22:18:06 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0558 Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (3) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 18:40:11 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0558 Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 11:45:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0558 Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Bruce Young argues that the notion of "Shakespeare as Cultural Construct" is reductive and dismissive -- that a "political" consideration of the text is one-dimensional (and others on the Branagh debate have implied similarly). How, pray, is this any more reductive than the scholar who reads "SH. as Cultural Construct" being told by an august Shakespearean critic that the truth of the matter resides in some sort of transcendent "business" like Love, Truth, or Beauty? Nothing seems more reductive to me than the the pronouncement that *X* is REALLY about the "human condition" etc. The option to be able to consider an author or a text as a cultural construction was, for me, an inspiration rather than a reduction. Whether I am "straightforward" in my approach to textuality I cannot say, but I might add that I'm capable of "valuing" and "enjoying" Shakespeare PRECISELY because of his status as a cultural construction. I've often (too often) heard academics work themselves up into a spluttering frenzy over the "incomprehensible jargon" of THEORY -- which is more telling of their reluctance or inability to engage with theoretical approaches than of those approaches themselves. Similarly, I might suggest, some readers of Shakespeare might feel that "cultural" readings of the Bard are designed to be reductive and dismissive by their originators, when, in fact, it is the reduction or dismissal of those discussions that appears to render them reductive or dismissive (I apologise for the awkwardness of this last sentence). Simon Morgan-Russell Department of English Bowling Green State University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 22:18:06 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0558 Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Bruce Young has raised a question about the way debate proceeds on this list, and it deserves attention. His argument is that the constant cry "ah, that's a cultural construct" which drops in from the likes of Terry Hawkes is a bit of a cop-out. Worse still: "Those making the "cultural construct" arguments seem (at least momentarily) incapable of enjoying or valuing Shakespeare (and all the associated phenomena) in the same straightforward way as the rest of us mortals." I am pleased to claim that I neither enjoy nor value Shakespeare in a sraightforward way. It's very interesting to do Shakespeare studies, but I remember answering bizarre questions like "Say what you have enjoyed and valued in Shakespeare's xyz" at school and I had enough teenage perversity to give a direct answer to this direct question. It is only when I became allowed to discuss the way that Shakespeare is taught and its position at the peak of that cultural construct (damn, I said it) 'English Literature' that I got interested in the subject. Studying what this 'English Literature' is, what it is used for, and by whom, leads very quickly to the real topic underlying all human activity: Politics. If you don't want to talk about politics, there is one other option: discuss tangible empirical knowledge. For example, we can quite easily and profitably discuss the shape of Globe. If you want to discuss why it was this shape (not the carpentry, but the intention behind the configuration) you will find yourself right back in there with politics: how does the signifying 'machine' (a playhouse) running its software (the play) work? (These terms are Andrew Gurr's I think, good aren't they?) So, it's not that 'cultural construct' is a big woolly term which potentially covers everything and hence means nothing. Rather, it's a reminder that the shroud of immanence that Dame Poetry wears is man-made. (I know I must have plagiarized that from somewhere; could the original owner please collect it at the end of class). You can discuss what the plays mean (which is what 90% of SHAKSPER traffic does) and acknowledge that you're talking politics (as Hawkes, Drakakis, etc do), or you can discuss what the plays mean and pretend you're not talking politics (as Godshalk, amongst others does). Or you discuss the tangible/empiricals. Hawkes and Drakakis have adopted the 'pennies from heaven' approach because this forum is supposed to be peer-to-peer (those computer terms do come in handy, don't they?) and its not easy to convince peers that all interpretation is political. Undergraduates can be made to accept this simple fact by intense dialogue within seminars. Bruce Young fingers Terry Hawkes, and I am guessing that John Drakakis is implicated too, so I have named names. By the way...does anyone think that 'tangible empirical knowledge' of the kind I mean (you know, what-shape-was-the-Globe? stuff) is culturally constructed? No teasing answers, please. Regards Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 18:40:11 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0558 Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Hear, hear! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 10:23:51 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0564 Re; *Cym.* Masque Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0564. Wednesday, 19 July 1995. (1) From: John Cox Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 11:44:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0557 Qs: *Cym.* Masque (2) From: Michael Swanson Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 11:31:35 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0557 *Cym.* Masque (3) From: Simon du Toit Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 12:11:04 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0557 *Cym.* Masque (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 11:44:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0557 Qs: *Cym.* Masque Regarding the descent of Jupiter in *Cymbeline*, it was not cut from the only production I've seen on stage--at Stratford, Ontario, in 1970. It was handled as a numinous event: dark stage, brightly-lit eagle, mysterious voice, rising stage fog. The eagle emerged on that top playing area in the main theater. It was a stylized Roman eagle. I can't remember if it bore a god or if the voice of the god simply accompanied the appearance of the eagle. The fact that I remember this much 25 years later suggests that it was theatrically effective. John Cox Hope College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Swanson Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 11:31:35 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0557 *Cym.* Masque The production at the Stratford, Ontario, Festival (directed by Robin Phillips) in 1986 set the play between World Wars I & II. In the masque scene, Jupiter appeared in the cockpit of a bomber as a pilot (plane was suggested by the cockpit windows, a slight suggestion of fuelage, and the plane's two propellers). It was surprisingly effective. Pretty tough for a small-scale production, though. Michael Swanson Franklin College of Indiana (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon du Toit Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 12:11:04 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0557 *Cym.* Masque Wisconsin Shakespeare Festival in Platteville Wisconsin is doing Cymbeline right now, in rotating rep with Comedy of Errors and I think R and J, now thru Aug. 12. Call (608) 342-1298. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 10:29:26 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0565 Qs: Adriana; *Endymion* Bibliography Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0565. Wednesday, 19 July 1995. (1) From: Sarah Cave Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 11:24:15 EST Subj: Adriana (2) From: Rick Jones Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 14:06:07 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Endymion bibliography (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Cave Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 11:24:15 EST Subject: Adriana I would like to post a question to the members of SHAKESPER regarding an acting question. My roommate, a very strong and talented actress, is about to begin rehearsals for the role of Adriana in COMEDY OF ERRORS. The two of us have been engaged in several conversations about how she can portray Adriana in a likeable manner. Any hints on qualities or characteristics that can be employed so that Adriana is not perceived as a shrew would be greatly appreciated. If you would like to post replies directly to me, please feel free to do so. Gratefully, Sarah (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 1995 14:06:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Endymion bibliography Any Lyly scholars out there? I've been asked to compile a bibliography of five (and only five) sources on *Endymion*, with the following guidelines: sources should deal with the play, as opposed to Lyly in general on the one hand or just a few lines on the other--books about Lyly are OK, provided they provide specific discussion about the play; sources must be in English, generally available even outside major research libraries, and comprehensible to the General Reader (first cousin to The People, to whom Branagh is alleged to address his films). It's been a while since I really spent any time on Lyly, so my list is currently dominated by pre-1980 stuff. The only two sources I'm sure to include on my list are the books by Hunter and Saccio. Bevington's *Tudor Drama and Politics* is a possibility, as are Sallie Bond's article in SEL 14, Jocelyn Powell's article in Brown & Harris's *Elizabethan Theatre*, Saccio's article in Hibbard's *Elizabethan Theatre*, and Peter Weltner's article in ELR 3. I've just done an MLA search on newer material, but haven't yet tracked down the sources themselves. Any suggestions for newer readings, or comments on the above, greatly appreciated. As you can see, I'm pretty much avoiding the whole topical allegory theme, except as touched on by critics who see larger perspectives. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Rick Jones University of Kansas rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 10:35:36 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0566 Re: Cleopatra's Age; Calling Hamlets Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0566. Wednesday, 19 July 1995. (1) From: Nicholas Ranson Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 95 15:34:53 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0559 Re: Branagh; Films (2) From: Tom Loughlin Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 95 09:35:47 EDT Subj: Re:Qs: Calling Hamlets (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicholas Ranson Date: Tuesday, 18 Jul 95 15:34:53 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0559 Re: Branagh; Films Most classical authorities cite Cleopatra as 39 at her death, I think, though mid 60s is also a fascinating age, I suspect. I saw Judi Dench's Cleopatra at the National, and she was the most compelling of any, and somewhat over 40. Nick. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Loughlin Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 95 09:35:47 EDT Subject: Re:Qs: Calling Hamlets A correction to the note below - the correct e-mail address for Mr. Gonta is inkycloak@aol.com. There is NO Space between "inky" and "cloak", as Bill thought. Sorry for the error and the trouble. > I am currently in the midst of rehearsal for the Shakespeare in Delaware Park > (Buffalo NY) production of *Hamlet*, which opens July 25 and runs for three > weeks (dark Mondays). Our Hamlet, Bill Gonta, has asked me to write to you > because he would like to correspond with anyone on the list who has *played* > Hamlet on stage. He'd just like to pick your brains about your experiences > playing the role in an attempt to gain further insight. If there's anyone ou > there who's played Hamlet and would be interested in talking with Bill, you > write to him at the following e-mail address: inky cloak@aol.com (he tells m > the space between "inky" and "cloak" is correct). PLEASE correspond with him > directly, as he is not subscribed to SHAKSPER at the moment. If there are an > problems contacting him, please contact me at my e-mail address below. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 10:02:46 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0567 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0567. Thursday, 20 July 1995. (1) From: Jim Helfers Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 08:31:36 -0700 (MST) Subj: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (2) From: Naomi Liebler Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 95 12:13:00 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0563 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (3) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 10:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0563 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (4) From: James Schaefer Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 14:25:46 -0400 (EDT) ubje Re: SHK 6.0563 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (5) From: Brian Corrigan Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 95 16:37:13 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0563 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (6) From: David Wilson-Okamura Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 17:13:48 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0563 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (7) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 19:37:02 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0558 Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Helfers Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 08:31:36 -0700 (MST) Subject: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct As an erstwhile cultural poeticist/new historicist, I sympathize with the views presented by Terence Hawkes et. al. concerning the cultural forces which strongly influence (if not determine) both the text itself and the audiences' responses to it. But I think what the critics of the approach mean when they call cultural materialism reductionist has to do with both the tone in which pronouncements are made and an inherent (to me) logical contradiction. The tone with which some C-M's write indicates their rejection of any notion of trancendent meaning. I can understand why they reject it; the range of possible influences renders concept of trancendent meaning problematic. But if one rejects any kind of trancendent meaning (dare I say truth?), then one is, so to speak, hoist on his/her own petard. That is to say, what combination of cultural forces determined the response of the cultural materialist? The "insight" that all texts are determined by cultural forces is itself a text determined by cultural forces. In what way can such a phenomenon be explanatory? What do we mean by "explanatory" in this sense? I'm caught in the house of mirrors and I think I'm beginning to look a bit thin (though for me that would be a plus). To give some other examples of the way this contradiction works: What unconscious psychosexual impulses caused Freud's theory of same? What physical stimulus elicited the response of B.F. Skinner's behaviorism? Once again, the point: the theory-maker or explainer operates from a position which trancends his/her theory. If the theory can't account for how explanation and trancendence of this type occur, then it's reductionist. For a better and more complete explanation of this, see Walker Percy's essays on language. I can only speak for myself. This is the problem I see with cultural materialist explanations; they don't tell me how they explain anything. I'm sure someone has an answer for this. If not, you'll dismiss me to the Godshalk gulag. --Jim Helfers Grand Canyon University atjph@asuvm.inre.asu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 95 12:13:00 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0563 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Gabriel Egan asks: "does anyone think that 'tangible empirical knowledge' of the kind I mean (you know, what-shape-was-the-Globe? stuff) is culturally constructed? No teasing answers, please." You bet! Have a look at Frances Yates's classic _Theatre of the World_, U of Chicago Press, 1969 and Lily Bess Campbell's _Scenes and Machines on the English Stage During the Renaissance_ (CUP, 1923). The Yates book especially should convince you. Notice the publication dates of these? The language in which the politics of theatrical architecture is presented is a generation or two away from our own, but the conviction is there, nonetheless. And for the jargon-ly challeneged, these books pose no threat at all. When I read them more than 20 years ago, I was politically clueless; only now can I begin to see where Yates's observations might take us. Cluing in.... Naomi Liebler (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 10:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0563 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Hello all. If memory serves me correctly, the original poster wasn't particularly opposed to Shakespeare as cultural construct, but was opposed to the hegemonic grasp of political criticism over current academia and particularly discussion on this list. Mr. Egan argues that there are only two forms of true criticism: political or empirical, which are both political anyway, since everything is political. Leaving aside the argument that a definition of the political broad enough to encompass everything would rob the term of meaning, isn't such a position narrow? Don't the cultural materialists do precisely what they accuse more conservative critics of doing--imposing a single type of scholarship on all students, in which only one answer will be accepted? At least the traditional critics used terms which were themselves subjects of philosophical debate, and therefore open to interpretation. Finally, Mr. Egan claims that undergraduates can be convinced of the political nature of the text in intense seminars, or something to that effect. Isn't that rather like a don sitting down student X (who doesn't have the education or academic prestige for the confrontation to be egalitarian) in the 1940's and convincing him/her that everything depends upon Aristotelian tragic theory? Cheerio, Sean. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 14:25:46 -0400 (EDT) ubject: Re: SHK 6.0563 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct To Simon Morgan-Russell: Speaking only for myself, I am beyond tired of hearing that literature in general and Shakespeare in particular (and other forms of art, architecture, etc.) are essentially political. I've lived long enough to _know_ that politics is what we all do with and to each other (which makes drama, as the imitation of what we do with and to, the ideal form of mimesis), but so what? If indeed the political is as ubiquitous as air, only its absence or its pollution are worth noting. It is only a (not _the_) starting point, just as "1" can function as a universal divisor, but only leaves you where you started. When a reader begins to investigate the _how_ of a particular political expression, the how of a _particular_ play or poem (or building), the generalizations fall away before the facts of the individual life, whether lived or imagined. Those facts are unique and I find them fascinating. They are, indeed, the very reason why I read: to learn about that which is not me, about those millions of things that are not entirely inside my head. This is the reason I wanted to get into this business of teaching in the first place. Jim Schaefer (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Corrigan Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 95 16:37:13 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0563 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Morgan-Russell and Egan's responses to Bruce Young's argument that the notion of "Shakespeare as Cultural Construct" is reductive and dismissive -- that a "political" consideration of the text is one-dimensional seems, I believe, to miss the point of Young's lament on the one hand and to help Young to make his point on the other. The question, "How, pray, is this any more reductive than the scholar who reads 'SH. as Cultural Construct' being told by an august Shakespearean critic that the truth of the matter resides in some sort of transcendent 'business' like Love, Truth, or Beauty? Nothing seems more reductive to me than the the pronouncement that *X* is REALLY about the 'human condition' etc." ignores Young's construction that there are several readings available in the text and that the socio-political commentator has tended to view the text only as a cultural document. And what of the aesthetic? Not to the exclusion of all else, certainly, but--and here please forgive an old fashioned understanding of poetry-- what of the simple beauty of a line, an image, a turn of phrase? I am a young scholar myself, still fairly dripping from my own graduate course in theory (which I *do* value), but I for one believe that beauty has taken a pretty bad rap from psuedo-intellectual encoders. I am not crying "damn the street-socialist poet" who may sing to make a difference, for there is surely a tone of unrest in the period drama, and that unrest expresses itself politically as well as artistically. But Young, I thought, accounted for that. To me Young was saying that the "cultural critic" has taken on a fatuous tone of "politics explains all" and in so stating chilled an otherwise lively discussion by constructing a wall to debate. Any construction that rejects all others by suggesting that it embraces all others, I would contend along with Young, is not only counterproductive (shall we read Milton again?) but also rather green if not primarily intellectually paranoid. The "academics [who] work themselves up into a spluttering frenzy over the 'incomprehensible jargon' of THEORY" are not so much "telling of their reluctance or inability to engage with theoretical approaches than of those approaches themselves" than they are rejecting that group of academics who have chosen to psychobabble about the process of receiving texts in a rather thinly-veiled attempt to keep from actually confronting the text themselves. I believe the theoretical underpinnings of literature that have been adduced are valuable only insofar as they encourage debate among the greatest number of learned students of the discipline. There is a great deal of value in the right use of theory. The right use of theory is to bring additional voices to the debate. This may be done without speaking in tongues. Exclusionists do not good academics make. I am distressed to see the myopia in my colleague who can seriously contend that any study of "English Literature . . . leads very quickly to the real topic underlying all human activity: Politics" as if to suggest this is the only place it can lead. And here I can only refer back to Young's pithy reference to Hegel. Here Egan only proves Young's point by example--as indeed he does again when he relates the "tangible-empiricals" back to politics, even though he himself begins by stating, "If you don't want to talk about politics, there is one other option: discuss tangible empirical knowledge." If one walks in circles, one is undoubtedly going to step into the same trap again and again. Dame Poetry is undoubtedly man-made, unless we accept the construct of our discipline that she is divinely inspired. But, so too are politics man- made. Man, however, is not politics (and sometimes not even politic), as he is not poetry (I pray for a good, rattling feminist attack upon this whole paragraph--indeed this entire response), therefore, poetry is not politics any more than politics is poetry, but each an aspect of the creature from which it derives. The multiple meanings in us are reflected in the multiple meanings in our art, and I, with Young, reject the notion that "it all boils down to" any one aspect or approach. Or, as Kennedy more succinctly states in reference to Young, "Hear, hear!" Brian Corrigan North Georgia College (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Wilson-Okamura Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 17:13:48 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0563 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Gabriel Egan writes (among other things) >. . . Studying what this 'English Literature' is, what it is used >for, and by whom, leads very quickly to the real topic underlying all human >activity: Politics. Is this begging the question, or was that supposed to be humorous? Yours faithfully, David Wilson-Okamura (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 19:37:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0558 Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Perhaps seeing everything as a cultural construct is one of the things people do for fun, people who like to think and argue. It's the cool way to think these days, just like Marxism was the cool way to think earlier in this century. There must be value in it for those who enjoy it. Lately I've been seeing the ruling philosophy of the West as Existentialism. Books, films, short stories in particular, must exude existentialism to get published. I think the extreme popularity of that Tom Hanks film (can't think of the name) had to do with the weariness of hordes of moviegoers with waiting for Godot to show up. The popularity of the film Star Wars also can be attributed to the excitement of spending an hour or so in a world where there was a superior power at the heart of everything (the Force). I knew a variety of young people that saw it ten, twelve, fifteen times. Absurdity is okay as a garnish, but as a steady diet it leaves something to be desired. I guess what I'm trying to say is that almost any way of looking at the world is okay with me as long as it is meaningful in some way, and sets itself apart from the deadly (kids with semiautomatics), banal (a thin layer of chewing gum and graphitti covering everything everywhere, in the U.S. at least), and ugly (don't ask) manifestations of an entire culture living from day to day without a core of passionate belief in something. "Hegemony, hegemony, hegemony onward, All in the valley of death, rode the six hundred." Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 10:11:25 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0568 Re: Ant. & Cleo.; Branagh Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0568. Thursday, 20 July 1995. (1) From: David Jackson Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 95 09:45:29 est Subj: Re: SHK 6.0559 Re: Branagh; Films (2) From: JC Stirm Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 95 11:30 PDT Subj: A&C casting (3) From: Brian Corrigan Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 95 16:54:22 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0559 Re: Branagh; Films (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 95 09:45:29 est Subject: Re: SHK 6.0559 Re: Branagh; Films Re: A&C ages. As I remember (Adam?), Antony was born in the low 80s BC, and Cleopatra was born in 69 BC. They both died in 30 BC. So he was in his early 50s and she pushing 40. Re: Branagh/MAAN. I know this has been almost beaten to death (I hope this will finish it off), so I will try to be brief. Looked at in its own right, independent of whether it brings the bard to the masses or whatever, the film struck me as a curious hodgepodge of styles, some of which worked and other which didn't. The scenes between Branagh and Thompson I found highly effective and engaging, but as soon as anyone else came into the picture the impact was diffused. I think very highly of Richard Briers, but he did seem to be a walking laughtrack (I agree with the comment about "telling" us that its supposed to be funny by having everyone laugh even at stuff that isn't very funny). Keaton and Elton (read his novels, by the way) were incomprehensible, and thus could have been saying anything (this is a very tired and overused method of trying to inject humor into Shakespeare "comic" lines whose archaic lines may have had them rolling in the aisles of the Globe, but just don't mean anything now; I've done it before myself, but I always feel fraudulent when I say one of those unfunny lines while rolling my eyes or mugging or falling down or whatever, knowing that the laugh has nothing to do with what's being said). Finally, I thought the direction was dull; after the interesting and amusing "magnificent seven" beginning, the camera work tended to be either two- or three- shots a la TV, and the group scenes seemed to have everyone standing in a line, bunched together as close as possible to fit onto a flat 25" screen. Keanu was as good as any of the others. I only saw it once, however (in a cinema), so these are the impressions I was left with. I haven't seen Henry V (were there four previous movies, like the Rocky series?) or "Peter's Friends" or "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" (as opposed to George Eliot's?), but I did see "Dead Again", which is how the direction and writing left each scene. By the way, my favorite Emma Thompson film is "The Tall Guy", which IS a modern classic. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JC Stirm Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 95 11:30 PDT Subject: A&C casting Stephanie Hughes; First of all, thanks for your response to my posting about casting Cleopatra. You comment (I've cut the opening part about age): As for Emma playing Cleopatra, I should think a black wig would do, purely to conform with tradition. Unless there's been some recent research that I've missed, Cleopatra was the last of the Ptolemies, first put in power by Alexander the Great, Macedonians originally, and therefor, white. And even if she hadn't been white historically, if Denzel Washington can play a sixteenth century Italian prince, why not a white actor a black role? Good question. I'll try to keep my response short, and expect others to hop in with amplifications etc. Let's start with where we seem to agree: race blind casting (Denzel Washington as Prince of Aragon, for example) is a positive choice; it feeds our ideals that people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds can function in every role in a modern society. It also opens up casting. But there are plays where race blind casting doesn't seem to work. I think *A&C* is one of those plays; so is *Othello*. Since the arguments for casting Othello as a black man are more familiar, let me start there. Race and Racism are important elements in *Othello*; the stream of racist comments from Iago, the Duke and others give an indication of the level of racism in the playworld. It's no accident that the play starts in Venice, one of the places early modern English folk generally thought of as a point of contact with people of non-European origins. Imagine a well-intentioned production which casts Othello as a white man; they mean well, but they make it very difficult for the audience to see the ways that Iago and company work to construct Othello through speech, and the ways that Othello works to construct himself within and against the confines of their words. A lot of what Othello says in the early scenes attempts to make him fit into Venetian society. But when Othello kills himself saying, "I took by th'throat the circumcised dog / And smote him thus" (5.2.351-2 in the New Cambridge edn), he's putting himself in the position of "a malignant and a turbaned Turk" (349), he's recognizing that he's not in. The country club has a race barrier, so to speak. But our white actor would have a difficult time making an audience see that (especially in a U.S. where so many are now claiming that there's no need for affirmative action). Now to *A&C*: first, whatever Cleopatra's historical color, the play sees her as dark. She says that she is "with Pheobus' amorous pinches black" (1.5.29 in the New Cambridge edn), and has a "tawny front" (if I recall correctly). (I've seen lots of early modern European pictoral representations of Cleo' and she's usually VERY white, so I think the play is making a point of her darkness.) A lot of the language about Cleopatra and Egypt shows both as feminine, super-sexual and undisciplined, and sounds very much like that post-colonial theorists find in colonialist literature about colonized peoples. In fact, the play represents Rome as a kind of proto-colonial power and engages in a process of working out ways of dealing with contact between European and non- European peoples. Race, sex, gender and class are all important elements in the play's construction of Egyptian/Roman relations. Sure, an early modern company would have had a white male actor play Cleo' in drag with dark make-up (the play draws attention to these practices). We could do the same (Macauley Caulkin as Cleo' anyone?), but I think the modern audience would find that distracting, and, no doubt, offensive. I think the play would work better if the actor were able to make us aware that race, too, is an element in the play. And I don't think a white actor can do that at this point. I've gone on longer than I intended; yet I'm sure I've left gaping holes. Thanks again for your response Stephanie! Best, Jan Stirm izzyyg4@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Corrigan Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 95 16:54:22 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0559 Re: Branagh; Films I question the sources consulted in regards to Cleopatra's age and race. As Cleopatra VII was born in 69 B.C. and died in or around 31 B.C., she would have been much closer to 38 or 39 years of age when she died rather than "60ish"--I do, however, concur that casting "a woman of colour" would be an unusual manner to portray the last of the Ptolemy line---a Macedonian (Northern Greek) dynasty ruling a conquered people under colour of Alexander's original regime. My reference here is Peter Green's _Alexander to Actium_ published by the University of California Press. Brian Corrigan North Georgia College ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 10:18:21 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0569 Re: *Cym.* Masque Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0569. Thursday, 20 July 1995. (1) From: G.L. Horton Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 13:19:04 +0059 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0564 Re; *Cym.* Masque (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 13:33:58 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0564 Re; *Cym.* Masque (3) From: Erika Lin Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 11:35:25 -0700 Subj: Re: *Cym.* Masque (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: G.L. Horton Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 13:19:04 +0059 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0564 Re; *Cym.* Masque I, too, remember the eagle in the Stratford Cymbaline -- in fact, I remember almost all of that production, one of the highlights of my Shakespeare playgoing. If SHAXICON is right and Will played Jupiter in Cym, then I bet the Jupiter scene was a crowd-wower. I know it wowed me. I also saw the Papp in-the-park production that same season. In that one, it was the more intimate scenes that were most effective. I don't remember the Jupiter scene, but I doubt that it was cut, because the surreal costuming and choreography of the battle scenes were such a distinctive part of the show that the opportunity for further surrealism should have been irresistable. But it didn't wow me. The Jupiter scene was one of the better ones in the ineffective Huntington Theatre production here in Boston a few years back -- but that may have been because the Posthumous was excellent, and the scene's power was directly connected to the hero's conversion and redemption. G.L. Horton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 13:33:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0564 Re; *Cym.* Masque I saw Cymbeline last year at the MOUNT (edith Wharton house) and they, alas, cut the "vision/theophany" scene--but they had a very young cast (it was their b or c cast) and, aside from a terrible frat-boy Jachimo, it was not a bad place to take my father to (his first Shakespeare play!)---There is a book in the "Shakespeare in Performance" scene by, I forget who (Roger Warren?) that makes a good case for performace of that scene in the play. Chris Stroffolino (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Erika Lin Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 11:35:25 -0700 Subject: Re: *Cym.* Masque This is my first posting, so hello to everyone on SHAKSPER. I've been a silent reader for the last 8 months and have enjoyed the discussions on this mailing list immensely. I directed a very low-budget _Cymbeline_ at U.C.-Berkeley in April of 1994. When I read the stage direction (I believe it's something like "Jupiter descends in thunder and lightning, riding on an eagle"--I'm quoting from memory here), I could only laugh. We were performing outside with no lights, no sound, no special effects, and no real set. A good 50% of our total budget went for publicity, another 25% went for costumes. My original plan was to have Jupiter walk up the center aisle of the audience, delivering his lines in a booming voice. Because of the blocking situation with the ghosts, the final choice was to have Jupiter simply walk out of an entrance upstage center. The effect depended much on the ghost's reactions and on Jupiter having a _very_ loud voice. I think ultimately it was much more effective than rigging up a contraption that looked something like an papier-mache eagle. It would have been much more distracting to have a cheap "special effect" than to have no effect at all. We had the same problem with getting the trunk onstage for the Iachimo- Imogen scene. The only trunk available large enough to fit the 6'2" Iachimo was too heavy to carry, and trying to wheel it up the walkway would have been too noisy. Finally we just left the trunk onstage but to the side from the start of the play. When the time came for Iachimo to climb in the trunk, Cloten and his lords entered from the audience center aisle, noisily and drunkenly. I had a friend who came to more than a few rehearsals, and one day he told me he had just one question: Each time he kept trying to look for how Iachimo got inside the trunk, and then suddenly he would realize it had already happened and he had missed it again. How did Iachimo do it? The answer was, of course, right in front of everyone. He just finished his scene, walked over to the trunk, and got in. The amazing thing was nobody saw him do it. It seems to me that productions that use dynamics intrinsic to the nature of theatre are often as effective if not more so than high-budget productions with fancy special effects which draw too much attention to themselves and take away focus from the action of the scene. I am constantly amazed at the way theatre works and the effects it can create without the help of fancy technical gadgets or large sums of money. Erika Lin University of California at Berkeley ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 10:25:39 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0570 Re: Adriana; Teaching *Lr.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0570. Thursday, 20 July 1995. (1) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 09:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0565 Qs: Adriana (2) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 08:59:21 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0560 Qs: Teaching *Lr.* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 1995 09:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0565 Qs: Adriana To Sarah Cave, I found your question fascinating because I've seen COMEDY several times and been in it once and have never found Adriana shrewish. She is a SAD character who thinks that her husband has betrayed her (and with her own sister), but she has never engaged anything by my profound sympathy. In 1984, as a youngster really, I took a six week "how to act Shakespeare" seminar at the Will Geer Theatricum Botannicum in Los Angeles. This is an annual summer program with well regarded L.A. actors and directors teaching, a lot of fun. The final project was a collection of scenes, and one of the actresses (whose name I have, sadly, forgotten) was assigned Adriana's magnificent "Ay, ay Antipholus" monologue. The actress had just been through a bad breakup when her boyfriend or husband had left her for another, so she was having trouble with the speech. The director, Nan Martin, suggested that she try a modern paraphrase. The results were shockingly powerful, and used the word "fuck" quite a bit. Now, remember, I was young and inexperienced. When the rest of the class was asked for commentary I said something about being surprised by the vehemence and all the profanity. The actress and all the other women in the class all looked at me with a kind of tender pity for my youth: "Brad," the actress said, "it's all ABOUT fucking. That's what you think about, that he was there fucking someone else." I bowed to what was obviously the greater authority. So. In the full productions I've seen, and the one I acted in, my experience of Adriana is that she is profoundly sympathetic. She is not another Katherine from SHREW, and one of the best indications of this is that her relationship with her sister Luciana is so generally positive, unlike the Katherine/Bianca relationship. There is one problem with Adriana: she isn't all that funny. There's a difference between a character being likable on stage--in terms of how the audience approves or disapproves of the characters actions--and a character being attractive on stage because she or he has good schtick. (I'm prepared for people to have reactions to this last paragraph.) Adriana is, in my experience, not at all unlikable but not as attractive as, for example, the Dromios because in a slapstick farce Adriana is the one really serious character. She has a depth to her, especially during that monolog, that eludes the others. But she's not a shrew. Sarah, does this help? Everybody else, reactions? Sincerely yours, Brad Berens U.C. Berkeley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 08:59:21 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0560 Qs: Teaching *Lr.* Perhaps this is relevant, John. Many years ago at a conference, several University teachers were comparing notes over supper. I said how much I loved teacking King Lear. Most of the others who were in their later 40's, not their early 30's like me (then!), said they found it very tough to teach. They said very frankly that they fund it too painful [perhaps it was closer to their experience as they faced aging parents?]. At 53 I still love teaching the play, partly because it gains in depth for me every year. But I find it harder now to refrain from saying to my 20-21 year old students - "wait for it. It will make much more sense later on." Truthfully, I can't imagine trying to teach the play to most kids of 15 or 16. One suggestion: King Lear by Alexander Leggatt looks at many performances of Lear - some available on video. [Shakespeare in Performance, Manchester U. Press (in US & Canada St. Martin's Press) 1991]. I assign as 3 short seminar topics analysis of 3 versions (Olivier, Hordern, Scofield) of Act. IV vi). Act I would be another choice. Discussion is usually lively. I don't give them this reference until later. Mary Jane Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 10:29:31 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0571 Q: "To be or not . . . " Speech Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0571. Thursday, 20 July 1995. From: Edna Boris Date: Wednesday, 19 Jul 95 13:16:56 EDT Subject: "To Be" speech For a C.R.A.S.S. panel presentation that I'm working on I'd like to know if anyone has information on a Hamlet production in which Hamlet not only overhears Polonius's plan to use Ophelia as a decoy (which Olivier does) but then goes on to stage the "to be" speech as a calculated performance rather than a personal exploration of suicide. Derek Jacoby himself and then in directing Kenneth Branagh had Ophelia present but with Hamlet seeming to be genuinely considering suicide around and at her. I'm looking for productions in which Hamlet is aware of Claudius and Polonius as well as Ophelia. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 09:58:59 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0572 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0572. Saturday, 22 July 1995. (1) From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 95 11:22 EDT Subj: What is political? (2) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 11:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Cultural constructions (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 21 Jul 1995 00:15:05 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0567 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (4) From: Moray McConnachie Date: Friday, 21 Jul 1995 11:47:48 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0563 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (5) From: Moray McConnachie Date: Friday, 21 Jul 1995 13:22:59 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0567 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (6) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 21 Jul 1995 21:26:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0567 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 95 11:22 EDT Subject: What is political? Following this recent discussion with interest, I find I must meekly ask for a decent definition of the word "political" as it relates to the way everyone seems to be throwing it around here. Aren't we just quibbling over terms here? Of course everything is "political" if you slap that label onto every aspect of human affairs. Is embarrassment political? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 11:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Cultural constructions To say that plays, poems, etc. are cultural constructs isn't an "explanation" of them and, so far as I know, has never been used to serve as an explanation. It is rather the beginning of a strategy of explanation. The force of that strategy immediately appears as soon as one compares it with other traditional strategies, e.g., that which follows from the idea that plays, poems, etc., are "expressions" of the author's psychology or feelings or genius. Obviously the different strategies are looking at the same things from different angles, and perhaps not exactly at the *same* things, even though the strategies need not be mutually exclusive. But do any consequences necessarily follow from adoption of the "cultural construct" position? I don't think so. If you look at culturalist criticism you will NOT find a whole lot of consensus, though you might find a lot of fellow feeling. For that reason alone I think it is hard to conclude that the culturalist perspective is reductive. And is the "cultural construct" position blind to its own assumptions, its exponents failing to see that they too are speaking from within the confines of constructs? Actually, it is just this point, it is just their self-reflexivity with regard to their own interpretative assumptions and strategies, that has marked out culturalist criticism from earlier forms of criticism. T.S. Eliot thought that he could sit at the banquet with Dante. Culturalists know they cannot. The hard Marxist position, still maintained by people like Terry Eagleton, not to mention certain members of this list, is based on the idea that materialist criticism is itself the product of historical forces, that one could not be a cultural materialist of a certain kind until a certain moment in time, and that one of the chief virtues of cultural materialist criticism is that it *knows* this. Culturalist criticism is *supposed* to be a form of *self-consciousness*; and if it reflects on an historical artifact it always also reflects on its own historicity with respect to both itself and its artifact. A softer position -- usually thought of as new historicism -- isn't so confident of its own transparency to itself, or of the logic of its historical position, but it too is based on the idea that criticism is as historically situated as its objects, and that historical-cultural artifacts cannot therefore be *reduced* to the explanatory parameters of any single given model, since all models are constructs, etc., etc. Which is why this form of criticism so often steps backward into autobiography and what Leah Marcus calls "local knowledge" -- trying to be very precise about its epistemological limits, and conscious of "where it's coming from." But all this is common knowledge. Perhaps what is really at issue here is not the culturalist position(s), but the rhetoric used by culturalists against non-culturalists, and vice versa. Some of you out there are cringing every time you hear the word "culture," even though you probably share a lot of culturalist assumptions yourselves. And there are those of us in love with art, in love with the beautiful and the sublime and all that, who absolutely cringe when we hear other people *invoking* these things, as if they were gods. -- Robert Appelbaum (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 21 Jul 1995 00:15:05 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0567 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct A common theme runs through some of the postings in this thread, which can be summed up thus: 'If everything is culturally constructed then the act of noticing this is too, and we are caught in a endless chain of indetermine meanings.' Two examples of how this has been expressed: Jim Helfers: "The "insight" that all texts are determined by cultural forces is itself a text determined by cultural forces. In what way can such a phenomenon be explanatory? What do we mean by "explanatory" in this sense? I'm caught in the house of mirrors and I think I'm beginning to look a bit thin" Sean Lawrence: "Mr. Egan argues that there are only two forms of true criticism: political or empirical, which are both political anyway, since everything is political. Leaving aside the argument that a definition of the political broad enough to encompass everything would rob the term of meaning, isn't such a position narrow?" Let's suppose God is the reason for everything...does saying so rob the term 'God' of its meaning? Dealing with things in the absence of a God, or any other transcendent meaning, or even stable terms with which to signify our intentions is precisely the problem of post-Saussure, post-Einstein (add your own modernist favourites) epistemology. Complaining that you want your stable meanings back won't help you. I don't relate 'tangible-empirical' evidence back to politics, as Brian Corrigan claims, because I mean by 'tangible-empirical' those things we can all agree on the criteria for (like "did the Globe have 20 or 24 sides?"). We generally don't argue over the criteria by which such things are judged, but we do argue over the criteria for what texts mean. This is not a difference of kind, only of degree. Empiricism is a form of faith too, but the consensus on it is so great that we agree not to argue about it. Lefty critics sometimes feel that there is enough consensus amongst themselves that they don't bother trying to convince their peers except by dropping hints. Perhaps you do the same when confronted by those who believe in astrology - it's too tiring to go the full distance every time so you just drop wee hints. Some lefties carry on doing their overt (instead of covert) political criticism, and I think this is fine. As a career choice I prefer the 'tangible-empiricals' just at the moment, but then I'm not being paid to teach anyone yet. When I do I expect that in discussions of meaning (which is what undergrads are supposed to do in English degrees in the UK) 'Marxist existentialism' will be the commonest words in my mouth. By the way, could Brian Corrigan please let us know what "simple beauty" is? Kenneth Clark says that "feminine beauty was discovered in Egypt in the second millenium BC" (_Feminine Beauty_ 1980 p8). My best friend is doing a PhD on the subject, so a definition would be a great help, thanks. Gabriel Egan (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Friday, 21 Jul 1995 11:47:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0563 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct I should like to join in what I expect will be a long-running debate. I have enjoyed many approaches from what might be described as culturally reconstructed scholars, as I have from culturally unreconstructed ones. What I suppose I object to is the determination from each side to insist that they are right. Gabriel Egan writes that when we discuss what the plays mean, we find ourselves talking politics. Fine - but we are not discussing only politics, but truth, beauty and other absolutes. But those who maintain that the "cultural construct" approach is the only way of approaching Shakespeare proceed by defining meaning as a political act. Even if we believe (and many don't) that language is wholly socially defined, yet we seek in language to talk about what isn't. And certainly Shakespeare did. Taking a position in which we hypothesise that the plays look at absolute values, and then discussing those values, seems to me perfectly reasonable. Certainly neither I nor Shakespeare can avoid being read politically, but I defend my and Shakespeare's right to think, or even to pretend to think, apolitically. Yours, Moray McConnachie (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Friday, 21 Jul 1995 13:22:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0567 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct I must say also that I agree with other correspondents who find Gabriel's picture of the academic sitting down with a student and convincing him in an "intense" session that political analysis is the proper procedure a frightening one. The *job* of an educator, a teacher, is not to *convince* a student of anything, but to provide him/her with the intellectual tools, and a little empirical knowledge, to convince himself/herself. Give me a student at the age of eighteen, and I will make a cultural materialist of him? I hope not. Moray McConnachie (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 21 Jul 1995 21:26:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0567 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Brian Corrigan; Ah, beware the frenzied feministi! "Dame Poetry is undoubtedly man-made"; however, since "Man" Himself is "undoubtedly" woman-made, we'll let that pass. No need to cavil over details. As for the abstract "Man/he", I've found that "Humanity/it" generally does the job pretty well, and with no loss of meaning. True, "Mankind" is a lovely word; it really is too bad it's so wretchedly unfair to half the world's population. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 10:18:03 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0573 Re: Othello, A & C, Branagh Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0573. Saturday, 22 July 1995. (1) From: Rick Jones Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 10:31:15 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0568 Re: Ant. & Cleo. (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 13:24:21 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0568 Re: Ant. & Cleo. (3) From: Jeff Martinek Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 12:48:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0568 Re: Ant. & Cleo.; Branagh (4) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Friday, 21 Jul 1995 15:09:36 -0500 (EST) Subj: Onstage Shills (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 10:31:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0568 Re: Ant. & Cleo. Jan Stirm's comments on race and casting in *Othello* and *A&C* are interesting, and I can see a reasonable rationale. But I can't concur. It seems to me that a white Othello, for example, might actually serve to emphasize the racial element of the play: he is clearly the victim of prejudice from Iago and others, but he would seem for all the world just like everyone else. Isn't that the true essence of prejudice, that apparently insignificant differences between people are magnified? I'm not advocating this choice, but I'd buy a ticket to see what happened in the production. Nor can I see too many audiences being "offended" by virtually any casting choice (or maybe it's that I'm difficult to offend in such ways, and I am projecting my own views as those of audiences at large). I would object to blackface or its equivalent, but I'd be happy to see Emma Thompson play Cleopatra with or without a wig. Ah, well... Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 13:24:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0568 Re: Ant. & Cleo. Jan Stirm and Brian Corrigan; Sorry about the mistake in Cleopatra's age. My math skills, never very good, have got me in hot water again. On second thought you are all right about her age. As for her color, or rather, Shakespeare's perception of her color, all the Elizabethans referred to brunettes as "black". They meant no more by that than dark brown hair. Shakespeare has Helena in MSND call Hermia "tawny". Rosaline in LLL has "pitchball eyes", and then there's the dark lady. He's not the only one who calls brunettes "black". They all did. Not that I hold any brief against casting a black actress in the role, I just don't think it's all that p.c.. My original point was a desire to see Branagh and Thompson give us a roaring good version of A and C. Stephanie Hughes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Martinek Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 12:48:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0568 Re: Ant. & Cleo.; Branagh My final comment on the Branagh imbroglio: It's been interesting and sometimes edifying to read the criticisms of Mr. Branagh's work. He's been picked apart, second-guessed, disabused of notions he never knew he held, and accused of crimes ranging from dumming down the bard for the mall megaplex crowd to outright treason against his culturally-tyrannized homeland. This is all very well and certainly in the spirit of free debate that such forums encourage. What struck me, however, and continues to strike me, is Mr. Morgan-Russell's original proposal that somehow all these crimes of wrong-thinking interpretation ought to be enough to have Mr. Branagh banned from messing with the bard. I realize that he has since claimed that such a suggestion was tongue-in-cheek, or something like that, but the net WAS cast and what an interesting load of fish it brought in! What this exchange has taught me, I pretty much already knew: that snobbism, haughty superiority and ressentiment are some of the prime occupational hazards of academia. How different is Matthew Arnold's deploring the newspapers and their "Wragg is in custody" (1864) from the currents condescentions of ivory tower marxists who code their hypocritical platitudes of noblesse oblige in fashionable Parisian jargon: they too know very well that what the people THINK they want is merely a result of mis-education, a failure to remove--as the keepers of critical theory have--the distorting glasses of ideology. What leaps and summersaults they must perform to stave off the unthinkable: that the very education in critical reading, structuralist bricolage, deconstruction, Foucauldian genealogy, etc. etc. etc. that has allowed them to claim the right re-educate us all is about as far away from the old notions of "taste" and "connoisseurship" as is Constantinople from Istanbul. It would be, if not enlightening, at least refreshing, to see such flame-keepers step forth, finally, and admit that they speak for an enlightened, cultivated minority who lost hope a long time ago of sharing what they treasure with those who watch "Hee-Haw" and consider Walmart a right friendly neighbor. Admit also that, like the Nietzschean--read aristocratic--hero of "The Fountainhead", they'd rather see Shakepeare's works hunted down and burned than leave them in the hands of preening movie stars and colonialist running-dog lackeys. Amen (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Friday, 21 Jul 1995 15:09:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Onstage Shills David Jackson's remarks about Branagh's MAAN and what Jackson justly calls "a very tired and overused method of injecting humor," that is, "walking laughtracks," the device of having characters laugh or roll their eyes at quips that are otherwise incomprehensible, reminds me of a skit in the original "Beyond the Fringe." This was thirty years ago and more, but I remember a hilarious parody of a history play consisting of a scene of aristocratic exchange in blank verse, full of empty sonorities and lists of people and places (places sounding pretty much like people and vice versa), followed by a scene of lowlife, two artisanal types, a Master Snot and a Master Puke, as I recall, engaged in energetic banter. Remarks on the order of, "Well, Master Snot, you'll be to Finsbury Fair before you wear out shoe leather, I'll wager," produced unrestrained merriment onstage and puzzled silence off, or, rather, laughter of a very different order. Somewhere, I believe, there's an LP recording of that performance, and I may just find it one day. --Ron Macdonald ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 10:43:57 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0574 Re: "To be or not . . ." Speech Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0574. Saturday, 22 July 1995. (1) From: Stephen Schultz Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 95 11:24:57 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0571 Q: "To be or not . . . " Speech (2) From: Rick Jones Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 11:44:10 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0571 Q: "To be or not . . . " Speech (3) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 13:21:39 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0571 Q: "To be or not . . . " Speech (4) From: Dawn Massey Date: Friday, 21 Jul 95 11:22:13 BST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0571 Q: "To be or not . . . " Speech (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Schultz Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 95 11:24:57 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0571 Q: "To be or not . . . " Speech Several years ago I directed a production of *Hamlet* for a semi-professional theatre in Louisville which included "To be or not . . ." as performance ranted at Ophelia but intended to demonstrate to Claudius and Polonius that Hamlet is raving mad. Some audience members hated it. Some loved it. Most didn't seem to recognize that they were seeing anything unusual or "radical." As I remember, I was led toward this approach by an argument in *What Happens in 'Hamlet'* that there is some warrant in one of the Qs for an early entrance by Hamlet which would allow him to overhear the plotting of Claudius and Polonius. (My production used the structure of Q1 combined with the language of F1, and maybe that somehow influenced my reading of the scene.) Thus emboldened, I then added an undetected entrance by Gertrude so that she could overhear the Claudius-Laertes plotting for the duel. So she knew about the poisoned chalice when she drank it and did so defying Claudius to stop her and thus reveal his guilt. Again, I had the impression that the audience didn't notice anything unusual. And a reviewer sent to the production by SQ rather liked the Gertrude touch, so how much more validation can you get than that? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 11:44:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0571 Q: "To be or not . . . " Speech In partial answer to Edna Boris's question about the "to be or not to be" speech. No, I can't recall a production which plays the speech with Hamlet aware of the presence of Claudius and Polonius. Mine will, when I do it *sometime*. More to the point, David Ball insists on such a reading in his excellent little book *Backwards and Forwards* (which I have used, incidentally, as a text in acting classes). Hope this helps, however minimally. Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 13:21:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0571 Q: "To be or not . . . " Speech Dear Edna Boris---Thanks for your question on "To Be Or Not..." My question for you is to wonder why we need to limit the dramaturgical options of that speech to either a)personal reflections on suicide or b) calculated performance. For it seems possible, though granted this is VERY HARD to pull off in a production, that the speech itself navigates so many modulations of mood. In fact, I am increasingly drawn to those productions in which the "ponderousness" of Hamlet's thinking becomes more important. For, in one reading, the "To Be Or Not To Be" soliloguy actually ends on a note that can serve as a DEFENSE of the contemplative lifestyle by NEGATING the "great enterprises of pit(c)h and moment"---Sure, the actor playing hamlet must no doubt ask "If you hate yourself for rejecting an act of violence, did you REALLY reject it"--and, yes, I think you;re right to question the conventional "authority" and "authenticity" afforded to soliloquys, but I keep thinking of the Nietzsche quote in this connexion (something like "thoughts of suicide get one through many a night") and that one need not have Polonious or Ophelia couched in an arras overhearing to effectively breath more life back into the "To BE" soliloquy than the reading which claims Hamlet is on the verge of suicide does. Thanks (I look forward to hearing others on this), Chris Stroffolino (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dawn Massey Date: Friday, 21 Jul 95 11:22:13 BST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0571 Q: "To be or not . . . " Speech A colleague recalls that Sarah Bernhardt overhears Polonius' plans to use Ophelia, but cannot recall how Bernhardt handles the soliloquy. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 10:51:59 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0575 Re: *Cym.* Masque; Teaching *Lr.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0575. Saturday, 22 July 1995. (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 11:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0569 Re: *Cym.* Masque (2) From: Victor Gallerano Date: Friday, 21 Jul 1995 09:34:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Teaching *Lear* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 11:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0569 Re: *Cym.* Masque Hello. The one production I've seen of Cymbeline was a student effort at the University of King's College in Halifax. The space was a black area called "the pit," underneath the chapel. They had one of Posthumous's guards act the role of Jupiter and be wheeled on in a wheelbarrow to take advantage of Posthumous's naivety. It worked fairly well as farce. Cheerio, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Victor Gallerano Date: Friday, 21 Jul 1995 09:34:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Teaching *Lear* John Keogh, I'm not sure I can help you enjoy King Lear, but one way I have found to rouse and awaken college freshmen to some of its beauties is to read/teach it after reading/teaching The Tempest. The most difficult thing for students to see is the very surface of Lear. Comparing the surface of the comedy to the surface of the tragedy not only makes the surface of Lear apparent to students (who come to class full of and all too ready to apply cliches about "disfunctional families") but opens into the depths of a question like "What is the difference between fathers and kings?" I won't burden you with more interpretation than suggestion, but I will add that this comparison has always been the occassion for some very good, quite engaged student writing. Vic Gallerano ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 11:02:35 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0576 Re: Adriana Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0576. Saturday, 22 July 1995. (1) From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 95 14:33:11 est Subj: Re: SHK 6.0570 Re: Adriana (2) From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 16:22 ET Subj: Adriana (3) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 17:15:44 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Adriana (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 95 14:33:11 est Subject: Re: SHK 6.0570 Re: Adriana A word of caution about "not wanting" the character to come across as shrewish. I agree with the intention, but it's dangerous as an actor to approach a character from the "not wanting" him or her to be perceived in some way or other. I remember directing a play not long ago in which one of the actors said "I'm not going to play my character as dour and lacking humor". I agreed that these traits were not the only ones that should appear, but they were still clearly aspects of the character. She went ahead and rehearsed, saying most of the lines with a forced smile on her face (whenever she remembered that she didn't want to be "dour"). This gave the effect of someone who was still dour and humorless, but with a lunatic edge. Eventually I suggested that she play the character with all the traits she did see in her (and I allowed her to pick only two moments in the scene in which to smile), and we ended up with a real, believable character. In other words, if you see certain traits inherent in the character, don't "play" them or "not play" them; let the whole person come out, and it won't be a cartoon. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 16:22 ET Subject: Adriana The current production of _Err_ at Stratford, Ont. (a terrific show, I think, if you have any tolerance for post-modern shenanigans) carries over from last summer a take on Adriana initially forced on the company by carnal imperatives: the actor playing the role was pregnant. The idea proved so theatrically effective that although she has long since given birth to the child, she wears a fine prosthetic tummy that sustains the image. It warms her up no end. Gravidly, Dave Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Thursday, 20 Jul 1995 17:15:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Adriana Sarah Cave asks about Adriana in COE. One of the delights of my life is that I've been allowed to direct three productions of COE, two professional and one university. My experience has been consistent: the audience always loves the show and finds Adriana likeable, pitiful, and extremely funny. This may have something to do with the fact that I've had three of our best actors in the role (Elizabeth Huddle, Joan Schirle, and Bethany Larson). A good enough actor makes every role appealing in one way or another. (My three Richard IIIs were all likeable monsters. The invitation to this kind of complexity is one of the things which make Shakespeare so appealing to actors.) Adriana does, indeed, behave like a shrew. She beats her servant, she complains all the time, she won't stop talking, etcetera. But she's not just a shrew because we see that this behavior isn't constitutional. The thing that makes us care so much for her is that her behavior all seems to spring from a terrible insecurity and hurt. She has made the self-destructive mistake of letting others define her worth, particularly her husband. When he doesn't pay attention to her, it must be because her beauty is fading. She tries to blame it all on him but it doesn't work; she doesn't even convince herself fully. The dominant impression we get from her is of NEED. She's a co-dependent ingenue wearing the mask of a brutal shrew. If Antipholus of Ephesus (the jerk) would just give her a little loving attention, she'd be fine. (Still co-dependent, I'm afraid, but able to enjoy life.) This is an extremely "playable" view of Adriana. It gives the actress what actors most need: contrary tensions simultaneously pulling them in different directions. And it allows the kind of abrupt changes of mood which are so opportune in farce. But the heart of it is "heart." Your roommate is in for a wonderful time (if her director is daring enough to give her room to play it full tilt). Best wishes to her. Roger Gross Univ. of Arkansas ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 10:57:03 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0577 CFP: Computers and Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0577. Monday, 24 July 1995. From: Michael Popham Date: Friday, 21 Jul 1995 15:35:20 +0000 Subject: CFP - Computers & Texts No.10 The next issue of "Computers & Texts", the newsletter of the CTI Centre for Textual Studies, is now in preparation. Articles and book/software reviews are invited from teachers and researchers using computers in any of the following disciplines: literature (any language), literary linguistics, theology, philosophy, classics, film studies, theatre arts and drama. "Computers & Texts" is distributed to almost 3000 academics world-wide. It is available free to academics in the UK, and via subscription to non-academics or those outside the UK. We are particularly interested in hearing about the innovative use of computers in teaching, and about peoples' experiences of computer-based teaching and learning -- whether good or bad. ======================================================================== Submission information - Submission information - Submission information ======================================================================== Format: Submission via email is preferred, but contributions may also be sent on disk to the address given below. We can handle most text and graphic formats. Length: Articles should not exceed 2000 words. Reviews of books or software should not exceed 1000 words. Deadline: Contributions for the next issue must be received NO LATER than 11th August 1995. Any additional or late contributions may be held over to a subsequent issue (e.g. Issue No. 11 is due out on 31st October, 1995). Notification: All contributors will be told whether or not their item is to be published in the newsletter. Contributions and enquiries should be addressed to: Michael Popham Centre Manager -- CTI Centre for Textual Studies Oxford University Computing Services, 13 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 6NN United Kingdom Tel:0865-283282 Fax:0865-273221 URL http://info.ox.ac.uk/ctitext/index.html *************************************************************************** The CTI Centre for Textual Studies is one of 23 Centres set up under the Computers in Teaching Initiative to promote and support the use of computers in university teaching. The CTI is funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. *************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 11:18:36 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0578 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0578. Monday, 24 July 1995. (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Saturday, 22 Jul 1995 14:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 22 Jul 1995 23:05:48 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0572 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Saturday, 22 Jul 1995 14:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Mr. Egan: Many apologies for assuming that you tied "tangible-empirical" explanations to politics. I assumed that this would be a logical corollary of your definition of "politics" as "the real topic underlying all human activity". Your next paragraph would indicate otherwise, however, and it was sloppy of me to overlook it. "If we spirits have offended..." You ask rhetorically: "Let's suppose God is the reason for everything... does saying so rob the term 'God' of its meaning?" Actually, it probably would. I suppose that this is why most major Christian theologians include human perversity as a cause of phenomena. Besides, the term 'God' is supposed to be paradoxical, beyond the limited faculties of finite beings (like me, for instance). Hence Karl Barth's "otherness of God." "Politics" is supposedly grounded in our material conditions, and therefore (one assumes) fully accessible to reason. You've pretty much admitted that you consider empiricism a matter of faith. Nevertheless, you ask Brian Corrigan to define "simple beauty" implying (I think--goodness knows I've been wrong before!) that what is indefinable simply isn't. Isn't this related to empiricism in buying into the enlightenment ontology whereby being equals meaning? Shouldn't this also be considered a matter of faith? I wouldn't mind--I mean, I can accept my father's Christianity without sharing it--except that you seem to eschew faith itself in your rejection of all other forms of scholarship except the political and "tangible empirical knowledge." I look forward to your response, Sincerely, Sean Lawrence. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 22 Jul 1995 23:05:48 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0572 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Moray McConnachie says >The *job* of an educator, a teacher, is not to *convince* a student of >anything, but to provide him/her with the intellectual tools, and a little >empirical knowledge, to convince himself/herself. Of what? Anything they what to convince themselves of? The students know that you and your colleagues mark their work and decide who gets the degree and who doesn't, and they KNOW that protestations of neutrality are bogus. Be honest and tell me them your criteria. In reality Humanities work is graded according to its closeness of fit with the marker's own views (just as in Science), but some people don't like to admit this. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 11:26:11 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0579 PSF's *Ado*; "To be" Speech; White Othello Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0579. Monday, 24 July 1995. (1) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 23 Jul 1995 21:07:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival: MUCH ADO (2) From: John Chapot Date: Sunday, 23 Jul 1995 13:55:09 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0571 Q: "To be or not . . . " Speech (3) From: James Schaefer Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 10:14:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0573 Re: Othello (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 23 Jul 1995 21:07:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival: MUCH ADO Last Wednesday night, I happened to be at the opening night of MUCH ADO at the Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival at Allentown College, and I was happily impressed. Unfortunately, I've misplaced my program, and the names of the actors have escaped me. But Benedick is excellent, and he beautifully conveys that the shaving of his beard is more than simply the loss of facial hair; it's an index to his change in character. Beatrice is petite, red haired, vivacious -- and married to Benedick offstage as well as on (or so I recall). They work very well together. There's lots of good business. Claudio is played with a Scottish accent -- because the actor is Scots? And poor Hero is young, innocent, and blonde. Don Pedro is a fairly colorless administrative type, and Don John, long, thin, and diabolic. He doesn't twirl his mustachios, but you could imagine him doing so. Borachio never appears terribly drunk, but he is acrobatic. Dogberry is played a la Bill Murray: fat, young, handsome, and stupid -- and the audience loved him. In fact, the audience was very appreciative. They didn't get all the jokes, but they got most of them and they laughed heartily. The stage is Shavian in detail -- no undifferentiated stage here. There's a trellis for climbing and acrobatics, trees for Benedick to dance with. And there are three levels at least for action -- and the director, by using the different levels, pointed some nice parallels between Beatrice and Benedick, and Hero and Claudio. I laughed; I cried; I had fun. I think we all did. If you can get to Allentown before August 5, it's worth the $14 for a ticket. And let me recommend the Spring Valley Inn for a pre-play dinner. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Chapot Date: Sunday, 23 Jul 1995 13:55:09 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0571 Q: "To be or not . . . " Speech John Fletcher's 1991 production here at ACT in San Francisco had Hamlet reading the speech from a small card at a high rate of speech while striding briskly across the stage. He stopped midway and reflected and slowed down for the remainder. I don't remember if Polonius or Ophelia were present, but the effect was that the speech had come from elsewhere, or that he had written it earlier. John Chapot (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 10:14:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0573 Re: Othello It was not posted as part of the cultural relativism thread, but Rick Jones's comment about a possible white Othello -- "I'm no advocating this choice, but I'd buy a ticket to see what happened in this production" -- is a wonderfully concise statement of, to my mind, the perfect position for both a critic and an educator (and performances are both critism and education). An "essay" is not just an assignment for undergraduates, it should be our way of life: tentative, inquisitive, explortion without gunboat diplomacy. Or as my dissertation advisor use to say, "Always rehearsal." None of us has a corner on Truth. Jim Schaefer ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 11:28:34 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0580 Q: *Ham.* Acting Editions and Promptbooks Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0580. Monday, 24 July 1995. From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 10:58:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Hamlet Acting Editions and Promptbooks A colleague who is directing *HAMLET* wishes to locate acting versions of the play that cut less of Reynaldo's scene early in the play and more of Osric's scene at the end of the play than the earliest Players' quartos (1676-1718) do. Any suggestions? Any and all acting versions will be considered. Also, if access is limited, can advice be given with respect to the securing of photocopies? Thank you, Nick Clary ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:42:21 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0581 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0581. Tuesday, 25 July 1995. (1) From: Piers Lewis Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 09:39:51 -0600 Subj: To be or not to be (2) From: Ed Pechter Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 16:27:21 -0400 (EDT) Subj: To be or not to be, for SHAKSPER (3) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 16:38:06 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0579 "To be" Speech (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Piers Lewis Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 09:39:51 -0600 Subject: To be or not to be Does Hamlet know he's being watched when he comes upon Ophelia, pretending to pray? Do Polonius and the King manage, somehow, to betray their presence in that scene and does that explain his cruelty to her? Harold Jenkins' Arden (1982) notes on this scene are still worth reading. Now some of us are wondering if the stage business that accomplishes this betrayal shouldn't actually precede or accompany the 'To be or not to be' soliloquy--thereby turning it into a conscious, public performance instead of a private meditation; a case of seeming, not being, in a play that somewhat obsessively examines that distinction. "I know not 'seems'," says Hamlet; how ironic that he should be one of the seemers after all--and just at the moment when he is wondering if one has to act in order to be. Hamlet is the most inner-directed of all tragic heroes. No character in Shakespeare's plays is less conscious of how he appears to others, less given to performances or presentations of self. Granville-Barker remarks that the play pays no attention to time until act 5 because Hamlet isn't either--or to much of anything else outside the nutshell of his mind. Everything he says comes from within. The dramatic rhythm of the play is generated by the way other people collide with or disrupt the logic of his inner life. The dramatic point of 'to-be-or-not-to-be' is not so much the substance of these serenely philosophical generalizations or how others might understand them but the way Ophelia--recalcitrant female fact that she is--jolts him out of his stoic detachment. He'd forgotten about her, just as he has forgotten his mother and her incestuous haste, and the dreadful obligation his ghostly father has laid upon him. And so poor Ophelia becomes a problem instead of a person, a symbol of sexual frailty and vulnerability merely and an uncomfortable reminder of unfinished business in what is for me the most painful and tragic scene of the play. Having the observers reveal their presence can only soften or distort its meaning and runs the risk of turning it into farce. Piers Lewis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pechter Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 16:27:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: To be or not to be, for SHAKSPER Jonathan Pryce delivered to be or not to be to Ophelia, sitting on a park bench (as I remember--this was around 1981). The production was made much of at the time; it was the one without the ghost, with Pryce throwing his voice to deliver the ghost's lines. It should be easy enough to get lots of reports. Again as I remember from back then, Ophelia didn't know what Hamlet was talking about in to be or not to be. This may explain Hamlet's really nasty sexual assault on Ophelia, not just verbally aggressive, in the nunnery scene just after. Playing the speech to Ophelia gave Pryce a focus. The hard thing about the speech, I'm told, is that it's disembodied thought which cannot really be tied down to anything specific (is he thinking of suicide? is he thinking of Claudius? what?) or to any real or imagined auditor (who is he talking to and why?). Stephen Booth has some breathtaking analysis of the speech from this angle in "On the Value of Hamlet." The other hard thing is that to be or not to be is now so famous that it's inherently funny--I've seen it rushed through in the spirit of, ok, we all know this one, let's get it over with. Playing the speech to Ophelia may be connected to the idea that Hamlet overheard Pol's scheme to loose Ophelia upon him. I think this goes back to Dover Wilson's fantasized discovery of a missing stage direction in the manuscript of Shakespeare's Hamlet (NCS or What Happens in Hamlet). He used this discovery not to make the soliloquy but the nunnery scene "playable as never before" (i. e. Hamlet knows he's being overheard, so puts on an act. Between the old fashioned playability of Dover Wilson and the new orthodoxy attaching itself to the formerly "bad" quarto, we shd be able to get the soliloquy and the play right-- textually, theatrically, philosophically--before too long. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 16:38:06 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0579 "To be" Speech To be or not to be. John Chapot says he saw a production where Hamlet read from a card. But I have seen him reading from a book. The book, of course, is Cardanus' Comfort, "Hamlet's book" so-called. Probably the same book where he found "words, words, words." So Hamlet reads a line aloud, reflects on it, and reads more. It made a lot of sense, and particularly makes sense of that motherless line out of nowhere, "no more". Hamlet closes the book. Reading: "To die, to sleep--" And then looking up, "No more." And closing the book. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:53:13 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0582 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0582. Tuesday, 25 July 1995. (1) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 13:38:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0578 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (2) From: Rick Jones Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 12:42:36 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0578 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 22:43:53 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0578 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (4) From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 25 Jul 1995 09:08:35 GMT Subj: Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 13:38:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0578 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct I am surprised to be able to agree completely with Gabriel Egan about criteria and judgment. Of course, a teacher should inform her students up front as to how the course is graded, the expectations that the teacher has, what the teacher wants the student to learn, and so on. Over the years, my syllabus has gotten longer and longer and more detailed. But one of the criteria may be a sound knowledge of the plays being studied. Of course, even "sound knowledge" has to be defined. You have to tell your students what you want them to remember. Testing in a vacuum is unfair. As to the word "culture," I would like to draw your attention to Marshall Sahlins comments in his essay "How 'Natives' Think" in the TLS June 2, 1995, p. 13: "Just when so many people are announcing the existence of their culture, advanced anthropologists are denying it. . . . [I]nside the academy, word [culture] has altogether escaped anthropolical control . . . and fallen into the hands of those who write liberally about 'the culture of addiction,' 'the culture of sensibility,' 'the culture of autobiography.' 'Culture,' it seems, is in the twilight of its career, and anthropology with it." Extreme? You bet. But right on target. "Culture" for the 90s is comparable to "image" in the 60s: overused and used to define the wrong things. Sometime ago, Melissa Aaron gave as an anthropological definition of "culture." No one commented, and no one, as I recall, answered my question: how are we -- the present group -- using "culture"? If anthropological culture includes "genes" as Melissa's definition suggests, then we might say that culture is anything that homo sapiens does, including reproduction of the species. (Husband to wife: "Honey, would you like to do some cultural work tonight?") Also, while I'm on this harangue, let me point to K. Anthony Appiah stringent comments on "culture" in MULTICULTURALISM (Princeton U.P., 1994) 156: "collective identities disciplined by historical knowledge and philosophical reflection would be radically unlike the identities that now parade before us for recognition." What he means is that everything that calls itself a culture is NOT a culture. The assertion that all acts are political acts is a translation from the Greek, where it means -- in ancient Greek -- "all acts pertain to the polis." Maybe it should be translated: "All human acts pertain to the human community." This may or may not be true. Words are fairly cheap. Freud probably said one night over his cups, "All human acts are sexual acts." Einstein probably replied: "No, all human acts are relative." Wilde disagreed: "All human acts are esthetic acts." I'm sure there's a logical fallacy involved here. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 12:42:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0578 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Garbriel Egan writes: > The students know that > you and your colleagues mark their work and decide who gets the degree and who > doesn't, and they KNOW that protestations of neutrality are bogus. Be honest > and tell me them your criteria. In reality Humanities work is graded according > to its closeness of fit with the marker's own views (just as in Science), but > some people don't like to admit this. I'm sorry, but protestations on either side of this debate are ultimately pointless. There are faculty who DO grade in the cynical manner Gabriel (equally cynically) describes. There are also those who do not. I have long told students that agreeing with me for the right reasons might earn as much as a B+. A's are reserved for those who disagree for the right reasons. Am I the arbiter of what qualifies as "the right reasons"? Yep. Am I "objective"? Largely but not completely, in all probability. Am I repentant? Nope. Am I a hypocrite? Maybe... but I have definitely been a hypokrites (Greek for "actor"). Might we move on? Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 24 Jul 1995 22:43:53 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0578 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Sean Lawrence wonders if I "eschew faith itself in your rejection of all other forms of scholarship except the political and "tangible empirical knowledge." I neither accept nor reject "forms of scholarship", but I see competition between different activities. There is shared faith underlying both politically engaged criticism and objective 'tangible empirical' work, at the very least the shared empiricism demanded of workers in education. But politically engaged criticism of the left acknowledges determination (in the sense of 'having limits set upon') whereas politically engaged criticism of the right claims an entirely spurious freedom. There is only struggle between competing meanings, on SHAKSPER as everywhere else. Gabriel Egan (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 25 Jul 1995 09:08:35 GMT Subject: Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct The debate on 'Shakespeare as Cultural Construct' is significant not only for its implications for the study of Shakespeare, but for the self-definition of literary study itself at the present time. It's for this reason that I find Gabriel Egan's claim that assertions of impartiality in assessing the work of students is 'bogus' deeply depressing. It may be, of course, that I have been kidding myself for the last twenty years or so as a teacher (and as a reviewer of books) in believing that I can distinguish between mere approval of arguments which replicate or extend my own ideas and beliefs and the evaluation of coherent, persuasive accounts that derive from other presuppositions. But if I didn't believe that this were possible then I would be unable to defend the study of English literature as a worthwhile activity. This is not to deny that, as a teacher, one does - and should - project one's own standpoint with conviction, but this does not mean that one doesn't alert students, through the secondary reading one suggests for them for example, that there are other possibilities. I suppose the real worry I have is that Gabriel Egan's beliefs might in fact be widely shared, and that all too many teachers do indeed act as if they were true. At a purely practical level it is possible that the nearly universal adoption in the UK of double-marking of student work guards against some of the dangers of such attitudes insofar as they affect individual students, but that it is necessary to make a stand for principles of intellectual openness and toleration is a regrettable fact of life in the current academic world. David Lindley University of Leeds ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 11:43:31 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0583 Re: Beyond the Fringe; DC *Ado* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0583. Tuesday, 25 July 1995. (1) From: David Jackson Date: Monday, 24 Jul 95 13:01:19 est Subj: Re: SHK 6.0573 Re: Othello, A & C, Branagh (2) From: Kate Mazzetti Date: Monday, 24 Jul 95 14:36:00 PDT Subj: "Much Ado About Nothing" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Monday, 24 Jul 95 13:01:19 est Subject: Re: SHK 6.0573 Re: Othello, A & C, Branagh Re: "Beyond the Fringe" Ron MacDonald's posting jogged my memory: one of the reasons I feel so phony when performing those pseudo-funny scenes with a "walking laughtrack" is the image in the back of my mind that I now recall is the very one he refers to. The Shakespearean spoof scene (by Jonathan Miller, I think) was recreated in an amnesty international benefit show in London in the late 70s/early 80s, and I think it was broadcast on PBS as "Pleasure at Her Majesty's". It included several "Fringe" sketches, as well as some stuff by sundry Pythons, Jonathan Lynn, and Eleanor Bron. But unless I do misremember me, I think the climax of the show was J. Miller and company doing their Shakespeare history play thing. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kate Mazzetti Date: Monday, 24 Jul 95 14:36:00 PDT Subject: "Much Ado About Nothing" Just an announcement for anyone who is or will be in Washington DC in August and would be interested in seeing "Much Ado": The Performance runs August 4,5,11,12,18,19 at 8 and August 13 at 2pm. It is being performed at The Players' Theatre located at 900 Massachusetts Ave. NW. I'm putting a plug in for it, not only because I'm playing Beatrice..... For further info, I can be contacted at mazzetti@mail.folger.edu, or the box office # is 202-347-9621. Kate Mazzetti Folger Shakespeare Library ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 10:07:05 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0584 Re: FRINGE; Branagh Films; Cultural Construct Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0584. Wednesday, 26 July 1995. (1) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 25 Jul 1995 17:47:20 -0500 (CDT) Subj: FRINGE Shakespeare (2) From: David Levine Date: Tuesday, 25 Jul 1995 20:40:30 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films (3) From: Moray McConnachie Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995 14:23:01 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0578 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 25 Jul 1995 17:47:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: FRINGE Shakespeare Good to know that I'm not the only one with very fond recollections of BEYOND THE FRINGE. My own memories were freshened by the production of FRINGE which I just directed. The good news is that the show holds up wonderfully. Our audiences laughed at almost every phrase. The second most popular number in the show was the Shakespeare spoof, called "So That's the Way You Like It." The writers go after about a dozen of the most common affectations of Shakespeare and mid-20th century Shakespearean production style. We got to score off of the RADA iambic pentameter style, the impossibility of keeping up with the lists of names and places in the histories, the mechanistic quality of most stage fights, the convention of the wise fool, and many more. The "rustics" bit was very effective. It scores a triple hit: Shakespeare's extended pun sequences (which almost no one can understand today), the modern tendency to make give the rustics dialects so colorful that no one can understand them and to overload them with physical deformities and repulsive mannerisms, and (to finally return to the thought which began all of this), the tendency to hype up the unintelligible or unfunny rustic scenes with a ton of rustic laughter. My audience is not made up of Shakespeare buffs but they got it all and appreciated it all. (The most successful number in the show was "Take a Pew", the mock sermon...but I credit that to the brilliance of the actor.) Roger Gross U. of Arkansas (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Levine Date: Tuesday, 25 Jul 1995 20:40:30 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0546 Re: Branagh Films First of all, we're dealing with two quite different movies, right? I thought the cast in Much Ado was a problem (though a few of the "celebrities" were ok). HV was a splendid movie, though, and was in fact based on a very well-received Stratford production, albeit directed by Adrian Noble. So this lumping is just silly. And Branagh's recording projects have had really excellent results. I more than vaguely suspect that those recordings are much closer to what he wants to do than Much Ado (which is a play I don't have trmendous love for anyway--sorry). So again, this pre-judging is foolish, especially about Othello, which is a very hard play to film. Although (and I think Fishburne is a great actor--just a bit too young) I would have wanted Morgan Freeman myself. Olivier took more liberties with the text than Garrick??? HUH????? I think not. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995 14:23:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0578 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Gabriel Egan writes that > In reality Humanities work is graded according to its closeness of fit with > the marker's own views (just as in Science), but some people don't like to > admit this. Perhaps because they don't believe it's true. I accept that if I believed someone was demonstrably wrong I might mark them accordingly. However, how much criticism is either demonstrably wrong or right? If a student can construct a coherent argument, especially one that is also rhetorically persuasive, but I disagree with his conclusions (because in my view the balance of evidence points elsewhere), I am not going to say, oh no, sorry, you're wrong, have a low mark. I would grade him or her highly, talk to them about why I still don't agree with them, and suggest some reading along follow-up lines. I might even end up agreeing with them. As may have been clear from the original debate, I don't engage in criticism that is theory-driven (let's not argue about whether that's possible here). However, many students and critics do, and I enjoy approaches from this angle. Just because I don't believe that form of practice is ultimately most useful does not mean that I mark everyone down who doesn't. Of course there are limits: everyone brings their personality to marking. BUt it is possible to recognise a powerful argument when you see one, while disagreeing with it strongly. Like yours, Gabriel ;-> I should point out that at the moment I am engaged in almost pure research, and therefore haven't marked recently. I may therefore be taking a more liberal attitude. Moray McConnachie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 10:11:47 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0585 Re: "To be or not" Speech Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0585. Wednesday, 26 July 1995. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 25 Jul 1995 20:23:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0581 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech (2) From: Michael Yogev Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 95 09:28:13 IST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0581 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 25 Jul 1995 20:23:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0581 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech Piers Lewis and Richard Kennedy; Yes!!! Stephanie Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 95 09:28:13 IST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0581 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech Just a brief response to Piers Lewis's characterization of Hamlet as the most inner-directed character in Shakespeare's plays. Along with the Romantic critical assessments of his character as the quintessence of individual consciousness (and of dust), I used to share Mr. Lewis's sense of Hamlet as the epitome of introspective humanity--until 1979, that is, when I had the good fortune to see a barebones production of the play by Stephen Berkoff and a small company he brought to Haifa. Berkoff as Hamlet was a sardonically and cynically self-conscious ACTOR, above all, delivering his lines in the "To be or not to be" soliloquy with a range of accents from classic Olivier to Jimmy Cagney. The performance rustled my critical feathers, scandalized a number of spectators who left quite early on, and altogether productively unsettled my sense of what a who Hamlet may be. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:11:11 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0586 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0586. Thursday, 27 July 1995. (1) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 95 09:36:40 -0500 Subj: SHK 6.0585 Hamlet possibilities (2) From: Clark Bowlen Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995 12:11:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: "To be or not" (3) From: David Lindley Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995 18:21:15 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0585 Re: "To be or not" Speech (4) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995 22:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0585 Re: "To be or not" Speech (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 95 09:36:40 -0500 Subject: SHK 6.0585 Hamlet possibilities Michael Yogev mentions seeing Steven Berkoff's *Hamlet* in Israel in 1979. For those not familiar with the production, Berkoff has written a book about it called *I Am Hamlet* (NY: Grove Weidenfield, 1989). I found it intriguing reading and wish I had had the opportunity to see the production. Chris Gordon (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Bowlen Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995 12:11:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "To be or not" Whatever else "To be...." is, it is a speech written for an actor. Interpretation starts with basic actor questions, including "Why am I here, What do I know?" For an actor playing Hamlet, answers as of III i 56 include: -The King (and Queen?) are using my friends to spy on me. (II ii 226-302) -The King (and Queen?) just sent for me. (III i 29-31) -I arrive at the appointed place to see Ophelia wandering about reading a book (III i 42-45), a strategy I just used to dupe her father. (II i 170-221) I don't know about you, but if I were playing Hamlet (or even Forrest Gump) I'd have to play suspicious. "To be...." would be a performance. With the given circumstances, a solitary contemplation of suicide is an awefully big stretch. Note the implications for the Hamlet/Ophelia confrontation if he thinks she is a spy, or at least an accomplice, and she thinks his performance is real. And for Claudius, who doesn't think it is real (III i 170-177). And for the audience who learns Claudius is guilty just before "To be...." (III i 50-54). David Ball [_Backwards/Forwards_] got it right. Hamlet performs "To be...." It is not a soliloquy. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995 18:21:15 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0585 Re: "To be or not" Speech Hamlet may or may not be the most 'inner-directed' of Shakespearean characters - but what marks out the 'To be or not to be' soliloquy from all the others he delivers, and what therefore accounts for the discussion that we've all been reading with interest about whom he speaks it to, is the simple fact that first-person pronouns are noticeably absent from it. Where other soliloquies use 'I' and 'my' with varying degrees of obsessiveness, this one speaks of 'us' and 'we'. Who is to be included in these plural pronouns is the dramatic question - and I've always thought myself that it is the theatre audience which is being directly addressed (a much easier thing to do in the conditions of the Elizabethan playhouse where actor and audience share the same light and the worlds of stage and audience are so much less clearly delineated than they are even in playhouses like the Swan at Stratford). It's the dispassionateness of this speech which seems so remarkable at this point in the play, and which, perhaps deserves more comment? David Lindley University of Leeds (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995 22:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0585 Re: "To be or not" Speech It seems to me that there's nothing particularly wrong with far out interpretations of Hamlet, or any play, or ideosyncratic methods of delivering the well-known sililoquies, nor is there anything particularly right about it. Some of us believe that the plays as we have them are the result of a number of rewrites, particularly the festival plays such as MWW, MSND, 12th Night, etc.. If this is true then from the beginning they were subject to interpretation. Nor is there anything particularly right or wrong with interpretations that cleve to a traditional model. The ability to bring one's own passion to the work is what makes a good or bad production. I might say that I would prefer to see a man explore his own feelings about existence and suicide in the "to be or not to be" speech than juggle a handful of imitations, but who knows, maybe I'd like it. What's important is that we continue to be offered Shakespeare at full force from time to time. The 1812 Overture is entertaining played with a fork on glassfuls of water, but it would be meaningless if one never heard it played as written. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:24:29 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0587 Re: Branagh; FRINGE; Cultural Contruct Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0587. Thursday, 27 July 1995. (1) From: John Owen Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995 12:04:32 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0559 Re: Branagh; Films (2) From: Janet MacLellan Winship Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995 12:22:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: SHAKSPER: Unfunny clowns (3) From: Michael Yogev Date: Thursday, 27 Jul 95 08:47:12 IST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0584 Re: Cultural Construct (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995 12:04:32 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0559 Re: Branagh; Films Well, since this subject continues to plod its weary way, perhaps I won't be too heavily censured for prolonging it to the length of one more note. I have enjoyed the remarks from both sides of this debate. However, Seth Barron's July 18 remarks were disturbing on so many levels that a specific response seems in order. When we find a critic, in the space of a few paragraphs, amazed, nauseated and intensely embarrassed by those with whom he disagrees, we have reason to suspect that indignation has taken the place of judgment. After all, we would expect one seeking the "morbity of celebration" to welcome nausea -- at any rate would expect his taste to detect the distinction between "terrible" and "mediocre". 1. Mr. Barron condemns Branagh for playing the wooing scene in a frothy manner -- only a Goebbels could find these and other similar scenes delightful. Rubbish. The scenes with Katherine at least are clearly written in the form of romantic comedy. I am led to suspect that Mr. Barron's beef is with Shakespeare himself and not with the hapless director, who seems, even according to our critic, to be faithfully reproducing the author's intent. (BTW, I believe Goebbels should be faulted more with humorlessness than bad taste. The humanity implied by a healthy sense of humor could only have improved his worldview.) 2. Regarding Mr. Barron's amazement at diverging standards of taste, would the following quote from Hume help? "We are apt to call barbarous whatever departs widely from our own taste and apprehension; but soon find the epithet of reproach retorted on us. And the highest arrogance and self-conceit is at last startled, on observing an equal assurance on all sides, and scruples, amidst such a contest of sentiment, to pronounce positively in its own favour." 3. "Funny" is what makes the audience laugh. The audience with whom I saw MAAN laughed heartily at many points, as did the audience at Henry V (fascists? all of them?) John Owen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Janet MacLellan Winship Date: Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995 12:22:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SHAKSPER: Unfunny clowns As an addendum to the recent "Fringe" thread on unfunny Shakespearean clowns, I recommend Michael Green's _The Art of Coarse Acting_ (Hutchinson, 1964. Rev. ed. 1980 [not quite as breezily amusing as the original version--jm]): As a treat, Coarse Actors are sometimes allowed to play Shakespearean clowns, or, more often, assistant clown. I need hardly say that Elizabethan comics are the unfunniest parts ever written. . . . Fortunately the lines are so dreadful that it does not matter if one mixes them up or even forgets them entirely. . . . Unfortunately amateur producers are never honest about this. Professional producers are rarely under any such illusion. They cover up the lines with business. But instead of admitting that the clowns are a dreary lot, amateurs insist that they are hilarious, against all the evidence of the script. As a last resort the producer will say that Shakespeare did not intend this clown to be funny, he meant him to be pathetic. During a production of _Twelfth Night_, in which I had the misfortune to play Fabian, the producer carefully explained that Feste was the elderly clown on his way out, which was why his jokes weren't funny, and Fabian was the up-and-coming clown. I pointed out that this theory broke down because Fabian was even more unfunny than Feste, so if he represented the tops in court wit they must have had a lean time of it. But I could not convince him. (1964 ed, 20-22) For those interested in performable Shakespearean parodies, _TAoCA_ offers _'Tis Pity she's [sic] the Merry Wife of Henry VI. (Part One)_ It includes an appropriately dreadful clown scene, e.g.: FIRST CLOWN: Mass, t'would [sic] make a neat's tongue turn French tailor, and cry old sowter out from here to Blackfriars, would it not? [COARSE ACTOR]: Aye marry and amen. _They pause, because the producer has told them this is funny. It is, however, received in silence, except for the rustle of programmes as the audience look to see if this pair are supposed to be comics._ (1964 ed, 118) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Thursday, 27 Jul 95 08:47:12 IST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0584 Re: Cultural Construct This is to Moray McConnachie, who claims not to engage in critical debate in her work or "pure research." Not to sound either fanatic or grumpy (I am really neither), I have serious problems with this sort of positioning of oneself as outside or beyond the pale of the raging critical storms that constitute academia for better or for worse in our era. Such a stance in itself of course presumes the ability to achieve and ironic distance, and to claim such an ironic perspective or immunity is in itself of course a deeply ideological move--the problem is that it poses in the name of "liberal" or "objective" when it is no more so than Pope or Dryden ever are in their ap- peals to "common sense" or "Nature." A few year ago I was witness to a debate in which an undergraduate curriculum was being examined by the faculty of a large US university. The debate revealed the polarization of the faculty be- tween more "traditionalist" or "liberal" members (generally the post-WWII folks ) and the younger more intently theoretical types. To make a long story short, the tendency in the debate was to recognize that survey courses and the idea of presenting a "breadth" of study are perhaps no more than a "Chinese menu" that may not serve the deeper needs and interests of even undergraduate students. I personally think that the students can learn a great deal from reading the so- called DWM "canonical" works, but the most interesting part of the debate was when the senior scholar of the faculty, a man with an international reputation in several literary figures and in contemporary critical theoretical circles (and also the subject of intense professional jealousy by some younger faculty) rejected the suggestion of a "concentration" or "course focus" in literary theory. His remarks remain, for me, the definition of how theory, teaching, and even scholarship are intertwined and inseparable. In essence, he said that any teacher who believes s/he is not teaching theory when they are teaching a course in ________ (fill in topic or author) is simply living in a disturbing state of intellectual self-deception. We all teach "theory" to our students by what it is we "notice" about any given text, and as Prof. X justly pointed out, the more open and honest we are about why it is we notice what it is we notice, both to ourselves and to our students, the better off the entire profession will be. His remarks also serve the useful purpose of "demystifying" both the pretensions and jargon of much contemporary theoretical discourse AND of those who claim to simply "read the texts" in some "objective" fashion. In short, Prof. X reminds us, "Scholar/teacher, know thyself." Eschewing all pomposity, please. Michael Yogev ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:26:21 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0588 Q: Romeo and Juliet Sonnet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0588. Thursday, 27 July 1995. From: Helen Vella Bonavita Date: Thursday, 27 Jul 1995 13:43:25 +0800 (WST) Subject: Request A few months ago, someone posted up a sonnet concerning the possible fate of Romeo and Juliet had they escaped to Mantua. Unfortunately I have lost it, and as I am teaching R. & J. at present it would be great to give copies to my students. If anyone is able to send me another copy, or to let me know who wrote it, I would be extremely grateful. My e-mail is helenvb@uniwa.uwa.edu.au Thanks very much, Helen Vella Bonavita ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 14:31:11 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0589 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0589. Saturday, 29July 1995. (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 27 Jul 1995 13:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0586 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech (2) From: Pedro R. Doria Date: Sunday, 30 Jul 1995 02:16:32 -0300 Subj: Re: "To be or not to be" Speech (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 27 Jul 1995 13:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0586 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech I'm surprised that no one has raised the ontological ramifications of this speech. Hamlet seems to be interpreting being as concurrent with earthly life, something that (say) Thomas More would never do (check out "A Rueful Lamentation," or the pageant verses). This seems to place *Hamlet* at an interesting moment in history. Instead of placing being (*esse*) in the absolute like even late medievals and early renaissance figures do, and attaching the stygma of creation (non-esse) to the world, Shakespeare's creation places being in the present, thereby resurrecting the problem of mutability. By looking for transcendent being in the world, which consists of "the poor man's wrong, the proud man's contumely" (quoting from memory), which consists of things which are evidently wrong in other words, Hamlet dooms himself to failure. Marlowe's heroes to likewise, searching for the transcendent in violence (Tamburlaine), money (Jew of Malta), love (Edward II) or science (Faustus). Ultimately, of course, they all fail. This seems to be a time still looking for transcendence to assure it of its own being, but looking in the phenomenal for the noumenal (so to speak). Why does Hamlet's failure lead him to inaction, though, while the failure of Marlowe's characters leads them to fevered violence? Any takers? Cheers, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pedro R. Doria Date: Sunday, 30 Jul 1995 02:16:32 -0300 Subject: Re: "To be or not to be" Speech >From: Clark Bowlen > >Whatever else "To be...." is, it is a speech written for an actor. >Interpretation starts with basic actor questions, including "Why am I here, >What do I know?" (...) >I don't know about you, but if I were playing Hamlet (or even Forrest Gump) I'd >have to play suspicious. "To be...." would be a performance. With the given >circumstances, a solitary contemplation of suicide is an awefully big stretch. Well, Clark, you're talking about Stanislavski here. I'm not quite sure all actors start interpretation with whys? and whats? That is 20th century western interpretation. Although that's the sort of interpretation we are used to, there are many other ways of doing it. I doubt Shakespeare's group acted worried about that. They were probably trying to tell a story of princes, kingdoms, revenge and murder. And people probably just loved it! Yes, Shakespeare was probably conscious of what he was writing. Hamlet is all very much ambiguous; that's the beauty of it. I mean, it's just ok. Let the director decide! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 15:06:29 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0590 Qs: Playing Shakespeare Videos; TV Shakespeare Series Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0590. Saturday, 29July 1995. (1) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 27 Jul 95 11:18:32 -0500 Subj: Inquiry re: Barton's *Playing Shakespeare* (2) From: Michael Friedman Date: Thursday, 27 Jul 1995 15:07:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: [TV Shakespeare Series] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 27 Jul 95 11:18:32 -0500 Subject: Inquiry re: Barton's *Playing Shakespeare* Colleagues: I'm forwarding a forwarded message, since if anyone knows the answer to the inquiry, it's probably someone on this list. I just checked my *Shakespeare 1995* catalog from The Writing Company, but they don't seem to have the Barton tapes. From: IN%"mpomeran@acs.ryerson.ca" "Murray Pomerance" 27-JUL-1995 09:56:23.72 To mix hunger with gratitude: I'm still looking--and still nobody has responded--for VHS of the BBC production PLAYING SHAKESPEARE with John Barton and the Royal Shakespeare Co. Is it available? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Thursday, 27 Jul 1995 15:07:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [TV Shakespeare Series] A colleague of mine recently mentioned that, about three years ago, he happened to catch on PBS a few episodes of a British television series based on the life of Shakespeare. He recalls that Tim Curry played the Bard and that, on the whole, it was very engaging, if not necessarily accurate in a historical sense. Did anyone see this series, or does anyone know how one might obtain videotape copies of the episodes? Michael Friedman University of Scranton ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 16:04:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0591 Re: *Cym* Prod; Cultural Construct; Clowns Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0591. Saturday, 29July 1995. (1) From: G.L. Horton Date: Thursday, 27 Jul 1995 16:50:44 +0059 (EDT) Subj: Cymbeline Production (2) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 28 Jul 1995 12:52:45 GMT Subj: Re: Cultural Contruct (3) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Friday, 28 Jul 1995 10:47:03 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0587 Re: Branagh; FRINGE; Cultural Contruct (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: G.L. Horton Date: Thursday, 27 Jul 1995 16:50:44 +0059 (EDT) Subject: Cymbeline Production I've just stumbled across the review I wrote of the Huntington Theatre's 1992 production of Cymbeline. I hope it's not too late for it to be of some use to the director who posted the query. G.L. Horton CYMBELINE is a romantic tale rehearsing many of Shakespeare's familiar themes, set in a pre-Christian Britain where charity reigns and "Pardon's the word to all". As Shakespeare is preeminent among writers in lavishness, unpacking the hearts of even minor characters with winged words, piling on incident and subplot and divine intervention until his constructions are the bane of classicists in every age, so Cymbeline is the Bard at the top of his bent-- and maybe even a bit over the top. As in LEAR, the title character is an old king who rejects his headstrong and virtuous daughter. On the human level, lust, malevolence, and folly that rule. Marriages, friendships, kingdoms are made and split by whim. Everybody, even down to the servants, goes through reversals; betrays and is betrayed. (Some few of these got cut when the Huntington trimmed the prodigious script to a manageable three hours.) The tone is epic, even mock-epic, rather than tragic: Jove is over all, the soul advances to happiness through painful experience, as deep supra- natural forces work towards a goal beyond man's ken. The Huntington production apparently set out to match the script in prodigies, and in prodigality. John Falabella's design sketches probably looked spectacular, and in them the director may have seen a chance to integrate all the disparate elements: Classical Rome, Machiavellian Italians, the court of ancient Britain, wild outlaw caves. But it turns out that the set has florid detail that makes the first scene - a directorially interpolated Druidic dumb show - look impressive, and every subsequent scene look ridiculous. The costumes, too, simply don't work: although by now the audience is used to almost any sort of outfit in Shakespeare, including PJ's for the ART's Hamlet. This "postmodern" approach to costuming is close in spirit to the practice of Shakespeare's own time, when actors generally wore contemporary garments suitable to their characters age and social rank, with a few additional symbolic elements. But in David Murin's designs, something went radically wrong. Instead of being tied together by a bit of glitter here, some macrame there, a Renaissance waistline paired with a hip-hop haircut, the costumes turned vulgar and clumsy, right out of a low-budget sci/fi movie. These costumes make the actors look misshapen and uncomfortable, and they signal to the audience a B movie contempt for subtlety and seriousness. By the time of his late romances Shakespeare seems to have lost some of his own seriousness, and begun to view politics with the offhand irony he applied to love in the earlier comedies. The rousing speech of British patriotism, worthy of Henry V, is put in the mouth of Cloten, a villain and a fool. Divine Right of kings is undercut by Cymbeline himself, a legitimate ruler whose every action is that of a dupe or a dope. But Shakespeare hasn't lost faith in personal grace. Imogen is the star part. This is a woman -- a girl, really--, whose physical presence is so compelling that strangers fall instantly in love with her, even when she is covered in rags and dirt, disguised a servant boy. Like the twins Sebastian and Viola, Imogen and her lost brothers are nature's nobles. They exceed from birth what education and condition aim at, and they win love and loyalty at sight. Unfortunately, at the Huntington these three had no family resemblance. "Purists" might say, what do you expect, when the politically correct insist on nontraditional casting? But the poetry and princely bearing of Keith Hamilton Cobb as the king's younger son suggest that had his siblings been cast, like him, in a way that visually suggested that all their virtues came from the queen their mother's side of the family, the production would have been the richer for it.< Successful productions of Cymbeline, such as that of Canada's Stratford company in 1971, usually follow a strategy of enlisting the imagination of the audience in making the implausible credible. In the most famous of these implausibilities, the scene where Imogen wakes up in a grave which also contains a headless corpse she believes to be that of her husband, the Huntington's Larry Carpenter decided to put poor Lyn Wright downstage center on the bare floor, and partner her with what is clearly a dummy smeared with something that looks remarkably like ketchup. Were she as talented as the legendary Imogen Ellen Terry, Ms. Wright might still have had to contend with derisive snorts and titters from the audience. Both Ms. Wright, and Sheila Allen, who plays the wicked Queen, have impressive resumes. Both are o'erparted here. Surely it would have been possible to find in Boston a pair of actresses who could have come closer to filling out these roles? Bryant Weeks made Posthumous as sympathetic as possible to an age where husbands are not entitled to kill their wives, however adulterous. John Christopher Jones as Cloten and James Bodge and Richard McGonigale as Cloten's attendants got full comic value from the boorish prince's behavior. Gary Sloan relished his villainy as Iachimo, but he never set in motion the crosscurrents of perverse idealism that would have made his repentance believable. However, that might have been a wasted effort, because this production plays all the last act revelations and reversals for laughs. Critics and directors have disagreed on how far any of CYMBELINE'S fabulous events must be credited for the tale to have significance beyond mere entertainment. The 1971 Papp production in Central Park shrugged off the battle scenes, assigning them to an army composed of giant crows and ostriches. Still, as mere entertainment, and even in the Huntington's less than stellar production, there are riches here to amuse and amaze the eye, "..hitting each object with a joy". (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 28 Jul 1995 12:52:45 GMT Subject: Re: Cultural Contruct Michael Yogev is quite right. There are no 'theory-free' approaches to Shakespeare. No one can 'just go' to the theatre, or 'just read' the 'text' of a play. There is no text 'in itself' to which we can have unmediated access. And the sky is not falling. T. Hawkes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Friday, 28 Jul 1995 10:47:03 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0587 Re: Branagh; FRINGE; Cultural Contruct A side track to the "unfunny clowns" debate: although I agree that a fair amount of Elizabethan clowning reads (and performs) pretty badly these days, I think we should be wary about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As I have mentioned berfore, I am currently directing MAAN and am taking great delight in Dogberry, et al. Without making the characters too zany, loony, batty, etc., they are still funny. The situation is funny - Doberry is the classic, eternal officer of the law who counsels his subordinates to hang out in the donut shops rather than to try and enforce the law. That situation is funny on "the Simpsons" and it's funny in MAAN. Branagh's treatment of the watch etc, was one of the least satisfying aspects of his film, for me, specifically because he seemed to forget that they were all people and reverted to the "caricature" mode that has become so trite as a treatment of Shakespearean clowns. I have had to argue the actor playing Dogberry out of this kind of treatment of a very human character. I doubt that this approach will leave people rolling in their seats, but they may enjoy the character more that if he were just some weirdo (which also wouldn't leave them rolling in their seats). There is another reason for taking this approach to Dogberry et al. Despite being the "shallow fools", as Borachio so aptly recognizes they are the ones who discover the plot against hero and ultimately set things to right. The shallow fools are, in fact, the heros. I think it is a pretty remarkable comment on the blindness of the "honor system" and "nobility" espoused by Don Pedro and his gang. That "the people" are the saviors of the day can almost be read as democratic. If the low characters are played too low or ridiculous, this interpretation stands to be lost. Once again, it's all a matter of choice, but in our production we are enjoying going down this path. By the way, our performance dates are coming up. The production will be presented outside Kennedy Theatre on the University of Hawaii at Manoa Campus on August 11, 12, 13 & 18, 19, 20 from 5-7 p.m. Picnics, blankets, etc, are encouraged. If any of you are in town, please drop by. Shirley Kagan University of Hawaii. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 09:18:06 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0592 2nd CFV: Newsgroup Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0592. Monday, 31 July 1995. From: Marty Hyatt Date: Saturday, 29 Jul 1995 14:05:48 -0400 Subject: (fwd) 2nd CFV: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare LAST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) unmoderated group humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare *************************************************************************** * NOTE: This is the second CFV of two. If you have already voted and * * received an acknowledgement of your vote in email from the * * votetaker, you *DO* *NOT* need to vote again. If you have any * * questions, ask the votetaker, Michael Handler * *************************************************************************** Newsgroups line: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare Poetry, plays, history of Shakespeare. Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 2 Aug 1995. This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. For voting questions only contact Michael Handler . For questions about the proposed group contact Marty Hyatt . RATIONALE Shakespeare has been discussed frequently in rec.arts.theatre.plays and occasionally in rec.arts.books. There is also a moderated listserv list, SHAKSPER, devoted to Shakespeare. But there is no Usenet newsgroup specifically for the discussion of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. The new group humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare will be unmoderated. There are no plans to gate the new group to the listserv list. During the first discussion period, few or no objections were raised to the Charter itself. Comments focused on the group's name. As a result, the originally proposed name (humanities.literature.english.shakespeare) was modified to the present humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare, which was used for the second discussion period. During the second discussion period, there were very few comments (and all were favorable). CHARTER The unmoderated newsgroup humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare will be for discussion of: 1> the plays and poems of William Shakespeare and other English writers of the 16th and 17th centuries. 2> the life and times of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. 3> the production, staging, and acting of Shakespeare's plays, including current and past productions. 4> Shakespeare's influence and impact on subsequent literature and culture. 5> Shakespeare's authorship including his sources, allusions in his works, publication of his works, possible collaborations, and possible pseudonymity. DISTRIBUTION This Call For Votes (CFV) has been crossposted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, humanities.misc, rec.arts.books, rec.arts.theatre.plays After this Call For Votes (CFV) appears in , it will be sent to the following mailing list(s): * shaksper@utoronto.bitnet HOW TO VOTE One vote counted per person, no more than one per account. Attempts at ballot box stuffing or vote fraud will not be treated lightly. ************************************************************************** *** IMPORTANT: _Addresses_ and _votes_ of all voters will be published *** *** in the final voting results list. UVV voting on Usenet is not done *** *** by secret ballot. If you don't like this, don't vote. *** ************************************************************************** Send email to: Just replying should work if you are not reading this on a mailing list. Your mail message should contain ONE (and only ONE) of the following statements: I vote YES on humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare I vote NO on humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare I vote ABSTAIN on humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare I CANCEL my vote on humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare If you vote ABSTAIN, your vote will be registered and will be shown in the final results posting, but it will not affect the outcome of the vote. It is intended as a form of symbolic protest, nothing more. If you CANCEL your vote, all records of your vote will be purged from the active results file, and your name and address will not be listed in the final results posting. ABSTAIN and CANCEL are nearly the same thing -- the only difference is, with ABSTAIN, your name and address are still listed in the final listing. If you later change your mind you may vote again. Only your last valid vote will count and will be published in the final results posting. Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program. The votetaker will respond to your received ballots with a personal acknowledgement by mail -- if you do not receive one within several days, try again. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly. After the final results are posted to , there will then be a five-day period during which the published vote list may be corrected and any irregularities addressed. OFFICIAL SOURCES OF THE CFV The only official sources of this CFV are: * The copy which was crossposted to * Any copies which were sent to mailing lists by the votetaker (and *only* the votetaker) * One received from the votetaker's automated mailserver To obtain a copy of the CFV from the votetaker's mailserver, send an email message to . This is an automated function, so it does not matter what you say in this message. The text of the message will be discarded. IMPORTANT: If you give anyone copies of the CFV, the copies must be whole and unmodified. Distributing pre-filled in ballots or modified copies of this CFV is considered voting fraud. If this occurs on a large scale or causes voting problems or irregularities, the vote may be canceled. When in doubt, ask the votetaker. humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare Bounce List - No need to revote ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Scott_Walker@eworld.com -- Michael Handler Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) Usenet Volunteer Votetakers WWW page: ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 09:24:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0593 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0593. Monday, 31 July 1995. (1) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Saturday, 29 Jul 1995 12:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0589 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech (2) From: Paul Lord Date: Saturday, 29 Jul 1995 12:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: To be or not to be (3) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 30 Jul 1995 21:58:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0589 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Saturday, 29 Jul 1995 12:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0589 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech In response to Sean Lawrence's post, I've noticed that a new full-length study is out on the fear of annihilation as an important motive in Elizabethan drama. I believe it's by Robert Watson. Anyone read it yet, and care to comment on it? (I know, that's cheating on my part, but what else is the 'net for?) If Hamlet is giving us a kind of post-scholastic version of *esse* perhaps this is related to the growing influence of mortalist doctrine via Calvinism? Although a previous poster gave a very convincing account of Hamlet's Roman Catholicism, I can't rid myself of the suspicion that on the person of Hamlet Shakespeare has inscribed a crossing of Roman Catholicism and Calvinism, with a few shakes of Pyrhonnism thrown in for extra body. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.) --Robert Appelbaum English- UC Berkeley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Lord Date: Saturday, 29 Jul 1995 12:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: To be or not to be Some years ago, a good friend of mine, Scott Stevens, made the following observation about 'To be or not to be' which I must share. "Most people read it wrong. They pause after 'mind' in the first line, but that can't be right. If you pause after 'nobler,' you end up asking 'which of these is better:' 1. In the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (17 syllables) or 2. To take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them (17 syllables) It can't be coincidence; it's Shakespeare at his cleverest, contrasting two phrases of equal length, one of thought, one of action, summing up the entire play in the middle of one of the central speeches. Brilliant." I haven't heard this interpretation elsewhere; is it familiar to anyone on SHAKSPER? I don't doubt that Scott is correct; I get an intense word-geek glee imagining Shakespeare, chewing on his quill, trying to make the syllable counts match. Knowing all the while, of course, that nobody was ever going to count them during the performance, but putting it in there anyway, just because. paul (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 30 Jul 1995 21:58:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0589 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech The question is not existential. To be or not to be WHAT? We are breaking in (or hearing) after the thought process has begun. I think the answer to the WHAT is found in the next line: "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind" to suffer or to fight. To be or not to be [noble] that is the question. And which is the nobler stance to take? Suffering or fighting? What think ye? Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 09:36:13 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0594 Re: Playing Videos; TV Series; Cultural Construct Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0594. Monday, 31 July 1995. (1) From: Paul Nelsen Date: Sunday, 30 Jul 1995 10:36:12 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0590 Qs: Playing Shakespeare Video (2) From: Joanne Whalen Date: Sunday, 30 Jul 1995 19:21:02 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0590 Qs: Playing Shakespeare Videos (3) From: William H DeRoche Date: Sunday, 30 Jul 1995 21:36:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0590; TV Shakespeare Series (4) From: Edward Friedlander Date: Sunday, 30 Jul 1995 16:52:33 CST Subj: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Nelsen Date: Sunday, 30 Jul 1995 10:36:12 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0590 Qs: Playing Shakespeare Video John Barton's PLAYING SHAKESPEARE series may be purchased in standard VHS format from Films for the Humanities, Box 2053, Princeton, NJ 08540 ( they have a toll free phone number as well but I do not have it at hand). Each of the eleven tapes in the series features insightful moments that demonstrate how actors interrogate and interpret Shakespearean text, dramtic moment, and character. Barton moderates the proceedings with intelligence and cuddly charm. My students have found the tapes very engaging. Regrettably, however, Films for the Humanities commands a daunting price for these tapes. The cost really does have to be rationalized as an "investment." Paul Nelsen Marlboro College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Whalen Date: Sunday, 30 Jul 1995 19:21:02 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0590 Qs: Playing Shakespeare Videos The latest brochure from *Films for the Humanities and Sciences* (1-800-257-5126, PO Box 2053, Princeton, NJ 08543-2053) lists the entire Barton series--11 tapes--@ $89.95 per tape or $939 for the entire series. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William H DeRoche Date: Sunday, 30 Jul 1995 21:36:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0590; TV Shakespeare Series I have a paperback "William Shakespeare" by John Mortimer, published in 1977. On the back it said "John Mortimer's witty, bawdy, irreverent look at the life Shakespeare might have led while he was writing his plays - now dramatised in a dazzling six part ATV series starring Tim Curry as William Shakespeare and co-starring Ian McShane as Christopher Marlowe ... Jane Spencer-Turner as the Dark Lady". Hope this helps. Bill DeRoche. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Friedlander Date: Sunday, 30 Jul 1995 16:52:33 CST Subject: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct I have been lurking for the past month and enjoying what I've read. It's great to have an easy vehicle to remain in touch with what was once my primary focus. I'm a pathologist in Kansas City, with a focus on autopsy and classroom teaching. I graduated magna from the Honors program in English Lit at Brown in 1973. As a handicapped boy who liked to read, Shakespeare in particular had been the primary interpreter, for me, of human experience. And -- without apology to my postmodernist colleagues -- there IS a common human experience, across languages and cultures. Those of us in the sciences laugh (or cry) at our counterparts in the humanities who would make a political word-game of the experimental method -- the method of science which has brought us the unparalleled good health we enjoy, as well as a host of new problems. If Jacques Derrida is ever wrongfully injured by a physician, I will be happy to be his expert witness and present the best scientific case to bring him justice -- even if neither of us can really explain the relationship between words and the world of nature. But you don't have to be a scientist to be troubled by the "cultural relativism" ideology. Just look at the human heart. The more I hear about "multiculturalism", the more I see what people want, across cultural lines. People want to be healthy, and adequately fed. People want to be loved, and to be loved back. People seek meaning -- even if it means believing lies to make them feel intellectually and morally superior. People seek an answer for death, and Shakespeare's Hamlet is the first man to say on stage what most people, before and after, have felt in our hearts -- confused, but with a sense of.... After this, people want economic opportunity and security, personal dignity and self-determination, and so forth. Anybody with a heart realizes all this. Sure, there's politics in Shakespeare's plays, and anytime people start talking about "values". But worldwide, over 400 years, human beings in every condition have found The Bard to be the greatest expositor of what happens inside most people. I'm no philosopher or epistemologist, but I'm not blind, either. I've heard of the people who claim that math and physics are culture and gender-biased, and I'm comforted by having no reason to believe they, themselves, know any math or physics. I'd argue that anyone who finds Shakespeare to be a mere cultural construct knows nothing of the human heart as it really is Ed Friedlander, M.D. erf@alum.uhs.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 09:38:49 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0595 Q: Talbot's Size Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0595. Monday, 31 July 1995. From: Lisa Broome Date: Sunday, 30 Jul 1995 18:38:05 CST6CDT Subject: Talbot's size in 1 Henry VI Hello to everyone; this is my first message to the SHAKESPER list. I'm interested in Talbot's appearance in productions of 1 Henry VI, particularly in regards to Act Two, scene 3. I've only seen the BBC version, in which Talbot is average in physical stature. Are there any performances which include a short or diminutive Talbot? I ask in order to better understand the Countess of Auvergne's repeated references to his appearance. Are her comments simply intended to anger or challenge Talbot, or is there a better way of reading/seeing this scene? If the original actor playing Talbot (forgive me, I haven't done my homework on the earliest production) _was_ short, it might explain some of the scene. Does Talbot have a (proto) "Napoleon complex" in his daring approach to the many battles of 1 Henry VI? Any discussion of this play, or of the trilogy, would be welcomed, as I am currently reading them with a reading group here in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Thanks, Lisa Broome ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 09:42:03 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0596 Automobile Advertisement Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0596. Monday, 31 July 1995. From: Fiona C. Quick Date: Monday, 31 Jul 95 02:08:25 CST Subject: Re: Automobile ad with the Bard It is *not* my intention to raise any debate regarding authorship, but as an advertising student, I found the recent campaign by an American car company intruiging. The advertisment begins with the question (this is not a direct transcription, but accurate in concept) "How open minded are you?" and flashes the litho of Bill and then asks "Would you consider that all the plays were not written by him?" The ad goes on to describe the car company and features of the car. I found it interesting that, although the authorship topic has previously been discussed in the mainstream, bringing it into advertising (if past cultural influences of advertising are any indication) certainly has implications for future discussion within American society. Again, this is simply an observation, and *not* an invitation to discuss authorship, but I would be interested to discuss *other* uses of the Bard and his likeness within the realm of advertising and it's possible cultural influence. Fiona C. Quick University of Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communication ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 09:21:37 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0597 Announcement: Oxfordian Play Reading Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0597. Wednesday, 2 August 1995. From: Stephanie Caruana Date: Monday, 31 Jul 1995 10:43:23 +0600 Subject: Re: Staged Reading of my new play, Spearshaker I would like to announce through the SHAKSPER network that my new play, entitled SPEARSHAKER, will be given a staged reading on Sunday, October 1, at 2:00 p.m., at the Middle East Cafe, 472 Massachusetts Ave., in Cambridge, Mass. It is tentatively scheduled for its first full production this fall, at the new Fire Dog Theatre, in Allston, Mass. The play, a comedy, deals with the Shakespeare authorship question. It presents a speculative but hopefully rational explanation for how and why Shakespeare and the Earl of Oxford could have become involved. I am not inviting discussion of the Authorship question here, as I know that would be inappropriate. But if anyone woud like further information about the play, or would like to be involved in or attend this reading, I welcome inquiries to: scaruana@cybercom.net. Stephanie Caruana ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 09:55:13 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0598 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0598. Wednesday, 2 August 1995. (1) From: Bill Mcrae Date: Monday, 31 Jul 1995 14:15:09 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0594 Re: Cultural Construct (2) From: Bruce Young Date: Monday, 31 Jul 1995 15:38:51 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: Cultural Contruct (3) From: John Lee Date: Tuesday, 1 Aug 1995 18:24:21 +0100 (BST) Subj: Shakespeare as cultural construct (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Mcrae Date: Monday, 31 Jul 1995 14:15:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0594 Re: Cultural Construct I'm troubled by Edward Friedlander's sweeping dismissal of constructivism in his recent posting, though I'm not surprised by his conflating bardolatry and traditional science. (This almost makes me wonder if Gross and Levitt's *Higher Superstition* will now enter the standard Shakespeare bibliographies.) More to the point, I wonder why so many are disturbed by the really quite simply proposition that what we KNOW is culturally constructed. Note the stress here on KNOW, not BE. Were Dr. Friedlander to read, say, Foucault's *Madness and Civilization* or Laquer's *Making Sex,* he would, I hope, no longer be quite so willing to play the role of Dr. Johnson in the scenario that puts Derrida in the place of Bishop Berkeley. As I say, one could hope. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young Date: Monday, 31 Jul 1995 15:38:51 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Cultural Contruct I've enjoyed reading the lively exchange my posting about "Shakespeare as cultural construct" has helped provoke. As I had hoped, I've learned much from the exchange, from those who disagree with me as well as from those who agree. Since the discussion doesn't yet seem to have run its course, I thought I'd add a few more of my thoughts. In case there are any who still don't quite grasp the point I made, I want to reaffirm that I see value in the "cultural construct" and "literature as politics" points of view. What I object to is the tendency to use these points of view to dismiss (usually with a tone of superiority) the value of any other view. What I meant to recommend is that, instead of using one point of view to deny the validity of any other, we should maybe listen to each other more generously. Some points I would like to add now: (1) In defense of Jacques Derrida: He has stated that he does not accept the "social construct" or "cultural construct" view (I suppose because he considers such views, like all views, to be suspect). But clearly there are some affinities between how Derrida has been understood and the "construct" views. (2) The "cultural" and "political" views have some limitations that others have pointed out (such as a difficulty explaining their own explanatory validity). Their claim to embrace all other explanations is, I think, both ethically and intellectually (and I would add culturally and politically) problematic. Certainly politics is one significant aspect of the way we experience, act, and understand. But how could anyone possibly know that it is "the real topic underlying all human activity"? In what (ontological or other) position would you have to be to be able to make such a statement? And what (politically or otherwise) would motivate someone to make such an all-encompassing statement? (3) As a response to such questions, someone has brought up the conscious self-reflexivity of some "cultural" and "political" critics. Yes, it's true: Many of those who use the "cultural construct" model are quite aware of some of the problems--and in particular, the "self-reflexivity"--it involves. So I'm not accusing them of naivety. It's just that I've heard no one resolve the problems to my satisfaction. The most common attempt is to argue that all understanding, all explanation, is necessarily self-reflexive--it's just that the "political" or "cultural" critics recognize this fact, while others don't. I would question this last assertion. And I would add that the insistent self-reflexivity of some versions of political or cultural criticism seems to me a sign, paradoxically, that such criticism does not adequately question its own assumptions. Cultural or political critics of a certain variety simply KNOW that all criticism is political or culturally constructed. (For instance, we were recently told that, while "T. S. Eliot thought that he could sit at a banquet with Dante," cultural critics "know they cannot.") My question is, What is involved in that "knowing"? How could it possibly take place? What does it mean? If the answer is, "The knowing itself is a political or culturally constructed act," I still wonder, "How do you know it is?" If I'm told, "Because all knowing is political or culturally constructed," I still ask, "How do you know it is (and, further, why do you call it a 'knowing')?" Through all of this, I keep having the nagging intuition that the circularity of the discussion means either (1) that it is redundant or (2) that this very circularity must point to something else going on beyond the terms to which the discussion insistently returns. Let's take Dante or Shakespeare as an example. If critics say they "know" they can't sit at a banquet with Dante, I'm not satisfied with the response, "because we know that all possibilities (including possibilities of understanding) are historically determined." I want to understand what you mean by history and how you know that it determines all possibilities. I want to know what it means to be unable to sit with Dante or Shakespeare and how we would (a) be unable to do it and yet (b) KNOW that we are unable to do it. To put the problem in more concentrated form, I would ask: if our historical situation really makes it impossible for us to read Dante or Shakespeare in any other than our own terms--and thus makes it impossible for us to know what it would have been to read them in their own or their contemporaries' terms--how in the heck would we ever have become aware that there were any terms other than our own? How would we have noticed that our terms were different from these other (presumably unknowable or unusable) ones? How is it possible for us to compare the inescapable (our own terms) with the unknowable (theirs) so as to have any inkling that there is such a thing as a difference in sets of terms? Furthermore, is it really true that we all now (at this moment in history) have essentially compatible sets of terms, but that those of Shakespeare or Dante and their contemporaries are utterly incompatible with ours? I sometimes wonder if the distance between my way of seeing and that of some of MY contemporaries isn't on some matters actually greater than between my way and Shakespeare's. To sum up the problem: If there are really inescapable terms in which we see and understand, and if these really change radically through time or differ radically from "culture" to "culture," how is it that we are able to measure or even simply to notice and talk about the distance between these ways of seeing and understanding? (4) Perhaps it's true (at least for humans) that there's no such thing as a "theory-free" experience. But that doesn't mean that there is NOTHING EXCEPT theory, that theory is all there is, and that any effort to talk about anything else is impossible and foolish. It's this second claim (that theory is all there is) that I consider reductive and that I believe tends to suppress rather than encourage discussion and understanding. I'm sure I've already asked enough questions for anyone to want to try to take on, so I'll leave my further comments (for instance, on whether we grade papers and exams only by how they match our biases) till later. Again, my thanks to all for their insights (assuming--as I do--that there is such a thing as genuine insight). Bruce Young (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lee Date: Tuesday, 1 Aug 1995 18:24:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: Shakespeare as cultural construct I've come in on the end of this, and perhaps too late, but what strikes me about the phrase cultural construct is its ambiguity. I take a basically constructivist view of the world. So, as I see it, culture is a construct -- as are plays and personalities and so on. But constructed by whom? What much of the discussion here seems to assume is that construct equals constructed by, product of -- an exterior force (culture). And from here we go down the path of person as subject and subjected. But there is no need for this assumption and the belief that agency vanishes, is there? The 'I' is, to an extent, not simply product but self-producer; the 'I' will construct itself from what is around it. (So says Piaget.) Although it is a construct, and culture is a construct, and it has constructed itself through culture, it is not a cultural construct. The choice is not, as it seems to often be posed, essentialism & agency or constructivism & subjectivity. Similarly, though Shakepeare's plays are constructs, and his cultures were constructs (different from our own cultures ...), and though his plays are constructed through and out of those cultures, they are not cultural constructs -- though it's often interesting and profitable to approach them as if they are. And to an extent, they are; but not purely. If they were purely a cultural construct, how would they argue with their culture (if, that is, you think they do)? Indeed, if everything is a cultural construct, and agency is denied, where does change or history come from? John Lee ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 10:01:49 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0599 Re: Playing Shakespeare Videos Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0599. Wednesday, 2 August 1995. (1) From: Mickie Mosley Date: Monday, 31 Jul 95 15:01:24 pst Subj: Re: SHK 6.0590 Qs: Playing Shakespeare Videos (2) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 1 Aug 1995 16:57:38 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Playing Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mickie Mosley Date: Monday, 31 Jul 95 15:01:24 pst Subject: Re: SHK 6.0590 Qs: Playing Shakespeare Videos The John Barton series of "Acting Shakespeare" is 12 hours of episodes. It is 12 lessons. I spent 2 years trying to find them and finally went to a professor at Berkeley who used them with his classes. I suggest you try the same. Look to a university near you with a good drama department and try to locate them that way. To my knowledge also, you might contact the RSC in London and they may have the tapes for sale. My memory is that they were quite expensive and that is why I decided not to go that way. Good Luck!! Mickie Mosley University of Scranton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 1 Aug 1995 16:57:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Playing Shakespeare re. Murray Pomerance's search for tapes of this series: The 11-part series is available from Films for the Humanities & Sciences, POBox 2053, Princeton, NJ 08543-2053; 800-257-5126. The price is (gasp!) $939.00. (Why is everything from this outfit so overpriced?) The series is on VHS cassette. Individual programs cost $89.95. They offer a lot of Shakespeare stuff. Roger Gross ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 10:09:49 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0600 Re: Talbot; Salvini Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0600. Wednesday, 2 August 1995. (1) From: Lawrence Manley Date: Tuesday, 1 Aug 1995 14:04:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0595 Q: Talbot's Size (2) From: John Mucci Date: Tuesday, 1 August, 1995 Subj: Salvini (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lawrence Manley Date: Tuesday, 1 Aug 1995 14:04:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0595 Q: Talbot's Size One answer to Lisa Broome's query about the stature of Talbot may be found in Sigurd Burckhardt's _Shakespearian Meanings_. If Shakespeare is writing against the grain of Marlowe's _Tamburlaine_ (and it does seem as if he's always thinking of Marlowe in these early plays), then Talbot's possible diminutive stature, as well as his understatement and self-possessed demeanor, may be a Shakespearian counterweight to the hyperbole of Tamburlaine, as playedby the towering Edward Alleyn. I think it's Alexander Leggatt, in _Shakespeare's Political Drama_, who suggests a linguistic parallel between the Countess's imprecations against Talbot the "weak and writhled shrimp" (1 Hen VI 2.3.23) and Richard Duke of Glucester's complaint that his mother's womb shrunk "mine arm up like a wither'd shrub" (3 Hen VI 3.2.156). About later performance history I don't know. But on the "writhled shrimp" and "wither'd shrub": we do know that Richard Burbage played Richard III, and in a very problematic book no longer much credited, _The Organization and Personnel of the Shakespeare Company_, T.W. Baldwin, who believed he could intuit casting by inference from actors' "lines" or specialties, conjectures that Burbage also played Talbot. He explained that Burbage would have suited both roles physically because, not yet twenty, Burbage was not yet fully grown. Take with many grains of salt! Janet Adelman's _Suffocating Mothers" is the best gloss on what's going on here with threats of shrinkage coming from strong women. Lawrence Manley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mucci Date: Tuesday, 1 August, 1995 Subject: Salvini Over a year ago, I recall that someone on this list requested information on the actor Salvini and his opinions on Shakespeare; I cannot find who it was, unfortunately, but have discovered a lovely article on the subject, written in the 1880s, which I will gladly share, if the persons interested let me know. I believe she was working on a thesis concerning Salvini, and I'd love to know where to get a copy of it, if anyone can help out there. Thank you. John Mucci GTE VisNet ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 09:33:18 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0601 Re: Hamlet (Was "To be or not to Be") Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0601. Thursday, 3 August 1995. (1) From: Piers Lewis Date: Wednesday, 02 Aug 1995 10:07:11 -0600 Subj: Hamlet's irony (2) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 2 Aug 1995 14:57:04 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0593 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Piers Lewis Date: Wednesday, 02 Aug 1995 10:07:11 -0600 Subject: Hamlet's irony Michael Yogev (7/26/95) writes: Date: Wednesday, 2 Aug 1995 14:57:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0593 Re: "To be or not to be" Speech Hi. No, I haven't read the Watson book. Reading criticism is pretty much on hold while I read up for my qualifying exams, though I'll make a point of looking it up. I think it was reviewed recently in _SQ_. Robert suggests that Hamlet may be anticipating Calvinism to some extent. Not knowing much about Calvinism, I can't really comment, but I always took him to be leaning towards Lutheranism. He comes from Wittenberg, dresses in black, etc. This would allow us to tie him into some of the religious change in Shakespeare's own time. He seems to have got the first homilies, on the depravity of man, on the uselessness of works, down pat. He rejects everything of the world. On the other hand, he hasn't gone on to the (very Lutheran) doctrine of grace, also found in the homilies. In other words, he's rejected a view of his own being as assured by a "chain of being" (thank you, Tillyard) which in turn is derived from Plotinus, or a belief in the beneficience of works (a la later medieval Catholicism), and he has yet to arrive at a view of being as assured by a personal relationship with God. Bill: Why isn't this an existential question? I don't see why we're arriving half way through a thought process. The first line of the F1 text ends in a colon, which is a good rhetorical way to begin a long speech. I don't see "Nobler" as subjective completion to the verb "to be". It seems much more closely to be acting as a possible modifier for whatever the answer might be: "being" or "not being." It might be the criterion upon which the "mind of reason" will decide whether "to be or not to be", but that doesn't make it the question itself. And besides, "nobler" can mean more real, or possessing more being--I believe Pico uses it that way (at least in translation). Besides, I don't think the distinction is between fighting and suffering, but between dying and suffering, as the latter end of the speech seems to make clear. In other words, it's between the world of "non-esse" and total nothingness. And until he considers that death might not be annihilation, it seems to be a toss-up. Cheers, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 09:38:12 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0602 Re: Salvini Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0602. Thursday, 3 August 1995. (1) From: G.L. Horton Date: Wednesday, 2 Aug 1995 12:41:07 +0059 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0600 Re: Salvini (2) From: Martin Green Date: Wednesday, 2 Aug 1995 18:34:38 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0600 Re: Salvini (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: G.L. Horton Date: Wednesday, 2 Aug 1995 12:41:07 +0059 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0600 Re: Salvini In my youth I owned a biography, even then very old and tattered and bought at a used book sale, of Salvini. And I read elsewhere about him: strange to think that in, say, 40 years he and his fame have disappeared. The tone of the biography implied that his name was then a household word. I made notes, because I thought I might someday write about him. I don't know where the notes are any more, and the book is long lost, but I remember very well two incidents from his life. 1) his decision to give up opera and concentrate on Shakespeare when he became convinced that his voice, while suitable for either, had to be trained to perfection in one or the other: the techniques were incompatible. 2) His father's decision to give up his own troupe, where he was leading man and accounted the best actor in town, to take a job playing smaller roles with the best troupe in Italy, so that son Tomaso could get the advantage of working under artists with the highest standards as he grew into his own great talent. Ah, those inspirational Victorian biographies! G.L. Horton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Green Date: Wednesday, 2 Aug 1995 18:34:38 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0600 Re: Salvini Since Salvini has come up: does anyone know if he was also an artist (i.e., painter)? I have a very Italianate painting, depicting Shakespeare reading something to Queen Elizabeth. She is surrounded by courtiers, in a garden with a column, a huge alabaster urn, and a peacock. The signature, not too legible, appears to be Salvin, but could be Salvini. Could this be the work of the actor? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 09:43:31 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0603 Re: Shakespeare Course: Text and Theater Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0603. Thursday, 3 August 1995. From: Joanne Walen Date: Wednesday, 2 Aug 1995 13:36:36 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare: Text and Theater Course I would like members of the list to be aware of a one-week course, "Shakespeare: Text and Theater" to be offered through the Shakespeare Centre at Stratford-uon-Avon, England, June 16-22, 1996. It is designed for anyone interested in seeing and discussing performance choices in six RSC productions. Undergraduate or graduate credit is available through the University of Nevada, Reno. Those who would like a syllabus and further information can reply privately to me at shaxpur@aol.com. I have included the syllabus so you can see that this is an educational, not a profit-making endeavor. If you publish the notice, you may wish to publish the syllabus, too, or not. I'm not sure what your policy is on these issues. Thanks. Joanne Syllabus: Joanne Walen Shakespeare Express 11500 Pickens Drive Reno, Nevada 89511 Telephone: 702-852-1637 e-mail: shaxpur@aol.com August 2, 1995 It looks as if the Shakespeare Express will take off to Stratford for the week of June 16-22, 1996. Or it might be June 23-29, depending on which week is "dark" at the Royal Shakespeare Company in Stratford. Dr. Robert Smallwood and I are at present planning on the earlier week, but we can't be absolutely sure until the RSC schedule is released in early February. The estimated cost of the course: lodging, meals (breakfast and dinner), coaches, tickets, classes, and collection from the airport and return would be about L455 per person (based on a group of 20); at a 1.6 exchange rate--subject to change--that's $728 for seven days, with airfare extra. I will work on getting a group airfare rate; however, people who are not in Reno should be able to depart from their own cities. Favorable rates out of Reno seem to hover around $700-800 during June. Lodging is in guest houses (B & B's), with breakfasts and dinners provided on the non-London evenings. Lunches are at a place of your own choice. A timetable of events for the week would look something like this (play titles can't be listed until after February), based on a similar one-week course for this year: Sunday: Arrive in Stratford; dinner at the guest houses Monday: 10:00 am, Dr. Smallwood introduces the course; 11:00 am, tea (every day); 11:30 am, "Shakespeare and Stratford"; 2:30 pm, lecture on Play 1; 4:00 pm, RSC session #1(personnel, actors); 7:30 pm, performance of Play 1 Tuesday: 9:15 am, visit Shakespeare's Birthplace; 10:00 am, discussion of Play 1; 11:30 am, lecture on Play 2; 2:00 pm, depart by coach for London theater; 7:15 pm, performance of Play 2 Wednesday: 10:00 am, discussion of Play 2; 11:30 am, RSC session #2; 1:45 pm, depart by coach for visit to Anne Hathaway's cottage at Shottery and Mary Arden's home at Wilmcote; 4:15 pm, lecture on Play 3; 7:30 pm, performance of Play 3 at RSC with backstage tour after the play Thursday: 9:30 am, discussion of Play 3; 11:00 am, lecture on Play 4; 1:30 pm, matinee performance of Play 4; free evening (could see an additional play) Friday: 10:00 am, discussion of Play 4; 11:30 am, lecture on Play 5; 2:30 pm, lecture on Play 6; 4:00 pm, RSC session #3; 7:30 pm, performance of Play 5 Saturday: 9:30 am, discussion of Play 5; 11:00 am, RSC session #4; 2:00 pm, depart by coach for London; 7:15 pm, performance of Play 6. End of course. Sunday: depart from London for home or other travel As you can see, this would be quite a packed week. It is not designed as a course for teaching how to use performance in the classroom, but rather how to "read" performance text--hence the title-- Shakespeare: Text and Theater. Credit would be available through the University of Nevada, Reno, probably two graduate or undergraduate credits in either English or Education. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 09:49:26 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0604 Re: Shakespeare as Bultural Construct Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0604. Thursday, 3 August 1995. (1) From: Bill McRae Date: Wednesday, 02 Aug 1995 14:23:57 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0598 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (2) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 02 Aug 1995 15:49:17 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0598 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill McRae Date: Wednesday, 02 Aug 1995 14:23:57 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0598 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct In reply to Bruce Young's recent posting, the subject of reflexivity is exhaustively discussed in Malcolm Ashmore's *The Refelexive Thesis*. For Ashmore (and others such as Barbara Herrnstein Smith in *Contingencies of Value* and Richard Rorty in *Continegency, Irony, and Solidarity*) reflexivity is not an epistemological problem so much as the ground of knowledge itself. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 02 Aug 1995 15:49:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0598 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Bruce Young discusses the "inescapable terms in which we see and understand" with some skepticism, and I would like to add to that skepticism. Steven Pinker in his chapter "Mentalese" in THE LANGUAGE INSTINCT gives reasons for believing that we do not think in any language; we think in mentalese and then translate into a language. If this is true, and Pinker gives strong reasons for this hypothesis, then our thinking can NOT be dominated by language, by "inescapable terms." We may rather say that the expression of our thinking is colored by the language that we select to use -- since many of us have the choice. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 09:52:53 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0605 Q: *Cardenio* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0605. Thursday, 3 August 1995. From: Mickie Mosley Date: Wednesday, 02 Aug 95 09:57:31 pst Subject: Cardenio I recently came across a book written by a man named Charles Hamilton in which he claims that the play "Cardenio, or The Second Handmaiden's Tragedy" is a hidden/suppresed piece of Shakespeare which was suppressed due to subject matter. Can anyone give me further information on this piece, a lead to more research materials, comments, etc. I am considering producing this piece and would like to cover all my bases before doing so. Thanks for your help. Mickie [Editor's NOTE: This topic has been discussed before. Anyone interested in those discussions should use the DATABASE Function to find and retrieve them. --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 09:34:47 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0607 Re: Hamlet; Salvini Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0607. Friday, 4 August 1995. (1) From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 03 Aug 1995 16:03:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0601 Re: Hamlet (Was "To be or not to Be") (2) From: Martin Green Date: Friday, 4 Aug 1995 08:55:52 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0602 Re: Salvini (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 03 Aug 1995 16:03:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0601 Re: Hamlet (Was "To be or not to Be") For Sean Lawrence: In Hamlet's Christian world, there is no non-being. Hamlet's father is dead, but he still exists. The existential world is, basically, a world without god. (I have a difficult time understanding the position of the Catholic existentialists.) In Hamlet's world, death is a transition to another state of being, where angels sing the protagonist to his rest, and where his father is still in existential torment. Thus, I see Hamlet's "2 B r 0 2 B" speech as beginning with a contemplation of nobility, and then considering the consequences of certain possibly noble actions. Harry Levin has a good analysis of this speech in THE QUESTION OF HAMLET, near the end of Chapter 2 (pp. 68ff. in the Viking paperback), which supports your position more strongly than mine! But Levin points our how the binary oppositions work in the speech. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Green Date: Friday, 4 Aug 1995 08:55:52 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0602 Re: Salvini G. L. Horton's reference to Salvini's former fame: in "The Othello of Tommaso Salvini " (1890) E. T. Mason wrote: "The aim of this book is to describe, fully and accurately, a great theatrical performance - perhaps the greatest of our time. As Shakespeare is to other dramatists, so is Salvini to other actors - etc." High praise! And I believe I read somewhere that Salvini acted the part only in Italian - is that possible? M. Green ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 09:36:47 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0608 Richard III Society on WWW Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0608. Friday, 4 August 1995. From: Peter Scott Date: Friday, 04 Aug 1995 06:05:55 -0600 (CST) Subject: Richard III Society, American Branch Linkname: Richard III Society, American Branch Filename: http://www.webcom.com/~blanchrd/gateway.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 09:21:46 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0606 August Follies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0606. Friday, 4 August 1995. From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Thursday, 3 Aug 1995 10:16:50 -0400 Subject: August Follies: A call for musicians In a moment of Folly brought on by the August heat, a friend of mine and I are forming a Shakespeare Heavy Metal band, to be known as "Nick Bottom and the Rude Mechanicals". We are hoping to replace the long-breathed "Hey Nonny Nonnies" at the Malone Society Dance next year. Our repertoire will include our signature tune "Sleepin' with the Faerie Queene", along with such staples as "The Bee SUCKS!" (a hard-hitting number about the commercialization of the modern vacation industry), "Fancy Bread" (a blues about ill-gotten gains), "Little, Tiny Boy" (a gut-ripper about child exploitation), "Duck Dame" (about a woman with unusual erotic appetites) and "No more Ladies" (a woeful ballad). If you have any interest in joining this group, either as musician or songwriter, please reply by private email. Snug and I will reply pronto. Knavishly, Tom ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 12:49:55 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0609 Re: Salvini Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0609. Saturday, 5 August 1995. (1) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Friday, 04 Aug 1995 11:46:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Salvini (2) From: Stephen C. Schultz Date: Friday, 04 Aug 95 11:39:19 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0607 Re: Salvini (3) From: Julie Dubiner Date: Saturday, 5 Aug 1995 00:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0607 Re: Salvini (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Friday, 04 Aug 1995 11:46:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Salvini Martin Green asks if it is possible that Tomaso Salvini acted the part of Othello in Italian. He did indeed, according to Henry James, who wrote in the _Atlantic Monthly_ for March of 1883: The famous Italian actor, Tommaso Salvini, giving us an opportunity to admire him in far too small a number of performances, has played to us under conditions very similar to those with which the actors of the last century had to struggle.... Salvini's triumph-- a very great triumph-- is therefore, like that of Garrick and Mrs. Siddons, a proof of extraordinary power.... His fellow actors were of a quality which it is a charity not to specify; unmitigated dreariness was the stamp of the whole episode, save in so far as the episode was summed up in the personality of the hero. Signor Salvini naturally played in Italian, while his comrades answered him in a language which was foreign only in that it sometimes failed to be English. It was in this manner that _Macbeth_, _Othello_, _King Lear_, were given. Signor Salvini uttered the translated text, and the rest of the company recited the original. James goes on to called such an arrangement "grotesque, unpardonable, abominable," but he adds that Salvini was "well aware of his offence, and he is equally well aware that, unpardonable as it is, he induces us to pardon it." James' views of Salvini both in Boston (the current instance) and in London may be consulted in _The Scenic Art: Notes on Acting and the Drama, 1872-1901_ , ed. Allan Wade (Rutgers U. Press, 1948), pp. 168-91). --Ron Macdonald (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen C. Schultz Date: Friday, 04 Aug 95 11:39:19 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0607 Re: Salvini Because acting is such an ephemeral art, there's something sort of touching about a flurry of interest in someone like Salvini, once so celebrated and now so seldom remembered. So-- Yes, Salvini played Othello (and his other roles) in Italian while the supporting actors performed in whatever was the local vernacular. This was not TOO uncommon in his time; Edwin Booth did the same. And, in light of occasional criticisms of "Stanislavsky acting" for fostering small scale and ignoring technique, it's interesting that one of Stanislavsky's two favorite actors was Salvini, lauded in his time for titanic emotional display and remembered in ours--when at all--for saying that the three requirements of an actor are "Voice, voice, and voice." (Stanislavsky's other favorite was Fyodor Chaliapin, best known for the overwhelming emotional effect of his Boris Godunov.) It would be nice if an actor who once so dominated his profession had left a souvenir in the form of a sound recording--but I don't think it's so. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Dubiner Date: Saturday, 5 Aug 1995 00:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0607 Re: Salvini There is documentation of Salvini's Italian and English Othello - in fact at least once in Brooklyn at the Opera House he played the Moor in Italian to Edwin Booth's English speaking Iago. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 13:02:29 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0610 Re: Hamlet: Cardenio; Follies; Construct Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0610. Saturday, 5 August 1995. (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Friday, 4 Aug 1995 14:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0607 Re: Hamlet (2) From: Mickie Mosley Date: Friday, 04 Aug 95 11:52:56 pst Subj: Cardenio or The Second Handmaiden's Tragedy (3) From: J.I.Stuart Date: Friday, 4 Aug 1995 17:14:04 -0600 Subj: Nick Bottom and the Mechanicals (4) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 4 Aug 1995 21:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0604 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Friday, 4 Aug 1995 14:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0607 Re: Hamlet Thank you, Bill, for recommending the Levin book. I'll take a look. I would disagree with saying that "In Hamlet's Christian world, there is no non-being" but I suppose it's better to just leave the disagreement as disagreement. Cheers, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mickie Mosley Date: Friday, 04 Aug 95 11:52:56 pst Subject: Cardenio or The Second Handmaiden's Tragedy Folks: I received some old postings today regarding Cardenio and I am truly grateful. On one of those postings there was a statement "This play was registered by Humphrey Moseley as authored by Shakespeare and Fletcher, so you've got the best proof going that it existed and actually was written Shakespeare and Fletcher". Who is the world was Humphrey Moseley? A Registrar for the Court - a censor - who? Any information would be most appreciated. Mickie (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: J.I.Stuart Date: Friday, 4 Aug 1995 17:14:04 -0600 Subject: Nick Bottom and the Mechanicals Further to your heavy metal group- you will never rival Billy and the Theatricals (Robby Greene on bass guitar, Chris Marlowe on drums (later died in a freak drinking accident) and Benny Jonson on vocals (later left to form Benny and the Cynics) If you go a bit further on you get Johny Donne and the Metaphysicals ( with wee Georgie Herbert on Hammond organ)- they had a hit with "Johny be not proud, though some have called thee..." Or what about Wee Willie Wordsworth and the Romantics, the super-group of the 19th century- ST Coleridge on synths ( he later went on to form Sammy T and the Love Reaction) Johno Keats on rhythm guitar and Thomas de Quincey on everything. However, none of them can hold a candle to the Sisters of Mercy - Emily, Charlotte and Ann. Best wishes Ian Stuart (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 4 Aug 1995 21:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0604 Re: Shakespeare as Cultural Construct Perhaps we "think" in some kind of language, English, French, math, music, but we also do something else with our minds, probably with our right brains. While our left brain is "thinking", our right brain is doing something else, something for which we have no word, since the function of the right brain is not to label things. Perhaps "listen" is the closest we can come to what we do with our minds when we meditate, daydream, listen to music, remember the past. We share with humans of all languages this basic mental activity, and perhaps with animals as well, certainly with babies. Yet I would have to say that the language that we are taught in childhood does mold to a very great extent our thinking. Those words that cannot be found in other languages are a key to what makes our own language unique. For instance the word "sympatico" in Spanish can't really be translated as "sympathetic". It means much more than that. Sympathetic is a pallid word compared to sympatico. When a Spaniard says that someone is "sympatico" it is the highest of compliments. This little difference can be seen as symbolic of the great difference between the two cultures. Another word that shows the difference between the English culture and the Roman cultures is "home". Home has a sweet sound, like the call of a horn. It is almost "om", the Sanskrit word meaning the center of things. To say I am "at home" has a much different feeling than the French "chez moi", "by me", or "en casa" in Spanish, "in the house". It is a paradox, when we are alone we "cognate" like every other being on the planet, but when we think and try to communicate, we are forced into separate channels. That is, unless we spend a very great deal of time learning other languages. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 13:24:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0611 My Harrisonburg Vacation with the SSE Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0611. Saturday, 5 August 1995. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Saturday, August 5, 1995 Subject: My Vacation in Harrisonburg with the SSE Dear SHAKSPEReans, On Monday morning, August 7, 1995, I am leaving with my family for a week's vacation in Harrisonburg, Virginia. During that week, we will see the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express perform *Hamlet*, *Twelfth Night*, *The Tempest*, and *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead*. Although I will be bringing my laptop with me, I doubt if I will be able to (and I'm not sure I even want to) connect to my account to edit the daily SHAKSPER digests. So, if you have anything pressing to say about our recent discussions, I suggest you do so by tomorrow morning. You should start receiving SHAKSPER digests again, starting Monday, August 14. Let me also take this occasion to announce the long awaited move of SHAKSPER from the University of Toronto, its home for its six years of existence, to Bowie State University, my home institution, will occur during the last week of September. Hardy Cook Editor ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 10:18:09 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0612 Re: Cardenio; Cultural Construct; "To be or not to be" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0612. Sunday, 6 August 1995. (1) From: Dave Kathman Date: Saturday, 5 Aug 1995 23:11:42 +0100 Subj: Humphrey Moseley & Cardenio (2) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Saturday, 5 Aug 1995 14:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Shakespeare as a cultural construct (3) From: Edna Boris Date: Saturday, 05 Aug 95 20:13:00 EDT Subj: To Be Speech (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Kathman Date: Saturday, 5 Aug 1995 23:11:42 +0100 Subject: Humphrey Moseley & Cardenio In response to Mickie Mosley's query: Humphrey Moseley was a London stationer in the mid-17th century, best known for publishing (with Humphrey Robinson) the Beaumont and Fletcher First Folio in 1647. He did indeed enter Cardenio in the Stationer's Register in 1653 as by Shakespeare and Fletcher, but this is not necessarily proof of anything, as many of Moseley's attributions are wrong or at least problematic; in the same list he attributes "Henry the first, & Hen: the 2d" to "Shakespeare, & Davenport", which is unlikely given that Davenport did not become a playwright until after Shakespeare's death. Moseley is not known to have printed most of the plays he entered in the Stationer's Register, and many of the manuscripts seem to have passed eventually to John Warburton in the 18th century, when all but a few were accidentally destroyed by a servant of Warburton's who baked them into pie bottoms. The most thorough discussion of Cardenio that I'm aware of is by G. Harold Metz in *Sources of Four Plays Ascribed to Shakespeare* (1989); he concludes, after weighing all the evidence, that there was indeed a play of this name written by Shakespeare and Fletcher in 1612, and I'm inclined to agree with him. However, that's an entirely separate issue from Charles Hamilton's claim that The Second Maiden's Tragedy is in fact Cardenio, which seems to me unlikely in the extreme. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Saturday, 5 Aug 1995 14:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Shakespeare as a cultural construct Since Bruce Young's very thoughtful comments on the constructivist position have yet to be answered by anyone, and since my own earlier remarks were the focus of much of what Professor Young had to say, I will take the liberty of commenting on his comments. Professor Young specifically takes issue with two aspects of the constructivist position, 1) that it is frequently applied (at least in theory) reductively, so that it may be held by a constructivist, for example, that "politics" is the real topic underlying all human activity," as if there weren't any other topics of equal significance; 2) that in conjunction with reductive or totalizing moves like this, constructivists also claim an ontologicl and epistemological privilege for their position by appealing to the self-reflexivity of what they do. This is not the place to develop a full-blown defense of constructivism -- that would require books -- but I would like to indicate at least two ways in which a full-scale answer might be made to these objections, and to illustrate what I take to be the urgency of politcally-minded constructivism by way of an example, an apparently innocent remark made by Prospero in _The Tempest_. The Theory that holds that all cultural expressions can be gathered into a total framework of understanding, whose basic concern and basic term of analysis is politics, that is social struggle, so that all literature, when analyzed to its core, comes to be seen as a mode of participating in social struggle, and especially but not exclusively class struggle -- this theory is called Marxism. One of the problems Professor Young sees with the theory is perennial. Professor Young wants to see Marxism as one among many possible modes of critical analysis; classical Marxism, and even recent revisionist forms of Marxism such as those of Jameson and Eagleton, wants to hold that if its own tenets are true, then it cannot simply be another mode of analysis ALONGSIDE other modes of analysis. It HAS to be the final mode, the final synthesis. Of course, I cannot here (or perhaps anywhere) convince Professor Young that this is a valid position; but it should be understood that this is what is at stake -- a rather complex theory, with a long history (some will add, "a troubled history"), which acknowledges that people have things like feelings, even aesthetic feelings, and character structures, and so forth, but which insists that art is always social and always at bottom a form of social struggle, since in fact humanity itself is constituted by social struggle. Now, Professor Young also raises the question, even if this were so, how would we KNOW this, and how do would we KNOW that our ways of intepreting literature are the real ways for getting at that social struggle which we take to be the core meaning of literary works. A "Marxist" or a "constructivist" analysis, for all its intentions, can simply be wrong. And for a constructivist to hide behind the idea that he at least knows that he can be wrong, that his strategies shelter him from analytical error, or from the pitfalls of anachronism, or even from the idea that it is possible for a reader of one era entirely to understand a text of another era -- this could be construed as begging the question, and perhaps even as bad faith. To this objection I will only reply that the idea of "knowing" as Professor Young has framed it has at least two different meanings, which are related to one another paradoxically, yet necessarily. On the one hand, the kind of knowing that many constructivists claim for themselves, so that they "know" that they cannot feast at the banquet where Eliot thought that he was stuffing his face, is actually Socratic: they claim to know only that they cannot know, or do not know, certain things. They know that they cannot feast at Dante's banquet because they "know," no matter what they do, that they are divided from Dante by huge stretches of time, *constitutive* stretches of time, which force us to partake of different food, even if we may share certain things with Dante, like an interest in eating. But on the other hand, constructivists might also claim that their purpose in trying to understand the literature of the past is, precisely, to "know" it, to overcome in some way the very impossiblity of knowing that they take as their point of departure. Again, I cannot even begin to validate this position here. Interestingly, one doesn't even have to be a Marxist or post-Marxist constructivist to hold onto the paradox of historical understanding involved, since it is the position of continental hermeneutics as well as of more politicized modes of analysis. Even cultural conservatives like Hirsch have embraced and attemtped to work through this same paradox of historical understanding. We cannot "know" the past, and we "know" that. So let us begin trying to recover it and know it. But "political" understanding attempts to go even further; it attempts to do something with the knowledge of texts which at the very least suggests the possibility of totalized but non-reductive account of texts of the past, an account which acknowledges historical difference, and indeed insists on it, while still trying to get to a knowledge of the feeling (the "structure of feeling") embedded in texts as works of art, and the social struggles motivating and contextualizing them. Take the case of the time when Miranda says to Prospero, "Alack, what trouble I was then to you!" And Prospero responds, "O, a cherubin/ Thou wast that did preserve me. Thou didst smile..." (1.2.152-4) I have always responded to his interchange as something that breaks through the cracks. Here is human feeling. Here is Shakespeare showing us the touch of sentiment that both underlies and speaks beyond the realm of things like political agenda, or social struggle. I imagine (rightly or wrongly I don't know) tht old Will was pleased with himself when he wrote those lines. This is just the kind of simple thing that people like Marston and Chapman _couldn't_ write. But yet, suppose we ask, what is involved in Miranda's expression of guilt at having been a burden to her father, or Prospero's calling her a "cherubin"? Do we not see a relationship of power being rehearsed,processed, and accommodated here? Why a "cherubin," a little angel, already trivialized in 16th century painting? Why is it that the cherubin preserves the man by a smile, while the man preserves the cherubin by the hard work of setting up an island kingdom, and enslaving a native, while appealing, all this time, to the idea of Providence (a jealous Providence at that) as that which has _really_ preserved him? Now, from Professor Young's perspective this kind of analysis is one among many -- useful perhaps, but not exclusive of others. And in a practical sense he is probably right. Providence forbid that I should ever tell a student that this kind of analysis is the only analysis, or the only right one. But the ultimate stake of this kind of analysis is rather different from the ultimate stake, say, of a psychodynamic or a New Critical analysis. This kind of analysis leads me at once in two directions, both of which are central to the political, constructivist project as a form of "final" analysis. On the one hand, it leads me to question assumptions about "human feeling," and my gut response to the sentimentality of the father-daughter relationship in the play. It demystifies the sentiment. I see that it is based on certain relations of power; I see that those relations are invested in other cultural phenomena (e.g., representations and theories about angels). Going further, I might take note both of the fact that a large part of the play is about the problem of maintaining patriarchal order from generation to generation, and, moreover, that political theory in 1611 still largely held to the idea that the family -- a social unit presided over by a patriarch -- was both the basic unit of social order, and the model of all political order. The king was the father to his people; and if the smiles of the people motivated him, like the smiles of cherubim, his direct connection with Providence was what both legitimated and guided his conduct as a governor. And then again, making the last move common to political hermeneutics, I might move away from the play and its investment in structures of patriarchy and ask, what does this mean then to _us_? How is our behavior, indeed our own range of deep feelings, a product of the "cultural capital" that Shakespeare too was drawing upon? And how do we really feel about that cultural capital today? How do we want to manage things like father-daughter relationships, and the problems of dependency and mutuality which both animate us and trouble us, we being the subjects of a society riven by social conflict over just such issues as the rights of women and children, and being charged witht he mission of trying to redefine and reconstruct them? Beginning with the sweet genius of a pair of lines that maybe no one but Shakespeare could have written, I move then to the social and poltical framework that makes the genius of the lines work as a reprsentation of life, capable of moving us. And I try to grasp the lines in terms of a total view of history where social struggle is seen as having been waged and resolved (in favor of the man) on an island in the Mediterranean, on the London stage of 1611, and still in my own mind, as both a reader of the text and a citizen of the world. The "totalizing" here, I want to suggest, is neither reductive nor circular. It is a way of getting into the affects of plays as social constructs with political implications both for the period of the play itself and for the readers of today. Underneath it is a master theory which is itself perhaps somewhat troubled, or incomplete. But when you read Shakespeare like this, I maintain, you not only make a point of the inevitable distance between now and then, and of trying to understand what that distance means. You also bring yourself, and maybe even Shakespeare -- well ... to life. Robert Appelbaum UC Berkeley (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edna Boris Date: Saturday, 05 Aug 95 20:13:00 EDT Subject: To Be Speech Many thanks for the reading suggestions and comments on the "To be" speech as not being a soliloquy. Anyone interested in readings in addition to David Ball's 1983 book Backwards & Forwards (Southern Il. U. P) might look at James Hirsh's "The 'To Be or Not to Be" Scene and the Conventions of Shakespearean Drama," Modern Language Quarterly, vol. 42 (June 1981) 115-36 and Linwood Orange's "Hamlet's Mad Soliloquy" in South Atlantic Quarterly, Vol. 64 (winter, 1965) 60-71. I've still been unable to learn of any professional productions (theater or film)that stage the speech with Hamlet's knowing that Claudius and Polonius are observing him. Stephen Schultz's report on SHAKSPER of a semi- professional group in Louisville's so staging it seems to be the lone exception. If anyone knows of other examples, I'd be interested in hearing about them. Polonius are there. Stephen Schultz's report on SHAKSPER of a semi-professional group in Louisville's doing it that way seems to be the only example. [Editor's NOTE: Keep those posting coming; I'm off to pack; in a week, --Hardy] ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 07:18:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0613 Qs: Time in H4; Macready; Bust; TGV Ending Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0613. Monday, 14 August 1995. (1) From: Jung Jimmy Date: Monday, 07 Aug 95 14:03:00 PDT Subj: The time in Henry 4 (2) From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 07 Aug 1995 15:10:59 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Macready material (3) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 7 Aug 1995 12:48:15 -0700 Subj: [Holy Trinity Bust] (4) From: Sarah Elizabeth Richardson Date: Monday, 7 Aug 1995 20:55:55 -0500 Subj: TWO GENTS ending (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jung Jimmy Date: Monday, 07 Aug 95 14:03:00 PDT Subject: The time in Henry 4 I recently saw the San Diego production of Henry 4 parts I & II. I haven't gone back to count, but it seems to me that questions regarding the time were repeated by numerous characters. I kept hearing the question, "what o'clock is it?" and such. Has someone assigned a critical significance to this, or do the characters just want to know what time it is? or maybe it was just me; it was a fine production, but I suppose anything that goes for 4 hours might lead my subconscious to ask, "what o'clock is it?" jimmy (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 07 Aug 1995 15:10:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Macready material Earlier in the year David Peck noted that there was a great deal of material on Macready at the Theatre Museum near Covent Garden. I would like to make a specific inquiry there. Can someone recommend a contact person at the Theatre Museum (or at the Society for Theatre Research)? Also, is there an e-mail address that may be used? The snail-mail address I have is the following: Society for Theatre Research c/o Theatre Museum 1 E. Tavistock Street London WC2E 7PA England Thank you for whatever help you might offer. Nick Clary (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 7 Aug 1995 12:48:15 -0700 Subject: [Holy Trinity Bust] I know there are places to get the bust of Shakespeare, that handsome, goateed fellow, but doesn anyone know where I can get a bust as it is in Trinity church. It's not very attractive, but it's called authentic, and I wonder if anyone thought they might be able to sell a copy, and where I could buy a copy. Full size, or 1/2 at least, and plaster is fine. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Elizabeth Richardson Date: Monday, 7 Aug 1995 20:55:55 -0500 Subject: TWO GENTS ending I'm currently both performing in and producing a production of TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA in my beloved hometown of Austin, TX where we have tried to deal with the difficult last scene of the play in a way that deals with the sensitive issues of sexism and sexual assault while still embracing the play as a whole as a comedy. We've fought like cats and dogs amongst ourselves about how to do it (and sadly, it was usually split down gender lines), but have ultimately come up with something that satisfies our sensibilities and thus far has been very well-received by audiences, male and female alike. I'd love to hear how other directors and actors have dealt with this play, and especially the final scene, since we struggled so much with it. As briefly as possible, here's what we finally arrived at: When Proteus turns and begins an attack of Silvia, Julia (as Sebastion) leaps in between and wrestles with him until Valentine's shout of "Ruffian!" stops everyone in their tracks. Valentine berates Proteus as Julia runs to aid Silvia. Juila and Silvia watch as Valentine listens to Proteus' apololgies and then forgives him. The women register their horror at the all too quick absolution as Valentine turns to offer Silvia to Proteus as a token of his friendship and forgiveness. Upon hearing the offer, Silvia pulls away in horror and Julia angerly drops to her knees shouting "O me unhappy!" With force and anger, she then intentionally offers Proteus her own ring, only sarcastically pretending to have done so in error. After her identity is revealed and Proteus has once again affirmed his love to her with, "I have my wish forever," Julia pulls her hand away swiftly-- a hand that Valentine placed within Proteus' hand despite her non-verbal protestations - and states firmly, "And I mine." Proteus retreats to a corner of the stage for most of the rest of the scene, all too keenly aware of what he has done and what he has lost. Then the duke arrives, forgives Valentine and offers Silvia to him using the same hand-in-hand gesture as Valentine did with Prot and Julia. Silvia likewise pulls away, but Valentine and the Duke, in their excitement, do not seem to notice her rejection. He calls to Proteus as the men all begin to exit the stage, trying to cheer him up with his final promises of marriage (after Proteus has paid the penance of having is transgressions talked about a lot) and "one feast, one house, one mutual happiness." With the exception of Proteus, the men do not notice that the women have not given their consent to these marriages. The final stage picture leaves Julia and Silvia alone on the stage in dumbfounded silence, looking across the stage floor at all the torn letters (we managed to find a clever way to get each letter in the play torn on stage) until their eyes meet and they slowly take hands before the lights go to black. What Silvia and Julia are going to do at this point is left to the imagination, but the solidarity between them and at least their rejection of the current state of affairs is quite clear. To pull this version off with believability has required some split second timing, but we think it's working and comes logically out of the play up until this point. We would welcome any thoughts and comments on this or any other aspect of TWO GENTS. By the way, if you are in Central Texas and would like to see us perform, we'd love to have you... The Boxtree Players present THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA at The Museum of Fine Arts, Austin 823 Congress Ave. Austin, TX August, 3,4,5, 10,11,12 -- Thurs through Friday (512) 479-6249 for reservations Sarah Richardson University of California at Irvine Department of Drama ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 07:31:04 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0614 Re: Salvini -- Interlingual Playing Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0614. Monday, 14 August 1995. From: Thomas A. Berson Date: Monday, 07 Aug 1995 16:36:49 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0609 Re: Salvini Interlingual playing Ron Macdonald quotes Henry James for us that, "Signor Salvini naturally played in Italian, while his comrades answered him in a language which was foreign only in that it sometimes failed to be English." Stephen C. Schultz says that "This was not TOO uncommon in his time; Edwin Booth did the same." And it goes on now too. During the summer of 1985 cultural exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had been frozen by Pres. Reagan. The drama class at Palo Alto (CA) High School had a production of *RJ* up. (My son, Matt, was Mercutio, but that's another story). The class teacher, Michael Kass, was a Russian language scholar who had personal contacts in the U.S.S.R. Through these he arranged to take his production on the road. It played in Moscow, Leningrad, and Minsk. In Minsk the travelling players came across a group of university-based Soviets who also had *RJ* up. The two casts spontaneously played some scenes together, the Americans in English and the Soviets in Russian. Dialogue scenes worked easily. The rhythms of language provided all the cues necessary. I have a video which documents the experiment. The video also demonstrates that a Soviet university student Juliet can (and did) teach an American high school student Romeo a thing or two about kissing. Interlingualy yours, --Tom Berson ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 07:44:41 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0615 Productions: *Ham.*; *Ado*; *Tro.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0615. Monday, 14 August 1995. (1) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 9 Aug 95 17:42:14 -0500 Subj: [Castle Rock *Hamlet*] (2) From: Chris Shamburg Date: Wednesday, 9 Aug 95 23:00:40 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0583 Re: Beyond the Fringe; DC *Ado* (3) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 12 Aug 1995 02:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Troilus and Cressida in NYC (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 9 Aug 95 17:42:14 -0500 Subject: [Castle Rock *Hamlet*] This, just off the Internet, via colleagues in other discussion groups: "Castle Rock is going to produce the full text Hamlet starting in January '96, with Kenneth Branagh starring and directing." I'm delighted, though I know not everyone will be. Chris Gordon (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Shamburg Date: Wednesday, 9 Aug 95 23:00:40 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0583 Re: Beyond the Fringe; DC *Ado* I caught The Players' Theatre's *Much Ado About Nothing*. It was excellent. I think it's playing for two more weekends. Bravo Players; Bravo Kate Mazzetti(your Beatrice was fantastic). If anyone is travelling through DC, I'd strongly suggest you see it. Chris Shamburg cshambur@pegasus.rutgers.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 12 Aug 1995 02:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Troilus and Cressida in NYC I just got back from NYC to see the FREE SHAKESPEARE in the park of Troilus and Cressida--it is DEFINITELY worth seeing!--- The best thing about it was Pandarus (Stephen "Angels In America" Spinella" and Thersities (Tim Blake Nelson--late of Dave Rosenthal's "Paradigm" plays)--In this production, these characters seemed to get the last word--there is of course a danger in this, for the lovers themselves could have been played better (though this may be the directors fault)--and it was hard to get emotionally close to them-- yet this would not be the first time T&C has been read this way... many critics still claim thersities is the mouthpiece of the play, or Pandarus. Another disappointment was Achilles--He was played as a drunk and the possibly noble reasons for him not fighting were not at all evident (his love for polyxena, for instance, was totally cut) ---for the most part the text was pretty faithfully held to-- there were a couple notable omissions though (Troilus's line about Helen as a "PRICE that launched a thousand ships" was absent) and some interpolations that were ridiculous---"Placket" was changed to "cunt" and Cressida's "Will you give him the nod" was changed to "will you give him the FINGER"---One of the best "modernizations" however was the way the greek generals seemed like mobster-god-fellow types (excellant acting of Ulysses and Nestor especially)--I mean "GOOD FELLAHS"---and the way the Ajax-Achilles rivalry was played up as two boxers (both were black, significantly, and the contrast with the "white" generals played this up) against the great-white- hope, Hector, was very effective and didn't get in the way of the meaning of the plot (it was pretty subtle). But, the director didn't seem to be aware of Troilus's coldness towards Cressida in the morning after scene and created a disjunction between the words and the actions there that was glaring. Nonetheless, for a play that is seldom performed, this was certainly the best version I've seen...and it is well worth getting up early and waiting in line for.....Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 10:18:16 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0616 Re: NYSF *Tro.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0616. Tuesday, 15 August 1995. From: G. L. Horton Date: Monday, 14 Aug 1995 18:59:08 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0615 Productions: *Ham.*; *Ado*; *Tro.* (fwd) I second Chris Stroffolino's comments about the NYSF TROILUS, although I thought the cast was unusually even, with strong acting throughout. I would recommend that the viewer try to sit towards the center, except that I don't think the ticket distribution system makes it possible for anyone but a subscriber to do that. Mark Wing-Davey has a deep set behind and above the large playing space that corresponds to the classical orchestra, and scenes that take place within that space are invisible to about 25% of the audience, left and right. Another set of directorial choices make following the action difficult: The ceremonial "return from battle" where all the Trojan heroes pass under the walls, while Pandarus above points them out and praises or disparages them, is cut. Pandarus does the lines, but the actors don't troop past, and the opportunity to figure out which Trojan is which is given up. The lighting of the production and the way that the miking of voices changes the direction of the sound means that this is a continuing problem, even when, like SHAKSPERians,the auditor is familiar with the text. You hear a speeh that you know is being spoken by the character Aeneas, but you can't tell which of the actors onstage is speaking -- so which of those costumed figures is Aeneas? Some few -- Nestor, Priam, Ajax, -- are clearly marked; but it takes a long time to sort out the rest of them. This is compounded because skincolor, haircuts, ceremonial robes, etc are distributed in a rather random way that makes it very hard to tell the Trojans from the Greeks. When the Greek "infantry" is in camp and relaxing, they are all in khaki, while the Trojans keep their breastplates on even when off duty. But as soon as the officers put on their gorgeous silk outer robes, or the armies put on armor and fight, it's "Who's On first?" all over again. I would have thought that this confusion was intended, and had a metaphorical purpose, except that when I COULD tell who's who, the subtle interplay between the actors/characters made the scene so much richer. My theory is that they were all so intent on constructing this richness that they forgot that those of us out front didn't get to see the rehearsals and need to be clued in. On the other hand, this is a production that I would be happy to sit through three or four more times, just to be sure that I "got" everything. Intelligent, forcefull, emotionally committed -- a T&C to remember. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 10:22:11 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0617 Q: Edgar Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0617. Tuesday, 15 August 1995. From: John F. Keogh Date: Tuesday, 15 Aug 1995 17:47:18 +1000 Subject: Edgar in King Lear Why doesn't Edgar reveal himself before he mortally wounds Edmund ? Why wait? And why doesn't Edmund recognise his voice when he is challenged?. Don't tell me Edgar does yet another voice at this stage? Isn't it all a bit silly? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 06:46:55 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0618 Re: Edgar Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0618. Wednesday, 16 August 1995. (1) From: John Boni Date: Tuesday, 15 Aug 1995 09:50:45 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0617 Q: Edgar (2) From: Carmine Di Biase Date: Tuesday, 15 Aug 95 14:43:37 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0617 Q: Edgar (3) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 15 Aug 1995 16:55:59 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Edgar's last fight (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Tuesday, 15 Aug 1995 09:50:45 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0617 Q: Edgar John Keough asks, "Isn't it all a bit silly," in regards to Edgar's various "voices" and his choice (oh, can characters "choose"?) not to reveal himself to Edmund in the fight scene. Bradley made a list of the "improbabilities" in *Lear*, including, as I recall, this one. He then responds to each. Perhaps our paradigm raises questions that Shakespeare's audience (and the energies of performance) found less bothersome. On the other hand, Edgar's transformation, from "nothing" (that word so important in KL) to the new king at the end, requires him to adopt many identities and to speak what he feels, not what he ought to say. His fabrication of Gloucester's "salvation" at Dover causes Glo. to feel saved (at least for a while). And his revelation to Edmund caused the latter to do "some good" "despite [his] own nature," quite a turnaround in a Shakespeare character. That's enough for me. But perhaps not enough for other SHASKPEReans. John M. Boni (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carmine Di Biase Date: Tuesday, 15 Aug 95 14:43:37 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0617 Q: Edgar Spiritual blindness seems to me a pervasive theme in Lear. I find it beautifully right that Edgar does not reveal himself to Edmund before he wounds him mortally. By this late moment in the play both Lear and Gloucester have grown spiritually. They have come to know themselves, and they have come to know their children. And at this late moment the roles of the children - of some of them - and their parents are reversed so that Edmund is now the blind one. He must not know who his killer is until he is mortally wounded, because this period of ignorance - or of moral or spiritual blindness - is Edmund's ordeal. Brief though it is, it nevertheless has an improving effect on him. Even its brevity is right, however. As he dies he attempts to save Cordelia's life, though of course it's too late. And the lateness ensures his proper fate, if we want to see him as a man condemned to hell in a Christian universe. As for Edgar's voice, I'm happily willing to suspend my disbelief, given that this is a play in which appearances, more so than voices, deceive. The eyes are more often deceived here than the ears. Your point though is well taken, because Edgar does weary of the Poor Tom voice he must use. Carmine Di Biase (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 15 Aug 1995 16:55:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Edgar's last fight John Keogh asks about Edgar's fight with Edmund. Why doesn't Edgar reveal himself? He is a fugitive from justice. Edmund has an army. Edgar's only way of getting a fight is to use the ritual challenge which is not available to wanted criminals. Why doesn't Edmund recognize Edgar's voice? The real answer is that it is part of the license granted playwrights. Audiences usually don't ask such questions. If they do, you have already failed. The audience intuitively understands that characters see what they seem to see and recognize what they seem to recognize and that real-world standards are irrelevant. If you want a "realistic" reason, try this: Edgar is wearing a helmet. If you have ever spoken with a full helmet on, you know that it's a very strange sound, highly distorted by the excess resonance. Last reason: the end of the fight is, melodramatically, a much riper moment to spring the news on everyone. Shakespeare has a great talent for recognizing these moments. Beware applying too strict a real-world standard to Shakespeare. The plays are "about" reality but Shakespeare is an ultimately practical writer and he knows he can get away with whatever will most efficiently and effectively make his points. Audiences don't really care all that much about accuracy. The will allow you almost any license so long as your story is gripping and your actors believable and compelling. That last scene in LEAR works beautifully and no one in the spell of a good performance ever asks questions like the ones you pose. Nuts! Now I'm getting that old "gotta do LEAR again" urge. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 06:55:22 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0619 Re: *TGV* Ending Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0619. Wednesday, 16 August 1995. From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 16 Aug 1995 06:23:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0613 Qs: TGV Ending Dear Sarah Elizabeth Richardson-- Thank you for your lengthy informative and enjoyable recounting of your staging of the last scene of TGV--I've only seen the play once and a couple of years ago--and they didn't play the end with nearly as much insight as you seem to brign to it (though you make me want to SEE your version--can I procure a video tape?)--But, I'm curious about why you'd have BOTH women not give their consent---I don't quite understand the logic. Is it because of Valentine's too guick forgiveness of Proteus? The way you describe your ending reminds me of the way I've seen 12N ended with the FOOL and VIOLA walking off sadly after everyone else as left) and I'm curious how it workd for this play---a play in which the "problem ending" is definitely more muted but nonetheless there as you show. Again, thanks, Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 06:17:33 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0620 Re: NYSF Tro.; Time; Edgar Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0620. Thursday, 17 August 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 16 Aug 1995 07:05:26 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0616 Re: NYSF *Tro.* (2) From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 16 Aug 1995 16:08:16 -0400 Subj: Re: Time in H4 (3) From: John F. Keogh Date: Thursday, 17 Aug 1995 19:03:23 +1000 Subj: Edgar and your answers (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 16 Aug 1995 07:05:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0616 Re: NYSF *Tro.* To G.L. Horton-- Well, the fact that we couldn't see the Trojans returning from Battle in 1.2. isn't necessarily a bad directorial decision--there's much precedent--as that article (Barbara Hogdon?) "He Do Cressida In Different Voices" documents--for it. I guess what bugged me most about that scene was the fact that Cressida's witty comments were lost in (a) over-acting by the actress and (b) the decision to have about 6 or 7 others (a la Russian Soviet politboro) watching with Pandarus and Cressida....this diminished the effectiveness. The critical problem is becoming, for me, this: "How can one do justice to PANDAR as well as CRESSIDA?" And also, How can one do justice to THERSITIES without totally robbing from the potential pathos of Achilles?---The problem of lack of differentiation between the Greeks and Trojans didn't bug me as much, and it seemed that it was actually intended to some extent (especially because the director knew he had strong Thersities and Pandarus and THEY seem indifferent to the distinction!). Aeneas, by the way, gave a good performance. And I too would suggest that one sits near the middle-- even if one doesn't get to see, as i did, the full moon rise over the huge picture of Helen that served as the "curtain"----Chris S. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 16 Aug 1995 16:08:16 -0400 Subject: Re: Time in H4 We noticed the same recurrence of the word/concept of time in Errors. As an added fillip to our broad, vaudevillian approach, every character had a watch, and checked it every time the issue arose. Led to some very funny parallel motions developed by the actors; became a running gag, underscoring that Aristotelian unity thing. Dale Newnan Community Theatre Company Newnan, GA (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John F. Keogh Date: Thursday, 17 Aug 1995 19:03:23 +1000 Subject: Edgar and your answers Being new to this list I am none too sure of the acceptable conventions. I haven't seen too many thank you letters so I may be doing the wrong thing in cluttering up the space. I'd like to thank everyone for the answers to my Edgar question I found Carmen di Biase's answer particularly helpful. I still find "King Lear" the most difficult of all Shakespeare's plays to teach. So much of it seems to be "felt". How do you teach "feeling" to teenagers who are far more in tune with "Romeo and Juliet" ? Any advice? John Keogh ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 06:27:46 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0621 Re: *TGV* Ending/Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0621. Thursday, 17 August 1995. (1) From: Kirsten Kern Date: Wednesday, 16 Aug 1995 20:50:23 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0619 Re: *TGV* Ending (2) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Thursday, 17 Aug 1995 16:15:42 +1000 (EST) Subj: Re: TGV Ending (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kirsten Kern Date: Wednesday, 16 Aug 1995 20:50:23 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0619 Re: *TGV* Ending In response to Chris S.'s question: >I'm curious about why you'd have BOTH women not give their consent---I don't >quite understand the logic. Is it because of Valentine's too quick forgiveness >of Proteus? In our production of TGV, we chose not to alter the text or switch around lines as many have done in order to get around Valentine's puzzling offer of Sylvia to Proteus as a gesture of forgiveness. Instead, we made a big moment out of it, staging as sort of ritual gesture with Valentine putting his arms around Sylvia and gently but firmly giving her to Proteus with his lines "And that my love may appear plain and free,/All that was mine in Sylvia I give thee." It is this evidence of Valentine's own "inconstancy" -- he who has appeared until now to be the pillar of faithfulness -- that causes Sylvia to reconsider her love for Valentine and sends Julia (now completely fed up with the fickle men in this play) into a deliberate rage. It is interesting to note that in this scene, all of the male characters change their minds about issues they have held very dear for almost the whole play in a matter of seconds: Valentine forgives Proteus for almost raping his beloved after a mere 5 lines of apology and then decides as quickly to give up this same beloved who he has called his "essence" and his "life", Proteus decides he was wrong about being inconstant and so quickly changes his mind again by switching his love back to Julia, Thurio turns his back of Sylvia as soon as he thinks he might get beat up over her, and the Duke dumps Thurio as his chosen mate for his daughter and takes Valentine back into his good graces. In our production, the final moment reveals both women, not just Julia, taking a stand against the inconstancy of man. We hoped also to show -- and I'm still not sure how successful we were at this -- that the women had learned something about how they themselves had participated in sustaining the culture that could create these kind of men. And that by subscribing to the idea that "maids, in modesty, say 'no' to that/ which they would have the profferer construe 'ay,'" they were in essence partners in their own oppression. Hope that answers your question. Sorry about the length, but brevity has never been my strong suit. We did shoot some video, but I haven't seen any yet. E-mail me directly if you're interested in a copy when available. By the way, in case anyone was wondering after all this discussion of the last scene, our production really was a comedy, and a rousing one at that. Sarah Richardson University of California - Irvine Department of Drama eafg066@ea.oac.uci.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Thursday, 17 Aug 1995 16:15:42 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: TGV Ending To Sarah Richardson (and anyone else with the interest and patience to read this), Thanks for your description of the ending of Two Gents. It is ferociously difficult, as I know having directed the play a couple of years ago for the Wellington Summer Shakespeare. The following description is probably going to sound rather laboured, but it worked well and proved very popular, breaking box-office records for the annual Summer Shakespeare. So... In our production (which was set outdoors on a grassy plot surrounded by huge trees) we went for comedy, certainly, but a very savage and satirical, unromantic comedy. The design combined aspects of the Elizabethan and contemporary periods, and we took as a starting point the idea of a world of spoiled rich kids. This led us to the idea of playing it as Verona 90210. The four young characters were selfish and stylish (and beautiful). With regard to the final scene, one of my major concerns was that from the time of the attempted rape until the end of the play Silvia has not ONE SINGLE word of dialogue. This was something we took very seriously. Shortly before the last scene Silvia was captured by the outlaws and tied up, gagged and carried off stage. At the beginning of the last scene Valentine entered as Outlaw Leader, fascinated by his own new image, and carrying a pistol which he posed with. Astonished at his own ability to slip into this new role, he began "How use doth breed a habit in a man..." At the end of the soliloquy there were noises off (in the woods) so he hid and Proteus ran on stage carrying the still bound and gagged Silvia, and accompanied by Julia/Sebastian. (Julia was played as a kind of Vogue model wannabe who wanted nothing more than a husband.) Proteus loosened Silvia's gag, then went to untie her but was distracted from this by her hostility towards him. After the brief argument he moved in for the rape attempt, beginning by replacing the gag and pushing her to the ground. Julia stood by dumbstruck. Finally Valentine burst out of hiding with his Outlaw Leader pistol, aiming it at Proteus, who at once went to jelly. After Proteus's pathetic attempt to excuse himself, Valentine levelled the pistol at Proteus and tried to pull the trigger--but couldn't. Instead he collapsed into Proteus's arms and forgave him, in a gesture of male solidarity. Then seeing the bound and gagged Silvia as a rape-victim rather than the goddess he had previously worshipped , he realised she was no longer what he wanted/needed/desired and was therefore genuinely ready to give her away. At this point Julia burst forward, furous with Proteus, and played the ring trick. Proteus played "Why this is the ring I gave to Silvia" equally angrily, annoyed with his servant for making a mistake. She then revealed herself, and on Proteus's line "How? Julia!" gave him a mighty slap across the face (which often had the audience cheering). At this point we had Julia trembling on the verge of some kind of understanding about the nature of the patriarchal society they all lived in, and on the point of making the kind of break that is suggested in Sarah Richardson's production--but in this production her conditioning held good, and after the proposal of marriage and a moment of hesitation she capitulated totally to Proteus with the line "And I mine", with a silly giggle. Everybody was totally engrossed in their own affairs that they forgot about Silvia, still bound and gagged at their feet and growing increasingly desperate. This Julia had no time for solidarity amongst women. Then the outlaws arrived with the Duke and his entourage who had all been captured. The Duke, who had been played very much as the patriarchal villain of the piece, rapidly realised what had gone on and that he needed to act fast to salvage what he could from the potential destruction of his most marketable property, his daughter, who was by now almost catatonic from shock. So after dismissing Thurio the Duke offered Silvia to Valentine, together with a gold credit card which he drew from his wallet. In the meantime Silvia's nurse (who had conveniently been captured among the entourage) administered a sedative/tranquiliser to Silvia. Valentine accepted the offer, and after a quick call on the Duke's mobile phone a huge, white stretch limo drove onto the stage. The major characters got into it (including the unconscious Silvia) and drove away smiling and waving like royalty, followed by ecstatic outlaws. Finally there was a rustle in the bushes at the back of the stage, and out came a coldly angry Launce, last seen being fired by Proteus in 4.4. He had undergone a transformation (personal and political) and was now dressed in battle fatigues and a balaclava, holding the huge (Newfoundland) Crab on a leather leash, and with a sub-machine gun. Slowly and deliberately he rolled his balaclava over his face and walked off in pursuit of the repulsive group of aristocrats who had just driven away, again often accompanied by the cheers of the audience. This sounds appallingly gimmicky I know, but it all went quickly, and was in keeping with the general style of the production, which began at Valentine's farewell party with both Valentine and especially Proteus drunk--swigging champagne out of the bottle. The rehearsals for the final scene were immensely difficult and often tense, and the solution we ended up with was worked out painstakingly over weeks of rehearsal. We were worried about the possiblility of falling into the trap of glorifying or eroticising physical and emotional brutality towards women, but I think the whole ending was sufficiently satirically comic and outrageous (especially the limo) and the characters sufficiently repulsive and selfish that this danger was minimised--but some people might disagree. In any case it seemed to be received as a satirical image of a callous and sexist world (not entirely unlike our own), and by the end the audience were laughing, cheering, booing and on occasion calling out "Don't do it" to Julia as she was considering Proteus's proposal. This was something we encouraged, initiated partly through Launce's direct addresses to the audience, and helped by the outdoor setting. Like Sarah Richardson I'd be interested in other responses. I should point out that my own thoughts were influenced by a private correspondence with Randall Nakayama, and by information provided (after an appeal on SHAKSPER) by Jean Petersen. Cheers Adrian Kiernander Department of Theatre Studies University of New England ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 20:06:50 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0622 Re: My Vacation in Harrisonburg with the SSE Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0622. Thursday, 17 August 1995. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, August 17, 1995 Subject: Re: My Vacation in Harrisonburg with the SSE SHAKSPEReans, I returned last Sunday from a wonderful and relaxing week in Harrisonburg, Virginia, a lovely place with friendly people and plenty of things to do -- the mountains, the Shenandoah Valley, Skyline Drive, the various caverns, shopping outlets, historical locations, and the unbelievable Green Valley Book Fair. The Shenandoah Valley, while being a beautiful vacation spot, is also the home base for the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express, and the principal reason for my visit was to see the four plays of the SSE's current season: *Hamlet*, *The Tempest*, *Twelfth Night*, and *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead*, the company's first non-Shakespearean production. I should begin by saying up front that I unabashedly love the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express. My first exposure to the company was, as was many of yours, seeing its 1990 *Julius Caesar* at the SAA's annual meeting in Philadelphia. Of the five seasons of plays I have seen, I believe that this year's company is the finest ensemble Ralph Cohen and Jim Warren have put together, and the SSE is truly an ensemble company. This week and last as I reflected on the versatility and skill of this year's company members, I have concluded that, as with a choir, to praise individuals is to miss the point. All the members of this company contribute to the total impact of each production; the individuals work together, one night performing a leading role while the next, with equal gusto and talent, playing one or more "minor" or character roles. The overall impression of seeing all the productions of a season in the same week is stunning, and all members of the company deserve the highest praise: Scott Duff (Ghost, Player-King, Fortinbras, second Gravedigger, Cornelius, Stephano, Boatswain, Juno, and Feste), Hep Jamieson (Gertrude, Alonso, and Viola), Tricia Kelly (Rosencrantz, Bernardo, Miranda, Fabian, and Valentine), Philip Lortie (Claudius, Prospero, Sebastian, and Captain), Margaret McGirr (Gravedigger, Voltemand, Player Queen, Reynaldo, Captain, Antonio, Olivia, Soldier, and Player Sidekick), Matthew McIver (Guildenstern, Osric, Marcellus, Ferdinand, and Sir Andrew Aguecheek), Thad McQuade (Hamlet, Ariel, and Malvolio), Keith Odums (Laertes, Gonzalo, Orsino, and Alfred), Michelle Powers (Ophelia, Sebastian, Maria, and Priest), Paul Riopelle (Polonius, Francisco, Priest, Ambassador, Trinculo, Ceres, Adrianisco, Antonio, and Curio), and Darius Stone (Horatio, Caliban, Iris, and Sir Toby Belch). What follows are not meant to be thorough reviews of the productions; instead, I have recorded some of my selected impressions and reactions to them. I first saw *The Tempest*, directed by Jim Warren. The SSE includes contemporary music in all productions, always opening with a song. When Prospero, Ariel, and Caliban alternately sang The Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil," I was, of course, set up for a "dark" interpretation of the play. This Prospero was an angry Prospero, throughout delivering his lines in a high register. I did not, however, detect any overt New Historicist readings, like portraying Caliban of indigenous or African heritage -- the words alone carried those meaning. I did find the presentation of Ariel fascinating. This Ariel was no sycophant or delicate creature; instead the sprite was portrayed as a strong, sometimes unwilling but subjugated servant, greatly relieved to be released from his bondage at the conclusion of the play. One perennial contemporary problem with *The Tempest* involves the staging of Prospero's masque. Initially, I found this production's Iris-Juno-Ceres, red-robed, Gladys-Knight-and-the-Pips style imitation a bit too cute, but by its end I was convulsed with laughter. The following afternoon I had the opportunity to see the restaging of *Twelfth Night* by the participants in the NEH Summer Institute at James Madison University's Center for Renaissance and Shakespeare Staging (C.R.A.S.S.). The production was staged at the Artful Dodger -- a Harrisonburg coffeehouse, located on the Courthouse Square. The SSE members were loose and obviously had lots of fun. The next evening I saw the SSE's version of *Twelfth Night*, directed by Murray Ross. This production exemplifies what many of us have come to associate with the SSE -- fast-paced and skillfully blocked -- performed at the SSE's home space, the stage at the James Harrison Middle School. This space is perfect for the SSE. The stage is small but thrusts out. A series of steps around it lead to a small playing area below, with seats on three sides and the rows rising up enough to provide clean sight lines from every seat. The company took advantage of all these spaces as well as the five aisles that extend upward to exits in the back of the room. With the season identified as The "Words, Words, Words" Tour, *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern*, also directed by Jim Warren, was an excellent choice for the SSE's first non-Shakespearean production. The SSE's approach to Shakespeare works equally well with Stoppard, whose work is as verbally dense as Shakespeare's. The actors played the same roles they do in *Hamlet* with the addition of Stoppard's character Alfred. (You remember: "We can present you *The Rape of the Sabine Women*; or rather woman or rather Alfred.") Even though I had heard time and time again that *R and G Are Dead* is difficult to stage, I found the hour and a half's production extremely entertaining, engaging, and satisfying and one I will remember for sometime to come. For six months or so, the SSE's *Hamlet*, directed by Ralph Cohen, was blocked with an arras on the stage and the actors appearing only when they are supposed to be present. The production followed the Q1 scene structure and lasted two hours and fifteen to twenty minutes. When I saw *Hamlet*, the SSE was forty-eight hours away from leaving for the Edinburgh Festival, where they were assigned only two-hour time blocks. The Saturday night performance I saw was the first time the company performed a completely reblocked and shortened version that will be the way the play is performed and Edinburgh and for the rest of this year's season. The result was magnificent, and if I had not been told by Ralph I would not have suspected that what I saw had been performed all along -- these are very talented professionals. In the past, I considered the SSE's forte to be comedy, but this *Hamlet*, even with the few rough spots one would have to expect from the first performance of a newly conceived production, was among the finest SSE performances I have ever seen and also one of the finest *Hamlet*s I've ever seen. The Q1 scene structure worked and worked extremely well. The company brought in this just short of 3000 lines production in two hours and five minutes, and Ralph was sure he could cut the production down to an even two hours. I was impressed. My family and I had such a good time that we are planning to make an annual pilgrimage to Harrisonburg to repeat our wonderful experience, and I would encourage others to follow our example next summer or look into booking the SSE at your institutions. The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express can be reached by e-mail at sshakespea@aol.com, by telephoning at 1-540-434-3366, by FAXing at 1-703-434-4375, or by writing to SSE, P.O. Box 1485, Harrisonburg, VA 22801. Finally, I want to offer my deepest appreciation and warmest thanks to Patricia Kloss (Booking Coordinator), Paul Menzer (Director of Development and Locator of Babysitter), and Jim Warren (Managing Director). Of course, my extra special thanks to Ralph Cohen (Executive Director), whose gracious responses to my e-mail queries made our vacation possible. PS: It was also a great pleasure to meet those SHAKSPEReans who were participants in the C.R.A.S.S. institute -- both those I've met before and those I met for the first time. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 15:43:58 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0623 Re: Teaching Feelings Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0623. Friday, 18 August 1995. From: Harry Hill Date: Thuursday, 17 Aug 1995 07:55:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0620 Re: NYSF Tro.; Time; Edgar John Keogh politely asks `How do you teach "feeling" to teenagers who are far more in tune with *Romeo and Juliet*?', in regards to *King Lear* and its teachability. I would suggest that adolescent students are more enquiring than we might suspect, as well as emotionally open. At fourteen, I found myself much more in tune with *Lear* than *R & J* -- as did most of my friends, perhaps because we were rebellious not only against the then establishment but also against what it thought we were expected to do, which was fall in love and kiss all the time. The parental story of *Lear* struck home to us, let me tell you, and in language a bit less soppy than that of the earlier play. Feeling? As the late Wilhelm Kempf mysteriously wrote on the liner of an old Deutsche Grammophon LP of Beethoven's 4th.Piano Concerto: "The first few bars should not be played. Only felt." Although I laughed at this as an ironic Scottish teenager, I knew what he meant. Harry Hill Montreal ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 15:53:05 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0624 Qs: Jonson & Florio; Lady Macbeth's Speech; Altering Lines Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0624. Friday, 18 August 1995. (1) From: Bob Leslie <8913241l@arts.gla.ac.uk> Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 14:35:18 +0100 Subj: Jonson and Florio (2) From: Michael Field Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 11:16:18 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Lady Macbeth's Speech (3) From: Mark Goldman Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 13:48:26 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Altering lines (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Leslie <8913241l@arts.gla.ac.uk> Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 14:35:18 +0100 Subject: Jonson and Florio Many thanks to all who helped me with the 'Shakespeare's Library' info. I'm on the scrounge again for any information, factual or conjectural, which might indicate the date of Ben Jonson's first meeting with John Florio. The earliest I have is a 1603 fly-leaf inscription - does anyone out there know of an earlier date? Bob Leslie (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Field Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 11:16:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Lady Macbeth's Speech Dear Fellow SHAKSPERians; With less than two weeks before production a disagreement has arisen about a specific reading of a very famous line. I'm hoping you might be able to help. When Lady Macbeth complains "Naughts had, alls spent, when our desire is got without content" [my quote is from memory] is she saying content as in contentment, or con'-tent as in things contained? Roger Gross, if your system has a definitive ruling in this regard, I'd be most grateful to hear, just as I'd love to hear from anyone else who has opinion on this matter. Thanks in advance, Mike Field The Maryland Renaissance Festival (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Goldman Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 13:48:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Altering lines Kirsten Kern recently wrote: >In our production of TGV, we chose not to alter the text or switch around >lines as many have done in order to get around Valentine's puzzling offer of >Sylvia to Proteus as a gesture of forgiveness. This mention of "altering the text" intrigued me in light of the recent discussion of Dogberry and other comical characters whose lines have become incomprehensible. Many of the now-meaningless speeches are hysterical *IF* you have some detailed annotation standing-by. Is it at all common to "alter" or [dare I say it?] "update" specific passages of Shakespeare for performance? Can puns be successfully updated? I can't imagine anyone changing the text without being accused of "ruining Shakespeare!" If so, I'd love to hear from any performers who have changed the texts without being run out of town. Mark Goldman Los Angeles, California ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 16:44:56 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0625 Re: Teaching Feelings Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0625. Saturday, 19 August 1995. (1) From: John Boni Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 15:17:53 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0623 Re: Teaching Feelings (2) From: Gregory McSweeney Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 17:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Teaching Feeling. (3) From: Michael Best Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 17:04:36 -0700 Subj: Feelings (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 15:17:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0623 Re: Teaching Feelings Feelings. It isn't easy. I've taught several seminars on comedy with a similar problem: to simply repeat the joke fails; to explain it eliminates the laughter (the "sudden glory," as I think Hobbes said). So I try to put it into a larger context for comedy. Similarly, in *Lear* I try to develop the empathy students may feel for the predicament of a.) Cordelia in Act I; b.) Lear in Act II, when he has been denouncing Goneril to Regan and Goneril appears, and the two then proceed to strip him of his precious hundred knights; c.) Lear in his lucid mad raving; d.) the audience (they themselves) as we, they, all of us are taken through this pain, suffering, and grim humor. As with humor, you can't create a feeling by describing it, but perhaps we can enlarge our empathy in experiencing *Lear*. I know that, for all his fault and stupidity, etc., I still cry for Lear (and Othello, and Hamlet, and...). John M. Boni (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gregory McSweeney Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 17:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Teaching Feeling. To add to Professor Hill's recent insightful comments on the teachability of _Lear_ in relation to _R&J_, it seems to me that the two plays can benefit by adjacency in the curriculum. Both deal with the alienation of parent and teenager or adolescent child, but in opposite ways: _Romeo and Juliet_ presents the youthful impulse towards love and personal fulfilment as an innocent and salutary foil to the adult world of politicking and arbitrary social alliances and feuds; _Lear_, which exploits the darker and more complex facets of all parties concerned, gives the adolescent reader a victim/heroine in the person of Cordelia, as well as a marginalized, demonized, anarchic son in Edmund. And surely Regan and Goneril are every teenage boy's occasional image of his own elder sisters. _Lear_ is jarringly current; it documents the primordial dysfunctional family in English drama - and as if that weren't enough, it reflects the modern "extended" family: Lear's Fool, as the invited child, has the license and limitations that provisional family members still enjoy - and suffer: freedom from censure, and freedom from being taken seriously. _Romeo and Juliet_ succeeds in its project, but since its goal is so modest, so less revelatory of the species than is that of _Lear_, the reader's payoff is proportionally smaller. *That* is what should be communicated to students, I think. It might be interesting to students that Shakespeare so often framed his conflicts in intergenerational acrimony and betrayal (I'm thinking of _Hamlet_ and the two _Henry IV_s); there is no under-representation of the disenfranchised and the undesireable in Shakespeare - nor are these miscreants dismissed as mere social irritants: their psychologies and motivations are as clear and subjectively justifiable as are those of the putative heroes. James Dean could have played Edmund - and Edmund, ultimately, was a rebel without a cause. Greg McSweeney Montreal (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 17:04:36 -0700 Subject: Feelings "The first few bars should not be played. Only felt." Then there is the classic Hoffnung Music Festival where an intellectual analyst discusses the atonal music of the great Harlheinz Jaja: of one note on the violas he explains "They must not *play* this note; only *think* it." (Gerard Hoffnung was an utterly delightful cartoonist of the world of classical music; I am the proud possessor of a couple of very ancient vinyl recordings of the annual parodic concerts in his honour.) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 16:53:08 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0626 Re: Edgar; Altering Lines Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0626. Saturday, 19 August 1995. (1) From: Tom E. Hodges Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 15:02:26 GMT-6 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0617 Q: Edgar (2) From: Balz Engler Date: Saturday, 19 Aug 1995 09:17:06 +0200 Subj: SHK 6.0624 Qs: Altering Lines (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom E. Hodges Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 15:02:26 GMT-6 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0617 Q: Edgar Another thought on why Edgar does not reveal his identity to Edmond before their duel: Does not this brother-vs-brother fight echo that other familiar dramatic emblem on the Elizabethan stage, the father- who-has-killed-his-son and son-who-has-killed-his-father? The dramatic movement and the thematic effects seem similar. As for this image of the "family at war with itself," the HOMILY AGAINST DISOBEDIENCE AND WILFUL REBELLION preaches as follows: "But when these mischiefes are wrought in rebellion by them that should be friends, by countreymen, by kinsemen, by those that should defend their countrey, and countreymen from such miseries, the misery is nothing so great as is the mischiefe and wickednes when the Subiects vnnaturally doe rebell against their Prince, whose honour and life they should defend, though it were with the losse of their owne liues: countreymen to disturbe the publique peace and quietnesse of their countrey, for defence of whose quietnesse they should spend their liues: the brother to seeke, and often to worke the death of his brother, the sonne of the father, the father to seeke or procure the death of his sons...." (Short-Title Catalogue 13675. Renaissance Electronic Texts 1.1 copyright 1994 Ian Lancashire, ed., U Toronto) So in this last scene, we have all of these varieties of rebellion (and sister vs. sister thrown for good measure) capped by Edgar's revelation to Edmond--a momentary triumph of good over evil. But this peak just helps to set up the fall, as Shakespeare toys briefly with the audients' hopes and fears for Lear and Cordelia; then enter Lear, howling. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Balz Engler Date: Saturday, 19 Aug 1995 09:17:06 +0200 Subject: SHK 6.0624 Qs: Altering Lines Why shouldn't we change Shakespeare's text in performance? Mark Goldman's query seems to be based on the assumption that there is an authentic text that has to be followed in production. I don't quite know what he is referring to. Even if you want to have your *authentic* (whatever that is) Shakespeare play in the theatre you have to change the texts available. Shakespeare certainly did not write the kind of gibberish actors and actresses sometimes have to speak, frantically trying to make us forget the words with the help of all kinds of ingenious business. Balz Engler Basel University ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 17:06:31 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0627 Re: Lady Macbeth's Speech -- Content Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0627. Saturday, 19 August 1995. (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 14:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0624 Qs: Lady Macbeth's Speech (2) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 16:54:19 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Content/Macbeth (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 14:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0624 Qs: Lady Macbeth's Speech Mike Field: Why can't "content" mean both? Cheers, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 16:54:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Content/Macbeth Michael Field asks about "content" in Lady M's act 3 speech. The evidence is very clear on this one. Shakespeare never uses the word "content" to mean "that which is contained". "Content" always refers to some version of the psychological state of contentedness or acquiescence. It is one of Shakespeare's favorite words and he uses it as a noun, a verb, and an adjective. It is always pronounced "cuhn-TENT". When he wants to talk about that which is contained, he uses the word "contents" which he always pronounces "cuhn-TENTS", causing a lot of actors to make rhythm errors. The scansion evidence for this is extremely strong. Look carefully at the context of that Lady M. line. I think it clearly means something like "joy." The next lines, which use the word "joy" are a sort of paraphrase of the line you inquire about. Her point is that when we take a risk or great expense, we do it in anticipation of some joy which will follow. So it was with her involvement in the murder ("It'll be big fun to be queen."). But it has been hell, not heaven, ever since the murder. She's saying that it is painful that, when you realize joy won't follow, you can't get your money (or peace) back. NOTE: My friends, I introduced the verse issue several months ago. I was delighted with the response it got (on and off list). I got many questions and a couple of challenges. I promised to give more. Then I more or less fell off the planet and have only recently returned. (That's what it feels like each year when the Mount Sequoyah New Play Retreat, which I direct, begins its work.) I'm back in gear now and will soon provide two things: an answer to the challenge, "how does anyone really know what Shakespeare's verse system was?" and the list of Most Often Mispronounced Names. Thanks for your patience. Roger Gross Univ. of Arkansas ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 17:09:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0628 Q: The Genesis Metaphor in *Othello* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0628. Saturday, 19 August 1995. From: Amy E. Hughes Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 20:15:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Genesis Metaphor in OTHELLO I know I should buy a gun and shoot myself for this, but I am taking on the task of directing OTHELLO. Okay. I'll admit it is an exciting prospect. It is the play I have always wanted to direct. It is comforting to know, also, that no matter how truly horrible the production may become, I am still a student director (junior at NYU/Undergrad Drama) making art in an academic context, so I can always cry "inexperience" if I need an excuse. However, this is definitely not in my plan. I expect it to be (as my mentor Louis Scheeder would say) FABulous. So bear with me if I ask questions. Be my sounding board? ************************************************** In my OTHELLO studies, hyperbolating on commentary I have read and research I have done, I have come up with many ideas. The most current one may just be amusing, but I find it an interesting parallel. I have been experimenting with the idea of Othello in a weaker position than Desdemona (his text is more subservient, especially in front of senate in Act I, full of euphemisms; Desdemona's is not --- she seems almost brazen). In a sense, Desdemona has the power to "make" Othello into a Venetian -- she is the insider while he is the outsider. Who says that Desdemona has to be weak, anyway?? Thinking on the biblical comparison of God's statement to Moses, "I am that I am" and Iago's, "I am not what I am" (as observed by E. Jones and others), I experienced epiphany: can the Garden of Eden story in Genesis be a metaphor for the play in production? My reflections produced the following: 1) Desdemona is Adam, Othello is Eve. Desdemona "creates" Othello in many ways: by way of marriage, she makes a domestic out of a soldier; Othello effectively marries in Venice through her; more of an off-shoot, she makes him a victim of Iago, since it seems to be the marriage that sparks Iago's arsenal of hate. 2) As loathe as I am to use the cliche, Iago is the snake; i.e., the serpent: Eve's temptress. 3) OTHELLO is, in many ways, a play about the danger of knowledge. My favorite monologue in the play depends on this theme (III, iii, lines 351-364, "I had been happy if the general camp,/Pioners, and all, had tasted her sweet body,/So I had nothing *known*"). Eden's serpent is the bringer of forbidden knowledge. This metaphor, I think, has possiblities in production terms (design, etc.), but I know this post is long, and I will save them for later. Are there any critics in print who have had similar revelations? Thoughts? Thanks, Amy Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 09:56:45 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0629 Re: Genesis Metaphor; Jonson/Florio; Teaching *Lr.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0629. Monday, 21 August 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 20 Aug 1995 02:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0628 Q: The Genesis Metaphor in *Othello* (2) From: David Crosby Date: Sunday, 20 Aug 1995 10:38:06 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0628 Q: The Genesis Metaphor in *Othello* (3) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Sunday, 20 Aug 1995 11:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Jonson and Florio; OTHELLO (4) From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 09:34:23 -0400 Subj: Re: Teaching LEAR (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 20 Aug 1995 02:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0628 Q: The Genesis Metaphor in *Othello* Dear Amy Hughes--- The problem with the genesis allegory is that snake-IAGO is married to Emilia....what do you do with her in the play? Would she get lost in the shuffle of allegory? Considering that she has one of the most moving speeches in the play, and has significant encounters with all three of the other principals, your TRIANGLE reading seems somewhat reductive....I don't have any alternative allegorical suggestions at present. And the idea of Desdemona MAKING othello seems to have possibilities, but one doesn't need to bring in eden, etc--to show this----chris stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Crosby Date: Sunday, 20 Aug 1995 10:38:06 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0628 Q: The Genesis Metaphor in *Othello* Amy, Your insight about the genesis metaphor is useful so long as it stimulates _your_ thinking about the dynamics of Othello, but, as with most metaphors, when pushed too far it is likely to lead you into blind alleys. In Genesis, of course, Eve's role is to fall for the serpent's temptation and urge Adam's participation in the "original sin." When Othello succumbs to Iago's insinuations, he becomes an avenging angel, an agent of justice (like a mistaken Hamlet). Desdemona, unlike Adam, utterly rejects the propostion that Iago has planted in Othello's mind. I think you are essentially right that Desdemona is strong rather than weak: she confronts authority with the same clever rhetoric and decisive action as Rosalind, Juliet, Portia, Viola, and Cordelia. I think Iago is less the serpent of Genesis than the Vice of the early modern morality plays, a character who manifests great pleasure in lies and treachery (note that he betrays not only Othello but also Roderigo, Cassio, Amelia, and Desdemona). He offers not forbidden knowledge, but pure deception. But, by all means, carry on, especially with the design possibilities. Just don't let it overwhelm the production. Good luck. David Crosby Lorman, MS (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Sunday, 20 Aug 1995 11:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Jonson and Florio; OTHELLO Re: Bob Leslie's query. Jonson clearly was familiar with Florio's Italian-English dictionary in 1599 when he came up with names for the characters in _Every Man Out of his Humour_. The probability is that he was personally familiar with Florio too. Re: Amy Hughes' OTHELLO. I love it! I have always argued that Desdemona is a strong character, not given to the mealy-mouthed conventions of other Venetians or the Venetianized Othello of Act 1. Wish I could see the performance. Good luck. Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 09:34:23 -0400 Subject: Re: Teaching LEAR Part of the reason teenagers are more in tune with R&J is that they almost all empathize with the lovers. What I've done with LEAR is to ask students to examine their empathy and how the playwright is directing it. With whom are we *supposed* to empathize? Are there crosscurrents in play? Mostly, they find that they are supposed to focus on Lear and Cordelia, but that Lear's behavior makes it extremely difficult not to side with Regan and Goneril for the first half of the play. Having admitted that the old man is a difficult case, they are then appalled at the extent of R & G's cruelty and of Lear's fall. Their sense of fair play is engaged: "Yes, he was a cranky, selfish old man, BUT..." And then Cordelia's cold, prim love is redeemed by her selfless going to battle for the old man. Also, students have enjoyed tracking the images of nothing, eyes, and animals. They begin to sense the vast structure of the play. Dale Lyles ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 10:09:35 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0630 Q: *WT* Production Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0630. Monday, 21 August 1995. From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 09:55:02 -0400 Subject: Q: Winter's Tale Here's another director of an upcoming production who would love to have all the ideas SHAKESPERians have to share. Auditions are next week for Winter's Tale. I've done all my usual reading and research, and I think I'm at least ready to begin, but it never hurts to have more ideas to wrestle with. So, what are your thoughts on WT? What problems have you had in production, and how have you solved them? What are the dangers in the text? I have very few specific questions, because I'd rather hear what everyone has to share rather than start a debate. [Here? on SHAKSPER??] 1) I'm assuming that if we don't allow Leontes full play in his reign of terror, and if we make him really really repentant, then the audience will not notice how insane Hermione must be to hide for 16 years and not nurse a grudge. Has this been true in other productions? 2) In playing with the idea of Time, I've cut the Act IV chorus and set the first half of the play "in the past." In other words, it becomes almost a flashback. Costumes, set, all in shades of gray, black, silver, etc. Then when we hit "the present," we do the Wizard of Oz thing and burst forth in color. I was thinking of beginning the play with Camillo alone on stage, "remembering," if that seems possible. What are your thoughts? 3) Our audiences are small town and loyal. They'll slog through almost Anything with us and like it; fortunately, we rarely have given them bad stuff. With WT, we are not synopsizing the end of the play in publicity, since none of our audience knows it. The possibility exists that the statue scene may come as a genuine surprise. No question here, just information. Any other thoughts/ideas/recommendations? We'll digest anything you have to offer. Has anyone else noticed that, alone of all the characters, the Clown does not age between Part I and Part II? It's 16 years alter, and he's still the same adolescent idiot he was at the end of Act III. I'm wondering if the audience will catch *that* one. Many thanks, Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Co. Newnan, GA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 06:56:37 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0631 Re: *WT* Production Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0631. Tuesday, 22 August 1995. (1) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 07:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0630 Q: *WT* Production (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 13:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0630 Q: *WT* Production (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 07:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0630 Q: *WT* Production For Dale Lyles, While I think that your B&W costumes in the first part of the play vs. color in the second is a good idea, I -don't- think that cutting Time's monologue is particularly necessary or a good idea. First, by cutting the speech you are not going to make the play any less flatly improbable, and it's a good speech. Any audience that has already accepted "exit, pursued by a bear"--which will always be a flatly disengaging "look, guys, it's a *play*" event unless you have a pet grizzly--will have no troubles accepting that Time came by to catch the last act. Second, if you cut the speech you have stolen from yourself an interesting question: who says it? In Jack O'Brien's 1992 production at the Old Globe in San Diego LEONTES gave Time's speech, and I for one certainly perked up at that! Who gives the speech is a neat doubling question and a good part of the performance. By the way, what *are* you going to do about the bear? Break limbs, Brad Berens Dept. of English U.C. Berkeley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 13:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0630 Q: *WT* Production I'm really ENJOYING these directorial posts coming up recently on the list. Dear Dale Lyles--at the risk of sounding like a "purist" let me ask you WHY are you afraid of the audience thinking Hermione is insane? WHO SAYS she doesn't hold a grudge for 16 years--certainly Paulina, in many ways H's spokeswoman, expresses a distrust of Leontes even in the final scene, and wouldn't it be perhaps more effective to play the last scene in such a way as to show the audience a bons between the two woman--and keep the audience guessing about what they\ were really doing those 16 years? I say this because what you suggest about a flashback that DOESN"t ALLOW LEONTES a FULL REIGN OF TERROR seems to miss the point--the point is that, unlike Othello, Leontes needs no IAGO, and that the "terror" is the "winter" of the title-- Are you afraid this will SCARE audiences away (like the "mechanicals" in Midsummer's Night afraid that a LION will scare the ladied)--- Besides, from stripping the extreme rage and violence away from the first half, the second half might become weaker--this play is not a comedy--it seems you want to make it into MUCH ADO.... I hope you don't take these comments too critically--I'm just trying to get to your assumptions underlying the decision you're making. I do think that you're right to question Hermione's seemingly unquestioned faith, but I think there is a way to show her as a more complex character WITHOUT making Leontes seem less violent (besides, it's usually more fun for actors to go with the extreme rage....). Thanks again, look forward to reply, chris stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 07:02:54 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0632 Re: "Content" in *Mac.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0632. Tuesday, 22 August 1995. (1) From: Tom Clayton Date: Monday, 21 Aug 95 15:54:51 CST Subj: The Macbeths' lack of "content" (2) From: Peter L Groves Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 11:41:15 GMT+1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0627 Re: Lady Macbeth's Speech -- Content (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Monday, 21 Aug 95 15:54:51 CST Subject: The Macbeths' lack of "content" Mike Field: Both senses--contentment, what is contained--*could* be found(ed) in "content"--where the stress goes on the second syllable in this regular blank-verse line--with pertinent sense in either case: M and Lady M have got nothing for all, and in place of content(ment) they live in "doubtful joy"-- "fearful 'joy,'" as it were. The sense "content(ment)" may be primary if not exclusive, but the modern pronunciation "CON- tent" for "what is contained" (COD et al., standard American) does not preclude "what is contained," because, as OED2 says (*content* n. 1), "The stress *con'tent* is historical, and still common among the educated." For what it's worth, a skimming of the nearly 200 uses in a concordance had "con- tent(ment)" the predominant sense, though one or more con- tained "CONtent"s might be found on scrutiny. Cheers, Tom (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L Groves Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 11:41:15 GMT+1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0627 Re: Lady Macbeth's Speech -- Content It's good to see someone taking metre seriously as a source of evidence. On the latter topic, I was depressed recently to discover that after a two-hour seminar on Shakespeare's metre, most of my students couldn't work out how to stress the name Hippolyta from the first line of _MND_: "Now, fair Hippolyta, our nuptial hour / Draws on apace". ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 07:21:35 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0633 Qs: Graduate Programs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0633. Tuesday, 22 August 1995. (1) From: Erika Lin Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 09:33:28 -0700 Subj: Opinions on graduate English departments wanted (2) From: Karen Krebser Date: Monday, 21 Aug 95 12:48:21 -0700 Subj: Ph.D. Program Resources? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Erika Lin Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 09:33:28 -0700 Subject: Opinions on graduate English departments wanted Dear SHAKSPER members, Hello, everyone. I'm in the process of applying to PhD programs in English, and, being in the preliminary phase of looking into different schools, I'd like to solicit opinions from SHAKSPER members about the strengths and weaknesses of various departments. My major concentration will probably be Shakespeare, with possible minor concentrations in literary theory or Asian- American studies. I'm most interested in which professors are teaching where and what you think of them, but anything pertaining to the departments (reputation, emphasis within a department, general atmosphere, etc.) would be extremely useful to me--the longer and more detailed, the better. Any advice on the following would also be greatly appreciated: (a.) what the most important books to read for Shakespearean studies are, (b.) which literary theorists I should be familiar with, and (c.) how much of "a" and "b" above I should have completed before I apply. The schools I'm considering right now are listed below. If I've left out any schools that have good Renaissance departments, please let me know. Any help in whittling down this list would also be welcome. In no particular order, the schools I'm considering are: 1) U. of California - Berkeley 2) Harvard 3) Stanford 4) U. of Pennsylvania 5) Columbia 6) U. of Michigan - Ann Arbor 7) Princeton 8) U. of Chicago 9) Duke 10) Brown 11) U. of Texas - Austin 12) U. of California - San Diego 13) John Hopkins 14) Cornell 15) Rutgers 16) City University of New York 17) U. of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 18) U. of Virginia - Charlottesville 19) U. of California - Los Angeles 20) U. of Wisconsin - Madison 21) U. of California - Santa Barbara 22) U. of California - Irvine 23) U. of Minnesota - Minneapolis 24) U. of Maryland - College Park 25) U. of Indiana - Indianapolis 26) U. of Toronto 27) U. of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign 28) U. of Iowa 29) U. of Washington - Seattle 30) Northwestern 31) Cambridge 32) Oxford Again, my sincere thanks to any help SHAKSPEReans can provide. Feel free to email me privately if you do not want to post directly to the list. Erika Lin University of California at Berkeley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Monday, 21 Aug 95 12:48:21 -0700 Subject: Ph.D. Program Resources? Fellow SHAKSPERians, Greetings and salutations! I fervently hope that I am not posting this query to you all inappropriately; I know such requests are often followed by hearty rounds of "do your own homework!" and "whatsa matter, your library broke?" However, knowing the value of this conference as a resource, I would feel foolish for not taking advantage of the collected wisdom here. I am currently finishing up an MA in English Lit., and am thinking about pursuing a Ph.D. in some aspect of English Renaissance drama (to begin in the Fall of 1997). In your opinions (esteemed, one and all), where would be the best place to pursue such a thing, university-wise, in the U.S. [or abroad]? Are there particular universities that are best for advanced degrees in this area? Centers and/or departments with resources geared particularly toward study of the English Renaissance? My goal is to eventually find work in a library or research center; at this point, I'm not looking to teach. I am chasing this info. in my own library, and am picking the various brains of my professors (now *that's* a visual); as I mentioned above, I would certainly appreciate any additional information, guidance, and opinions. Thanks in advance, Karen Krebser San Jose State University PS. A hearty thanks to the individual on this list who recommended George Garrett's "Entered from the Sun--The Murder of Marlowe". A ripping yarn! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 07:27:58 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0634 Re: Desdemona; Altering Lines Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0634. Tuesday, 22 August 1995. (1) From: David Lindley Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 19:15:02 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0629 Re: Desdemona (2) From: Scott Bonnel Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 14:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Mark Goldman's "altering lines" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 19:15:02 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0629 Re: Desdemona I'll certainly buy the idea of a 'strong' Desdemona in the first part of the play - though her strength itself lays the groundwork for the possibility of Othello's believing in her infidelity. The problem seems to me that the Desdemona of the last part dwindles into the passive female stereotype. Am I alone in finding the 'Willow' song sentimental rather than really moving; mood music to assist us in accepting her diminution, rather than the powerful complex of feelings set in motion by Ophelia's singing? David Lindley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bonnel Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 14:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Mark Goldman's "altering lines" The altering of Shakesperian text is all too common, though not at all uncalled for or enhancing. Unfortunatly, many actor's/directors change words without consideration of the delicacy of meter. The mindful director will try to adhere to the rythem of the line and not break the meter. Often, text is altered mainly for time sake. It's not easy to put a fully text length production of *Hamelt* on, which generally would run about 4 hours. Other examples of text alteration is for comidic enhancment. I saw a production of *Shrew* at the Sand Harbour Shakepeare Festival in Lake Tahoe, by the California Reportory Company out of Long Beach. The director, Steve McQue, set the play in the 'Ol West'. Since, they were performing in an outdoor Summer Stock venue, he opted to change all the locals to those of surrounding cities changing names like Padue to Tahoe, or Carson City, or even Reno. This worked wonderfully well. The audience ate it up. As long as it is scriptually enhancing and doesn't detract from the story, I think it's fine. Only true puriest aren't too comfy with it. Scott Bonnel Long Beach, CA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 09:42:13 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0635 Re: *WT* Production Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0635. Wednesday, 23 August 1995. (1) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 10:02:08 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0630 Q: *WT* Production (2) From: Wes Folkerth Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 10:52:54 -0500 Subj: Re: WT Production (3) From: Dawn Massey Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 95 15:59:03 BST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0630 Q: *WT* Production (4) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 20:42:33 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0631 Re: *WT* Production (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 10:02:08 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0630 Q: *WT* Production >So, what are your thoughts on WT? What problems have you had in production, >and how have you solved them? What are the dangers in the text? When I directed this with University students for faculty, undergrads and high school students, the actor playing Leontes was 22 and who could credibly play no older than 29-30. He therefore played all the energetic rage of a young adult who had thought every aspect of his life was under his control. Hermione, (same age) found an ageless wisdom for her trial 16 years later, she will not return to life until a) her daughter reappeared and b.) an older Leontes suspended his disbelief and his own will to "earn" unwittingly her trust. Even then Paulina has to comand Hermione to awake, move, live, several times before Hermione can find the courage to make that irrevocable move. > 3) Our audiences are small town and loyal. They'll slog through almost >Anything with us and like it; fortunately, we rarely have given them bad stuff. >With WT, we are not synopsizing the end of the play in publicity, since none >of our audience knows it. The possibility exists that the statue scene may >come as a genuine surprise. What a wonderful chance to see how the play might have worked early on. It's a wonderful play to work with. Good Luck. Mary Jane Miller (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wes Folkerth Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 10:52:54 -0500 Subject: Re: WT Production To Dale Lyles, I too hope you don't cut Time's monologue from your performance. Midway through his speech he turns the hourglass that identifies him as Time to the audience, a richly symbolic action that (to me) refers both to the changing fortunes of the characters, and to a shift from the linear time of tragedy to the cyclical time of comedy. This scene is important, because it takes place in almost the exact center of the play, if you count lines and not scenes (I think the first scene of act four is one of the longest in Shakespeare). Anyway, that's my two cents. I expect you'll have a great time with WT, especially Autolycus and the Clown. Good luck! Wes Folkerth Montreal (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dawn Massey Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 95 15:59:03 BST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0630 Q: *WT* Production Re: WT cuts I also like your idea of the flashback but am equally concerned about your proposed cuts. Time figures importantly in an emblematic sequence of stage images deriving from the emblematic motto Veritas Filia Temporis or Truth is the Daughter of Time. Truth, incarcerated in a cave, is rescued by Time from the destructive forces of Envy, Slander, and Calumny. The allegorical analogues to characters in the play are pretty obvious, and much of the implied staging seems designed to invoke this emblem, which enjoyed a special currency at the time. It is also, incidentally, inscribed on the title page of Pandosto, one of the principal sources for WT. I'm not a purist, but it seems you may be ignoring an important sequence of images called for in the text through such an omission. In any event, it's something to consider. Also, the contrived appearance of Time fits in well with your cinematic Oz image as you could present Time as a send-up of late-sixties early-seventies TV conventions of the wavy screen to indicate time-lapse (a la Wayne's World). Foreground the creaky convention; don't efface it. I've been enjoying these performance discussions, too. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 20:42:33 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0631 Re: *WT* Production I played the bear, and chased Antigonas off the stage as he beat me with a driftwood bat, and one night he broke my finger. ah, but was I good, did I roar so that the king might say, "Let him roar again!"? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 09:49:35 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0636 Re: "Content"; Scansion Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0636. Wednesday, 23 August 1995. (1) From: Martin Green Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 10:48:25 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0624, 0627 and 0632 Re: "Content" (2) From: Kate Wilson Date: Wednesday, 23 Aug 1995 07:01:38 +1000 (EST) Subj: Content and Scansion (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Green Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 10:48:25 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0624, 0627 and 0632 Re: "Content" Since puns are (in my opinion) NOT Shakespeare's Cleopatra, but his crowning glory (because as used by him they infuse so many meanings and hence so much depth into his writings), I do not doubt that "content" can mean both "substance" and "satisfaction" in Lady Macbeth's speech. The word appears in the first of Shakespeare's Sonnets, where only by imputing to it these two meanings (in a sonnet written to a young man urging him to reproduce in order to perpetuate his beauty) can we discern all that Shakespeare is saying to a youth who in lines 5-6 is chided for being one who, contracted to his own bright eyes, feeds his light's flame with self-substantial fuel. Lines 9-12 continue this thought: Thou that art now the world's fresh ornament, And only herald to the gaudy spring, Within thine own bud buriest thy content And tender churl mak'st waste in niggarding. See also the entry under "Content(ion)" in Frankie Rubinstein's "Dictionary of Shakespeare's Sexual Puns and their Significance." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kate Wilson Date: Wednesday, 23 Aug 1995 07:01:38 +1000 (EST) Subject: Content and Scansion Peter Ah the joys of scansion, they hath made us mad! Out of curiosity, what did your students make of the pronounciation. of *Hippolyta* in Now fair Hippolyta our nuptial hour/grows on apace. Did they stick on *nuptial* as well...wanting 3 syllables or 2...and did anyone stumble onto the value of strongly-accenting *Now*? I have a group of first-level acting majors who are discovering daily the acting *clues* (as John Barton puts it) in WS's text. Cheers Kate ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 09:53:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0637 Re: Graduate Programs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0637. Wednesday, 23 August 1995. (1) From: Dawn Massey Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 95 15:15:51 BST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0633 Qs: Graduate Programs (2) From: Rebecca C Totaro Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 21:30:47 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0633 Qs: Graduate Programs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dawn Massey Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 95 15:15:51 BST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0633 Qs: Graduate Programs Re: Graduate Programs in Shakespeare Studies and Renaissance Drama You may wish to consider The Shakespeare Institute, directed by Professor Stanley Wells, co-general editor of The Oxford Shakespeare (with Gary Taylor) and general editor of Shakespeare Survey, member of the board of governors of the RSC, etc., etc. While officially part of the English Department of the University of Birmingham, the SI is located in Stratford-Upon-Avon, offering excellent access to RSC and Shakespeare Center performance archive resources. The SI's own library resources for Renaissance Drama are superb. With regard t to approach, the SI undeniably has a reputation for traditional (some might say conservative) scholarship; however, my own experience has been that I have been given the trust and freedom to evaluate carefully all major critical practices so that I can develop my own synthesis. As for background, I don't feel I am in a position to make that determination. You should probably write directly to Dr. Martin Wiggins, The Shakespeare Institute, Church Street, Stratford- Upon-Avon, Warwickshire, England, CV37 6HP. That said, any number of recent anthologies can provide a good sense of the current debates in Shakespeare and Renaissance Drama studies. For example, Dollimore and Sinfield's (eds) Political Shakespeare, Ivo Kamp's (ed) Shakespeare Left and Right, Drakakis's (ed) Shakespearean Tragedy and Alternative Shakespeares, Dutton and Wilson's (eds) New Historicism and Renaissance Drama, Kastan and Stallybrass's (eds) Staging the Renaissance, Parker and Hartmann's (eds) Shakespeare and the Question of Theory. The Dutton and Wilson is helpful as it historicizes New Historicism and Cultural Materialism and contains a useful glossary of terms. As far as other programs in England, you might consider Cardiff's cultural studies program, run I believe by Terence Hawkes and Katherine Belsey. Leeds and Sussex are also worth a look. One final feature to recommend British universities is access to the superior holdings of not only The Shakespeare Institute, but also, the Bodleian and the British Museum. Best of luck. If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rebecca C Totaro Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 21:30:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0633 Qs: Graduate Programs You must not overlook U. Mass at Amherst. I spent two years researching universities to find this one. The faculty is huge while the number of admitted grads is small. The Renaissance studies students can work for the noteable *English Literary Renaissance* journal and can select from among nearly 10 faculty members to work with, within this period alone. Further, students enjoy teaching-oriented professors who take pride in cultivating lasting colleagueships with their students. At the same time, students find that their professors are well know and respected in their field. I need only name Kathleen Swaim, Wally Kerrigan, and Arthur Kinney for starters. Finally, the campus and its location in Massachusetts' "Happy Valley" more than remind one that even when you're facing your orals, you've made the right choice to attend U.Mass, Amherst. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 10:03:44 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0638 Re: NYSF; Salvini Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0638. Wednesday, 23 August 1995. (1) From: Elizabeth Blye Schmitt Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 16:59:43 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0620 Re: NYSF Tro.; Time; Edgar (2) From: John Mucci Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 11:57:43 -0400 Subj: Salvini; Sleepwalking (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Blye Schmitt Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 16:59:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0620 Re: NYSF Tro.; Time; Edgar Specific ref to NYSF Did no one see Patrick Stewart in the TEMPEST? I heard rumors that it was great, but saw nothing on SHAKSPER. Could you be waiting for its Broadway run? Had I not been a)ready to give birth, and b) in Dallas, both my husband and i would have braved camping out in the Park to see this one. Come on somebody give over! Elizabeth Schmitt (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mucci Date: Tuesday, 22 Aug 1995 11:57:43 -0400 Subject: Salvini; Sleepwalking Since I've been going over the very curious article about Salvini which I found this summer, I thought I'd put in his two cents worth anent the questions of changing the texts for the sake of the directors' concept. In the 1870's, Helen Zimmern wrote an article about Salvini in "The Gentlemen's Magazine," and she quotes the Italian actor as saying: >"When I read this grand tragedy [of Macbeth] for the first time, >I expected to see the somnambulist scene of the wife followed by >one of the husband, and it was quite difficult to persuade >myself of the contrary. It seems extravagant this effect >produced on my mind, but yet it seems to me justifiable. The >somnambulist scene takes place at the beginning of the fifth >act, and up to then neither the waiting-maid nor the doctor has >given a hint of such a condition. No one expects it or has >reason to foresee it." It is Lady Macbeth who has ever been the >strong one, who has called him coward, laughed at his >hallucinations, "never a single words of remorse or repentance >from her lips. How then comes this resolute woman suddenly to >falsify the terrible but grand impression the audience has >gained of her up to now? And why has the author, ever rigidly >observant to maintain his characters the same from beginning to >end, made an exception for Lady Macbeth? Is it illness that >makes her weak and vacillating? It may be; but this scene seems >to me originally composed for Macbeth, and afterwards changed >for the benefit of some actor (actresses were not then employed) >who, perhaps, did not think the part he had to sustain >sufficient. I thank him from my heart for having taken it from >Macbeth; the burden of this role is sufficiently exorbitant." >An original idea certainly on Signor Salvini's part. What will >the Shakespeare critics say to it?> Salvini's further ideas about Macbeth, as well as Hamlet and Lear, are fascinating and unfettered by the thought of what "the Shakespeare critics" would say. (I will be happy to send the whole text to anyone who wishes--about 5,000 words). John Mucci GTE VisNet ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 11:32:53 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0639 Save Shakespeare and Company Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0639. Friday, 25 August 1995. From: G. L. Horton Date: Wednesday, 23 Aug 1995 12:07:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Shakes & Co SOS When I went to see the productions at Shakespeare & Company in Lenox over the weekend, I discovered that they are "threatened with eviction or severe restriction of programming by the Edith Wharton Restoration" where they have been in residence since before there WAS an "Edith Wharton Restoration" at the Mount -- once Wharton's home, and the company's since 1978. This would be a terrible loss. In addition to the company's excellent productions, and the training program that creates a supply of actors able to deal with the depth and complexity of verse drama, the company does teacher training and outreach in the schools that promises a future supply of people who love Shakespeare, theatre, and the English language. They are soliciting letters of support, to be sent to the company for forwarding at The Mount, Lenox, MA 01240; or to Frank Sanchis, VP National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20036 or to relevent congresspeople I urge conference members to write or email in support. This company is a national treasure! G.L. Horton ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 11:43:11 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0640 Re: Puns; "Content"; Scansion Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0640. Friday, 25 August 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 23 Aug 1995 12:50:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0636 Re: "Content"; Scansion (2) From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 24 Aug 1995 09:34:24 -0100 Subj: SHK 6.0636 Re: "Content"; Scansion (3) From: Peter L Groves Date: Thursday, 24 Aug 1995 17:13:30 GMT+1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0636 Re: "Content"; Scansion (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 23 Aug 1995 12:50:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0636 Re: "Content"; Scansion Dear Martin Green--thanks for your defense of Shakespeare as punster-- and citation, specifically, re "content"--Of course, I'd say pun's MAY HAVE been Shakespeare's CLEOPATRA--but that of course Shakespreare sides with CLEOPATRA more than many critics still give him credit for-- (however Godshalk may wish to claim DOLABELLA!)....chris stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 24 Aug 1995 09:34:24 -0100 Subject: SHK 6.0636 Re: "Content"; Scansion I think in the light of the "new" New Bibliography we really need to revise our notions about puns in Shakespeare, don't we? John Drakakis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L Groves Date: Thursday, 24 Aug 1995 17:13:30 GMT+1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0636 Re: "Content"; Scansion Kate: I'm afraid you're ascribing too much subtlety to the students in question; they just assumed (I suppose) that the _y_ in _Hippolyta_ was long, and therefore likely to be stressed, and thus produced the four-beat line *Now, FAIR HippoLYTa, our NUPtial HOUR...*. You're so right about those acting clues. What I find particularly interesting about the way WS uses metre to cue the actor's performance is that actors often pick it up even where editors have done their best to hide it. A good example of editorial botching is the first four lines of _Macbeth_ 2.2, printed more or less thus in the First Folio: That which hath made them drunk, hath made me bold: What hath quench d them, hath given me fire. Hearke, peace: it was the Owle that shriek d, The fatall Bell-man, which gives the stern st good-night. Since the second line of the F text has only nine syllables, and the third only eight, every editor of the play since Rowe (with the sole exception of Charles Knight) has printed them with the following regularised lineation: That which hath made them drunk, hath made me bold; What hath quench d them hath given me fire. Hark! Peace! It was the owl that shriek d, the fatal bellman, Which gives the stern st goodnight. . . . This will of course scan in a satisfactory but relatively mechanical and not particularly revealing way, but actors who play Lady Macbeth (and I have tested this against every taped version of the play I have access to ) tend to ignore the modern lineation in performance and intuitively recover the Folio version, which is much more dramatically expressive. To utter line 2 of the Folio version with five beats, for example, you are forced to realize the contrastive accent on the antithetical pairs _them_ : _me_ and _quenched_ : _(given) fire_, giving the line (as WS wrote it) its sinister, gloating rhythm as Lady Macbeth is forced to linger on the last two words. In the next Folio line, the successive catalexes or monosyllabic feet (^Hearke! ^Peace!) produce a staccato rhythm consonant with Lady Macbeth s jumpiness, an effect (and an authorial direction to the actor) that is lost if as in the modern verison only one of those syllables is allowed to function as a beat. Good luck with your acting majors--and happy hunting for those performance cues! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 11:48:47 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0641 Re: NYSF -- Stewart in *Tmp.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0641. Friday, 25 August 1995. (1) From: Diana Sweeney Date: Wednesday, 23 Aug 1995 14:05:42 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0638 Re: NYSF (2) From: Mickie Mosley Date: Thursday, 24 Aug 95 11:59:10 pst Subj: Re: SHK 6.0638 Re: NYSF (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diana Sweeney Date: Wednesday, 23 Aug 1995 14:05:42 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0638 Re: NYSF To: E. Schmitt Re: TEMPEST I saw THE TEMPEST with Patrick Stewert this summer and I loved it. The staging was very creative and the music was incredibly vital and perfect for the concept. Patrick Stewert was marvelous. I especially liked what he did at the end of the play: he turned off the mike to deliver the epilouge (no more magic?). The actresses who played Miranda and Ariel were also very good. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mickie Mosley Date: Thursday, 24 Aug 95 11:59:10 pst Subject: Re: SHK 6.0638 Re: NYSF Folks: I too would like information regarding Patrick Stewart in the Tempest and especially if it is moving to broadway. Please cough it up!! Thanks - Mickie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 11:55:38 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0642 Re: *WT* Production Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0642. Friday, 25 August 1995. (1) From: David Lindley Date: Wednesday, 23 Aug 1995 21:20:49 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0635 Re: *WT* Production (2) From: John Chapot Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 01:58:28 -0400 Subj: Re: *WT* Production (3) From: Dale Lyles Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 07:57:55 -0400 Subj: re: *WT* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Wednesday, 23 Aug 1995 21:20:49 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0635 Re: *WT* Production In the light of discussion of producing WT I pass on my experience of watching an amateur performance of the play in the open air in Christ Church meadow in Oxford in about 1972. It wasn't a particularly remarkable rendition, except that just at the moment when Hermione's statue appeared a low mist crept across the meadow so that she seemed to float in mid-air. A magical moment indeed, but one that could not be replicated by human artifice, I think (dry ice notwithstanding). David Lindley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Chapot Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 01:58:28 -0400 Subject: Re: *WT* Production Regarding the bear: I saw a very moving RSC WT at the Barbican in 1987. They set the first half in the colors of winter: white/silver/grey. The royal family and guests celebrating the holidays in the palace on an enormous polar-bear-skin rug, head and all. This setting was kept for much of the first half, except that the bear head was sunk into a trap for the jail and court scenes etc, still leaving the texture of the rug as the groundcloth for all scenes. After the Mariner gave the baby to Antigonus and the storm increased, the head of the bead rose slowly, upstage center, drawing the groundcloth with it, behind the unwitting man. As it reaching a terrifying height and the sound and music peaked the man turned to face it and the lights came down. Whew. The sheperds scene played as denoument into intermission. Regarding Time: it began the second half, "framed" as a separate event in the evenings proceedings. The actor was lowered in from behind the exact center of the proscenium. 'Lowered in' is right - it was a creaky flying rig, flaunting the convention. It was the same actor who subsequently played Autolycus. Regarding Mamillius: if memory serves (a big IF in this case) the text had been rearranged to put his tellling the tale ("once there was a man -") into the group scene (I,II) prior to Leontes' breakdown (I,I had been cut) and the child's speech seemed to launch all the dramatic action subsequent. Best of luck with this wonderful play! John Chapot San Francisco (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 07:57:55 -0400 Subject: re: *WT* Oh, bears, Time, is it too late to switch to Hamlet? Thanks for the input so far, everyone! Okay, okay, we'll try Time in rehearsal. I didn't want to cut the speech to make the play more credible. No amount of cutting will do that, and in fact I regard its improbability as one of its glories. Rather, my feeling was that removing the speech might assist my conceit of the first half being in the Past. However, other than a program note, there's no real way to convey that. I was hoping that cutting the major contributor to the linearity between the halves might help. We'll see. Chris Stroffolino: Why would I want to make this into Much Ado when it is so obviously different? I never suggested that Leontes shouldn't completely and utterly destroy his family. All I asked for is input on how far we should go before he loses the audience's sympathy for good. And I will say that I think it is incredibly important that they not lose sympathy for him. I'll tell you why I ask: in reading reviews of recent productions [looking for neat ideas, of course], the production which had Mamillius in his pajamas in II.1 struck me. They had staged that beautiful little scene in the most intimate moment between parent and child: getting ready for bed. There's even a bedtime story. ;) And then the ogre-daddy breaks it up. It seemed to me to be the most effective rendering of that scene I had ever come across. However, at the same time I realized that if *I* had seen that scene, I would never have allowed Leontes to be forgiven in the final scene. He killed that child, you see, and although we're careful not to bring it up in the last two scenes, and most audiences will forget it in order to resolve the play, this particular staging would have stamped Mamillius and his fate into my brain, and I would have not thought the ending to be a decent resolution. That's not an effect I'm willing to explore. And as for the bear: I don't know yet. The stage will have reached its nadir at that point: all the costumes will have evolved into black, the stage will be covered with great swaths of black cloth, the lighting will be almost nonexistent, the sound system will be busy with storm, bear, bear hunt, etc. So we can probably get away with very little, even nothing. I did think it would be effective to have Antigonus draw the bear off from the baby, although I'm sure that's old hat. How has everyone else done the bear? Dale Lyles ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 12:03:50 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0643 Re: *Othello*; Edgar; Salvini; Graduate Programs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0643. Friday, 25 August 1995. (1) From: Amy E. Hughes Date: Wednesday, 23 Aug 1995 21:57:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: *Genderothello* (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 24 Aug 1995 03:50:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0618 Re: Edgar (3) From: Luc Borot Date: Thursday, 24 Aug 1995 13:43:32 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0638 Re: Salvini (4) From: Don Foster Date: Thursday, 24 Aug 1995 16:00:58 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0637 Re: Graduate Programs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy E. Hughes Date: Wednesday, 23 Aug 1995 21:57:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: *Genderothello* Thank you to all of the wonderful minds who gave me input on my Genesis observations of OTHELLO. Warmly. The outcome of the criticism I received in my personal e-mailbox was similar: parts of the Eden story are apparent in the play, but not everything is consistent. Many agreed that Desdemona is not neccessarily a weak character but a woman who asserts herself more than one might gleen from many productions of the past. One person could see a parallel between Genesis and OTHELLO, but asked, "Where does Emilia fit in?" A very good question. These SHAKSPERians ultimately reminded me what interested me about the play in the first place: its women. A close friend always tells me, "If you have lost something, you should go back to the place you thought it was at least three times." I have witnessed how this rule applies not only to wayward objects, but also to directorial concepts! Cassio is the character that first spurred this idea, with help from Bianca. I had always pictured him (and I believe he is depicted) as an Adonis, a Lancelot, the good guy on the white horse. When I studied his conversations with other male "buddies," not to mention his mistreatment of a pining and fairly sweet Bianca, this vision began to crumble (and gratefully so!). As I studied, I began to see that Othello, Iago, *and* Cassio were very alike, locked in their ideals of soldiership, muchismo, and "the male order." Iago and Cassio especially, and Othello similarly, objectify their mates and expect specific modes of behavior. The women are a strong group, though. Desdemona, as we discussed, is her own person. Emilia, with her acidic tongue and bitter humor, is equally independent. I think many critics have been too harsh on Bianca, and I see her as a free Emilia: making her own way in the world, her only downfall being her attachment to the one she loves. Her adoring words and pleas to Cassio -- in spite of his mocking, disrespectful cohorts -- are full of life and truth. There is a definite vacuum in all of this, however: Iago. The audience gains access to the action by way of this villaine, and its view is inevitably taken from him. His dramatic role as the bridge between spectator and spectacle must be terribly important, and that is the hole in this argument. Any comments on that? Thanks for the loan of your ears! Amy Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 24 Aug 1995 03:50:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0618 Re: Edgar When the discussion came up about EDGAR not revealing himself, the significance of his earlier role-playing (as mad-tom, as the "peasant" that kills oswald) was not addressed. I'm curious if anyone would care to offer a connection between such disguises beyond the "outlaw" one on one level and the kind of argument that is made for Hamlet, Hal and Rosalind's various disguises (that it enables them to LEARN more). In re-reading this time around I realized how ABSURD the riverside's footnotes claiming that Edgar's using the word "father" immediately after the "jump" scene is NOT AN ATTEMPT to reveal his identity--- It seems to me that Edgar is trying to reveal himself at least from this point on (if not before when he starts talking more like himself than mad tom--a point his father catches on). The reason he doesn't, is that he's interrupted first by LEAR's entrance, then by Oswald's-- but the second he's alone he constantly seems to try to "pop the question" (well, revelation). I haven't read enough Lear criticism to know if my insight here is a commonplace or not, but I'm not interested in the insight as much as what others might think the significance of this would be--and how it might alter the readings of Edgar's disguise with Edmund later------chris stroffolino (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Luc Borot Date: Thursday, 24 Aug 1995 13:43:32 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0638 Re: Salvini I'm a wee bit surprised that Salvini considered Shakespeare to have consistently endeavoured to have his characters remain unchanged throughout his plays (>ever rigidly observant to maintain his characters the same from beginning to >end). Is there any evidence of the way he played Lear, if he did? Doesn't Othello change more than a trifle? how could Salvini explain Gertrude's evolution? When I saw Jane Lapotaire play G to Branagh's Hamlet in A. Noble's 1993 production at Stratford upon A, she (and Noble) struck me as having adopted a very evolutive conception of the character, which perfectly explained her drinking from the cup in the final scene. The very interesting text quoted by John Mucci just shows how varying interpretations can be over time. I tend to prefer text-supported options, which is why I support the colleagues who had rather preserve Time's speech in WT: Time (whoever delivers the lines), speaks about everything the play is about, and all kinds of audiences can be made to integrate this in their understanding of a production. Can the ending be totally accounted for if Time doesn't do his (or her) bit? Puzzling effects and consistency-creating effects alike can be achieved through that speech, I'm sure. Yours, Luc Borot (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Thursday, 24 Aug 1995 16:00:58 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0637 Re: Graduate Programs re: Erika Lin's query about graduate programs. I just want to second Rebecca Totaro's praise for the graduate program at UMass Amherst, which has produced such extraordinarily fine scholars as Valerie Traub. Excellent faculty (both for teaching and research), excellent resources (including *ELR*), and a wonderfully cordial department all around. But Erika: Isn't a list of 32 programs (or 33, with UMass) casting your net rather wide? Perhaps you should begin by selecting those Shakespeare or Asian Studies scholars with whom you'd most heartily wish to study, and then check out their respective departments. D. Foster ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 12:10:12 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0644 Qs: *Chimes*; *Rom.* Act 5 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0644. Friday, 25 August 1995. (1) From: Terence Martin Date: Thursday, 24 Aug 95 09:26:39 CDT Subj: Film query (2) From: Catherine Fitzmaurice Kozubei Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 00:33:38 -0400 (EDT) Subj: obstacles/timing (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Martin Date: Thursday, 24 Aug 95 09:26:39 CDT Subject: Film query For a colleague of mine interested in film and Shakespeare, could anyone tell if and where a copy of Orson Welles' *Chimes at Midnight" can be obtained? Any response to me personally would be appreciated. Terence Martin UM - St. Louis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Catherine Fitzmaurice Kozubei Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 00:33:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: obstacles/timing I'm starting work in the morning on Mark Lamos' R&J, and I remember some fun speculations on SHAKSPER about alternative futures for the protagonists - but - I am particularly intrigued/puzzled by the back-to-back scenes at the top of Act V, where Balthasar brings false, or rather, incomplete, news to R, and Friar John is, he says, prohibited by outside forces from bringing a truthful message from Friar Lawrence to R, and the shadowy identity of the Apothecary. Any thoughts? Why do all involved lose trust in a positive outcome of imagined delight? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 12:14:14 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0645 SSE Contest: Win a T-Shirt Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0645. Friday, 25 August 1995. From: The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 11:41:15 -0400 Subject: Win a T-Shirt!! To all SHAKSPER readers, Well, our 1995 Shenandoah Shakespeare Express world tour is almost over, so naturally that means it's time to name the 1997 season!! Ideally, we would like a nickname that neatly ties together all four of the season's productions- but let's face it, we're suckers for cute and clever! Here are examples of tours gone by: 1992 The Hurly Burly Tour +Merchant+ +Macbeth+ +Comedy+ 1993 Season of Love +R & J+ +A & C+ + Midsummer+ 1994 Tongues Like Knives +Othello+ Much Ado+ +Shrew+ 1995 Word to the Third Tour +Hamlet+ (get it? "words,words,words") +Tempest+ +Twelfth Night+ +R&G are Dead+ 1996 The Globe Trotting Tour (which has more to do with where we're going-several Globe theatres INCLUDING London. Hoo hoo!) +Julius+ +Henry V+ +As You Like It+ +Comedy+ In 1997, we will produce +Love's Labor's Lost+ +Richard II+ +Henry IV part I+ and +Midsummer+ The entry that we like best will win a shiny,new SSE tour T-shirt!! Of course, if you'd like one of our hip and awfully trendy shirts right NOW, please send a donation of $17.50 ($2.50 of which goes toward postage, and $7.50 of which is tax-deductible). to : SSE, P.O. Box 1485, Harrisonburg,VA 22801 If you have any questions or bold statements regarding the SSE, please either direct them to the aforementioned address, call us at (540) 434-3366 (we love to chat) or through e-mail (sshakespea@aol.com). We have many stories of our Edinburgh Fringe Festival adventures (not to mention some nifty reviews) to tell. Thank you for all of the support that we have received from SHAKESPER readers and contributors in the past. We look forward to meeting more of you in '96 and to reading your contest entries! Peace, Shakespeare, and a pint of really good Scottish ale- The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 09:42:56 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0646 Re: Grad. Programs; *Chimes*; Q: ACT *Tam.*; Scansion Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0646. Saturday, 26 August 1995. (1) From: Robert C. Baum Date: Friday, 25 Aug 95 12:21:11 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0643 Re: Graduate Programs (2) From: Juliette Cunico Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 12:00:17 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0644 Qs: *Chimes*; (3) From: James Schaefer Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 13:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0640 Re: Scansion (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert C. Baum Date: Friday, 25 Aug 95 12:21:11 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0643 Re: Graduate Programs Don Foster wrote: >But Erika: Isn't a list of 32 programs (or 33, with UMass) casting your net >rather wide? Perhaps you should begin by selecting those Shakespeare or Asian >Studies scholars with whom you'd most heartily wish to study, and then check >out their respective departments. Here, here. Begin with faculty and critical approach and then limit your graduate options. The individual visions of an institution's researchers and professors should be your guiding light. Your list is slowly going to become oppressive. . .not to mention the amount of background (critical) reading you'll have to do in the process. Yikes! --bob robert.c.baum@dartmouth.edu P.S. Who wants to give a plug for Duke? I'm curious, myself, and contemplating a change of direction toward Shakespeare studies or maybe I'll continue in American Literature or maybe head to cultural studies or maybe I'll. . . . . Thanks! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juliette Cunico Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 12:00:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0644 Qs: *Chimes*; _Chimes at Midnight_ can be rented through Facets Video in Chicago, Illinois. The toll-free number is 1-800-331-6197. Happy viewing! And: Does anyone know where I can get a good copy of the San Francisco ACT commedia-influenced production of _The Taming of the Shrew?_ (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 13:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0640 Re: Scansion Peter Groves' example from Lady Macbeth is a good one. I'd just like to make explicit one of his understood points: that hypometric (short) lines are great clues to meaning and character and character relationships. When Lear challenges Cordelia, what can you say to draw A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak. His command to speech is met with metric silence: Cor. Nothing, my lord. Lear. Nothing! Cor. Nothing. (I,i,89-91) Six beats of silence in the first, eight in each of the others, hang in the air. There is no rush to argument here, but incredulity as irresistible force meets immovable object, an actor's cue to silent but powerful reaction. Later in the same scene, after Kent has repeatedly challenged Lear's rash banishment of his daughter, the King regains control by sheer force of will: Hear me, recreant! On thy allegiance, hear me! Since thou hast sought to make us break our vow .... The three missing syllables, three silent beats, in that second line are a demand for absolute attention by the other characters, a momentary stage picture of their absolute, albeit defiant, obedience. And yet again, when Lear is released from his madness, he tells Cordelia I am a very foolish fond old man, Fourscore and upward, not an hour more nor less, And, to deal plainly, I fear I am not in my perfect mind. (IV,vii, 60-63) That blank in the third line is an actor's pause; in the silence, we hear a momentarily lucid man struggling to acknowledge his madness and sin. It has been my experience that a performance that seems to be too slow is often actually not slow enough: rushing through the text as if it were modern psychological prose, not enough attention has been paid to the meaning of those beats of silence that Shakespeare has written. These silences are one of the main differences between the richness Shakespeare's art and the way that Marlow bludgeons us with his endlessly repeating mighty line. Silence is powerful: like Ingmar Bergman, I've always remembered the passage from Revelations in which the Lamb broke the seventh seal: "there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour." Jim Schaefer ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 09:51:19 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0647 Re: Puns and New Bibliography Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0647. Saturday, 26 August 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 17:21:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0640 Re: Puns (2) From: Martin Green Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 21:43:14 -0400 Subj: Re: "New" New Bibliography. (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 17:21:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0640 Re: Puns >I think in the light of the "new" New Bibliography we really need to revise >our notions about puns in Shakespeare, don't we? > >John Drakakis O.K., I'll admit it (again); I'm puzzled. In what ways does Random Clod (that old punster) demand that we revise our notions of Shakespeare as a punster? Do you mean that "Falstaff" is not a pun on "Shake-speare"? Yours, God's Hawk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Green Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 21:43:14 -0400 Subject: Re: "New" New Bibliography. What is the "new" New Bibliography, and what bearing does it have on puns? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 10:08:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0648 Re: *WT* and *Oth.* Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0648. Saturday, 26 August 1995. (1) From: Thomas Ellis Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 19:20:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0642 Re: *WT* Production (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 23:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0643 Re: *Othello* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Ellis Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 19:20:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0642 Re: *WT* Production First, I wish to thank Dale Lyles for launching this delightful thread on staging options for *WT*. I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. I agree, however, that the TIME prologue should not be cut in order to regularize the play, for Shakespeare, in this play, revels in the improbable, the preposterous, and--particularly at this mid-point-- the generic outrage (by neoclassic standards) of what he is doing. The TIME prologue (or "interlude?") is, among other things, a send-up of the neoclassic canons of taste that just then (1611) were coming into vogue--he is, in effect, thumbing his nose at Ben Jonson (e.g. "Impute it not a crime...since it is within my power to plant and o'erwhelm custom/...and make stale/The glistering of this present As my tale/Now seems to it." (Quoted from memory--sorry for minor inaccuracies). This is not only Father Time speaking but Shakespeare the artist, shamelessly flouting convention and rubbing his audience's nose in it. Also, I wouldn't worry about making Leontes unforgiveably recreant. The ending is a miracle in more ways than one, and any theologian will tell you that forgiveness has no limits. Cheers, and enjoy mounting this delightful play! --Tom Ellis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 25 Aug 1995 23:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0643 Re: *Othello* Dear Amy Hughes---i guess I question when you say the audience's view of the action is inevitably taken from IAGO---sure, IAGO is the closest character to AN AUTHOR in this play, and (like RICHARD 3) because he exposes the shallowness of the ambition of other characters (Rod. most notably), the audience's view of the play is mediated by him, but because the audience knows he's LYING, doesn't that therefore implicitly criticize his actions (if not, entirely, his world view?), and there I mean though the absurdity of the SCAPEGOATING of IAGO at the end of the play should be played as ringing hollow (because he simply works on something latent in othello--the military view of love you pointed out, etc.), it seems there are many cues in the play that allow you to show how Iago is a character, not a spokesman for the play.... and I do think the psychomachia Othello is torn into between Iago and Desdemona can be played in a way to show it---For instance, that moment when he tells Desdemona "leave me but awhile to myself" AND THEN IAGO IMMEDIATELY ENTERS!--I think that scene should be played in such a blatant way to call attention to the fact that the deck is so stacked against desdemona in parts because OTHELLO doesn't even see IAGO as an OTHER (though at other times he certainly does---but why not emphasize this?). Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 09:59:57 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0649 ACTER Fall 1995 Tour Dates Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0649. Monday, 28 August 1995. From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Sunday, 27 Aug 1995 12:33:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ACTER Fall 1995 Tour Dates ACTER announces the residency sites of the Fall 1995 Tour of Romeo and Juliet: Sept. 18-24 Lafayette College, Easton, PA; Sept. 25-Oct. 1 Oberlin College, Oberlin OH; Oct. 2-15 University of Wyoming (and outreach), Laramie WY;Oct. 16-22 Furman University, Greenville SC;Oct. 23-29 UTexas-San Antonio;Oct. 30-Nov.5 Brandeis University, Waltham MA; Nov. 6-12 U. Delaware, Newark DE; and Nov. 13-19 U. Pennsylvania, Annenberg Center, Philadelphia PA. 3 old ACTER hands will be on the tour: Michael Thomas (toured in 1986 and l988), Ann Firbank (on her fifth tour, the latest l989), and Jane Arden (toured in l99l and l993). We also have two newcomers, both with RSC experience, Terence Wilton and Patrick Miller. For more information, contact csdessen@email.unc.edu. We are taking reservations for the 1996-97 season of Much Ado(Fall) and Romeo and Juliet (Spring). Let us hear from you. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 10:03:43 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0650 CONFERENCE: Teaching Shakespeare Through Performance Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0650. Monday, 28 August 1995. From: Curt L. Tofteland Date: Sunday, 27 Aug 1995 15:17:52 -0400 Subject: International Conference International Conference on TEACHING SHAKESPEARE THROUGH PERFORMANCE. February 29, March 1-2, 1996 Brown Hotel, Louisville, Kentucky The Kentucky Shakespeare Festival is pleased to cosponsor the international conference, "TEACHING SHAKESPEARE THROUGH PERFORMANCE," with the National Conference for the Teachers of English (NCTE), the Folger Shakespeare Library, and the Greater Louisville English Council. The purpose of this conference is to bring together English language arts educators (grade 6 - college) and Shakespearean theatre professionals to gather knowledge and skills for teaching Shakespeare through a performance-based approach that integrates literature, language arts, theatre, music, dance, visual arts, history, and social customs. Keynote speakers include: Peggy O'Brien, director of education, Corporation for Public Broadcasting and general editor of "Shakespeare Set Free." Conference co-chairs: Curt L. Tofteland, Producing Director of the Kentucky Shakespeare Festival; Janet Field-Pickering, Head of Education of the Folger Shakespeare Library; Kathaleen Breen, Associate Director of the Kentucky Shakespeare Festival's teacher training institute, FROM THE PAGE TO THE STAGE: Teaching Shakespeare in the Classroom, and Patti Slagle, Greater Louisville English Council. The planning committee members are particularly interested in receiving workshop proposals that focus on pragmatic classroom practices on how to: * Implement performance-based Shakespearean study * Unlock the richess of Shakespeare's language and imagery * Develop classroom activities that encourage creativity * Create practices that promote critical thinking * Assess performance-based learning * Integrate creative writing activities * Select a play/scene to produce * Empower students as actors and directors * Engage students at all ability levels * Utilize video and video cameras * Develop critical viewing skills of staged or filmed performances * Incorporate period dance and movement into performance * Organize a student Shakespearean Scene Festival GUIDELINES: Proposals are invited for 1 1/2 and 3 hour workshops. They should be 1-2 pages in length and include the title, objectives, a brief description of the workshop, activities that involve participants, materials, equipment, and a cover sheet with all presenters' names, home addresses, telephone numbers, teaching/workshop experience, school/grade level or professional theatre organization. Send four copies to: Pat Glazik NCTE 1111 West Kenyon Road Urbana, Illinois 61801-1096 217/328-0977 (fax) NCTE is a not-for-profit, professional organization and does not reimburse program presenters for travel or living expenses. Final Deadline: October 15, 1995 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 10:11:21 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0651 Re: Graduate Programs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0651. Monday, 28 August 1995. From: Rebecca C Totaro Date: Sunday, 27 Aug 1995 12:51:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0643 Re: Graduate Programs I agree with Don Foster's recommendation regarding your careful approach to a narrowing of Grad Program choices with a particularly sharp eye to faculty interests. When it came time for me to decide among the acceptance letters, I finally chose the place which gave me the most options in Ren studies. I wanted to leave room for myself in case I found that Professor Brilliant was also Professor Painful Personality. Please choose a school with at least 5 feasible options for dissertation director. You'll *weed out* 2-3 based on critical approach, personality, availability, etc and still have several among which to bounce ideas off and correct nearsightedness. Assessing $ is crucial. Don't accept going $100,000 into debt for grad school. Many programs which do not offer grants do encourage and facilitate teaching within the university. I think, in fact, that this is the best way to go because it will show you immediately if you're in the right profession. I knew a few PhD students in a certain high caliber university (where I did my MA) who voiced fear at the prospect of planning and teaching a full course themselves. Certainly, they knew how to write an excellent paper. Honestly, I was dissappointed when I didn't get a *full ride* at UMass, but after having taught 2 classes on my own, I've not only covered my expenses (a full tuition waiver plus stipend comes to those who teach), I've gained a sense of belonging to the profession and I'm a better student. I wish you all the best in this difficult decision. I know what you're going through and I did benefit from calling empathetic grad students who were willing to tell me th good and the bad. Okay, here's an attempt at summation: 1) Do follow Don's suggestion and get names of profs at each university and look at/read those that interest you, then leaving a margin of error for personality and availability (will the prof you wish to study with be on sabbatical, etc). 2) Do ask the admissions office if you can call English grad students enrolled in their program. I made my decision as much because of student responses. When three students at a particular university told me that sometimes the felt like they were in the inferno, I said forget it. There are programs (at least one) which foster enthusiastic shared learning instead of a hierarchy of trials and fears. Your friends will most likely be your colleagues, so make sure that the core sentiment is one of being in this together. 3) $ 4) Location All the best, Rebecca Totaro p.s. don't forget to fill us in on your decision ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 08:52:28 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0652 Re: Grad. Programs; SSE Contest; Puns Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0652. Tuesday, 29 August 1995. (1) From: Bruce Young Date: Monday, 28 Aug 1995 12:54:07 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0637 Re: Graduate Programs (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 28 Aug 1995 21:23:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0651 Re: Graduate Programs (3) From: Jeff Myers Date: Monday, 28 Aug 1995 08:05:47 -0500 Subj: SHK 6.0645 SSE Contest: Win a T-Shirt -Reply (4) From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 10:27:01 -0100 Subj: SHK 6.0647 Re: Puns and New Bibliography (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young Date: Monday, 28 Aug 1995 12:54:07 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0637 Re: Graduate Programs Not much attention has been paid to Erika Lin's question about background reading for graduate study of Shakespeare. One response listed a number of good books (some better than others), almost all of them taking a political approach to Shakespeare. That's not the only way of thinking or talking about Shakespeare, though (in my opinion, unfortunately) it may be sufficient to get by in some graduate programs. You may want to look at past postings on "Shakespeare as a Cultural Construct" for various opinions on whether politics is everything or even the most important thing--in Shakespeare as well as in general. Trying to do background reading on Shakespeare can be an overwhelming project. You could try to get a handle on the critical tradition (from Shakespeare's contemporaries onward) by looking at any of several available collections. You could try to get a sense of 20th-century criticism by looking in other collections or of current criticism by dipping into *Shakespeare Quarterly,* *Shakespeare Survey," and other journals. Obviously, there's no way to read everything being written, and it's not certain that what's currently hot will in every case continue to be so by the time you finish graduate school. Some acquisitions of knowledge are lilkely to remain more useful in the long run than others. Something I wish I'd been introduced to more thoroughly in graduate school (and wish I knew better now) is Shakespeare's sources--the plays, chronicles, tales, etc., he transformed and how he transformed them. Other useful approaches include looking at the stage history of Shakespeare's plays, at Renaissance drama and its antecedents, and at stage conventions of Shakespeare's time. You could look at Renaissance poetic and rhetorical theory, at Shakespeare's biography (Schoenbaum's *WS: A Compact Documentary Life* is readable and authoritative), at his language and style, or at thought and life in Renaissance England. Or you could look at Shakespeare and film, at Shakespeare's connection with other arts, at performance theory, or at feminist, psychological, textual, ethical, mythic, or any number of other approaches. And you should probably give some attention to the question of how Shakespearean criticism and scholarship can and ought to be done--in other words, to theorizing about theorizing; but not, I would urge (at least not immediately), settling for the solution that it's all political. There are many other intelligent ways of looking at the "question of theory." Given the mass and multiplicity of materials to look it, my main suggestion would be to read a short overview of Shakespearean studies. There are several, but the one I'm most familiar with is *The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies* ed. Stanley Wells (1986). The 17 chapters by different scholars give solid introductions to most of the topics I've listed above. The last chapter is a helpful introduction to reference books on or related to Shakespeare--something, again, very useful for anyone pursuing graduate study on Shakespeare to have a handle on. Looking at *The Cambridge Companion* might also be a good starting point for identifying approaches and faculty you feel a particular affinity for. Narrowing down at some point is essential, but I believe it's good to get a broad (and brief and accessible) overview, such as *The Cambridge Comapnion* provides, so you have some sense of the great variety of options and opportunities before settling on a narrower area of interest. Bruce Young (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 28 Aug 1995 21:23:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0651 Re: Graduate Programs Concerning the choice of graduate programs, let me tell my story, to which there is a moral. I went to Harvard to study with Jack Bate and Douglas Bush. I almost immediately ran afoul of Bate when I naively told him that I had read "most" of Swift, and I never took a course from him. Douglas Bush was a wonderful scholar and a genuinely sympathetic person, but he had no classroom manner. He simply reread in class the books that we had already read at home. Nevertheless, I took many of his courses, and he directed my Ph.D. thesis. But our association was an association of convenience. When I went to Harvard, I had never heard of Herschel Baker, but when I got to Harvard, the only reason I stayed was Herschel Baker. I wrote my best papers under his direction, and I wanted him to direct my thesis, but he was going to be on sabbatical during the final stages of my writing. I told him I'd wait. He insisted that I ask Bush to be my director, and I did. The moral of this story is: you really can't foreknow the future. You can't tell what teacher will be "your teacher," and when you find your teacher, he or she may be on sabbatical when you need him or her most! I'd go for the graduate school with the best library -- or group of libraries. Teachers may be disappointing, but a great library is always a great library. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Monday, 28 Aug 1995 08:05:47 -0500 Subject: SHK 6.0645 SSE Contest: Win a T-Shirt -Reply Perhaps the "Front to Back, Top to Bottom Tour"? Jeff Myers (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 10:27:01 -0100 Subject: SHK 6.0647 Re: Puns and New Bibliography In response to Godhalk, Green, and the neanderthal Young, My point was a simple one, and I didn't specifically have Random Clod in mind. Playing with words for a humorous effect (one of the definitions of the "pun") depends upon a normative linguistic stability. The question I am posing is what effect might be produced at a time when that stability and standardization of meaning has yet to come fully into being. Where multiple meanings are constantly in play, then the effects must also be multiple. I am asking a question about cultural difference which the simple label "pun" masks. In a future mailing I'll produce the pop-up version for Bruce Young. Cheers John Drakakis ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 08:57:08 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0652 Qs: Conferences; Papp *Shr.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0653. Tuesday, 29 August 1995. (1) From: Todd Trubey Date: Monday, 28 Aug 1995 11:15:26 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Conferences (2) From: Alan Young Date: Monday, 28 Aug 1995 15:08:54 AST Subj: Re: Joseph Papp's SHREW (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Todd Trubey Date: Monday, 28 Aug 1995 11:15:26 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Conferences Greetings. I am a PhD candidate in English at Northwestern University, specializing in the Renaissance. I am just becoming interested in delivering conference papers, and could use some help finding all the good places to find calls for conference papers. Also, do most of the conferences in which Shakespeare is prominent post messages to this listserv, or not? Todd Trubey trube@nwu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Young Date: Monday, 28 Aug 1995 15:08:54 AST Subject: Re: Joseph Papp's SHREW I would like to obtain a copy of the half-hour documentary on Joseph Papp's SHREW (with Meryl Streep as Katherina). Does anyone know where one might purchase this item? Alan R. Young (young@ace.acadiau.ca) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 09:08:54 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0654 Re: *WT* Production; *Rom.* Ending; Sh&Co *Ado* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0654. Tuesday, 29 August 1995. (1) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 28 Aug 95 14:28:53 EDT Subj: [*WT* Production] (2) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 28 Aug 95 14:30:05 EDT Subj: [*Rom.* Ending] (3) From: G. L. Horton Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 00:35:37 -0400 Subj: Shakespeare and Company Much Ado (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 28 Aug 95 14:28:53 EDT Subject: [*WT* Production] Dale Lyles worries about sustaining audience sympathy for Leontes, and finds that he cannot imagine playing the scene between L. and Mamillius with the latter in his pj's because bringing them so close makes L's later work irrecoverably savage: "He killed that child." There are child murderers in Shakespeare, but with respect to Mamillius (Perdita is another matter) Leontes is not one of the them in the sense that Richard III and his agents or Macbeth and his agents are--he's not even as guilty as King John, since his expressed desire is to save the boy from his mother's corruption, not lose him, and his crazy misreading of Mamillius' sickness (2.3.12-17) is more pitiable than culpable. For (to respond to the other issue) the way to preserve Leontes' place in the affections of the audience is surely to persuade them that, like that other jealous husband, Othello, his excesses of suspicion and hatred arise from his excesses of love, and are a kind of madness. The very moving and satisfying WT at Stratford, Ont., a few years back began 5.1. with Colm Feore as Leontes literally prostrate with remorse, stretched out on his stomach, groveling before an altar with a lighted candle on it, not rising to show the audience a face visibly and even shockingly aged until well into the scene (50?): this is a man who has not drawn a contented breath in 16 years (even were he capable of it on his own Paulina is always there to twist the knife again, as she repeatedly does in the scene). I think it's useful to approach WT by way of _Antigone_, another play where the confusion of public and private motives and the rigid pursuit of an initial misjudgment cost a man everything in the world that he values. Leontes' joy at the outset can readily enough be seen as hubristic; certainly his arrogation to himself of all juridical authority is sufficient to provoke classically- conceived divinities to a terrible response--if balanced, in this play, by the delights of Part II. Agonistically, Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 28 Aug 95 14:30:05 EDT Subject: [*Rom.* Ending] Catherine Fitzmaurice Kozubei wonders why Romeo and Juliet's allies (Balthasar, Friar Laurence) seem to lose heart toward the end of the play. I don't think it merely reductive to propose that the reason is generic. The work is a play, not a novel: the psychology particularly in question at any given point is that of the spectators, not the character. And it is a tragedy--a tragedy, moreover, that starts out like a comedy, and that keeps trying to be a comedy almost to the end--the scene prior to Balthasar's report of Juliet's death begins with the potentially comic response of the aristocratic Capulets to Juliet's _faux_-death and proceeds to the low comedy of th4e Capulet servants. If the audience is to be swung into an appropriately grave and apprehensive mood for the scene in the tomb (5.3), just about every line in 5.1 and 2 needs to be invested with gravity and anxiety--too much festal anticipation and the deaths are likely to seem totally capricious and irrational. That's not all that useful to a director or dramaturg trying to help psychologically oriented actors make sense of their parts, of course. You could play B. as a worry-wart from the get-go; Romeo's description prepares for a grisly Apothecary; and the element of desperation in the Friar's essentially improvisational approach to the R-J problem can begin to be apparent early in 4.1--"O Juliet, I already know thy grief, / It strains me pass the compass of my wit"--so that something close to panic is a predictable response to Friar John's bad news. Apprehensively, Dave Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. L. Horton Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 00:35:37 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare and Company Much Ado Here is the review of the current Shakes & Co.MUCH ADO in Lenox, written for the on-line magazine AisleSay. The Web site is http://www.escape.com/~theanet.AisleSay.html Much Ado About Nothing: Main Stage The Shakespeare and Company main stage production of "Much Ado About Nothing" is so close to perfection that it is almost impious to attempt to dissect it. It is an organic whole, a living thing, and the appropriate response is simply applause. Director Tina Packer has been working with this text and this stage and this company for what amounts to an artistic lifetime, and the sum of all that experience adds up to a "Much Ado" that should be seen, savored, and cherished in the memory forever. Lighting designer Michael Giannitti has bathed the Company's outdoor stage with magic beams. In the ceremonial scenes, set and costume designer John Pennoyer has devised a Watteau-inspired wealth of detail stretching into the grove's leafy distance as far as the eye can travel. Packer and choreographer Susan Dibble have plotted the actors' movement through this space as one vast dance, while miraculously maintaining an impression of naturalness and spontaneity. In Ariel Bock's Beatrice and Jonathan Epstein 's Benedicke the production has a quarreling couple as downright and witty as one could wish. They display a full set of foibles along with their abundant charm. But they are clearly creatures who, seeing at a slant, also see farther and deeper than their friends -- and they are clearly born to love each other. The peculiar virtue of this production is its balance. It is almost unfair to single out any particular actor for praise. Each of them, down to the smallest of the children swelling the crowd scenes, contributes exactly as much as is appropriate to enrich the whole, and not an ego-drop more. This is the sort of seamless ensemble theatre lovers dream about, the kind that takes years to assemble. The clowns of the Watch, led by Jonathan Croy 's Dogberry and Timothy Saukiavicus 's Verges, are funny because they are honestly trying to do a neighborly job; and even funnier because they don't resort to extraneous shtick to cue the audience's laughter. The relationship between Hero (Kristin Wold) and Claudio (Allyn Burrows) is the subject of "Much Ado"'s main plot, and for once these usually shallow figures have dimensionality. The pair's pain and rage at betrayal is given full emotional weight, even at the risk of making their eventual reconciliation impossible. It is the power of music and ritual that allows them to forgive and forget, in a stunning graveyard scene of mystical transmutation. Packer stages it to resemble emblems out of the middle ages: the scourging of a saint, the consecration of a knight, a baptism. Count Claudio is stripped of rank and raiment while a choir sings, and then, wrapped in white for the wedding that -- because he has surrendered his self will and his power to choose, and sworn to cherish his wife whoever she may be -- symbolizes his rebirth. The sole oddity in this superlative but quite traditional production grows out of the director's focus on the "silencing" of women in "a society where women have power only through their alliance with powerful men." Packer has decided that in the place of the bastard brother Don John, the character of the aggrieved sibling who is embittered and jealous of Don Pedro's monopoly of the family's wealth and power should be a sister, Donna Gianna. Corinna May plays this virago with a cracking bullwhip and a blood-curdling snarl. Ms. May's skill makes the director's notion plausible, though not persuasive. Destroying the reputation and the life of Hero, a young woman who has never harmed her, breaking up Claudio's marriage simply because Claudio is one of her resented brother's buddies: this seems a pretty roundabout way for a villain to punish her brother. Whether John or Gianna, Shakespeare might have given him/her a speech or two more by way of justification. But suppose those speeches had Edmund the Bastard's eloquence? "Much Ado" would be "About Something Else", and the play would have to end not in a double wedding and a dance but as "Lear" does, in a heap of dead bodies. Surely it is to consider too curiously to consider so? Donna Gianna is led on in chains at the end , her face bruised and bloody. Shakespeare has his villain disappear once the plot is set in motion,. The best comment on that is Benedicke's : "Play, music...think not on him (or her?) until tomorrow." G.L.Horton Newton, MA, USA ghorton@tiac.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 09:34:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0655 Re: Conferences; Graduate Programs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0655. Wednesday, 30 August 1995. (1) From: Jack Lynch Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 09:09:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Conferences (2) From: Christine R. Gray Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 09:17:18 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Grad. Programs (3) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 10:46:25 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0652 Re: Grad. Programs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Lynch Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 09:09:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Conferences TT: I am a PhD candidate in English at Northwestern University, specializing in the Renaissance. I am just becoming interested in delivering conference papers, and could use some help finding all the good places to find calls for conference papers. At Penn, we maintain the closest thing to a standard list of calls for papers on-line -- we collect every announcement that comes through E-mail we can find, and add some that appear only on paper. If you can use the gopher, point it at gopher.english.upenn.edu and follow the entries for "Announcements" (2), then "Calls for Papers" (4), then your period. If you have a Web browswer, point it at http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/research.html which is my big list of literary resources; for each period, you'll find a link to the appropriate Calls for Papers entry. TT: Also, do most of the conferences in which Shakespeare is prominent post messages to this listserv, or not? Most of them do. We invite members of this list to inform us of Calls for Papers we've missed -- send a message to english-help@english.upenn.edu and we'll add it to the list. -- Jack Lynch; jlynch@english.upenn.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine R. Gray Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 09:17:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Grad. Programs My area of research is not Shakespeare--I simply like this list. But I wanted to put in my .02's worth on the discussion of graduate programs. I received my PhD from the University of Maryland and was very, very happy there. I don't know how the dept. is in regard to Shakespeare these days. I do, however, know that the TA program is excellent and that students with an MA often get their own sections of Intro to Shakespeare. And, of course, both the Library of Congress and the Folger are about ten miles away. christine gray (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 10:46:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0652 Re: Grad. Programs I agree with Bruce Young's comment that not much attention has been paid to Ms. Erika Lin's request for info about background reading. However, while I think that Mr. Young's list of Shakespearean readings is *excellent,* unless Ms. Lin gets into a Department of Shakespeare Studies that I've never heard of the list is slightly narrow in focus. I want to be clear, here: a WONDERFUL list for getting started on Shakespeare, but there's a lot of other stuff to deal with in early grad school too. When I started a few years back we were still laboring under the yoke of deconstruction and its attendant cloudy vocabulary. (Are we still so laboring? I'm never sure.) Other names and terms get thrown about in a kind of intellectual terrorism that was, for me, an unhappy experience. Here are a few titles of books, with explanations. Ladies and Gentlemen: whaddya think? (The list isn't alphabetized because I'm making it up as I go along.) Anything that shouldn't be here? Anything crucial that I've missed? Jonathan Culler's ON DECONSTRUCTION. So much clearer than anything else. Frank Lentricchia's AFTER THE NEW CRITICISM. Invaluable quasi-history, theory primer. Greenblatt & Gunn's REDRAWING THE BOUNDARIES put out by the MLA. A good introduction to the professionalism aspects of the profession. Lentricchia and McLaughlin's (eds) CRITICAL TERMS FOR LITERARY STUDY (2nd edition recently released). Monumentally and obviously useful. David H. Richter's THE CRITICAL TRADITION: CLASSIC TEXTS AND CONTEMPORARY TRENDS. The best collection of "everything you wanted to know and all those articles you can't find" I've seen. By my desk always. Dictionaries: Chris Baldick's CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF LITERARY TERMS. Whatever the most recent edition of M. H. Abrams' GLOSSARY OF LITERARY TERMS is out there. Richard Lanham's HANDLIST OF RHETORICAL TERMS. Lacey's classic DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY. For non-exclusively bardolatrous Renaissance drama: Braunmuller and Hattaway's CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ENGLISH RENAISSANCE DRAMA. After you have some theory under your belt, Terry Eagleton's LITERARY THEORY: AN INTRODUCTION will be useful. I don't think it's a great place to start, though. Finally, and this will probably sound peculiar, I'd read David Lodge's novel SMALL WORLD. Yes! It's a parody (and a good one), but it gives the flavor of things like the MLA conference and others in a way that no dry essay can. That's all I can think of right now. Erika, good luck! Sincerely, Brad Berens ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 10:09:10 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0656 Re: Puns Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0656. Wednesday, 30 August 1995. (1) From: Martin Green Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 16:45:06 -0400 Subj: Re: Puns (2) From: Piers Lewis Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 12:19:50 -0600 Subj: Re: insults, innuendo, ad hominem attacks (3) From: John Lee Date: Wednesday, 30 Aug 1995 10:53:38 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: Puns (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Green Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 16:45:06 -0400 Subject: Re: Puns I am truly puzzled by John Drakakis' posting on puns, and would appreciate any help he can offer toward understanding his thought on this subject. I have five points of puzzlement: 1. JD writes that "playing with words for a humorous effect (one of the definitions of the 'pun') depends upon a normative linguistic stability." Well, doesn't all oral and written communication depend upon "normative linguistic stability" [which I assume to mean something like "sounds having a generally agreed-upon meaning"]? And if this is true of all speech, what is special, or meaningful, about this statement, as it pertains to puns? 2. Why does JD focus upon the "humorous effect" of some puns? The content/content pun which occasioned the recent postings on puns is not a humorous pun; rather it is a pun which, by making operable the several meanings of words having the same sound, or spelling, extends and deepens the meaning of the sentence in which the word is found. Shakespeare uses such puns to a very great extent and, the Sonnets, in particular, have a great many such puns. 3. JD continues: "The question I am posing is what effect might be produced at a time when that stability and standardization of meaning has yet to come fully into being." Well, if "stability and standardization of meaning" has not come "fully" into being, then there can be no pun, intended or discernible, with respect to words having no generally-agreed upon meaning. [But NB: language changes, and sometimes puns intended and discerned in one era are not perceived in a later era, e.g., "Loves her by the foot." "He may not by the yard." LLL, v, 2 676] 4. JD goes on: "Where multiple meanings are constantly in play, then the effects must also be multiple." But multiple meanings are NOT constantly in play, because a speaker or writer has to be purposeful and artful to craft sentences which enable one word to bear two or more meanings. [Sometimes, to be sure, people do this by accident, and then, realizing what they've done, usually say, "No pun intended."] Thus, the "hang" in "We shall hang the clothes out to dry in the yard" has one meaning only (as does also the "yard"), whereas the "hang's" in "We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately" are put together in a way purposefully to invoke two separate meanings. 5. JD concludes: "I am asking a question about cultural differences which the simple label 'pun' masks." This seems to me to be a complete non sequitur, and thus gets to the heart of my puzzlement, for I cannot grasp what it is that has gone before which leads to this conclusion. Cultural differences? How so? And how masked by puns? And what is the "New Bibliography"? Since I am very interested in puns (especially as used by Shakespeare), I would appreciate any help you might be able to offer. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Piers Lewis Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 12:19:50 -0600 Subject: Re: insults, innuendo, ad hominem attacks I thought name-calling and other forms of insulting language had been ruled out of order on this list. Piers Lewis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lee Date: Wednesday, 30 Aug 1995 10:53:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: Puns In reply to Drakakis At the risk of being labelled neanderthal, I confess I still don't understand this simple point about puns ... > Playing with words for a humorous effect (one of the definitions of the "pun") > depends upon a normative linguistic stability. What does normative linguistic stability mean, please? Does linguistic stability refer to the attempted standardization of grammar and spelling? Presumably so, as language is never stable &c. But then what does normative mean? Is it being used as a nuance word, to imply that linguistic stability is bad (which it would be, if it existed)? And can the suggestion really be that playing with words wasn't done before the standardization of grammar and spelling? That oral cultures, or Chaucer, for instance, don't play with words? > The question I am posing is what effect might be produced at a time when > that stability and standardization of meaning has yet to come fully into > being. Again this looses me, as I don't really understand 'that stability' and can't imagine a time when 'standardization of _meaning_' has come fully into being. > Where multiple meanings are constantly in play, then the effects > must also be multiple. When aren't multiple meanings in play? They're clearly at play here... And why _must_ multiple meanings have multiple 'effects'? (effects being humour, irony and so forth?) > I am asking a question about cultural difference which the simple > label "pun" masks. Which question? That writers of the English Renaissance don't perceive the pun as a playful aspect of language, but rather as maleable/useful aspect? So that we, in taking the pun playfully, reveal our distance and difference from them, as we read into the past what is not there? What of people such as Puttenham in this context? What book should I read? Confusedly, John Lee ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 10:14:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0657 Re: *WT* Production; Shakespeare and Company Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0657. Wednesday, 30 August 1995. (1) From: Charles Crupi Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 16:22:57 +0000 (EASTERN) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0642 Re: *WT* Production (2) From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Wednesday, 30 Aug 1995 03:34:56 -0400 Subj: Shakespeare and Company (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Crupi Date: Tuesday, 29 Aug 1995 16:22:57 +0000 (EASTERN) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0642 Re: *WT* Production To Dale Lyles: Just so you know you are not alone, I am directing WT at Albion College in February. And yes, it's scary. --Charles Crupi (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Wednesday, 30 Aug 1995 03:34:56 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare and Company I have drafted and will soon send my letter of support for Shakespeare and Company. Though it is not one of the theaters where I have performed Shakespeare, I stage managed there one summer and have fond memories of the place and the people. I hope others will join me in supporting this company. Their current plight is a cautionary tale for everyone who has to navigate the hazards of arts funding and some background history is instructive. When Tina Packer was looking in the late seventies for a place to house her projected theater troupe she happened upon Edith Wharton's old summer home with spacious grounds in The Berkshires. It was on the market because the previous tenant, the all-girl Foxhollow School, had gone bankrupt in 1971 or '72 and the building had been standing idle for years. It might as easily have been taken over by a developer, knocked down, and replaced with a subdivision, but Packer was able to strike a deal. Her company built an outdoor stage near the house and set out to bring Shakespeare to the community and to the area's many summer visitors. Though the actors and tech crew pitched in to renovate the large old house it was clear that it needed more work than the fledgling theater company could afford to give it. The funding that was available for historic buildings could not be granted to a non-profit corporation devoted to the production of theater, so Packer's associates, Dennis Krausnick and Mitch Berenson, created another non-profit corporation in '79 or '80 devoted to restoring and maintaining the building and grounds. The mortgage was assigned to The National Trust for Historic Preservation and the house was placed on the Historic Register about 1982. The new group's board of local amateur preservationists set to work conducting guided tours about the newly designated "Historic Building" and beating the government and foundation bushes for restoration money so that Packer and her colleagues could get on with the business of putting on plays and training actors. Mind you, had it not been for the theater company, the building would not have come under the protection of the National Trust and might well have perished. "Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc." proved as grateful and hospitable to its parent as Goneril and Regan. Its board members, bigger fans of dead buildings and brick-a-brack than of living theater and actors, soon decided that the best improvement they could make to the mansion would be to rid it of those pesky actors. By the time I arrived in 1984 the tension between the theater company and the preservationists was already serious. I stage managed two plays by and about Edith Wharton in the mansion's sitting room. We were at constant logger-heads with the lady who bitterly resented not being able to lead her guided tours across the stage during the performances. I eventually reached an amicable accomodation with her boss, but not before I had to endure the sight of bewildered tourists being ostentatiously sheparded past the French windows in the middle of my show. The most ardent of the preservationists have long wanted to evict the theater company completely and with the help of The National Trust they may finally succeed. The company's "lease" on the space they created is up in three years and if the National Trust isn't persuaded to let them stay they will have to start over somewhere else. Please lend your support! The lesson to all of you who consider incorporating under the byzantine rules that govern non-profits is NEVER CREATE A BOARD YOU CAN'T CONTROL ! I could cite a few other examples in New York and elsewhere of people who built theaters out of nothing and then found themselves fighting, too often unsuccessfully, to control or even survive in their own creations. Prospective theater founders, take heed! To help out, address letters to: Frank Sanchis, VP National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20036 and send them to Washington or to Shakespeare and Company, The Mount, Lenox, MA 01240 for forwarding. If you have never had the pleasure of sitting under the stars and watching this company do Shakespeare trust me - this is a troupe worth saving! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 17:22:32 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0658 Re: Puns; Graduate Programs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0658. Thursday, 31 August 1995. (1) From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 30 Aug 1995 12:26 ET Subj: puns (2) From: Erika Lin Date: Thursday, 31 Aug 1995 10:18:29 -0700 Subj: Re: Graduate Programs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 30 Aug 1995 12:26 ET Subject: puns I, too, found John Drakakis' volley on puns dracoconian (pun intended); a temperate reminder of the possibility of our projecting modern interpretations on any particular term (e.g. content/content) and the corresponding responsbility tocheck available linguistic resources (dictionaries, concordances) before using the interpretation in an argument would seem to have been sufficient--and avoided overstating the instability of early modern English. Temperately, Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Erika Lin Date: Thursday, 31 Aug 1995 10:18:29 -0700 Subject: Re: Graduate Programs Dear Fellow SHAKSPER-eans, A very hearty thanks to all of you who have contributed your thoughts in response to my request for advice about graduate study! I really appreciate the moral support you've shown in addition to the more practical assistance. All the advice has been very good, and the more I get, the better, as far as I'm concerned. As far as my own background goes, I'm afraid my first posting was a little confusing. I received my B.A. in English from U.C.-Berkeley in May of 1994, but I am not currently enrolled in the M.A. program here. I decided to take a year or two off from school, and I have been working as a staff member here at the university. As an undergraduate, literary theory was not a part of the standard curriculum, so my request for helpful books and advice in that regard is to aid in making up for some of those deficiencies. Again, thanks to all of you who have responded to my request. I really appre- ciate it, and I will keep you posted as to what happens. Sincerely, Erika Lin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 17:27:34 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0659 CFP; Michigan Festival Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0659. Thursday, 31 August 1995. (1) From: T. Scott Clapp Date: Wednesday, 30 Aug 1995 11:22:27 -0700 (MST) Subj: Call for Papers (2) From: Ronald Dwelle Date: Wednesday, 30 Aug 95 14:44:39 EST Subj: Michigan Festival (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: T. Scott Clapp Date: Wednesday, 30 Aug 1995 11:22:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: Call for Papers Call For Papers The Future of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance Problems, Trends, and Opportunities in Research February 15-17, 1996 ACMRS at Arizona State University invites papers for its second annual interdisciplinary conference on Medieval and Renaissance studies on the general topic of problems and new directions in the study of the Middle Ages and Early Modern period. Possible session topics include, but are not restricted to: problems of interdisciplinarity integrating literature and history local history versus period history copyright and technology textual studies the new philology politics and agendas of disciplines the future of Med/Ren studies in art history, history, literature, religion, economics, etc. While we want a broad spectrum of area studies represented, we are particularly interested in papers on Scandinavian, Baltic/East European, Judaic, and Mediterranean Studies. There will also be a number of open sessions. Papers accepted for sessions on Mediterranean Studies will have passed the first level of review for publication in the journal Mediterranean Studies, sponsored by the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, the Medieval and Renaissance Colloquium (MARC) at the University of Michigan, and ACMRS at Arizona State University. ACMRS will also host The Medieval Book: A Workshop in Codicological Practice. This pre-conference half-day workshop led by Richard Clement, University of Kansas, will focus on the making of the medieval codex. Participants will discuss the preparation of parchment and paper, the making of pens and ink, and then will make and prepare several quires in preparation for writing. NOTE: This workshop does not cover scripts and is not calligraphic. This year's keynote speaker will be Marcia Colish, Oberlin College. The conference will be held at the Radisson Mission Palms Hotel, two blocks from the ASU campus in Tempe, a suburb of Phoenix, Arizona. The high temperature in the "Valley of the Sun" during February averages 70 degrees. Proposals for sessions and detailed abstracts or complete papers will be accepted beginning July 1, 1995. The deadline is November 1, 1995. Please send two copies of your abstract, paper and/or session proposal, along with two copies of your c.v., to the program committee chair: Robert E. Bjork, Director, ACMRS, Arizona State University, Box 872301, Tempe, AZ 85287-2301. Email: atreb@asuvm.inre.asu.edu. Phone: (602) 965-5900. Fax: (602) 965-1681. T. Scott Clapp, Program Coordinator ACMRS (AZ Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies) Arizona State University Box 872301 Tempe, AZ 85287-2301 Phone: (602) 965-5900; FAX: (602) 965-1681 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronald Dwelle Date: Wednesday, 30 Aug 95 14:44:39 EST Subject: Michigan Festival Grand Valley State University in Allendale, Michigan (just outside Grand Rapids) is holding its second annual Shakespeare Festival, September 22 to October 1, 1994. Romeo & Juliet will be produced, acted by college students and two pros. We'll have a number of film showings, with discussions of film/theater differences. There'll be garden performances of scenes and Shakespeare spin-offs. Jean Howard will be lecturing and visiting classes. Some Renaissance music and a Renaissance dinner finale. Please stop in, if you're in the area. I can send a full schedule by snail mail to anyone who is interested. ron dwelle (dweller@gvsu.edu) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 17:52:16 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0660 Shakespeare Movies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0660. Thursday, 31 August 1995. From: David Reinheimer Date: Wednesday, 30 Aug 1995 14:28:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Shakespeare Movies In class today, one of my students told me about a blurb in the present issue of _Entertainment Weekly_ on two movies to be released in December. One is the Fishburne/Branagh _Othello_; much to the relief of some members of the list (remembering the shock expressed a few months ago) Uma Thurman apparently will not be Desdemona, but rather Irene Clark will play the role (I didn't see the article, so I'm not entirely sure on this). The other is a version of Richard III_, which, following the "let's-cast-Americans-to-get-people- in-the-seats" trend, includes Annette Benig and Robert Downey, Jr. in the cast; again, I didn't see the article, so I don't know what roles they're playing. These movies are due to be released on the 15th and 22nd of December. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 14:54:46 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0661 Questions and Comments Regarding Grad/Undergrad Teaching Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0661. Friday, 1 September 1995. (1) From: Thomas Ellis Date: Thursday, 31 Aug 1995 23:20:48 -0400 (EDT) Subj: (Q) Intros to U-G Shx Classes (2) From: J. M. Massi Date: Friday, 1 Sep 1995 10:36:48 -0700 Subj: Shakespeare on the Web (3) From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Friday, 1 Sep 95 11:06 EDT Subj: A forwarded request for help (4) From: David Lindley Date: Friday, 1 Sep 1995 16:52:27 GMT Subj: Re: Grad. Programs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Ellis Date: Thursday, 31 Aug 1995 23:20:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: (Q) Intros to U-G Shx Classes Since fall semester is starting up, I'd be interested in hearing from others how they plan to introduce Shakespeare to their undergraduate classes. In my own case, I teach all African-American students, who mostly begin by taking the class only as a requirement to get out of the way before moving on to their more contemporary scholarly interests. I'm happy to say that by mid-semester, most of them have become enthusiastic Shakespeare aficionados, though at least 99% of that enthusiasm is due to their encounter with the plays themselves, rather than to any particular approaches I might use. Still, it's an interesting question: What is your opening gambit, your "take" on Shakespeare? What strategies do you use to hook the students and galvanize their interest on the first day? Why have some such gambits succeeded, and others not? And more particularly, how would you teach Shakespeare to a class of all African-Americans, who arrive with an already well-developed suspicion of the European "Grand Tradition" of which Shakespeare is the central icon. --Tom Ellis Hampton University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: J. M. Massi Date: Friday, 1 Sep 1995 10:36:48 -0700 Subject: Shakespeare on the Web Dear Colleagues: I am teaching two upper-division Shakespeare classes this semester and have mounted a series of pages for them to the World Wide Web. The pages have had to go up pretty quickly, so I know there may well be mistakes in them; I am hoping that anyone interested in the Web out there or in Web-based pedagogy will have a look at them and send along any comments. The URL is as follows: http:\\www.wsu.edu:8080\~massij\shakes.html I would greatly appreciate any response or criticism to these pages. Many thanks! JM Massi, WSU Dept. of English, Pullman, WA 99164-5020 Internet: massij@mail.wsu.edu OR massi@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ellen Edgerton Date: Friday, 1 Sep 95 11:06 EDT Subject: A forwarded request for help This fellow is going to be teaching a class on *H5* in the very near future and needs some leads on how to address the following issues in his class. (I also gave him info on how to sign up to SHAKSPER himself, as I don't believe he's a member.) Can anyone help him out? > . My task is to: > > 1. locate one or two pieces of primary/secondary criticism of a film > performance of the play > > 2. Write 250 words focusing the class on the theoretical/pedagogical issue > as part of a pedagogical strategy > > 3. Compile a one-page annotated bibliography related to the teaching of th > play. > Gerard T. Coash, Sr. (Jerry) > jercoash@indirect.com > or jerry.coash@asu.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Friday, 1 Sep 1995 16:52:27 GMT Subject: Re: Grad. Programs The recent discussion about choosing graduate programmes has been an interesting one to observe from the UK. I realise that UK universities traditionally have not offered the kind of integrated Ph.D programme that is characteristic of US graduate schools; in my job as MA Tutor for Admissions here at Leeds I am also aware of how very few US students apply to us to work either at taught masters or at Ph.D levels. Oxbridge and London have their own attraction (however well or ill justified), but I suspect that we are not alone in failing to attract students - and certainly there have been scarcely any suggestions offered on the list that aspiring Renaissance scholars might look towards the UK for their postgraduate education. I'd simply be interested in any observations on why this should be so - and indications of what we need to do to make ourselves more attractive to American postgraduates. We are, after all, not short of outstanding scholars and potential supervisors in this area. David Lindley ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 14:56:56 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0662 Q: American Players Theatre Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0662. Friday, 1 September 1995. From: David R. Maier Date: Friday, 1 Sep 1995 11:22:57 -0700 Subject: American Players Theatre/Spring Green It has been quite some time since I have heard anything about the American Players Theatre in Spring Green, Wisconsin. Does anyone know of its current status? I am also interested in its history, mission and plans for the future. David Maier ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 08:21:36 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0663 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0663. Monday, 4 September 1995. (1) From: Harry Hill Date: Friday, 01 Sep 1995 17:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0661 Questions Regarding Grad/Undergrad Teaching (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 01 Sep 1995 22:03:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0661 Questions Regarding Grad/Undergrad Teaching (3) From: Grant Moss Date: Saturday, 2 Sep 1995 10:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0661 Questions Regarding Grad/Undergrad Teaching (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Friday, 01 Sep 1995 17:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0661 Questions Regarding Grad/Undergrad Teaching Opening gambit of a Shakespeare course? I tell them first off that "thou" and "thee" are not hifalutin stuff, by totally *familiar*, and use the examle --which always surprises them verty much-- of the Christian prayer "Our Father.....hallowed by Thy name", in which we are NOT approaching the deity as a far distant paterfamilias but as an immediate indwelling parent. That over, the whispering and humming and praying having died down, I take them through a few speeches from almost anything S wrote and ask them why they think that's lasted this long in so many hearts and minds. The answers come thick and fast, they teaching themselves in the process, and the course begins on the next class with a look at the theatre and its traditions in that society at that time, and how different from ours it is... yet [snore,snore...] how similar. I heard Harold Bloom on CBC Radio here yesterday, from New York, relating how *he* teaches Shakespeare at Yale. Anyone have any thoughts on this, which is made clear in his chapter on Shakespeare in *The Western Canon*? Harry Hill Concordia University, Montreal (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 01 Sep 1995 22:03:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0661 Questions Regarding Grad/Undergrad Teaching Dear Thomas Ellis-- I too am open to suggestions (this being only my third semester of undergrad teaching, and in a similar pedagogical situation as yours). I tend to start by asking students to write in 5-10 mins. their prejudices, or previous impressions knowledge of what Shakespeare means, is, represents, etc (because unlike just about any other writer Sh is known, at least to some extent, by ALL---though maybe that will change--it hasn't yet!). This allows me a way to find out what they need as well as geting them to talk (I save the discussion for the second day of class) to each other as much as me--so I get to play moderator for awhile. Issues of prejudice don't come up as much at first. I guess it depends on which plays to use---I guess the obvious ones on prejudice and outsiders would be MV, Othello, Tempest-- but one need not be obvious. One could appeal to BOTTOM, FLASTAFF, DOGBERRY to address the same things. And I'm also trying NOT to take students "suspicion" of Shakespeare for granted. I used to, but found myself not reaching students ironically because I was TRYING to reach them "too much." Of course i can't assume they will accept Shakespeare carte-blanche either---You claim that you think it was "the plays themselves" rather than any teaching method you employed. I think you're selling yourself short, and claiming a spurious transparency....I had teachers make me HATE Shakespeare--- I think Shakespeare as a TEXT does "help" the teacher in ways other texts don't---which is why, of course, I want to continue to teach Shakespeare--but I feel that it is YOU who helps make it vivid by making connections with contemporary issues (and not the OTHELLO is O.J. SIMPSON one per se--though i guess that could be useful at times). I also used to think I had to heavily weigh my course to comedies out of fear the women in the class wouldn't realize the lion was really Snug the joiner..... Just some thoughts, chris stroffolino (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Grant Moss Date: Saturday, 2 Sep 1995 10:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0661 Questions Regarding Grad/Undergrad Teaching Re Thomas Ellis' inquiry about teaching Shakespeare to undergraduates, I've had some success with beginning by discussing and examining the notion that Shakespeare is the center of the Western Civ canon. Asking them (as a discussion question and/or a writing assignment) *why* they think Shakespeare became the center of the canon--what is it about these works that particularly appealed to this culture? This can often draw a resistant or hesitant student into the discussion. And while many of them may still not like Shakespeare very much, at least they are engaging in the study of the texts. Grant Moss UNC-Chapel Hill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 08:36:23 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0664 Re: APT; Movies; *H5*; Puns Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0664. Monday, 4 September 1995. (1) From: John Boni Date: Friday, 1 Sep 1995 14:47:05 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0662 Q: American Players Theatre (2) From: John Chapot Date: Friday, 1 Sep 1995 19:42:17 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0660 Shakespeare Movies (3) From: Laurie White Date: Saturday, 02 Sep 1995 10:16:13 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0661 Questions Regarding Grad/Undergrad Teaching (4) From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 04 Sep 1995 10:10:56 -0100 Subj: SHK 6.0656 Re: Puns (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Friday, 1 Sep 1995 14:47:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0662 Q: American Players Theatre I attended two performances of this season's APT repertoire, on Sunday, August 20--*Twelfth Night*, and *Henry V*. It was a a very hot day at their outdoor theater, so much so that when a heavy cloak was thrown on Feste to disguise him, the audience groaned in sympathy for the actor. Severals years ago I attended a very good production of *Othello* in similar heat there. More important, I found both this year's productions competent. The same actor who played Sir Toby in the afternoon was Henry V in the evening. To me, that was a stretch for him, one he accommodated rather well. However, the interpretation of H5 was for me a bit of a problem. Henry went from the bloody leader to the very conversational lover or friend (with his close male associates). I think the attempt was congruent with the contemporary reading of the play's strong ironies, a reading I share. But somehow for me it didn't entirely come together. (Had I liked it, I could have said "It worked," one of our great cant critical phrases.) The *Twelfth Night* for me was a sensitive revisiting of a play I hadn't seen in eight or more years. It had an excellent actress as Viola/Orsino, and an amazing look-alike (aided by costuming) as her brother. The performer playing Maria was rather good, too. During the interplay among Maria, Andrew, Toby, and Fabian, I at times thought of the recent SHAKSPER thread about the difficulty of playing 16th-17th century comedy and the efforts directors employ. I was pleased at both productions, and the whipoorwill in the trees during a battle scene in H5 only added to the pleasure. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Chapot Date: Friday, 1 Sep 1995 19:42:17 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0660 Shakespeare Movies Dont fret about Annette Benning in any classical role. She excelled for the American Conservatory Theatre here during the 1980s as Lady MacBeth, Titania, the ingenue in Moliere's School for Wives and many other roles. She's smart, trained and talented. John Chapot San Francisco (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laurie White Date: Saturday, 02 Sep 1995 10:16:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0661 Questions Regarding Grad/Undergrad Teaching I am just finishing teaching HV to a Freshman Seminar of Honors students. My course in entitled "Brits Go to the Movies" and includes HV along with _Frankenstein_, _A Christmas Carol_, _A Room with a View_, and _Reamins of the Day_. I have taught this class twice before, and I think it still works: that is, I think focusing the students on the film to come at the end of the text analysis enlivens them a bit. In fact, sophisticated film reviews and criticism are a wonderful way to talk about the play. Film reviewers of HV must bring in the play, of course, and do it from an interesting angle. Here are two good essays on the Olivier version: James Agee, "Henry V" in _Agee on Film: Volume I (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, Inc., 1958), pp. 209-12. Bosley Crowther, "Henry V" in _The Great Films: Fifty Years of Motion Pictures_ by Bosley Crowther (New York: G.P., Putnams's Sons, 1967), pp. 165-68. --Laurie White UNCGreensboro (WHITEL@steffi.uncg.edu) (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 04 Sep 1995 10:10:56 -0100 Subject: SHK 6.0656 Re: Puns John Lee and Martin Green raise a series of interesting questions regarding puns. My original simple point was that the pun is a mark of linguistic instability in what is otherwise a field of normative stability. Perhaps I should try to specify the context for this assertion. I am thinking particularly about the ways in which in the modern world we fix meanings as in dictionary definitions, standardized spellings etc. I want at this stage to refrain from embracing the deconstructionist notion of the radical undecidability of all language, even though generally, this is the result of a particular, and, I think, rather partial, reading of Derrida. My concern is not to argue for or against linguistic stability ( John Lee's question), but to try to locate and explain a set of historical phenomena which are inimical to the linguistic processes with which we are familiar. Martin Green is right in that not all puns are humorous, but I think that he needs to take this observation along with the inconsistencies of spelling that we find in renaissance theatrical texts. If he looks AT the material of a theatrical text, and not through it to some locatable meaning beyond it, then he will find that deciding on what is a conscious playing with words is not quite so simple a matter. Green seems to confuse pun and metaphor at one point in his reply, and he continues to assume that theatrical texts are truthful records of stage speech, and that stage speech is dominated by an intending presence. The New Bibliography raises some questions about this. May I suggest that Green and Lee look at the debate in the last 2 issues of Textual Practice, but also Stephen Orgel's contribution to the Stallybrass/Kastan STAGING THE RENAISSANCE raises similar questions. Margretta de Grazia's work, epsecially her article (written jointly with Stallybrass in SQ recently on "The Materiality of Shakespeare's Text", and the Holderness, Loughry, Murphy reply in Textual Practice 9.1 will help to provide a context for my question. From there it would be useful to return to the quartos and Folio texts of Shakespeare and to ask specific questions about the actual spellings encountered there. I am not suggesting that we dispense with the category of puns altogether, or that somehow renaissance writers always played with language without realizing it. The question of how CONSCIOUS this kind of writing was is a vexed one and is well beyond the scope of this present discussion. What I am saying is that given the current debate on what is now referred to as "the materiality" of the text we may well need to revise our view. That is what I meant when I suggested that the simple labelling "pun" masks a whole range of textual practices which, if we atend to them closely, will not allow us to collapse cultural difference into sameness. Cheers John Drakakis University of Stirling ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 08:41:19 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0665 Re: Graduate Study in UK Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0665. Monday, 4 September 1995. (1) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Saturday, 02 Sep 1995 08:58:43 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0661 Questions Regarding Grad/Undergrad Teaching (2) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Sunday, 3 Sep 1995 19:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: [Graduate Study in UK] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Saturday, 02 Sep 1995 08:58:43 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0661 Questions Regarding Grad/Undergrad Teaching In response to David Lindley at Leeds, I would venture to say that the reason a lot of gradute level students from the United States do not apply to programs in the UK is largely financial. I studied in the UK for a year as an undergraduate and met some brave American souls who, being inelligable for grants in the UK, ventured to pay their own way. It was difficult for them. I, for one, would love to continue my higher education abroad (and certainly in the UK). If you know of ways to make that financially feasible, I would love to hear about them. Shirley Kagan University of Hawaii (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Sunday, 3 Sep 1995 19:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Graduate Study in UK] David: One reason would be that foreign student tuition is quite high. Ruled out British schools for me, I'm afraid. Cheers, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 08:44:21 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0666 ABELL Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0666. Monday, 4 September 1995. From: ABELL Date: Monday, 04 Sep 1995 09:43:34 BST Subject: English Bibliography information Dear Colleague: This message is being mailed to all English scholars who expressed an interest in our project in the last 6 months (don't worry, it's not the beginning of an avalanche of mail). I apologise for any duplication or if this is no longer of interest to you, but would encourage you to forward it to colleagues whom you think would be interested. *************************************************************************** * Annual Bibliography of English Language & Literature On-Line * * News * *************************************************************************** 21 August 1995 -------------- The Modern Humanities Research Association's _Annual Bibliography of English Language & Literature On-Line_ now contains records of scholarly articles, doctoral dissertations, books and reviews for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993. More than 30 000 records are now available for searching. Subscription information ------------------------ _ABELL On-Line_ is currently available to all bona fide members of subscribing institutions. If you represent an academic institution and would like details of how to subscribe, please send an e-mail message to abell@ula.cam.ac.uk with the subject line SUB INFO REQUEST. If you are a student, researcher or faculty member, please contact your librarian or information services adviser to ascertain if your institution already subscribes to _ABELL_. I will be glad to forward subscription details to your institution as required. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gerard Lowe abell@ula.cam.ac.uk Editor, ABELL gml1004@cus.cam.ac.uk (MIME ok) MHRA http://www.hull.ac.uk/Hull/FR_Web/abell.html University Library West Road Cambridge CB3 9DR UK --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 08:20:10 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0667 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0667. Tuesday, 5 September 1995. (1) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 4 Sep 1995 14:30:21 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0663 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (2) From: Bob Roth Date: Monday, 4 Sep 1995 15:57:07 -0400 Subj: Shakespeare for Generation X Students (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 4 Sep 1995 14:30:21 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0663 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates I think that the purpose of the first class is like a first rehearsal, a way to get to the second on e. After the opening administrivia and a get aquainted exercise that gets them to supply a little personal information [in pairs, each one is introduced by her neighbour] I start the first class with a story. The narrative is that my husband and I have just returned from a weekend at the cottage and are eating in a local restaurant. I take them through the countryside - from horse back to gibbets, to the resturant as in " fish yes chips no [potatoes not known], music perhaps " etc then sometimes into our house and always to our professions as university teachers. The point there is that I could not teach or attend Oxford or Cambridge being a woman and neither could Jack as a Jew. Takes about 20 minutes. It introduces them to me and to the context of what we are studying as a place/time strange to us yet accessible in some ways. Then we start a little bit on more formal things like education, social structures etc - and onto the theatre. This year that part will be enriched by materials and photographs from a visit to Globe a-building on the Thames. This year will be my thirtieth to heaven teaching Shakespeare and as Bloom said it's still food for the spirit. Even in the middle of the chaos of first week of classes - Aren't we lucky? Mary Jane Miller (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Roth Date: Monday, 4 Sep 1995 15:57:07 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare for Generation X Students I tell my students that Bill Shakespeare has just been waiting for them to come along. For those who fancy themselves as existential thinkers I offer them Hamlet and King Lear. I inform them that Shakespeare wrote about sex, love, sex, death, sex, torture, sex and more sex. By now they are starting to pay attention. I assign them various scenes from Macbeth, Lear and Hamlet to read in front of the class. Some students get into costume, bring Elizabethan foods to class and do entire stage productions. Bottom line- it WORKS! Bob Roth English Department Los Angeles Valley College ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 08:27:06 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0668 Re: *R3* Film; Shakespeare Movies; Stewart in *Tmp.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0668. Tuesday, 5 September 1995. (1) From: Antonia Forster Date: Monday, 04 Sep 95 13:33:05 EDT Subj: Re: Ian McKellen's _Richard III_ (2) From: Fiona C. Quick Date: Monday, 4 Sep 95 15:21:59 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0660 Shakespeare Movies (3) From: Charles Adler Date: Monday, 04 Sep 1995 18:35:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0641 Re: NYSF -- Stewart in * (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Antonia Forster Date: Monday, 04 Sep 95 13:33:05 EDT Subject: Re: Ian McKellen's _Richard III_ The film of _Richard III_ with Annette Bening and Robert Downey Jr. in the cast is Ian McKellen's thirties version. McKellen said that the plan to cast Americans as the queen and her brother was "a very early idea" and done to emphasise their position as outsiders at court. Antonia Forster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fiona C. Quick Date: Monday, 4 Sep 95 15:21:59 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0660 Shakespeare Movies If anyone is very interested in current Shakespeare movie productions, the Hollywood Reporter magazine weekly International edition lists all films currently in production, in development, and in pre-production. In the past few weeks they have listed the aforementioned films as well as versions of Titus Andronicus, Branagh's Hamlet, another Hamlet, the Romeo & Juliet with Claire Danes, Leonardo DiCaprio and Peter O'Toole as well as one named Othello and Desdemona. If there is enough interest I will go through my back issues and post production information, otherwise the magazine should be available at any newstand that carries Entertainment trade mags like Variety and Broadcasting and Cable. Fiona C. Quick University of Minnesota (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Adler Date: Monday, 04 Sep 1995 18:35:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0641 Re: NYSF -- Stewart in * Yes, NYSF THE TEMPEST with Patrick Stewart is moving to the Brodhurst Theater for 96 performances beginning October 10, 1995. Charles D. Adler CHARLESADLER@Delphi.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 08:30:05 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0669 Q: Pandarus as Castrato Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0669. Tuesday, 5 September 1995. From: Charles Adler Date: Monday, 04 Sep 1995 18:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Pandarus as castrato Last evening I saw the NYSF T&C; a worthwhile production I think although the first time I had seen it performed. I was struck with how naturally the seemingly exaggerated androgyny flowed from the text. Pandarus was masterfully played by Stephan Spinella as an obvious "queen." Yet in III.1 he engages in a very explicit menage a trois with Paris and Helen (complete with geyser like ejaculation), so he is not exclusively homosexual. At the same time, his unthreatening acceptance as "one of the girls" belies a "hard" heterosexual facet. This leads to the thesis I wish to propose: Pandarus is a eunuch. Within several decades of the writing of T&C, castrati were common on the English operatic stage. I believe (although I am without specific sources) that they were eagerly sought as lovers by the aristocracy since, in those pre-contraceptive days and nights they came and left behind nothing but memories. I doubt that operatic castrati could have emerged from nowhere and achieved so ready an acceptance. Also, since castration does not guarantee musical talent, I suspect opera was a sideline and that a community of eunuchs existed and was known to the Elizabethan audience as part of the continuum of human sexuality. (c.f. AWTEW II.3 Laf: "...I would send them to the Turk, to make eunuchs of.") Does anyone know of references to a late XVI century eunuch community? Charles D. Adler CHARLESADLER@Delphi.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:24:39 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0671 Re: Castrati; Bloom; Graduate Programs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0671. Tuesday, 5 September 1995. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 5 Sep 1995 09:55:39 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0669 Q: Pandarus as Castrato (2) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 5 Sep 1995 17:05:08 GMT Subj: Teaching Shakespeare (3) From: Lee A. Jacobus Date: Tuesday, 05 Sep 95 21:05:40 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0652 Re: Grad. Programs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 5 Sep 1995 09:55:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0669 Q: Pandarus as Castrato Surely one does not have to take the radical step of establishing the existence of a 17th century eunuch community to suggest that Pandarus is a castrato and to write a rather charming article about eunuchs in Shakespeare. The idea is wonderful -- there is the charm of novelty, the necessary concern with the "continum of human sexuality" (including, at last, those "cut off untimely,") and a splendid opportunity to point out once again just how wicked those aristocrats were. Sex, power, inclusiveness -- who could ask for anything more? One must begin the article with an anecdote. Something along the lines of Foucault's rendition of the torture and death of Damiens would do splendidly. An account of a castration wouldn't be hard to find; and from there some account of an artistocrat lounging about after an encounter (he could even be smoking tobacco!) and languidly ordering the hanging of a poacher. Then you make your assertion. These eunuchs didn't come from nowhere. Certainly the aristocrats of Shakespeare's day availed themselves of their services. After all there were Turks in Shakespeare's time (here insert the quotation you have already found) and from there the rest is easy -- so much seamlessly flows from Shakespeare's text. Again, a wonderful idea and if you could only establish the suspicion that James was, himself, quite taken with these fellows, an idea sure to become canonical. joseph green gree0072@gold.tc.umn.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 5 Sep 1995 17:05:08 GMT Subject: Teaching Shakespeare Am I the only teacher to be astonished at the admiration Harold Bloom's recent effusion seems to be generating amongst SHAKSPERians? It struck me as appallingly trite, unscholarly and overblown: little more than Leavis and water --or in this case, wind. Fie! T. Hawkes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lee A. Jacobus Date: Tuesday, 05 Sep 95 21:05:40 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0652 Re: Grad. Programs This is to applaud Bill Godshalk's advice about graduate school. I recall sitting in my living room looking at two letters of admission. One was for Stanford and the other for Claremont. I found out that the Huntington Library treated Claremont grad students on a par with visiting scholars, so I chose Claremont. I also found the teacher I thought I would work with spent 3 out of the 4 of my only semesters in grad school in London. So I had the pleasure of learning to work in one of the greatest renaissance libraries in the world. It made graduate school a true joy. When my teacher came back from London we talked most of the time at lunch at the Huntington. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:12:09 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0670 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0670. Tuesday, 5 September 1995. (1) From: Shannon Murray Date: Tuesday, 05 Sep 1995 12:41:03 -0400 (AST) Subj: Shakespeare on the first day (2) From: Fiona C. Quick Date: Tuesday, 5 Sep 95 19:45:13 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0667 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (3) From: Thomas Ellis Date: Tuesday, 05 Sep 1995 21:33:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0667 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shannon Murray Date: Tuesday, 05 Sep 1995 12:41:03 -0400 (AST) Subject: Shakespeare on the first day SHAKSPEReans: I usually begin my first Shakespeare course with the kind of warning we get in Canada before shows like "This Hour has 22 Minutes": This course contains nudity, coarse language, violence, sex, and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised. A little cheap, perhaps, but I need to counteract the attitude most of my students (a culturally homogeneous bunch) come to Shakespeare with: he's dull and he talks funny. The rest of the class is a glance at scenes from the plays we'll look at, with a longer discussion of three takes on the Agincourt speech in HV (the BBC, Branagh, and Olivier versions) . I use the films and give enough of the context for the clips to make some sense, and with each, I introduce the kind of questions that we'll tackle through the term. My objective is to have them leave thinking that Shakespeare is not dull and that if I show them a film version I expect them to think more and not less about the play. I also have a little contest, the prize for which is some kind of Shakespeare thingy (this year a postcard from the Globe reconstruction): usually it's to name the most plays by Shakespeare that they can. I love first days: it's the rest that give me trouble. Shannon Murray (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fiona C. Quick Date: Tuesday, 5 Sep 95 19:45:13 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0667 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates >I tell my students that Bill Shakespeare has just been waiting for them to come >along. For those who fancy themselves as existential thinkers I offer them >Hamlet and >King Lear. I inform them that Shakespeare wrote about sex, love, sex, death, >sex, torture, sex and more sex. By now they are starting to pay attention. I >assign them various scenes from Macbeth, Lear and Hamlet to read in front of >the class. Some students get into costume, bring Elizabethan foods to class and >do entire stage productions. Bottom line- it WORKS! As a member of the so-called Generation X, I feel I must respond to some of the above comments. If you are referring to 17 or 18 year olds, they are not really part of the same generation as I (age 26) and I believe that the "X" label is overgeneralised. However, even as a teenager, the sexual themes were not the only things that interested and intrigued me about the Bard. By far what created my interest was the enthusiasm of my teachers, from my elementary teacher Mrs. Eastman, to my junior high teacher Mrs. Shardlow to my high school teacher Mr. Meacock. They all brought Shakespeare to life for me without resorting to the advertising philosophy of "sex sells"; they took the time to make us accustomed to the language and enjoy the beauty of it. I was also most fortunate enough to have Chris Gordon as an instructor at the University, and she has perhaps been the greatest inspiration for me. She did not talk down to the class, but instead shared her enthusiasm for Shakespeare, making him come alive, and it rubbed off on all of us. Undergraduates do not need to be "goaded" into studying Shakespeare by relying on sexual or violent themes, instead the emphasis on *all* themes, and especially contemporary applications of those same themes, is the most effective. Please do not underestimate "Generation X." Fiona C. Quick University of Minnesota (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Ellis Date: Tuesday, 05 Sep 1995 21:33:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0667 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates Well, my first Shakespeare class has come and gone this year. I followed someone's suggestion (I forget who, but thanks!) in having the students "free-associate" on Shakespeare initially. The responses were quite revealing: "boring" and "intimidating" turned up with roughly the same frequency as "brilliant" and "inspired." My favorite was the student who wrote, among other things, "tights" and "Thou". I observed how their responses revealed a blend of awe and resentment--or fear of the textual difficulty. Then I emphasized the fact that Shakespeare's culture was utterly alien to our modern world in most respects, noting, for example, that no one in Shakespeare's time ever would have imagined such a claim as "All men are created equal"--which is now the default ideological presupposition of our culture (at least in theory). I then handed out a xerox of Robert Fludd's 1611 cosmological map ("Integrae naturae speculum artisque imago"), complete with Primum Mobile, planetary spheres, and Lady Natura chained to God in one direction and to her ape-like Man in the other. My point was that this was, for Shakespeare and his contemporaries, a map of the "real" world. I accompanied it with a handout of Ulysses' speech on Degree from *T & C*, which we read together, observing that the natural, moral, and social order were regarded as essentially identical, and contrasting that world view with our own. But then, having emphasized the strangeness of Shakespeare's conceptual universe, I showed how paradoxically *relevant* Shakespeare could be to the world of 1995 by emphasizing the climactic lines of Ulysses' oration: "Then everything include itself in power/Power into will, will into appetite/And Appetite--a universal wolf--so doubly seconded with will and power/Must make perforce a universal prey/And last eat up itself". Then I just said "Disney." --Tom Ellis ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 15:59:06 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0672 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0672. Thursday, 7 September 1995. (1) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 6 Sep 1995 10:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0670 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (2) From: John Boni Date: Wednesday, 6 Sep 1995 13:08:42 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0670 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (3) From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 11:50:52 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0670 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (4) From: Lisa Broome Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 22:27:49 CST6CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0670 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (5) From: Robert Dennis Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 95 07:42:41 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0670 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (6) From: Robert Dennis Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 95 08:49:27 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0670 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (7) From: Bill Dynes Date: Thursday, September 7, 1995 Subj: Teaching Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 6 Sep 1995 10:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0670 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates I would like to follow up on Fiona Quick's remarks, because I think she has put her finger on something important. Questions about teaching WS to undergraduates have evoked a number of enthusiastic and engaging responses -- the love of teaching and of WS alike is bursting out of every word. And yet there is an unmistakable note of condescension in most responses. These dedicated and surely effective teachers all think that what they have to do in the beginning is package WS in a certain way; they feel that they have to make his work look like an appealing commodity, a Hollywood kind of thing, only better. And they have to do this because their students are so easily bored, and so little used to something like "substance." Of course we all need our hooks, our opening speeches, we need our Chorus to come on stage for our students, we need to generate both a little excitement and a little bit of context, of order; we need to let our students know what they are in for. And I am not asking anyone to change anything they do. But I am wondering about the assumption that students are already too intellectually corrupted, already too shallow, to respond to a serious engagement with the works of WS seriously presented. No doubt this is true about some students; but is it even true about most of them? Or is the shallowness of our students not perhaps a construction (the c-word again!) that we are imposing upon them? It seems that when we talk about what we do *for* our students we end up replaying the old controversies about the groundlings; we seem to be in the habit of looking at our students from on high. Robert Appelbaum UC Berkeley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Wednesday, 6 Sep 1995 13:08:42 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0670 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates Fiona Quick's post on this topic touched me. Some of us condescend to our students, many of whom notice that. What is intriguing is the extent to which Shakespeare remains a topic of intense interest among young students. I've been teaching courses in Shakespeare (as best as I can) for almost thirty years in three very different universities, currently in an urban, commuter, minority institution. I've taught future PhDs, All-American athletes, actors, engineers, forestry and agriculture students, serious and dilletantish. No, they didn't ALL find it wonderful. (Wouldn't it be frightening if "they" ALL were of a mind....I'd be worried if everyone agreed with me...in either of my roles). But thoughtful students were attracted, some others were teased into thoughtfulness... Without going on too long (If I haven't already...), I try to give some background, describe a talented, aggressive person, who wanted to make money (nothing wrong with that) by writing quality, attractive work. Then let's see what it is tht attracts us--all of us together trying to figure that out by paying close attention to the texts and using our minds. I continue to enjoy it. John M. Boni Northeastern Illinois University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 11:50:52 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0670 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates I am glad that someone, at last, has stated that there is no need to sell Shakespeare with gimmicks. I was enthralled by, and I hope I enthuse my own students by, passion. If, as a teacher, you can excude a love for the plays, their language and the teaching of students then I don't think you can go wrong. Yours ever, Scott Crozier (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Broome Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 22:27:49 CST6CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0670 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates I might be getting into this discussion a bit late, but I had to comment about Shakespeare's sex appeal to my undergraduates. I thought that approach would intrigue them. But down here (apologies for generalizations all round), my students freeze up at the mention of S--! They've come across as incredibly conservative, perhaps unwilling to admit they have hormones. Could be that I'm too close in age to some of them and that throws them. I've somewhat alleviated the problem by joking that yes, even as early as the first class, we'll have to talk about sex, and they should please not dismiss Bill as a or our class as tramps for his/our attention to the S-subject. They laugh and we proceed. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Dennis Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 95 07:42:41 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0670 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates Shannon Murray wrote: >The rest of the class is a glance at scenes from the >plays we'll look at, with a longer discussion of three >takes on the Agincourt speech in HV (the BBC, Branagh, >and Olivier versions) . You should consider the take of the HV Agincourt speech in the comedy "Renaissance Man" starring Danny DeVito (in video stores everywhere). The speech is given during maneuver drills by a relatively unknown actor playing the part of a recalcitrant draftee, forced by the military to take Danny DeVito's class in Shakespeare. Although the movie-makers suggest by the overall setting that the speech might be from Hamlet, you can still enjoy the delivery and the way in which the speech fits with the irony of the movie's plot. It is one of my favorite deliveries of that particular speech. And, because it comes from a very contemporary movie, the freshmen/sophomores of today might relate to its delivery as well as the stories in "Renaissance Man". Bob D. rdennis@orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Dennis Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 95 08:49:27 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0670 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates To Teachers Everywhere: I cannot resist comparing the mature analytical statements of Fiona Quick, >She did not talk down to the class, but instead shared >her enthusiasm for Shakespeare, making him come alive, >and it rubbed off on all of us. Undergraduates do not >need to be "goaded" into studying Shakespeare by relying >on sexual or violent themes, instead the emphasis on >*all* themes, and especially contemporary applications >of those same themes, is the most effective. Please do >not underestimate "Generation X." with the rather condescending, overly cute, and in some aspects downright wrong attitude of Thomas Ellis, >having the students "free-associate" on Shakespeare initially >I emphasized the fact that Shakespeare's culture was utterly alien >no one in Shakespeare's time ever would have imagined such >a claim as "All men are created equal" >handed out a xerox of Robert Fludd's 1611 cosmological map >("Integrae naturae speculum artisque imago"), complete with >Primum Mobile, planetary spheres, and Lady Natura chained to >God in one direction and to her ape-like Man in the other. >emphasized the strangeness of Shakespeare's conceptual universe, >I showed how paradoxically *relevant* Shakespeare could be >Then I just said "Disney." To be fair, let me say what I find repulsive in the Ellis approach (I would have immediately dropped his course!). 1) What is a student going to learn through the "free association" of his peers on the name Shakespeare? This starts the class on a BORING note. 2) Shakespeare's culture was not "utterly alien" to our own. Many historians view Elizabethan times as essentially modern. 3) Ellis goes on to claim that Shakespeare is "paradoxically "relevant'", when I do not see a paradox at all. Shakespeare is relevant to us because he wrote about universal problems, universal situations, universal human persons. He also used a lot of English history for his settings, although it is mixed in its validity. 4) I recall numerous passages in Shakespeare where the notion of equality is strongly expressed. If pressed, I can dig up precise citations. The notion that "all men are created equal" is not solely a modern preserve. 5) I am sure every student kept a treasured copy of the xerox Ellis handed out. One of the problems with such handouts is that unless Ellis is also a science history authority and an art authority, he is unlikely to be able to inform the students of the context or significance of these two handouts. This almost sounds like a staff meeting in some bureaucracy. 6) Saving the worst til last: I must have misunderstood, but I read that Ellis compares Shakespeare to current Disney productions or Michael Eisner's pronouncements and plans, or something like that??? And this is supposed to make WS appeal to young persons? What about those who never liked Disney stuff, thought it was childish or silly? You have sent the wrong message to every single student. Why not teach Shakespeare as Shakespeare? I must be missing something. Like Ms. Quick I recall numerous excellent teachers of English in 9th-12th grades and several in college who let us have at the original guy, warts and all. They gave us the text. They helped us with the text. They listened to hairbrained and to excellent student interpretations. They listened patiently to some good, some fair, and some wretched student readings. What they DID NOT DO is APOLOGIZE for William Shakespeare! When you talk down to your students by trying to explain to them why they might find him relevant to their daily lives, or cute, or quaint, you insult both Shakespeare (you are saying that you can tell it better than WS's original material can) and the student (you are telling him/her that she/he cannot grasp the meaning of the original work so you will interface for him/her). There is much danger in such an approach. Just such attitudes allow society to gradually slip into despotism, as when earlier leaders instituted laws that only the "informed" churchmen could read Bibles; laws to prevent slaves from reading material which they would "misunderstand"; laws to prevent spreading of dangerous materials or technological advances. Less threatening in the short term, you will, nevertheless, lose an entire generation of Shakespeare readers if you insist on a condescending "let's have fun" type of classroom. I recognize the legitimacy of creative classroom techniques and my hat is off to the professor who can create the dynamic kind of classroom I recall from some of my undergraduate courses. But this creative attack must be inspired from among the students. You cannot forcefeed creativity, spontaneity. A narrow path to walk, I realize, yet so important that it not be turned into trivia. In another post, I recommended the movie, "Renaissance Man". I repeat the recommendation in this context. The same kind of problem is treated: how to teach Shakespeare to young persons today. I'll give you a clue: he does not compromise. Respectfully and sincerely, Bob D. rdennis@orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Dynes Date: Thursday, September 7, 1995 Subject: Teaching Shakespeare Several others have mentioned the desire to "de-mystify" Shakespeare early in the semester. One trick I use is to read my students the excerpt from Manningham's _Diary_ recounting Shakespeare's usurping the pleasures of an affectionate citizen from Burbage, telling him that William the Conqueror was before Richard the Third. The story may be apocryphal, but it shakes my rather conservative students out of their bardolatry! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:00:03 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0673 Re: Bloom Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0673. Thursday, 7 September 1995. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Wednesday, 6 Sep 1995 14:05:30 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0671 Re: Bloom; (2) From: Chris Ivic Date: Wednesday, 6 Sep 1995 22:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0671 Re: Bloom (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 06 Sep 1995 22:28:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0671 Re: Bloom (4) From: Michael Yogev Date: Thursday, 07 Sep 95 16:12:53 IST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0671 Re: Bloom (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Wednesday, 6 Sep 1995 14:05:30 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0671 Re: Bloom; I suppose that T. Hawkes means to indicate *The Western Canon* when he writes of Harold Bloom's "latest effusion." I can only report that I didn't think of Leavis once as I read it. The obsessions with death, the agon, reading as a solitary act could only be Bloom's and I can't tell what is meant by "Leavis with water" unless, once again, Leavis is fulfilling his usual role as great Caesar's ghost and Bloom is right about, at least, one variety of agon. I can only guess at what Mr. Hawkes finds "unscholarly" (in Bloom's discussion of Shakespeare, I guess), but would like to know. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ivic Date: Wednesday, 6 Sep 1995 22:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0671 Re: Bloom Although I haven't read Bloom's book, I'm sure Terence Hawkes's comments aren't off the mark. Judging from what Bloom said on CBC radio last week, his book seems to be designed for the bestseller list (a la Paglia). For Bloom, Shakespeare, along with Dante, Cervantes, etc. was a genius; moreover, his works provide the reader with exemplary figures. Does this need to be reiterated? Obviously Bloom thinks so--and judging from my campus bookstore, so too do numerous shoppers. Rather than offering anything enlightening, his book--based on what he had to say about it on CBC--merely reinscribes a conventional, totally ahistorical, and no doubt marketable argument, one I first heard in secondary school. Chris Ivic (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 06 Sep 1995 22:28:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0671 Re: Bloom In agreement with Terence Hawkes, I say that the praise of Bloom is over-blown. Rather than a bloom, he is vegetation out of control. We will be overgrown with Bloom. Yours, William the Weed Killer (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Thursday, 07 Sep 95 16:12:53 IST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0671 Re: Bloom Being in Israel, on a longer than average break and avoiding the environs of a campus in order to be sequestered at home, I have evidently (again) missed a landmark Bloomian statement to which (I suspect) I will also reply with Terence Hawkes "Fie!" (I began saying this with Bloom's recantation of all the valuable insights into Blake's works in his terrible book, _Ruin the Sacred Truths_). Can someone fill me in on what "effusion" by Bloom I will be saying "Fie!" to? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:08:59 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0674 Qs: Girard; Shakespeare CD-ROM/WWW; Shakespeare-Based Comedy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0674. Thursday, 7 September 1995. (1) From: Robert Burke Date: Wednesday, 06 Sep 1995 19:43:11 -0500 (CDT) Subj: [Rene Girard] (2) From: Michael Mullin Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 09:49:48 -0500 Subj: Shakespeare CD-ROM & WWW (3) From: Paul Silverman Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 13:17:40 -0700 Subj: Shakespeare-based Comedy? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Burke Date: Wednesday, 06 Sep 1995 19:43:11 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Rene Girard] Does anyone have a reaction to Rene Girard's _Theatre of Envy_? An English friend of mine wondered what Shakespeareans thought of it. You may reply directly to me, Robert Burke, at Burke@vax1.rockhurst.edu Thanks. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Mullin Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 09:49:48 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare CD-ROM & WWW I'm preparing an article on the uses of interactive multimedia (both CD-ROM and WWW) for research and teaching in North America. Please send me pertinent information--titles, URLs, with comments on the usefulness (or otherwise) of these resources in your research and teaching. Full acknowledgements for information supplied will be made in the article, to be published in a collection of articles on recent developments in Shakespeare teaching and research, edited by Milla Riggio. I'm aiming for a late October deadline. Thank you. Michael Mullin (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Silverman Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 13:17:40 -0700 Subject: Shakespeare-based Comedy? I'm currently assembling a review, entitled SILLY SHAKES, comprised of Shakespeare-based comedy. I don't mean MIDSUMMER and SHREW; I mean other comedy sketches based on Shakespeare's life and works. I've already found: The Coarse Actor ('Tis Pity She's the Merry Wife...) Dogg's Hamlet/Cahoot's Macbeth The Dark Lady of the Sonnets (G.B. Shaw) Gertrude Talk Back (Margaret Atwood) Shakespeare & His Agent (Rowan Atkinson) The Shakesperean Actor's Hamlet Soliloquy in HUCK FINN R&G are Dead And I'm looking for more entries. Any suggestions, pointers or even texts, e-mailed to me, would be most welcome (not to mention potentially produced!). In particular, I'm looking for the complete text of the (believe it or not) Benny Hill sketch from which a couple of SHAKSPERians quoted a couple of months back. Shakespeare's editor talking to him on the phone, berating him for some of the risque themes and character names he's using. Does anybody have this full sketch? Thanks, everyone. Paul Silverman TheatreFIRST Oakland, CA wayback@netcom.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:15:18 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0675 *EMLS* 1.2: Now Available Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0675. Thursday, 7 September 1995. From: R. G. Siemens, Editor, EMLS Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 09:47:16 -0700 Subject: EMLS 1.2 Now Available! September 1, 1995. [This message will be cross-posted; please excuse duplication] EMLS 1.2 Now Available! We are pleased to announce the release of _Early Modern Literary Studies: A Journal of Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century English Literature_, Volume 1, Number 2 (August 1995). The journal is available now on the WWW via our home page, at http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/e-sources/emls/emlshome.html An ASCII text version of _EMLS_ is also available to our electronic mail subscribers and those readers using GOPHER. _EMLS_ 1.2 will be available soon via GOPHER at edziza.arts.ubc.ca /english/EMLS 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. ----------- CONTENTS of _EMLS_ Volume 1, Number 2 (August 1995): Front Matter: - Publishing Information, Journal Availability, Contact Addresses. - Editorial Group. - Submission Information. Foreword: - A Brief Look Backward and Forward from _EMLS'_ Second Issue. [1]. Raymond G. Siemens, University of British Columbia. Articles: - Article Abstracts / Résumés des Articles. - The Texts of _Troilus and Cressida_. [2]. W.L. Godshalk, University of Cincinnati. - 'Not Onely a Pastour, but a Lawyer also': George Herbert's Vision of Stuart Magistracy. [3]. Jeffrey Powers-Beck, East Tennessee State University. - From Book to Screen: A Window on Renaissance Electronic Texts. [4]. Michael Best, University of Victoria, BC. Note: - Affliction and Flight in Herbert's Poetry: A Note. [5]. P.G. Stanwood, University of British Columbia. Bibliography: - A Bibliography of Thomas More's _Utopia_. [6]. Romuald Ian Lakowski. Reviews: - Vaughan Hart. _Art and Magic in the Court of the Stuarts._ London and New York: Routledge, 1994. [7]. Graham Parry, University of York. - Stevie Davies. _Henry Vaughan_. Wales: Seren, Poetry Wales Press, 1995. [8]. Jeffrey Powers-Beck, East Tennessee State University. - Alvin Snider. _Origin and Authority in Seventeenth-Century England: Bacon, Milton, Butler_. Toronto: Toronto UP, 1994. [9]. Philip Edward Phillips, Vanderbilt University. - Katharine Eisman Maus. _Inwardness and Theater in the English Renaissance_. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1995. [10]. Robert Appelbaum, University of California, Berkeley. - A.W. Johnson. _Ben Jonson: Poetry and Architecture_. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994. [11]. Robert C. Evans, Auburn University at Montgomery. - Electronic Texts, File Formats, and Copyright: The _Christian Classics Ethereal Library_. [12]. Perry Willett, Indiana University. - Reviewing Information, Books Received for Review, and Forthcoming Reviews. Professional Notes: - The Bibliography and First-Line Index of English Verse, 1559-1603. [13]. Steven W. May, Georgetown College. - _The Shepheardes Calender_ Hypermedia Edition. [14]. John Tolva, Washington University. 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@arts.ubc.ca. Raymond G. Siemens Editor, Early Modern Literary Studies, Department of English, University of British Columbia, #397 - 1873 East Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z1. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 09:26:09 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0676 Re: Bloom and *The Western Canon* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0676. Friday, 8 September 1995. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 16:54:28 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0673 Re: Bloom (2) From: Gregory McSweeney Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 18:57:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: The Western Canon (3) From: Charles Adler Date: Thursday, 07 Sep 1995 23:04:58 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0673 Re: Bloom (4) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 08 Sep 1995 00:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0673 Re: Bloom (5) From: Terrence Ross Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 09:02:22 -0400 Subj: Re: Bloom (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 16:54:28 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0673 Re: Bloom It is wonderful -- but no longer revealing to me -- that so may critics of Bloom's "effusion" condemn it without having read it. I assume that the effusion in question is "The Western Canon." If so, one listener to BBC's evaluation of it seems totally wrong to me. There is much more to the book than the marketable assertion that Shakespeare etc. were geniuses -- and it would be odd indeed (given the oddness of Bloom's appeal to "strangeness" as that quality that makes for a place in the Canon--a concept called into question by Bloom) if the listener had heard precisely this argument in secondary school. It is also odd that, without reading the book, one would feel comfortable being guided by the evaluation of T. Hawkes: an evaluation that provides no specific argument but merely makes assertions while bringing up the name of the usual bogeyman. Of course, room must be made for expressions of solidarity but I am looking forward to the post that attempts to prove some of the charges made against Bloom. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gregory McSweeney Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 18:57:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Western Canon My problem with Bloom in this outing isn't in his treatment of Shakespeare, but rather in his apparent contempt for some of the current approaches to that writer. He casually (and inaccurately, I think) lumps together Barthes and Foucault as conspirators in the killing of the author as an individual, and the replacing of him with a collection of social forces that produces texts. He then omits both of these thinkers from his wish-list canon that seems to include everything but the glyphs on Mesopotamian pottery. At the same time, it's unfair to condemn the man for a writing style that is accessible and compelling; certainly, epithets like "Paglia" are unwarranted. If Bloom is starting to feel like one of the dead, white, European males he defends, who can blame him? That monopoly is eroding - and so is the cordon sanitaire between what is canonical and what is not. The most puzzling of Bloom's observations so far, for me, is that Dickens, "more than Cervantes, is Shakespeare's only rival as a worldwide influence and so represents, with Shakespeare, the Bible, and the Koran, the authentic multiculturalism already available to us." (320) Multiculturalism? I know many people who would replace that word with "colonialism" or even "imperialism." It's obviously reckless to take snatches of _The Western Canon_ out of context (this chapter says much that is illustrative and fresh about Dickens and Eliot), but to speak of Dickens as multicultural in any context is patently absurd. Nor do you have to delve very deeply into the Shakespearean oeuvre to identify it as Anglocentric. As a reader I consider this no limitation - but as a critic I'm forced to ask myself, "Who's English? What's western?" And most important: "What are the criteria of canonicity?" Then, finally, "Whose canon?" And how seriously should a reader take the recommendations of some one who includes Atwood's _Surfacing_ in the canon and who obstinately ignores Foucault's _Les mots et les choses_? Or Barthes' _S/Z_? Somewhat, but not too. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Adler Date: Thursday, 07 Sep 1995 23:04:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0673 Re: Bloom Bloom has two strings in *The Western Canon* which he plucks relentlessly. First, that W.S. not only *is* the canon but literally invented who we are by presenting us with a full range of characters so richly described that we literally learned how to be people from his blueprints. His second point is that the combined forces of feminists, multiculturists, new historicists, et al. is succeeding in destroying the very notion of a western canon. As an amateur, I found some mildly tasty morsels in the book (hunger is the best sauce) but I doubt it would repay the effort of most SHAKSPEReans. Charles D. Adler CHARLESADLER@Delphi.com (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 08 Sep 1995 00:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0673 Re: Bloom Am curious exactly what Hawkes comments on BLOOM referred to-- I assume the WESTERN CANON, but maybe there was something else-- Does Mr. Hawkes think that Shakespeare isn't big enough for him and Bloom---the latter who is turning to Shakes. late after dismissing him early--Bloom will be speaking at my college next week and it will be interesting to see (I think he's talking on Shakes)-- and though i could guess what Hawkes' objections would be-- ahistorical, character-based, even (gag) humanism-- maybe he could spell them out a little more--- so the lines are drawn clearer, and all that.....chris stroffolino (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terrence Ross Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 09:02:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Bloom How delightful to find SHAKSPERians boasting simultaneously of their contempt for Harold Bloom and their ignorance of what they contemn. Why read what Bloom has to say? For that matter, what good is all this reading anyway, when it's so much more fun to play dogpile on the rabbit. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 09:40:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0677 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0677. Friday, 8 September 1995. (1) From: Michael Swanson Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 17:06:33 -0600 Subj: SHK 6.0672 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 01:13:42 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0672 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (3) From: Chris Gordon Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 95 19:35:23 -0500 Subj: SHK 0672: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (4) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 18:17:00 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0672 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (5) From: William Proctor Williams Date: Thursday, 07 Sep 95 21:03 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0672 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Swanson Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 17:06:33 -0600 Subject: SHK 6.0672 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates On Sept. 6, Tom Ellis wrote: "But then, having emphasized the strangeness of Shakespeare's conceptual universe, I showed how paradoxically *relevant* Shakespeare could be to the world of 1995 by emphasizing the climactic lines of Ulysses' oration: "Then everything include itself in power/Power into will, will into appetite/And Appetite--a universal wolf--so doubly seconded with will and power/Must make perforce a universal prey/And last eat up itself". Then I just said "Disney." On Sept. 7, Robert Dennis wrote: "I must have misunderstood, but I read that Ellis compares Shakespeare to current Disney productions or Michael Eisner's pronouncements and plans, or something like that??? And this is supposed to make WS appeal to young persons? What about those who never liked Disney stuff, thought it was childish or silly? You have sent the wrong message to every single student." I think that Robert has really missed the point of Tom's quote of Ulysses. I think that Tom suggests that Ulysses's description of power fits Disney's recent power grab nicely. I don't think Tom was comparing Shakespeare to Disney or Eisner at all -- simply pointing out Shakespeare's relevance to our age by showing how his view of power transcends power in 16th-century England and can relate to 20th-century corporate / entertainment power. Far from sending a wrong message, it seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate message -- about both WS and Disney, actually. Incidentally, while Tom's teaching approach might not be for everyone, it seems, IMHO, that some of his techniques might be used well by others of us teaching Shakespeare. I especially like the use of the Fludd map, and the suggestion that, while Shakespeare might well have believed in the equality of all men, most poilitical and philosophical systems of the time would have found this unlikely at best. Michael Swanson Franklin College of Indiana swansom@franklincoll.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 01:13:42 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0672 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates On teaching undergraduates I hear ...free associate...make it sexy...demystify...don't scare them...dispel bardolatory... Are the students in question fulfilling the terms of a court order by attending these classes, or did they sign up of their own free will? If they aren't self-motivated and interested, why bother? If they don't want to read the damn things, what are they in your classroom for? Shakespeare's plays are not, of themselves, good for you. I hear them being discussed like they are unpleasant medicine which we have to find ways of administering. Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 95 19:35:23 -0500 Subject: SHK 0672: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates I've been enjoying everyone's posts on this topic, so thought I might as well add my two cents. I've traditionally begun the first class with a video clip from an episode of *Star Trek: The Next Generation* called *The Traitor.* It begins in near darkness, and at first we hear only voices: the voices of Court/Bates/Williams from the pre-Agincourt scene of *Henry V.* Next we hear the disguised Henry, and when he finally comes into the light, we discover that it's Data playing Henry in a holodeck rehearsal. Shortly thereafter, he's interrupted by his director, Captain Picard, who utters a line something like: "Splendid, Data, splendid. There's no better way to understand what it means to be human than to embrace Shakespeare." That's where I stop the tape, and we launch into a short discussion of why it is that we're still interested in Shakespeare in the late twentieth century and why a television writer is willing to hypothesize that we'll still be interested four centuries hence. I also try to get everyone to read a line or two during the first class, usually by selecting a speech from one of the plays we'll be reading and just moving through the circle of desks with each person reading two lines. I'd like to tender my thanks to my high school English teacher (sophomore year), Donald Przybylowski, who really brought Shakespeare to life for me. I'm just trying to do him (and the other fine teachers I've had since) justice. Chris Gordon (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Thursday, 7 Sep 1995 18:17:00 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0672 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates THIS FROM A FRIEND TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL THEATER: "Can you remember what small scene turned you on to Shakespeare when you were just a monster freshman or sophomore? That's what I need, those scenes that exited you and will still excite the kids. Or, if you could share a web page which speaks particularly to this interest, I'd appreciate that as well. But I look forward to your own memories. I'll report back, and thanks. Tom Robinson" (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Thursday, 07 Sep 95 21:03 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0672 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates I find much of this discussion either pointless or egotistical. You just get the text in your hand, walk into the classroom, and do it! I find much of this discussion a bit like Method Acting. Method teachers may do such things as have been described, those of us who are but teachers "for the working day" just get on with it. 1995 may be quite different from 1985 or 1975, and that, I think, is a good thing. Throw old WS out there and see what they do with him.-- "they", of course, being the students. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 06:10:51 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0678 Resumption of SHAKSPER Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0678. Thursday, 14 September 1995 From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, September 14, 1995 Subject: Resumption of SHAKSPER Dear SHAKSPEReans, I've been sick for the past few week. I have gotten better and will start sending digests thoughout the day as I catch up. --Hardy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 11:27:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0679 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0679. Thursday, 14 September 1995 From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, 14 September 1995 Subject: Problems at My End SHAKSPEReans: There apprears to be technical problems at my end; please bear me for a bit longer. --Hardy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 12:13:53 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0680 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Part 1) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0680. Thursday, 14 September 1995 (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 08 Sep 1995 11:10:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0677 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (2) From: Piers Lewis Date: Friday, 08 Sep 1995 09:30:59 -0600 Subj: teaching Shakespeare (3) From: Hilary S Zunin Date: Friday, 08 Sep 1995 10:14:27 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0672 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (4) From: Robert Dennis Date: Friday, 8 Sep 95 11:49:05 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0677 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 08 Sep 1995 11:10:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0677 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates Thanks Michael Swanson for pointing out the Disney reference of Thom Ellis-- One thing I'd like to raise about this pedagogy thread is the rather chroric chiming against Ellis seemed unfair--like an army of "decentered" classroom typs seemed fit to presume to know what is condescending and what is not-- and thus claimed a "superiority" over someone who claims "superiority-- (sounds like a play within a play to me) I am interested in sharing my classroom experiences with others and hearing others--but i don't know how helpful a kind of smug superiority is-- I mean we probably all have our on and off days, and I am not necessarily proud of myself (but nor ashamed) for some of the things I said today-- (For instance, one student kept on harping on the authorship question---and asked why it was important or even in question whether Shakespeare wrote his plays--- and I said something like "i think a lot of people have a hard time believing that one man could have done all that and after all Shakespeare did die pretty young-- in fact he was about the same age of Jerry Garcia---maybe of exhaustion" Now, OF COURSE, I could be jumped on (a la Bloom like a rabbit) for claiming that in a paper, etc---but in a classroom it at least made some students laugh--and though I also undercut the idea of the "author behind the text" at times---I found that coming up improvisationally----I think we must allow ourselves the license of the fool sometimes when teaching Shakespeare---If that's condescending, it's no more condescending than the plays themselves (which many critics and scholars historically have had a hard time with the "fool" and "low-comedy" passages therein....) Chris s. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Piers Lewis Date: Friday, 08 Sep 1995 09:30:59 -0600 Subject: teaching Shakespeare I read with great interest about the different gambits people use the first day in teaching Shakespeare to undergraduates but also surprise that not a word has been said so far about the most serious difficulty our students encounter: Shakespeare's poetry. It's like learning a new language they say; worse than Chinese--a language they know nothing about except that it's exceptionally tough. Not only do our students not understand poetry, any poetry--for of course few of them read poetry of any kind--but they are reading a poetry written in a form of english that might as well be a different language from the one they are accustomed to: journalistic prose and journalistic prose-fiction. Where Shakespeare uses metaphor to pack complex meanings into small syntactical units within the sentence, journalistic prose is diffuse, spreading simple meanings through several sentences, even entire paragraphs. Where Shakespeare's distinctions are indirect and subtle, the modern journalists' are for the most part simple and banal. How can people who have had virtually no experience with semantic indirection--metaphorical, metonymical, ironic--make sense of Shakespeare at first go? So the most important thing to do with beginning students, it seems to me, is teach them how to read, which means teaching them how to understand and disentangle metaphorical expressions. Try it. See how many of your students can explain much less understand the poetry of: But look, the morn in russet mantle clad Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastern hill. Piers Lewis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hilary S Zunin Date: Friday, 08 Sep 1995 10:14:27 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0672 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates Many thanks to Robert Appelbaum who brought an eloquent voice to many issues that had been troublesome to me in recent postings. I teach not undergraduates, but public high school juniors and seniors in a semester long Shakespeare elective. They are bright and excited. They're also a little anxious. It's Shakespeare, after all. And while they need some guidance and enthusiasm and structure from me, they certainly don't need condescension. The key to the course? Shakespeare wrote scripts, not books. So often the standard pedagogical approaches used for novels are applied to plays. In doing so, I feel strongly that we short change our students. It is the production choices of directors, actors, and design staff that flesh out these scripts. So do our own choices, insights, and "takes" in and out of class. How does this manifest itself in the course? We read aloud or listen to audio cassettes; we see multiple versions of scenes on video. Perhaps most importantly, we engage in a variety of performanced-based activities so that students not only explore the text (in the privacy of their "closets"), but also examine sub-text through performance with/for their peers. We challenge each other to posit new approaches and rigorously debate their merits, in discussion and on paper. One need not be trained in drama to get students up and working through portions of scenes, soliloquies, or readers' theatre. I certainly am not. What's needed is appreciation for the genre. Techniques are well- documented. The remarkable Ashland, Oregon NEH Summer Institute and the Folger Library's rich education offerings are both focused on teaching Shakespeare through performance. Folger's new *Shakespeare Set Free* three volume series (Washington Square Press) is devoted to transmitting strategies that easily apply to university undergraduate programs. Happily, high school teachers are not the only ones interested in employing these approaches. But many university instructors seem to equate performance-based activities with gimmicks and fluff. It ain't so. At the end of each semester the vast majority of students in my classes genuinely seem to appreciate these works. Most want to read more and many are hooked for life. I know. I regularly run into them at professional and community Shakespeare productions long after class is over, when no one is giving a grade. Isn't that the point? (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Dennis Date: Friday, 8 Sep 95 11:49:05 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0677 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates I would like to thank Michael Swanson for his gentle suggestion that I missed Tom Ellis' point. If you read my original response, I think you will see that I actually mentioned the Eisner/Disney expansion as one of the interpretations, so I did not miss that much of it. On the other hand, in case anyone besides Michael Swanson missed it, my own point is that while one can find always situations in contemporary life which are analogous to various subplots, addresses, characters, and situations in the plays of WS, such comparisons are misleading. My objection was not in Ellis' finding an analogy, but in trying to make the value of Shakespeare dependent upon analogy. Regarding that particular analogy/interpretation, I feel the description of power placed in Ulysses mouth by WS is speaking to the internal personal drive to power, while the Eisner strategy is based in late 20th century economics and commercial law. Unless you personally know Michael Eisner and can assure me that his personality flaw is identical with that of the power-driven person of classical literature, I will continue to assume that Eisner is a very shrewd analyst of the contemporary legal and financial world, who also has had a phenomenal run of luck. I think the power analogy would have been more relevant if applied to Senator Bob Dole's remarks following the election of Bill Clinton to the Presidency, or Newt Gingrich's description of how powerful he is as Speaker of the House. Michael Eisner has never proclaimed his personal power, and, in fact, keeps a relatively low profile. The press it is that have lionized him. More to the point, we should read/teach Shakespeare to find out what he has to say about what _we_ know. The substance of his plays should be real, insofar as the metaphors are comprehensible to us. Comparing Shakespearean situations to Eisner/Disney is relegating Shakespearean drama to as remote a sphere as the Michael Eisners are to most of the students (would you believe 99.9% ??) Trying to relate Shakespeare to objects which we read about in the newspapers (or possible hear on TV/RADIO, but let's assume most of the students also read) will very shortly toll the bell on his works entirely. Most of what we read in the papers is biased, frequently incorrect, only partially told, extremely ephemeral, and usually quite remote from any of our daily lives. This is not a good model upon which to teach literature, whether Shakespeare or other author. Shakespeare (_et alia_), on the other hand, is good for the personal daily experience of every one of us. But each student has to arrive at this herself or himself. Let Shakespeare live and breathe on his own. The analogies are always invalid because they are not what he was writing about. IMHO the values to be gained from Shakespeare come from the metaphors he uses to describe those features we all find within ourselves and within our own existential situations. Let the students find the metaphors within their own lives. Then the drama will remain with them throughout their lives, and the dramatist will remain a living treasure. Remember Ben Jonson said, "He was Not of an Age but for All Time." He did not say, "His works are for all time..." I believe he meant the person embodied in the ideas, observations, and discoveries. Probably a pretty good title for an introductory course, "Not of an Age"? And to Chris Gordon, as they say in almost every movie since Macauley Culkin got left in Chicago at Christmas, "YES!" Sounds like an exciting way to get started. I shall add the clip to my collection of HV Agincourt. Not being a trekkie in any way, I would never have stumbled upon that one alone. If it is appropriate to thank outstanding high school English teachers or college Shakespeare professors on this list, then I have some names. I am not voicing any objection here; in, fact have enjoyed seeing indviduals name their favorite teacher. I simply thought the list might be flooded if we all named our favorite teachers. On the other hand it would be an interesting experience and lots of fun since we might discover a lot of commonality. What do you think: a thread of Favorite Teachers of Shakespeare...? Sincerely and reflectively, Bob D. rdennis@orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 12:24:56 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0681 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Part 2) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0681. Thursday, 14 September 1995 (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 8 Sep1995 11:06:45 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0677 R: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (2) From: C.C. Warley Date: Friday, 8 Sep 95 15:35:19 EDT Subj: Shak & Undergrads (3) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 18:00:30 -0500 (CDT) Subj: condescension by teachers (4) From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Monday, 11 Sep 1995 11:10:56 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0672 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (5) From: Christine Couche Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 1995 14:33:29 +0800 (WST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0677 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 11:06:45 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0677 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates I haven't taught a Shakespeare class but have been in many and have to report that if, on the first day, I was treated to a film clip from Star Trek and required to speculate on a television writer's belief that Shakespeare would be perfomed by an android, I would want to dig a little, little grave and creep in. I would be taking the course hoping that, at least here, I could avoid Star Trek and its ilk and that, at least here, I could escape from the third rate. I would feel patronized and become sullen and walk in dread lest one day I arrive in class and find that I am required to view "My Own Private Idaho." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C.C. Warley Date: Friday, 8 Sep 95 15:35:19 EDT Subject: Shak & Undergrads I'm surprised to see Robert Applebaum, who has made such eloquent pleas for Marxist criticism of Shakespeare, make a distinction between a "commodified" Shakespeare and a "substantial" Shakespeare. The opposition that seems lurking in his reply is between a "commodified" teacher and a "substantial" student, as if the experience of students was somehow more "authentic": as if the groundlings knew something that everyone trapped in their position "on high" didn't. If we (correctly, of course) critique teachers for essentializing themselves, let's not do it by essentializing students; if we critique older criticism for essentializing "humanism," let's not do it by essentializing "subversion." Christopher Warley Rutgers (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 18:00:30 -0500 (CDT) Subject: condescension by teachers Warnings from Fiona Quick, Robert Appelbaum, and John Boni about the dangers of condescension are well taken. There is plenty of condescension by teachers out there. I've come across much more of it than I expected. Most of my experience of it has come in secondary schools. For five years, Patricia Relph and I have toured our two-actor show, SHAKESPEARE'S GREATEST HITS to the secondary schools and junior highs of Arkansas and surrounding states. It's a fifty minute show of monologues and dialogues linked by talk about what it is in Shakespeare that moves so many people to call him the greatest of all English writers. Many Arkansas schools (no, most of them) are some distance off the beaten path and, we often find ourselves playing to students who have never seen a live dramatic performance of any kind. Very few of them have read or heard any Shakespeare. Typically, the English teacher will come to us just before we begin and, with our best interests at heart, warn us that, sadly, the students will not understand us or be interested. The teacher always promises to try to keep them quiet; that's the most that can be hoped for. Then we do our turn and, to the amazement of the teachers, the students get it and they like it. I don't think we condescend in any way. We take it for granted that Shakespeare IS interesting and that a good actor can make it clear to anyone, despite the "language barrier". We find the students completely willing and eager and able to grasp the conventions and connect with the drama. Interestingly, the student favorite is usually a sonnet ("Being your slave, what should I do but tend/Upon the hours and times of your desire?) I do that sonnet as one of the sequence which makes up "the four stages of love". I go into the audience and deliver it very personally to a female student, which may account somewhat for its impact. When the sonnet isn't the favorite, the nunnery scene from HAMLET usually is. I'm very sad to see so much condescension (in the form of low expectations) from these teachers but I don't think it is because they are pompous or because they don't care. I think they have been beaten down so thoroughly by the awful conditions in most junior and senior highs that they are simply unable to believe any longer that wonderful things can be done. Patricia and I can return to our more nurturing situations where optimism and high expectations come easily; then we can once again sortie to the awesomely difficult world of the lower schools. It's relatively easy for us. I wish I knew how to revive these good but overwhelmed teachers. The teachers give us written feedback. They say that students are eager to talk about the experience of Shakespeare our show provides. It never occurs to them to discuss dramatic technique, of course. To them, the characters are people and they want to talk about what those people did, and why, and what they themselves would do in such situations. In earlier posts, SHAKSPEReans advised us to trust Shakespeare and the audience. Oh, yes! All my experience in the theatre and the schools tells me that when we commit all our energy to understanding Shakespeare and communicating him directly and honestly, ALL audiences are open and eager. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Monday, 11 Sep 1995 11:10:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0672 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates As an old undergrad taking a second Shakes. Class from Dr. John Boni at NEIU, I can only say his enthusiam and sparkle re WS sell it all. Even those hard core cynics leave his classes exuberant. He uncovers layer after layer of the mystique and most of his students are now addicts. On another note, I am doing a research paper on Richard III's villany, the psychology of it, of which I feel there is plenty. From his birth throughout his life multiple misfortunes = evil. Can any good sources be recommended. Thanks in advance. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Couche Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 1995 14:33:29 +0800 (WST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0677 Re: Teaching Shakespeare to Undergraduates I would like to humbly back up the other SHAKSPERians who have decried the use of gimmicks to enthuse students about WS. My first exposure to Shakespeare was in year 9, when we were all sat down to the BBC Romeo and Juliet. Although I now look somewhat askance at that version from my lofty postrgrad position, at the time it was incredibly moving - half of us (not just the females) were in tears for a good half hour afterwards (much to the chagrin of our teacher). I guess the real thing in performance just can't be beat. Regards, Chris Couche ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 13:37:27 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0622 Re: Bloom and *The Western Canon* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0682. Thursday, 14 September 1995 (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 10:16:46 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0676 Re: Bloom and *The Western Canon* (2) From: William Proctor Williams Date: Friday, 08 Sep 95 17:54 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0676 Re: Bloom and *The Western Canon* (3) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 22:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0676 Re: Bloom and *The Western Canon* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 10:16:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0676 Re: Bloom and *The Western Canon* Perhaps we should take Bloom's claim that Shakespeare invented us as seriously as all those claims -- so exciting when made -- that the bourgeois or romantic self was invented in the Renaissance andeven, specifically, in this or that act of *Hamlet.* That is, judging from the fair field of folk who made this sort of claim, we should take this claim plenty seriously -- unless, of course, the mere fact that it is Harold Bloom from the Dark Side who, this time, makes this assertion instead of those whose purpose is to reprehend this sort of interiority trammels up what should, by God, be trammeled. How does Bloom's claim differ? I should also add that Bloom does not claim that Shakespeare invented us by presenting us with a cast of characters so richly described that we learn how to be people from them. He does say that "The peculiar magnificence of Shakespeare is his power of representation of human character and personality and their mutabilities" (63) but his particular assertion is that Shakespeare uniquely presents characters who are "free artists of themselves" (a phrase from Hegel) and that it is from these charcters that we derive the possibilty of becoming the same. That is, he is asserting romantic individualism for some of Shakespeare's characters (Hamlet and Edmund his examples) and this claim is no different from the claims made by many who see themselves as Bloom's cultured despisers. I don't believe either version of the claim -- but if one is ahistorical then so is the other. The point is that Bloom does more than merely point to the variousness, or psychological depth, or richness of Shakespeare's characters: his claim is that we derive our peculiar sense of freedom and autonomy from them and that, until Shakespeare, no-one ever presented characters as "self-creating artists" of themselves. He then insists that "Our naive but aesthetically crucial conviction that Edmund, Hamlet, Falstaff and scores of others can, as it were, get up and walk on out of their plays, perhaps even against Shakespeare's own desires, is connected as an effect of figurative language, this Shakespearean power remains beyond comparison, though it has been imitated universally for almost four centuries now" (72). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Friday, 08 Sep 95 17:54 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0676 Re: Bloom and *The Western Canon* Oh, give over!! Who, in power (and all of us who have teaching positions have power) gives any space to the likes of Bloom? He is a good acadcemic joke, and he will make many of our less well trained colleagues to part with near $US30.00 of their resources. But did any of us think he did it for any other reason? I think not! (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 22:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0676 Re: Bloom and *The Western Canon* Horrible to admit ignorance, but I only heard of "The Western Canon" though these posts, though I certainly will read it as soon as I can. I am surprised and pleased to hear that someone else agrees with me, about Shakespeare being a watershed of western culture. As I see it, as the feudal and pre-feudal culture, land-based, hierarchical, religious, communal, began to give way to the trade-based, class levelling, secular, individualistic culture we know today, language in every western nation was undergoing a revolution, from the lingua franca of Latin to a national literture based on the local vernacular. This meant that as individuals wrote in the new vernacular they created the language as it would be from then on. Ariosto did this in Italy, Ronsard in France (he created the alexandrine verse form that Racine and Corneille would use to create the classic French theatrical literature), Lope de Vega and his fellows were doing the same in Spain. Of all of these, writing at roughly the same time, Shakespeare has had the most impact on western culture. His plays have been translated into every language, are still performed with more regularity than any other single playwright, and have been recreated in hundreds of works of music, dance, and film. To point to the handful of English poets and writers that English professors have deemed worthy of study is to miss the huge influence Shakespeare has had, not only on the language (won't bother to recite the number of words he created, phrases invented or preserved, and whole speeches that have become as well-known as the Lord's prayer or the preamble to the Constitution, the preserve of all who speak the language), but on the culture in general, through the ballets and operas, and more than anything, on a certain mode of thought, of phraseology, of spirit, not only better than his fellows, but a quantum leap beyond them. Through his mind and heart passed a tremendous amount of knowledge of ancient myth, medieval romance, folklore, which he preserved as in honey in the wonderful sweetness of his language and the dramatic excitement of his plays, for the time to come. He saw the rise of the Puritan revolt, not only against the wrongs of feudalism, but against the goodness as well, the art, the music, the dancing, the revels. The destruction of the altars, the smashing of the stained glass windows, so that very little is left from before reformation times, was leading to the smashing of all happinesse. The celebration of Christmas was frowned upon. The folkways were being exterminated as witchcraft and tools of the Devil. He foresaw a time coming when there would be no more cakes and ale, and against that time he preserved Puck, Ariel, Herne the Hunter, Venus, Adonis, the history of the great lords and their kings, the passion of Antony and Cleopatra, of Romeo and Juliet. The French have the great paintings, the Italians great sculpture and music, the Germans music, but the English have their language and the literature it has given them is their great art. And this literature is what it is because of Shakespeare. Can anyone really believe that if we had skipped Shakespeare and had only Jonson, Sidney, Bacon, Raliegh to build on, that the English language would be the second most spoken language in the world today, and the most important in every other way? It is not necessary to find echoes of Shakespeare in Dickens, Shelley, Hardy, Austen, Hopkins, A.A. Milne, Evelyn Waugh, James Joyce, Tennyson, Emerson, Whitman, Lewis Carroll, Keats, to see that they all stand on his shoulders. We all stand on his shoulders. I would venture to say that only the great world religious leaders, Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucious, Lao Tze, have had more effect on human consiousness, and perhaps not even they. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 13:57:16 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0683 Re: Shakespeare Web Sites; Shakespeare-Based Comedy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0683. Thursday, 14 September 1995 (1) From: Peter Guither Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 15:55:03 -0500 Subj: Shakespeare CD-ROM/WWW (2) From: JM Massi Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 13:20:11 -0700 Subj: Web pages for Shakespeare classes (3) From: Peter Guither Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 15:55:03 -0500 Subj: Re: Shakespeare-Based Comedy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Guither Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 15:55:03 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare CD-ROM/WWW Michael, We've developed a web site for the Illinois Shakespeare Festival which includes material for research. Much of this comes from articles which have been written for program guides and the text of lectures. Later this month, we'll be adding and updating a lot to the site, including the addition of critical writing from the Shakespeare Bulletin (with permission). The url for the welcome page is: http://orathost.cfa.ilstu.edu/isf.html or you can skip right to the articles and go to (a much longer address): http://orathost.cfa.ilstu.edu/public/cfaInfo/programs/theatreDance/Shakespea re/ISFres.html --Pete (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JM Massi Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 13:20:11 -0700 Subject: Web pages for Shakespeare classes Dear Colleagues: When I wrote about this once before, I used the wrong type of slashes in the address, so I will try again. Many thanks to those of you who wrote to tell me about this. The URL for the Web pages for my Shakespeare classes is as follows: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~massij/shakes.html After 50 or so html documents, one gets a little woozy, I suppose, so that's my only excuse. Anyway, I hope the Web users among you will let me know what you think. Thanks. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Guither Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 15:55:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Shakespeare-Based Comedy Paul, Try "The Compleat Works of Wllm Shkspr (abridged)" by The Reduced Shakespeare Co. Applause Books 1994 ISBN: 1-55783-157-2 It's a riot. It's actually a play that was performed by the Reduced Shakespeare Company (complete works in about 1 1/2 hours), and the published version has some additional wonderfully silly stuff in it. -Pete ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 16:46:59 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0684 Conferences; CFP; Announcements Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0684. Thursday, 14 September 1995 (1) From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 11:10:02 -0500 Subj: SQ special issue (2) From: Renee Pigeon Date: Monday, 11 Sep 1995 11:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Conference (3) From: Suzanne D Green Date: Tuesday, 12 Sep 1995 00:39:59 -0500 (CDT) Subj: CFP: 8th Annual Conf. on Linguistics and Literature (4) From: Daniel Traister Date: Saturday, 9 Sep 95 13:41:12 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0671 Re: Shakes Movies and Chicago performances (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Friday, 8 Sep 1995 11:10:02 -0500 Subject: SQ special issue A re-posting of the call for those of you who were off-line during the summer. Please excuse the duplication. Call for Essays *Shakespeare Quarterly* is soliciting essays for the winter 1996 issue, a special issue on "Teaching Judith Shakespeare," to be guest-edited by Elizabeth H. Hageman and Sara Jayne Steen. Papers should address approaches to and/or implications of teaching sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English women writers in conjunction with Shakespeare. Rather than simply providing useful readings of paired works, teachers might, for example, examine methods of teaching *The Tragedy of Mariam* with *Othello,* *The Convent of Pleasure* with *Love's Labor's Lost,* or Wroth's and Philip's poems with Shakespeare's sonnets; describe how students respond to Portia and Rosalind when Shakespeare's plays are juxtaposed with the writings of Aemilia Lanyer, Arbella Stuart, or Rachel Speght; suggest innovative reconfigurations of courses, treating issues such as language, spirituality, or the pastoral; or explore entirely new courses that emerge when these women's works join Shakespeare's as part of our cultural and literary discussions. Articles (c. 20 pages, in *SQ* format) should be submitted to both Elizabeth H. Hageman, Department of English, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824-3574, and Sara Jayne Steen, Department of English, Montana State University-Bozeman, Bozeman, MT 59717-0230. The deadline for submissions is 31 October 1995. Inquiries are welcome and may be directed to either Professor Hageman or Professor Steen. ************** Elizabeth Hageman ehageman@christa.unh.edu ************** Sara Jayne Steen uenss@newton.math.montana.edu ************** (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Renee Pigeon Date: Monday, 11 Sep 1995 11:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Conference CALL FOR PAPERS AND PROPOSALS "TEACHING THE RENAISSANCE" RENAISSANCE CONFERENCE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FOURTH ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, POMONA SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1996 Proposals on practical and theoretical pedagogical topics are invited from scholars and teachers in all Renaissance Studies disciplines for the Renaissance Conference of Southern California's Fourth Annual Symposium on "Teaching the Renaissance." We especially welcome proposals for workshops and roundtable or panel discussions which allow extensive participation by those attending the symposium, as well as as abstracts of formal papers (reading length 20 minutes). While we always welcome proposals and abstracts dealing with Shakespeare's works, this year we particularly encourage submissions on non-Shakespearean literary topics and authors, including the teaching of Renaissance non-dramatic works, and also encourage submissions on interdisciplinary and non-literary topics. Please submit proposals for receipt by November 31, 1995 to: Prof. Renee Pigeon, Dept. of English, CSU San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA 92407. Telephone: (909) 880-5896. Send e-mail submissions to: rpigeon@wiley.csusb.edu. Please be sure to include a telephone number and/or an e-mail address with your submission. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Suzanne D Green Date: Tuesday, 12 Sep 1995 00:39:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CFP: 8th Annual Conf. on Linguistics and Literature CALL for PAPERS 8TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON LITERATURE AND LINGUISTICS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS February 2-3, 1996 Radisson Hotel and Conference Center, Denton, Texas Keynote Speakers: Emily Toth, Louisiana State University Haj Ross, University of North Texas Sponsored by the University of North Texas Department of English and the GSEA Abstracts dealing with any aspect of linguistics or literature are solicited, including: Literary Analysis Linguistic Analysis Technical Writing Film Studies Critical Theory Theoretical Linguistics Composition Theory Women's Studies Creative Writing 1st/2nd Lang Acquisition Comp/ESL Pedagogy Minority Literature Creative submissions of poetry, fiction or essays are also welcome, as are complete symposium proposals. Instructions for paper abstracts, symposium proposals, and creative submissions--including deadlines for submission--are below. Submissions from graduate students are particularly encouraged. E-mailed or FAXed proposals are accepted. Conference on Language and Literature Department of English PO Box 13827 University of North Texas Denton, TX 76203 GSEA@TWLAB.UNT.EDU Fax: 817/565-4355 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Instructions for PAPER ABSTRACTS: Abstracts for papers should be no longer than two pages and should exclude name and affiliation. On a separate page, please send the following information: Name Affiliation Paper title Postal address E-mail address Phone number FAX Audiovisual needs Status (graduate student, faculty) DEADLINE for RECEIPT of paper abstracts: October 31, 1995 Abstracts for papers will be reviewed anonymously by selected faculty members. Notification of acceptance will follow no later than December 1, 1995. Persons with papers accepted for presentation will be asked to provide a short abstract (300 word maximum) for the conference handbook by January 10, 1996. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Instructions for SYMPOSIUM PROPOSALS: Symposium proposals must include (a) an overall abstract (2 page maximum) outlining the nature of the symposium as a whole; (b) a short abstract for the overall symposium (300 word maximum) to place in the conference program (c) a short abstract (300 word maximum) from each presenter. As above, these abstracts should be submitted anonymously. On a separate page, please send the following information: Symposium title Symposium paper title Name of organizer(s) Name of paper presenter Affiliation of organizer(s) Affiliation of presenter Postal address of organizer(s) Postal address of presenter Phone number of organizer(s) Phone number of presenter E-mail address of organizer(s) E-mail address of presenter FAX number of organizers FAX number of presenter Audiovisual needs DEADLINE for RECEIPT of Symposium Proposals: November 31, 1995 Symposium proposals will also be reviewed anonymously by selected faculty members. Notification of acceptance of the symposium will be made only to the symposium organizer(s) and will follow no later than December 10, 1995. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Instructions for CREATIVE SUBMISSIONS: Creative submissions of poetry, fiction or essays are also solicited. Those wishing to present must submit the complete text of the work, though without name. On a separate page, please send the following information: Name Affiliation Title of work Postal address E-mail address Phone number FAX Audiovisual needs Status (graduate student, faculty, etc.) DEADLINE for RECEIPT of creative works: October 31, 1995 Creative submissions will also be reviewed anonymously by selected faculty members. Notification of acceptance will follow no later than December 1, 1995. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Traister Date: Saturday, 9 Sep 95 13:41:12 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0671 Re: Shakes Movies and Chicago performances Just a small FYI for those interested in Shakepeare on film. In this week's Hollywood Reporter was a new listing for a film which I was very pleased to see. Here it is: Twelfth Night (start Oct 23) Shooting in Ireland Renaissance Films/Fine Line Features 83 Berwick Street London, UK W1V 3PT Cast: Nigel Hawthorne, Helena Bonham-Carter, Imogen Stubbs, Toby Stephens, Imelda Staunton Dir/Scr: Trevor Nunn Secondly, a favour, is there anyone in Chicago that can provide me with some information on Shakespere performances in the area? I am planning a visit the second or third weekend in December and would like to take in a play while there. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Fiona C. Quick University of Minnesota quic0003@maroon.tc.umn.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 17:11:50 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0685 Qs: Time and the Calendar; Undergraduate Publication Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0685. Thursday, 14 September 1995 (1) From: Steve Sohmer Date: Tuesday, 12 Sep 95 19:34:30 CDT Subj: [Undergraduate Publication] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Tuesday, 12 Sep 95 19:34:30 CDT Subject: [Undergraduate Publication] To anyone with any suggestions on how an undergraduate gets published ... I have what I think to be an interesting take on Hamlet and am looking for a means to get an interesting idea published. Are there any journals that wouldn't turn me down point blank without a series of alphabet soup stuff after my name? If there are any such scholarly publications I would be fascinated to hear about them. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:06:18 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0686 Teaching: Questions, Comments, and Observations Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0686. Thursday, 14 September 1995 (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman KLIMANB@SNYFARVA.CC.FARMINGDALE.EDU Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 1995 17:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Novels and movies (2) From: Thomas Ellis Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 1995 19:32:46 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0680 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Part 1) (3) From: Ronald Dwelle Date: Friday, 15 Sep 95 08:31:03 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0680 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Part 1) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman KLIMANB@SNYFARVA.CC.FARMINGDALE.EDU Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 1995 17:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Novels and movies Dear colleagues: On the C18-List recently there has been a lively and helpful exchange having to do with using novels and films to teach the ambience of the times--not so much versions of the literature as works that could substitute for a backgrounds lecture. In the recent *SQ* edited by Ralph Cohen, on teaching, Martha Tuck Rozett mentions using *Firedrake's Eye* (1993) by Patricia Finney. I wonder if anyone else has used such materials and if they would care to suggest a list? Happy teaching! Bernice (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Ellis Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 1995 19:32:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0680 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Part 1) Continuing this lively and fruitful discussion, I'd like to report on a (fairly characteristic) problem I had in my Shakespeare class today. (For those who missed my first post, all of my students are African-American, though I am myself as anglo as old WS himself). We were reading/enacting the climactic scene in Midsummer Night's Dream where mutual misunderstandings and bewitchments of Hermia, Lysander, Helena, & Demetrius generate an escalating spiral of abuse, when at one point Helena refers to Hermia as an "ethiop." Needless to say, the gales of laughter up to that point abruptly ceased. Suddenly, the atmosphere changed. Despite my efforts to demonstrate how delightful and witty this play can be, the ugly spectre of racism surfaced; Shakespeare (and I) became, for a moment, The Enemy. I acknowledged the insult, explaining how the English of Shakespeare's time were (like everyone else on Earth) completely ethnocentric, casting aspersions on "others" of all types, but the uneasiness--the pain--remained, simply because they knew, as I know, how deeply connected those late 16th century prejudices were to what followed; to their own experience as 'black' people in a 'white' society. I feel frustrated by moments like this. It is one thing--quite manageable-- when (as I often do) I establish a pedagogical frame of reference for plays like Merchant, Othello, and The Tempest that brings the prominent issue of ethnic prejudice and the problem of the Other into the foreground. But when we are reading along in a play for other values entirely--the fickleness of young love--and a gratuitous racial slur arises, I feel my students' pain, but I feel powerless to ease it, yet at the same time, loath to trivialize it. I welcome your comments or suggestions. Sincerely, Thomas I. Ellis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronald Dwelle Date: Friday, 15 Sep 95 08:31:03 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0680 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Part 1) I'll side with Piers Lewis when he noted: "not a word has been said so far about the most serious difficulty our students encounter: Shakespeare's poetry. It's like learning a new language they say; worse than Chinese--a language they know nothing about except that it's exceptionally tough." I now spend the first two days of each semester on a couple sonnets. Day one, I spend about an hour on a single sonnet, doing all the talking, half the time treating the sonnet as though it were written in a foreign language (and translating it); the other half treating it as poetry. For day two, I make the following assignment: Choose a sonnet (I give them a list of 4 or 5 to choose from); copy it exactly (in handwriting, not typed); write a brief paraphrase; then write for 20 minutes, commenting on any aspect of the poetry of the sonnet. The assignment seems to work well. The main thing the students learn is that, with just a little work, they can make sense of Shakespeare's English and recognize the poetic character in it. I'm a big fan of the copy part of the assignment, which seems to do the most work. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:17:56 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0697 Q: *As You Like It" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0687. Thursday, 14 September 1995 From: Jim Helfers Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 1995 13:31:47 -0700 (MST) Subject: As You Like It Queries Yesterday, the head of our drama program came to me to ask about "As You Like It." He's an innovative type, and has some staging ideas that include large-screen T.V.'s as surveillance camera monitors, and a Forest of Arden that includes both the clothing of L.L. Bean and blue-jean overalls. (Don't ask me about the staging yet; I get to see it in rehearsal soon, and will describe it then.) He recruited me to write the program notes. As you may be able to tell, he sees the world of the court as relatively sinister (see T.V. idea above), doesn't want to stress the humour-motivated behavior which Shakespeare suggests (see AYLI I.1.c. 164 -- Oliver -- for my soul (yet I know not why) hates nothing more than he . . ., or the whole idea of Jaques as satirist), and wants to bring out in staging some of the internal tensions in the pastoral scene (more on how he intends to do that later). I'm especially interested in two things: first, does anyone know of any readily available "As You Like It" versions on video? How about any audio or CD-ROM multimedia materials? Second, what do some of you think I should stress in the program notes? (Things you say may spark more ideas in the staging department as well). I appreciate any information and comments, and if we come up with a decently good (or dreadfully stinky) run, I'll let you know the details. --Jim Helfers Grand Canyon University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:24:35 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0688 Re: Web Site; Festival; CFP -- ALLC-ACH96 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0688. Thursday, 14 September 1995 (1) (2) (3) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Luc Borot Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 1995 21:18:24 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0683 Re: Shakespeare Web Sites If you wish to learn about the Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches sur la Renaissance Anglaise (CERRA) in Montpellier, try the URL: http://serinf2.univ-montp3.fr It will take you to the research home page of our university, where you can choose the link to the CERRA and read the presentation of our library, then click to *Cahiers Elisabethains*, to read the TOCs of the past issues, and the abstracts of the latest papers, in both French and English. I will soon add the TOC and abstracts of the October issue. Hope this will help. Luc Borot (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Curt Tofteland Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 1995 17:50:04 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0684 Conferences; CFP; Announcements Check out Shakespeare Repertory Theatre (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Espen S. Ore Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 09:29:47 +0200 Subject: ALLC/ACH '96 Call for Papers This message has been posted on various humanities lists. Please excuse me if you have already seen it. Espen Ore ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASSOCIATION FOR LITERARY AND LINGUISTIC COMPUTING ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTERS AND THE HUMANITIES JOINT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ALLC-ACH '96 JUNE 25-29, 1996 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN, NORWAY CALL FOR PAPERS This conference -- the major forum for literary, linguistic and humanities computing -- will highlight the development of new computing methodologies for research and teaching in the humanities, the development of significant new computer-based resources for humanities research, especially focusing on developing applications. TOPICS: The Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing and the Association for Computing and the Humanities invite submissions on topics and applications focused on the humanities disciplines, such as: languages and literature, history, philosophy, music, art, linguistics, anthropology and archaeology, creative writing, cultural studies, etc. We are interested in receiving technical proposals that focus on the cutting edge issues of the application of scientific tools and approaches to humanities disciplines; discipline-based proposals that focus on some of the more traditionally defined applications of computing in humanities disciplines, including text encoding, hypertext, text corpora, computational lexicography, statistical models, and syntactic, semantic, stylistic and other forms of text analysis; broad library and research-based proposals that focus on significant issues of text documentation and information retrieval; and tools-focused proposals that offer innovative and substantial applications and uses for humanities-based teaching and research, throughout the academic and research worlds. Submissions on humanities computing in developing countries and software/courses/courseware in undergraduate education are welcomed. The official language is English. The deadline for submissions is 30 NOVEMBER 1995. REQUIREMENTS: Proposals should describe substantial and original work. Those that concentrate on the development of new computing methodologies should make clear how the methodologies are applied to research and/or teaching in the humanities, and should include some critical assessment of the application of those methodologies in the humanities. Those that concentrate on a particular application in the humanities (e.g., a study of the style of an author) should cite traditional as well as computer-based approaches to the problem and should include some critical assessment of the computing methodologies used. All proposals should include conclusions and references to important sources. INDIVIDUAL PAPERS: Abstracts of 1500-2000 words should be submitted for presentations of thirty minutes including questions. SESSIONS: Proposals for sessions (90 minutes) are also invited. These should take the form of either: (a) Three papers. The session organizer should submit a 500-word statement describing the session topic, include abstracts of 1000-1500 words for each paper, and indicate that each author is willing to participate in the session; or (b) A panel of up to six speakers. The panel organizer should submit an abstract of 1500 words describing the panel topic, how it will be organized, the names of all the speakers, and an indication that each speaker is willing to participate in the session. POSTERS AND DEMONSTRATIONS ALLC-ACH '96 will include poster presentations and software and project demonstrations (either stand-alone or in conjunction with poster presentations) to give researchers an opportunity to present late-breaking results, significant work in progress, well-defined problems, or research that is best communicated in conversational mode. By definition, poster presentations are less formal and more interactive than a standard talk. Poster presenters will have the opportunity to exchange ideas one-on-one with attendees and to discuss their work in detail with those most deeply interested in the same topic. Posters are actually several large pieces of paper that present an overview of a topic or a problem. Poster presenters are given space to display two or three posters, and may provide handouts with examples or more detailed information. Poster presenters must be present at their posters at a specific time during the conference to describe their work and answer questions, but posters will remain displayed throughout the conference. Specific times will also be assigned for software or project demonstrations. Further information on poster presentations is available from the Program Committee chair. Posters proposals and software and project demonstrations will be accepted until January 15, 1996 to provide an opportunity for submitting very current work that need not be written up in a full paper. Poster or software/project demonstration proposals should contain a 300 to 500 word abstract in the same format described below for paper proposals. Proposals for software or project demonstrations should indicate the type of hardware that would be required if the proposal is accepted. Doctoral students are encouraged to consider poster submission as a viable means for discussing ongoing dissertation research. As part of its commitment to promote the development and application of appropriate computing in humanities scholarship, the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing will award up to five bursaries of up to 500 GB pounds each to students and young scholars who have papers accepted for presentation at the conference. Applicants must be members of ALLC, and must be aged 30 years or less at the start of the conference. Those wishing to be considered for an award should indicate this in their conference proposal. The ALLC will make the awards after the Programme Committee have decided which proposals are to be accepted. Recipients will be notified as soon as possible thereafter. A participant in a multi-author paper is eligible for an award, but it must be clear that s/he is contributing substantially to the paper. FORMAT OF SUBMISSIONS Electronic submissions are strongly encouraged. Please pay particular attention to the format given below. Submissions which do not conform to this format will be returned to the authors for reformatting, or may not be considered if they arrive very close to the deadline. All submissions should begin with the following information: TITLE: title of paper KEYWORDS: three keywords (maximum) describing the main contents of the paper AUTHOR(S): names of authors AFFILIATION: of author(s) CONTACT ADDRESS: full postal address of main author followed by other authors E-MAIL: electronic mail address of main author (for contact), followed by other authors (if any) FAX NUMBER: of main author PHONE NUMBER: of main author 1. Electronic submissions Electronic submissions are accepted as ASCII-files (please specify if encoding schemes have been used for characters outside ASCII range), MS-Word for Windows or Macintosh, and WordPerfect for Windows. Those who submit abstracts electronically, especially abstracts containing graphics and tables are kindly asked to fax a copy of the abstract in addition to the one sent electronically. Notes, if needed, should take the form of endnotes rather than footnotes. Electronic submissions should be sent to: allc-ach96@hd.uib.no with the subject line " Submission for ALLC-ACH96". 2. Paper submissions Submissions should be typed or printed on one side of the paper only, with ample margins. Six copies should be sent to ALLC-ACH96 (Paper submission) Espen Ore Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities Harald Haarfagresgt. 31 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY Presenters will have available an overhead projector (video based - overheads on plain paper rather than transparencies), a slide projector, a data projector which will display Macintosh, DOS/Windows, and video (but not simultaneously), an Internet connected computer which will run Macintosh OS programs or DOS/Windows programs, and a VHS (PAL) videocassette recorder. NTSC format will be available; if you anticipate needing NTSC, please note this information in your proposal. Requests for other presentation equipment will be considered by the local organizer; requests for special equipment should be directed to the local organizer no later than December 31, 1995. DEADLINES Proposals for papers and sessions November 30, 1995 Proposals for poster presentations January 15, 1996 Notification of acceptance February 15, 1996 PUBLICATION A selection of papers presented at the conference will be published in the series Research in Humanities Computing edited by Susan Hockey and Nancy Ide and published by Oxford University Press. Accepted abstracts will also be published on the WWW server at the Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities (URL=http://www.hd.uib.no/allc-ach96.html) INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE Proposals will be evaluated by a panel of reviewers who will make recommendations to the Program Committee comprised of: Jan-Gunnar Tingsell, Gothenburg University (ALLC) (chair) Chuck Bush, Brigham Young University (ACH), Gordon Dixon, Manchester Metropolitan University (ALLC), Nancy Ide, Vassar College (ACH), Willard McCarty, University of Toronto (ACH), Elli Mylonas, Brown University (ACH), Lisa Lena Opas, University of Joensuu (ALLC), Harold Short, Kings College (ALLC) Local Organizer: Espen Ore, University of Bergen (ALLC) LOCATION The University of Bergen was founded in 1946 but its history goes back to 1825 with the founding of the Bergen Museum. The University has an enrolment of some 17,000 students. It is located in the central part of the city of Bergen. Hosting this conference, the Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities was founded in 1972 and is located at the University of Bergen. Bergen, Norway's second largest city with a population of 220,000, was founded in 1071 according to the sagas. The city was an important Hanseatic trading centre and has retained an international profile that dates back to the early Middle Ages. There are direct flights to Bergen from Copenhagen, London, Oslo, and Paris. There is also a train connection with Oslo, and a ferry between Newcastle and Bergen. Hotel rooms in different price ranges will be available within walking distance from the conference center, and economically priced student accommodation will be available outside central Bergen. It is expected at this time that the fee for early registration for the conference will be in the US$125 to US$150 range, with an additional late registration fee. Detailed information about the conference will be made available in January or February of 1996. For further information please communicate with: Espen Ore Local Organizer, ALLC-ACH '96 Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities Harald Haarfagresgt. 31 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY Phone: + 47 55 21 28 65 Fax: + 47 55 32 26 56 E-mail: Espen.Ore@hd.uib.no http://www.hd.uib.no/allc-ach96.html Please give your name, full mailing address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address, with any enquiry. ALLC-ACH '96 info-list: If you want to receive information about the conference via e-mail you can subscribe to the mailing list by sending an empty e-mail message (from your own e-mail address) to: allc-ach96-request@hd.uib.no ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:04:37 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0689 Re: *As You Like It* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0689. Sunday, 17 September 1995 (1) From: Sarah Cave Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 09:50:26 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0697 Q: *As You Like It" (2) From: Shannon Murray Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 11:00:48 -0400 (AST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0697 Q: *As You Like It" (3) From: Michael Conner Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 07:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0697 Q: *As You Like It" (4) From: David Jackson Date: Friday, 15 Sep 95 10:55:42 est Subj: Re: SHK 6.0697 Q: *As You Like It" (5) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 17:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0697 Q: *As You Like It" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Cave Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 09:50:26 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0697 Q: *As You Like It" In 1986, the University of Richmond staged a production of AYLI where the court and its inhabitants were set in corporate America--rather like an IBM conference room with the Duke in his navy blue power suit, etc. In contrast, the Forest of Arden was set "backstage" in a theatre, and Rosalind/Ganymede dressed in "techie" overalls and a painters cap. Corin painted stand-up sheep, Orlando was building the tree upon which he wrote her name, and then in the final scene the set pieces were turned around to create a colorful, magical, theatrical world. Rosalind appeared in a wedding dress, revealing a beautiful figure that had been lost under the overalls. Her transformation and the Forest's were very powerful. I did feel, though, that the relationships in the play suffered. Celia and Rosalind were co-workers, not loving cousins; and the Jaques/ Touchstone "dueling clown" relationship was almost overlooked. The Corporate America as Evil worked in some ways, but for the most part I believe that Shakespeare should not be "conceptualized." The most powerful, emotional productions in my experience have been simply costumed, barely constructed, and heavily textual. Isn't it all about words? Sarah Cave Agnes Scott College scave@asc.scottlan.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shannon Murray Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 11:00:48 -0400 (AST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0697 Q: *As You Like It" Jim Helfers asked about video versions of *As You Like It*. The two I use are the BBC's from 1978 (with Helen Mirren, Angharad Rees, and Richard Pasco) and Paul Czinner's from 1936 with Olivier and Elizabeth Bergner. Those our media centre bought easily, but only the second is in our local video stores. I have a useful book--*Walking Shadows: Shakespeare in the National Film and Television Archives* which also lists films with sections from or about *As You Like It*: *Caught in the Act* which follows a Branagh production from 1988 and *The Immortal Gentleman* which offers Shakespeare himself reading the "seven ages of man" speech, for example. These, though, are probably less useful and less easily found. Shannon Murray (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Conner Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 07:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0697 Q: *As You Like It" The 1936 Olivier/Bergner version is readily available. I found it rather tedious though. I would assume there is a BBC version from the 1980s also available though I haven't seen it. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Friday, 15 Sep 95 10:55:42 est Subject: Re: SHK 6.0697 Q: *As You Like It" There is a film version of AYLI with L. Olivier as Orlando and Elizabeth bergner as Rosalind (with John Laurie as Oliver and Felix Aylmer as Duke Frederick). Made in 1936, directed by Paul Czinner, written (along with WS) by J.M. Barrie (of Peter Pan fame) and Robert Cullen (who also wrote the novel on which the 1995 HBO movie "Citizen X", starring Stephen Rea, was based). Music by William Walton. I haven't seen it in years, but for its time, it's not too bad, though I wouldn't let any of your cast see it, lest it give them bad habits (there's nothing worse than listening to actors who think they're being "Shakespearean" by putting on a phony British accent and walking around like they have a stick up them; not that L.O. was like this, but it's alarming how many people do this in a misguided attempt at imitation). Also, there's a really bad BBC version with the delectable Angharad Rees and Helen Mirren (i think), someone whose name I can't remember who was excruciating as Orlando (he could only have gotten the part via the method traditionally reserved for budding starlets in the days of the silver screen), and the usually great (but alas, I think, late) James Bolam as Touchstone (JB was had a talent for dour comic style, but while Touchstone is a complainer, he is completely unfunny and incomprehensible unless you bring out his opportunism and sly wit along with his gobbledegook loquaciousness.) As with most BBC productions of Shakespeare, watch it only if you need a cure for insomnia. As for program notes (which I usually prefer to eschew -- let the play speak for itself), I would focus on the pastoral element, and the arcadian myth (escaping the bad city/court and seeking out the purity and enlightenment of the country (which, of course, the exiles seem happy to abandon as soon as the Evil Duke has changed his ways). I directed a production of AYLI several years ago, and I, too, depicted the court as somewhat totalitarian and cold (and decaying), with the Bad Duke and Oliver in dark power suits, with attendants in military dress uniforms (ok, I know it's a little crass, but my costume choices were limited, as I'll explain), while the forest was stark (it's winter, remember) and the exiles were in LL Bean style clothes and the rustics in more workaday stuff. This was a shoestring production, and while I desigend the set and wrote the music myself, I entrusted the costumes to someone whoi didn't deliver; so, five days before opening, I looked at everyone on the stage, and noticed that several of the exiles were in khaki pants and ragg sweaters, and the LL Bean look just worked. Plus we were able to draw upon most people's wardrobes, so we just went with it. Some people thought we went a bit far by having Jaques de Boys show up in Indiana Jones garb, but his entrance is so absurd anyway, that I wanted the image of some intrepid explorer wannabee hacking his way throught the forest in search of the lost civilization, just so he could deliver the news about the Duke's miraculous transformation (if ever there was a tacky, but nevertheless endearingly naive, way to quickly get out of a play, this it it). As for Hymen (yes, we thought of the same bizarre costume/staging permutations as everyone else does), you just have to commit to the pastoral/pagan country fertility ritual idea and run with it. I found that music helped a lot here, especially with the stylized structure of the scene after Rosalind enters, and I scored it to fit the (interestingly varied) meter of the text, to highlight the ceremonial nature of it, but also to keep it moving. Good luck; for all its oddness of balance and slightness of plot, it's a wonderful play that can work beautifully if you treat it with simplicity and honesty. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 17:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0697 Q: *As You Like It" Dear Jim Helfers-- One thing that i saw in a recent production (student production here in Albany) of AYLI that impressed me was signs of a kind of rivalry between Rosalind and Celia--This was played throughout, and also the implication that one of the reasons rosalind faints is not just that Orlando is hurt but also that the tables have turned on her and now that Celia and oliver are falling she realizes she may have gone too far with her game--she's no longer the center of attention to her "faithful sidekick"---chris s. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:28:06 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0690 Re: Teaching Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0690. Sunday, 17 September 1995. (1) From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Friday, 15 Sep 95 11:16:59 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0680 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Part 1) (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 16:36:49 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0686 Teaching: Questions, Comments, and Observations (3) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 18:30:02 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0686 Teaching (4) From: Naomi Liebler Date: Friday, 15 Sep 95 23:4 7:00T Subj: RE: SHK 6.0686 Teaching: Questions, Comments, and Observations (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Friday, 15 Sep 95 11:16:59 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0680 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Part 1) Although the "why package Shakespeare" debate has quieted down, I would just like to throw in my two cents worth. Which is, we are not packaging Shakespeare, but ourselves. I can still remember being an undergraduate (and graduate), faced with required or even elective classes. My first question was not "Will I like this author/period?" but "Will I like the professor." I'm sure that we have all had interesting subjects turned boring or (worse!) con- frontational because of a professor with different theoretical views, or a complete lack of classroom style. I suspect that even those students who have signed up for Shakespeare wholeheartedly are wondering how the professor views the "pinacle of English literature" and they are probably relieved to find that no one is expected to bow down and worship. Annalisa Castaldo (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 16:36:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0686 Teaching: Questions, Comments, and Observations In response to Thomas Ellis's comments on "ethiop," I would like to suggest that we don't always understand the vocabulary of the past. Alan Desson's new study of theatrical vocabulary makes that point very clearly. Was "ethiop" a racist expression in the 1590s? I have no idea. But we do know that Tudor men seem to have preferred blondes. And some sonneteers, including Shakespeare, make hay of the paradox that their ladies are both beautiful and dark. So "ethiop" may imply an esthetic judgment, and what we may see as a racist comment may merely be a metaphor. Hermia is dark skinned and, therefore, not "really" very pretty. Now I realize that this esthetic judgment may be tough on those of use who have more melanin than the rest of you, but think of all the esthetic judgments that WE make, judgments that exclude so many of us: tall and slim are good; short and fat are bad. Old is bad; young is good. Again and again, we make exclusionary judgments based on non-rational criteria. So we might point out to our students that Hermia's "ethiop" is one of these non-rational, exclusionary esthetic judgments. And the discussion can go from there! Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 18:30:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0686 Teaching Thomas Ellis; Regarding the difficulties in dealing with the racism in Shakespeare, are you teaching high school? Freshmen? Kids with no background yet in Shakespeare? My suggestion is to change the word. Let them get to know him first. For the sake of one word, or even three or four, why run the risk of losing them forever to the pleasures Shakespeare has to offer? Get the play photocopied and change or cut where necessary. Stephanie Hughes (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Friday, 15 Sep 95 23:47:00 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0686 Teaching: Questions, Comments, and Observations To Thomas Ellis: thank you for sharing with us that very difficult moment when your African-American students winced at the term "ethiop." I would suggest that something very special happened in your class that day: instead of you teaching them, this time it was your students who were the teachers and you were their pupil. You said, "I feel my students' pain, but I feel powerless to ease it, yet at the same time, loath to trivialize it." Good. DON'T try to "ease it" (you can't); and for heaven's sake DON'T "trivialize it." Though we often pretend that they are, the fact is that Shakespeare's plays aren't comfort food. They raise awkward, difficult, and as you saw, painful issues. Perhaps we are more accustomed to readingthose issues in the tragedies and romances, but I have found cause for cringing in a number of comedies--most obviously MV (the cringe really hit hard when I listened to the Berliner Ensemble cast members spit out the word "Jude" in a German-language production in Edinburgh last month). Sometimes I even cringe at moments in AYLI and TN. No matter--chacun a son alienation. Your students "got" an engagement with the play that caucasians can only intellectualize into some kind of safe, quaint, historicized, distant racism. And they gave it back to you in what appears from your narration of the moment to have been open, honest, undefended experience. You were privileged indeed. Not many people teaching Shakespeare, not even those who long for a good old-fashioned "emotional" response (vs. a coldly analytic, theorized one), get that kind of in-your-face pure response from their students, or indeed from anyone else. Treasure that--and them. Cheers, Naomi Liebler ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 14:21:56 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0691 Re: Web Page; Bloom; *Rom.* Production Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0691. Sunday, 17 September 1995. (1) From: Michael Best Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 07:48:02 -0700 Subj: WWW pages (2) From: Nina Walker Date: Saturday, 16 Sep 1995 11:42:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0622 Re: Bloom and *The Western Canon* (3) From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 16:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Production of RJ (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 07:48:02 -0700 Subject: WWW pages SHAKSPERians with an interest in the Internet may wish to look at two pages on our English Department server: http://www.engl.uvic.ca/Faculty/MBHomePage/ISShakespeare/Index.html gives access to a series of pages about a course on Shakespeare that I am teaching this year as "Individual Studies" (no formal lectures but one tutorial, and a whole lot of computer interaction, written, audio and video materials). http://www.engl.uvic.ca/Faculty/MBHomePage/SLT/index.html provides some information about the CD ROM "Shakespeare's Life and Times" that has recently been published. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nina Walker Date: Saturday, 16 Sep 1995 11:42:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0622 Re: Bloom and *The Western Canon* Hello all: Shortly after the publication of *The Western Canon*, I caught Bloom on the NPR talk show "Talk of the Nation". Poor Ray Suarez. Bloom had come to make pronouncements, not to have dialogue and certainly not to entertain any criticism of his work. I confess I became far more fascinated with Bloom himself than with his thesis. Many callers were prompted to rage but I found myself laughing aloud. Bloom was asserting that the study of great literature, particularly Shakespeare, was the study of human experience and the important lessons of life etc. Implied in his attitude was that HE, of course, was practically alone in understanding what those great lessons were. At one point a caller challenged him and his response was 'I dismiss that conclusion with contempt!' While I am in general agreement with much of Bloom's reasoning, I dismiss Bloom himself with contempt. He should reread *Coriolanus* and meditate on the role of hubris in the fall. Nina Walker (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 16:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Production of RJ Dear SHAKSPERians, A travelling production of *Romeo and Juliet* will be shown in Portsmouth, NH on Friday, October 20, 1995 at the Music Hall. This production is billed as a multi-racial production and stars Adrian Lester as Romeo and Lucy Whybrod as Juliet. Has anyone seen this travelling production? I'm interested in having my class see it, but need to know more about it, since it will cost my students a pretty penny. If you have information, especially if you can offer a pocket review, please contact me. Many thanks. Cheers, Douglas Lanier DML3@christa.unh.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 14:26:05 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0692 Some Assorted Questions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0692. Sunday, 17 September 1995. (1) From: Rod Osiowy Date: Saturday, 16 Sep 1995 20:01:14 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: CDROM shakespeare (2) From: Lawrence Manley Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 10:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: [Some Random Questions] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rod Osiowy Date: Saturday, 16 Sep 1995 20:01:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: CDROM shakespeare Does anyone know of CD ROM collections of Shakespeare with performances/ annotations/scripts/set descriptions made for the IBM? I've found good Mac CD's but I need IBM. RodO rosiowy@cln.etc.bc.ca (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lawrence Manley Date: Friday, 15 Sep 1995 10:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Some Random Questions] Would Shaksper-ians share their lore on the following? 1. Explicitly fictional (as opposed to allegedly biographical) treatments of Christopher Marlowe? 2. Shakespeare and comic books? No connection between these two topics should be assumed. Thanks! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:40:03 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0693 Re: Marlowe/Comics Part 1 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0693, Tuesday, 19 September 1995. (1) From: Chris Gordon Date: Sunday, 17 Sep 95 14:24:49 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0692 Some Assorted Questions (2) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Sunday, 17 Sep 1995 15:39:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Fictional Marlowe (3) From: Jeremy R. Jacobs Date: Sunday, 17 Sep 1995 23:57:48 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0692 Some Assorted Questions (4) From: David Jackson Date: Monday, 18 Sep 95 10:15:19 est Subj: Re: SHK 6.0692 Some Assorted Questions (5) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 18 Sep 1995 13:51 ET Subj: Marlowe fiction (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Sunday, 17 Sep 95 14:24:49 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0692 Some Assorted Questions For Lawrence Manley: There are several good novels related to Christopher Marlowe that I've read over the last year or so; they include: Judith Cook, *The Slicing Edge of Death: Who Killed Christopher Marlowe* (check out the mystery section of your library/bookstore if you can't find it in mainstream fiction) George Garrett, *Entered from the Sun* (which takes place a number of years after Marlowe's death and focuses on its double protagonists, but is quite wonderful) And, absolutely the best of all (IMHO), Anthony Burgess, *A Dead Man in Deptford.* This was Burgess's last novel, published in Britain in 1993 and only just published in the U.S. (to the everlasting shame of American publishing, which doesn't have much to be proud of these days) Marlowe also appears as a character in a fantasy novel by Lisa Goldstein called *Strange Devices of the Sun and Moon,* in which the fairy queen herself comes to Elizabethan London. Comic books: I've seen a "new" Classics Illustrated version of *Hamlet* that's quite good, and someone whose name escapes me (Ian Pollock???) did a remarkable illustrated *King Lear* (in somewhat more elaborate comic book format--more like *Maus* than the Classics Illustrated series). Hope this helps! --Chris Gordon, University of Minnesota (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Sunday, 17 Sep 1995 15:39:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Fictional Marlowe Lawrence Manley asks for "explicitly fictional (as opposed to allegedly biographical) treatments of Christopher Marlowe. Chris Gordon and I seem to be the resident insatiable consumers of fiction based on the life and times of Christopher Marlowe. Some time ago, she recommended Judith Cook's novel _The Slicing Edge of Death: Who Killed Christopher Marlowe?_ and I, partly to express my gratitude, countered with George Garrett's _Entered From the Sun_, a novel set in the wake of Marlowe's death. Then there's Anthony Burgess's last novel, the posthumously published _A Dead Man in Deptford_, now available in this country in paperback, and well worth the price. I can recommend all three, though I'm a bit unsure about what Lawrence Manley means by "explicitly fictional" and "allegedly biographical." All three novelists mentioned here have considerable knowledge of the historical record and manage to weave it into their tales, making the distinction between their work and, say, Charles Nicholl's exercise in historical speculation, _The Reckoning: The Murder of Christopher Marlowe_, less clear-cut that it might otherwise be. --Ron Macdonald (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeremy R. Jacobs Date: Sunday, 17 Sep 1995 23:57:48 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0692 Some Assorted Questions Professor Manley -- Regarding fictional treatments of Christopher Marlowe, I'm aware of _Entered from the Sun_ by George Garrett, _The Reckoning_ by Charles Nicholls, and the recent _A Dead Man in Deptford_ by Anthony Burgess. All of these focus on the murder of Marlowe; _Entered from the Sun_ does not purport to be a biography while _The Reckoning_ does. About _Dead Man_ I can say nothing, since I haven't a copy at hand. But read on, because the two questions you posed DO have a connection. I'm in the middle of trying to assemble one (or more) papers on the subject of Shakespeare and Comic Books. My point of focus is on a currently running comic called _The Sandman_, which is written by Neil Gaiman and published by DC Comics. Shakespeare himself has appeared as a character within the book on two occasions: Issue 13, "Men of Good Fortune", concerns a pair of immortal characters who meet for drinks every hundred years. Their 1589 meeting introduces the titular character Sandman (or Morpheus or Dream, the anthropomorphic personification of dreams) to two playwrights, Kit Marlowe at the height of his career, and Will Shakespeare at the shaky start of his own. Dream establishes a deal with Shakespeare -- two plays celebrating dreams, one at the start of WS's career, the other at the end, in exchange for the ability to write plays that will live on in human memory across the ages. Issue 19, "A Midsummer Night's Dream", presents the first performance of Shakespeare's earlier play celebrating dreams, performed outdoors before an audience of fairies, including Titania and Oberon themselves. The issue presents both a look at the performance, and a peek backstage, and is very intriguing in its view of Elizabethan theatrical practice. The murder of Marlowe, presented by Gaiman as explicitly political, plays a substantial role in the story, since Dream is the first to inform Shakespeare of the death of his friend and rival. Anyway, the issue marked an important point in the history of the comic, and comics in general, since the issue won the 1991 World Fantasy Award for the Year's Best Short Story, the first comic book ever to do so, and the last, since the stunned Convention organizers altered the rules to forbid further nominations of comic books in major categories (amazing how it's always the ones on the fringe who are the most reactionary). Since that point, _Sandman_ has acheived enormous popular and critical success in the field, allowing Gaiman unprecedented freedom in his work, and making him one of the most awarded authors in comic book history. These stories, and Shakespeare and Marlowe's appearances, are not merely incidental to the comic, but key elements of both the overall storyline and the themes of the book as a whole. It is worth noting, incidentally, that the final issue, #75, due out in a few months, will present the second commissioned play, _The Tempest_. It's beyond my present 12-am-and-supposed-to-be-grading-papers sensibility to condense all my research into something e-mail worthy, but if you are interested I can send you some further notes later this week. The two issues (13 and 19) are almost unavailable for individual purchase, but they are easy to find in trade paperbakc reprint collections entitled, respectively, _The Doll's House_ and _Dream Country_. Any good comic book store or some book stores should be able to help you, or you can order them from Warner Books. All of the above hardly exhausts the topic of Shakespeare and Comic Books, but it surely has exhausted me. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Monday, 18 Sep 95 10:15:19 est Subject: Re: SHK 6.0692 Some Assorted Questions Re: Marlowe/comics I believe Anthony Burgess' lats novel, whose title escapes me, is about Marlowe. The book is still in hardcover and on sale at most decent bookstores, I think. As for Comic Books, the revived Classics Illustrated (the originals of which I have to admit I loved as a child--they were my introduction to much of the Western Canon, as H.B. would no doubt be overjoyed to hear) a few years ago came out with versions of Hamlet, Macbeth, and several others. I can't remember whether they were complete text versions, but I suspect that they were. I also have a full text comic book of Twelfth Night, from a British publisher, in a very fin-de-20th siecle, post-punk graphic style. I'll post the publisher's name when I find it. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 18 Sep 1995 13:51 ET Subject: Marlowe fiction Lawrence Manley asks for information about fictional treatments of Marlowe. Anthony Burgess' last novel, _A Dead Man in Deptford_, tells the Marlowe story in the first person. It revisits the violent, word-crazy Elizabethan England B. first explored in _Nothing like the Sun_, though more coolly; his Marlowe is a man distanced by his intellect from his own emotions, which are nevertheless powerful and finally destructive. It's very tempting to see a lot of B. himself in his central character--including the bisexuality that B. only apparently confessed to late in his life. There are at any rate interesting pages imagining homosexual feelings and behavior in the 1580s. The least satisfying aspect of the novel, in my judgment, is its treatment of Marlowe the playwright. But I enjoyed it, and would recommend it to students wanting a fuller sense of the place, the period, and the people. On the subject of Burgess--and the mysterious borderlands between biography and fiction--I recommend Paul Theroux's witty, hilarious memoir-short story, recounting the relationship between Burgess and a fictionalized if not fictitious American admirer, in that summer issue of _The New Yorker_ devoted to books--my copy's elsewhere so I can't give you the date, but I seem to to recall late June or early July. Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 12:47:37 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0694 Re: Comics/Marlowe Part 2 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0694, Tuesday, 19 September 1995. (1) From: Sally Greene Date: Sunday, 17 Sep 1995 15:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0692 Shakespeare and comic books (2) From: Peter Guither Date: Monday, 18 Sep 1995 12:50:14 -0500 Subj: Comic Books (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sally Greene Date: Sunday, 17 Sep 1995 15:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0692 Shakespeare and comic books Workman Publishing has done some beautiful comic books of Shakespeare plays, complete and unabridged. The ones I know about are Macbeth (1982), Othello (1983), and King Lear (1984). There may be others. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Guither Date: Monday, 18 Sep 1995 12:50:14 -0500 Subject: Comic Books Lawrence, You asked about Shakespeare and Comic Books. I'm not sure if you mean influences or story lines in comic books or actual Shakespeare comic books. If the latter, there's a good series of illustrated Shakespeare books done in comic book style (all panels of pictures complete with the balloons for the dialogue, etc.). Great for introducing people to reading Shakespeare. The drawings are quite wild. It's a picture version with the actual complete and unabridged text rather than a simplified text version. There's a version for King Lear (illustrated by Ian Pollock), Macbeth (illustrated by Oscar Zarate) and Othello (illustrated by Von). Published by Workman Publishing, New York (paperback: $6.95-8.95). --Pete ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 12:51:12 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0695 Comics (Part 3) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0695, Tuesday, 19 September 1995. From: John Boni Date: Monday, 18 Sep 1995 09:06:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0692 Some Assorted Questions Laurence Manley asks about Shakespeare comic books. If I recall right, it is Workman Press in Pittsburgh that has produced several very nice illustrated versions--of *Lear*, *Othello*, and *Macbeth*. These all include a complete text of the play, and each engages a well known current comics artist. I find the *Othello* particularly engaging, since the artist uses a somewhat cinematic style, breaking the frame in certain situations, and developing images in an intriguing fashion. Perhaps there are other sources, and perhaps Workman has added to its list by now; I bought mine a year or so ago. Oh, and they cost a bit more than even the Classic Comics of my (long gone) youth, which were fifteen cents, as I recall; these are about $6.95, but very nice. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:22:24 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0696 Re: Teaching Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0696, Tuesday, 19 September 1995. (1) From: Armstrong Eric Date: Sunday, 17 Sep 1995 18:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: ethiop & generalizations (2) From: Jon Enriquez Date: Monday, 18 Sep 1995 09:32:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0690 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (3) From: Terence Martin Date: Monday, 18 Sep 95 12:25:18 CDT Subj: Classes on the Web (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Armstrong Eric Date: Sunday, 17 Sep 1995 18:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: ethiop & generalizations W. L. Godshalk wrote, >Now I realize that this esthetic judgment may be tough on those of use who have >more melanin than the rest of you, but think of all the esthetic judgments that >WE make, judgments that exclude so many of us: tall and slim are good; short >and fat are bad. Old is bad; young is good. Again and again, we make >exclusionary judgments based on non-rational criteria. > >So we might point out to our students that Hermia's "ethiop" is one of these >non-rational, exclusionary esthetic judgments. And the discussion can go from >there! Dear Bill G. : Please do not include me in your gang of "prejudiced" WE. Maybe I am nitpicking, but I resist this kind of generalization in my speech and writing. If YOU make judgements based on esthetic choices, fine. Age-ism and Body Image preferences are your own (and possibly the media's), please do not foist them on me or other SHAKESPERians. Sorry for the flame-like tone, but I hate it when people include me in their words, intentionally or not. I wonder if others feel similarly? Thanks, Eric Armstrong. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jon Enriquez Date: Monday, 18 Sep 1995 09:32:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0690 Re: Teaching Shakespeare To the things already said about Thomas Ellis's experience with "ethiop," let me add two possible areas for further classroom discussion. (1) Why should a racial epithet within a literary work alienate people from the author? We've had this discussion on the list before, and some archival digging may or may not be helpful for shaping the discussion. But you can talk about notions of character (it's the character, after all, who uses the epithet, not the author, etc.), you can talk about the nature of personal reactions to words, and so forth. (2) You can go into a further exploration of racism within Elizabethan England, the assumptions of the audience, changing ideas of appropriate language, and so on. In both cases, you are helping the students to learn more about these plays (and their audiences and culture in general), and also about language, and also about themselves and their own experiences. But we would do a disservice to students if we allowed them to get turned off of Shakespeare by a word. Jon Enriquez Georgetown University enriquezj@guvax.georgetown.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Martin Date: Monday, 18 Sep 95 12:25:18 CDT Subject: Classes on the Web Thanks to Michael Best for sharing his Web Page for his class. It is especially informative for those of us still dipping our toes in the water, so to speak, rather than boldly getting on with it as he has done. Terence Martin UM-St. Louis ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:40:56 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0697 Qs: Antonio; Tennyson Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0697, Tuesday, 19 September 1995. (1) From: Sam Schimek Date: Monday, 18 Sep 95 22:34:53 CDT Subj: Tennyson's IN MEMORIAM (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Schimek Date: Monday, 18 Sep 95 22:34:53 CDT Subject: Tennyson's IN MEMORIAM I was reading section 12 of Tennyson's IN MEMORIAM for a class on Victorian Poetry in which we have discussed the influence Shakespeare played on the Victorians when the images presented in that passage seemed to remind me very much of Gloucester's death scene on the cliffs of Dover in KING LEAR. While I know (or at least the very helpful footnote tells me so) that he is talking about his dead friend, Hallam, who is returning on the boat, I feel very confident that the image he presents of himself (crazed, animated, confused, dazed) and the scenes around him (the cliffs, the water) and the things he says ("is this the end? " ... "is he come yet?") are echoes of Gloucester's own feelings about his son and his own death. How would such a reading change the meaning of the poem if at all? I have some thoughts, but am not sure at all. if the image is one of patrernalistic love then surely this can be another attempt to bridge the gap in homosocial discourse that Tennyson feels exists and disrupts the poetic process (sections 5, 7, and 8). he can explain his deep rooted sentiments for Hallam in similar terms as gloucester can explain his love for his son. if it is more po litically situated, than the image represents a sort of usurpation of power that is present (tennyson's own anxieties about the changing critical and literary circles and the value and quality of his work) throughout KING LEAR. These are all random speculations and any suggestions will be appreciated as a paper seems forthcoming. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:06:33 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0698 ATHE Panel Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0698, Tuesday, 19 September 1995. From: Linda Miles Date: Monday, 18 Sep 1995 17:21:06 -0500 Subject: ATHE panel possibilities I am a PhD candidate looking to put together a panel proposal for ATHE 1996. The work I'm doing right now involves direcing techniques/Shakespeare's comedies/issues of gender. Right now I remain fairly flexible, looking for anyone interested in any of the following trajectories (into which my work can fit): directing & Shakespeare directing & comedy directing & gender Shakespeare production & gender Shakespeare's comedies & gender etc. etc. I think there is a lot of potential in these areas, and that we can put together an exciting combination of papers. Anyone working in similar arenas and interested in collaborating on a proposal, please contact me PRIVATELY. Linda Miles miles.linda@mail.utexas.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 13:40:46 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0699 Re: Comics; Marlowe; Burgess Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 699 Wednesday, 20 September 1995. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 13:58:13 -0400 Subj: comic books (2) From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 95 16:09:53 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0693 Re: Marlowe/Comics Part 1 (3) From: Karen Saupe Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 16:14:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0693 Re: Marlowe/Comics Part 1 (4) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 19:29:05 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0693 Re: Marlowe Comics (5) From: Dermot Grice Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 11:31:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0693 Re: Marlowe/Comics Part 1 (6) From: James Schaefer Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 13:11:03 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Anthony Burgess (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 13:58:13 -0400 Subject: comic books All plays should be published as comic books. Workman Publishing (1 W 39 St NYC 10018): Othello illustrated by Oscar Zarante King Lear illustrated by Ian Pollock Macbeth illustrated by Von Maybe they've added other titles by now. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 95 16:09:53 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0693 Re: Marlowe/Comics Part 1 Jeremy-- I would be interested in hearing more about your thoughts and writing on the Shakespeare-Sandman connection. I have read and enjoyed Sandman since the beginning of its run. You can email me privately if no one else expresses an interest. Annalisa (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Saupe Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 16:14:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0693 Re: Marlowe/Comics Part 1 Workman Publishing has at least three Shakespeare comix (Chris Gordon has already mentioned Pollock's _Lear_, the best of the lot): _Ian Pollock's Illustrated King Lear, Complete and Unabridged_ (Workman, 1984) _Macbeth, the Folio Edition_, illustrated by Von (Workman, 1982) _Othello, Complete & Unabridged_, illustrated by Oscar Zarate (Workman, 1983) (Are there more?) (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 19:29:05 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0693 Re: Marlowe Comics Winging two birds with one stone, there is also a brilliant comic-book version of Doctor Faustus, in which Faustus' 24 years run from 1960 to 1984, with various bits of modern history going on in the background while Faustus and a _very_ beautiful Mephistopheles make their way across the foreground. Highyl recommended. I dont have it to hand, but will hunt up my copy for details. Tom (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dermot Grice Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 11:31:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0693 Re: Marlowe/Comics Part 1 One novel about Marlowe that nobody seems to have mentioned yet is Icarus Flying_by Liam Maguire, published by Ormond Books in 1993. Though not a masterpiece, it is worth reading. Dermot Grice dgrice.acs.ryerson.ca (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 13:11:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Anthony Burgess If you follow up David Evett's advice and read Paul Theroux's fantasia on the theme of Anthony Burgess in this summer's fiction issue of the *New Yorker*, don't miss the disclaimer letter a couple issues later from the presumably real (then? now?) Mrs. Theroux. Future biographers, beware! Jim Schaefer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 13:53:13 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0700 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 700 Wednesday, 20 September 1995. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 13:11:19 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0696 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 15:58:45 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0696 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (3) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 20:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Teaching Shakespeare (4) From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 23:30:02 -0400 Subj: Re: ethiop (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 13:11:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0696 Re: Teaching Shakespeare What seems odder that Mr. Godshalk's royal "We" was his advice. He points out that we must now realize that we don't know the meaning of many Eliz. words and that "Ethiop" might have just indicated an aesthetic preference. He then advises that students should simply be told that the word indicates aesthetic preference and move on. But, it has not been established that the word only indicates aesthetic preference and this approach, though possessing the merit of following the paradigms established by the contemporary, should be follwed thoroughly to have the desired effect. It might be better if it was explained to the student that the words of the text may mean whatever they want them to mean -- and this way declaring a new meaning for Ethiop would be merely the simple produce of a common day. By the time the students get to the word the method would have already been established and no sutures will show. This seems much better than following the advice of another poster and just removing the inconvenient word -- this might be detected and would be inconvenient when one speculates on the horrible effects the censor might have had on the plays. As a graduate of an historically black college I will mention that informing students that the word indicates a merely aesthetic preference won't go over anyway. There is no better way to arouse suspicion and students know "better" (rightly or wrongly). It seems better to confront all this right off. Begin with Othello and see what happens and then, eventually, you might move the discussions away from contemporary concerns and have a go at chatting about the literary. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 15:58:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0696 Re: Teaching Shakespeare Eric Armstrong has recently corrected my use of "WE." Which reminds me, of course, of the Lone Ranger and Tonto when they are surrounded by hostile Indians. I am afraid, however, we are all part of the society in which we live. There are only a few ways to become unstuck, e.g., suicide. I do not buy the Virginia Woolf contention that one segment of society can stand aloof from another segment. I think Donne was right: no woman is an island. But I don't think Eric understood what I was driving at. I was not being complacent. I was trying to point out that most of us make non-rational esthetic judgments. The "ethiope" question might well lead to a classroom discussion of these non-rational judgments, and allow us to see ourselves more clearly. Many of these non-rational judgments may not be conscious. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 20:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Teaching Shakespeare The thread on teaching Shakespeare is petering out for now, but I would nevertheless like to respond to two posts, one of them aimed toward me. (1) I found Bill Godshalk's response to "Ethiop" stunningly insensitive. It was the kind of response that only those who have never been victimized by prejudice can make: it's only an aesthetic judgment! There is, I think, an important sense in which Shakespeare's racism is in fact only aesthetic -- since blackness was just beginning to acquire the more sinister meanings it would adopt in the next century, as a part of the development of the slave trade. But Bill, there it is, already in kernel: it is ugly to be be black! And there are those of us who are old enough to remember when it was ugly to be a Jew. If you look at American literature in the 1920s you will find that it was once thought ugly to be Scandinavian. Only aesthetic judgments? (2) Chris Warley raises the objection that when I argued against condescending to students I was "essentializing" their "authenticity" as subjects, as well as the "subversion" I seemed to imply to be their mission vis-a-vis the study of Shakespeare. I was doing no such thing. I was, however, calling attention to what I called the "rehearsal" of old controversies regarding the groundlings -- a controversy to be found in the words of WS himself, and to which I do not think there is an ultimate solution. We are all, as even the WS of some of the Prologues seems to be, caught in a bind between democratic impulses and the inevitability of hierarchical order. As teachers we are always on high (we are the authorities; we are "those who know": we give out the grades). It doesn't seem possible that we can get away from that entirely, and for that reason I am not so opposed as others on the list seem to be to the theatrics with which some teachers introduce the study of Shakespeare. I don't like condescension, but in some hands theatrics can be something of a levelling device. In any case, all I was saying was this, without a thought of anything so vexed as a strategy of decommodifying subversion: we ought to love our students: we ought to love and respect them. And our teaching ought to be an expression of that love. Robert Appelbaum UC Berkeley (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 23:30:02 -0400 Subject: Re: ethiop Two thoughts occur to me about "handling" the situation as you described it: 1)Turn to Romeo's speech. There the word 'Ethiop' is used in a positive way, as the gorgeous backdrop for a brilliant jewel; or at least I've always interpreted it as positive. [Of course, he does go on to say she's a dove and everyone else is crows, doesn't he?] 2) Is it too facile to consider that perhaps we are to think less of Hermia for her use of the word? I think Bill G.'s take on society's esthetic judgments is probably appropriate. Hermia also calls Helena a shrimp--are your short students offended by that? Most of Shakespeare's yokels are stupid, and we're playing Winter's Tale's yokels as Southern yokels, even here in Newnan, GA. Should my Southern audiences be offended that we are "indicating" stupidity with their own accent? It's a tough situation. Good luck! Dale Lyles ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 14:57:05 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0701 Re: Antonio Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 701 Wednesday, 20 September 1995. (1) From: Kay Wade Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 14:24:00 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0697 Qs: Antonio (2) From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 12:16:15 +0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0697 Qs: Antonio; Tennyson (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kay Wade Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 14:24:00 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0697 Qs: Antonio Sam Schimek asks about downplaying Antonio's antisemitism. I think it would be fatal to do that; his antisemitism is necessary to the play. Shylock doesn't go out of his way to entrap Antonio into anything; in fact, he at first offers to assist Antonio. It is Antonio's refusal to be under any obligation to a Jew that leads to the pound of flesh situation. A kind of PC pretense that nobody is antisemitic does away with any reason for the play, it seems to me. Further, Shylock is given abundant reason for finally insisting on payment. He's had to put up with prejudice and mistreatment from Antonio and the general populace, his friends are ragging at him, his daughter runs off with a Christian and is so uncaring of his feelings that she steals a ring that was a cherished memento of his wife and sells it (to buy a monkey, as I recall), and one way and another his feelings are thoroughly trampled on. Finally, he strikes back. I don't see how that makes him a monster, but rather a very troubled human being. Further, I find Shakespeare's treatment of Portia very interesting. People seem to be mesmerized by her wonderful speech about mercy instead of justice, but then what does she do? She enjoys playing her razzle-dazzle trick and entrapping Shylock, while keeping Antonio and Bassanio in unnecessarily prolonged fear that Antonio would die when she could have settled things much sooner. Then, after she's had her big moment, she immediately drops any talk of mercy and instead talks justice, justice, justice. When Antonio and the Duke both try to let Shylock off the hook, it is Portia who insists on grinding him down. Shakespeare doesn't beat you over the head with the moral of a story, but it's the Christians in this play who come off badly when you really look at the text. I can't imagine that it escaped Shakespeare's notice that Portia talks pretty but doesn't follow through. Remember he prepared the way in Act I (ii.21) where she says, "If to do were as easy to know what were good to do, chapels had been churches and poor men's cottages princes' palaces. It is a good divine that follows his own instructions: I can easier teach twenty what were good to be done, than be one of the twenty to follow mine own teaching." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 12:16:15 +0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0697 Qs: Antonio; Tennyson Greetings all. Sam Schimek inquired about recent performances of *Merchant* and the way Antonio was presented: >1) Antonio & Bassanio's potential homosexuality: Was this mined on stage? Did >it undermine of help the performance? Did it give Antonio more dramatic power >as an outsider a la Shylock? A recent (1991/2) production by the Sydney-based Bell Shakespeare company foregrounded (without overstating) this idea by having the first scene of the play staged in a bath-house, all present being clad only in towels. This was, according to the director's notes, a deliberate use of the connotations of a gay community that the audience might associate with a bath-house - the implication being underlined - to the disappointment (and annoyance) of some by a passionate kiss between Antonio and Bassanio. I couldn't say whether it helped or hindered the performance, but it did mark both Bassanio and Antonio as 'outsiders' to the dominant heterosexual paradigms of mercantile Venice: this might, in fact, make Antonio not only more sympathetic to Shylock as a fellow outsider, but would perhaps undermine the 'dramatic power' that the latter had over him. >2) Antonio's Anti-Semitism: How was this presented to the audience? How was it >received? Was it glossed over in order to compliment the numerous "good >Antonio" speeches? As far as I can recall (an some other Australian correspondents who saw the production may disagree with me), Antonio's anti-Semitism was very much down-played - but not entirely glossed over. Bassanio came across as far more anti-Semitic, but this may in fact have been a very personal animosity toward Shylock himself - his Jewishness being a secondary consideration - on account of the moneylender's hatred of - and threat to - Bassanio's beloved Antonio. >3) Antonio as Christ-figure: Was this addressed overtly, left as an >undercurrent or ignored? Was any stage-symbolism milked from this? Not an issue in this production. >4) In general, what was the final opinion of the play? Worthy of production or >racist script that offends? While my opinion is of the former, one cannot >overlook the large body of opinion leaning towards the latter. Then again, >being offensive never alone makes a play unworthy of production. The Bell Company were very conscious of the potential 'offensiveness' of the play, and this was publicly stated to be one of the reasons for choosing to perform it - the same rationale being used (and, in my opinion, equally poorly defended) in their choice of *Shrew* for their national tour last year. It was, overall, a good production. I think the play is worth producing, if only in recognition of the 'warts and all' nature of Shakespeare's works. It is not enough to defend *Merchant* (or *Shrew*) as being part of the dramatist's unstinting exploration and representation of all facets of human nature; we should be prepared to admit that the dramatist may have been possessed of 'distaseful' attitudes, as much as we should be prepared to admit that he wrote some bad plays. I don't think there's any hiding from the play's racism - but I agree with Sam Schimek that offensiveness alone should not exclude the play from performance. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 15:03:05 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0702 Re: *Winter's Tale*; Tennyson Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 702 Wednesday, 20 September 1995. (1) From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 22:57:31 -0400 Subj: *WT* redux (2) From: Joseph M Green Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 11:21:40 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0697 Qs: Antonio; Tennyson (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 1995 22:57:31 -0400 Subject: *WT* redux I haven't had a chance to thank everyone for your input on *Winter's Tale.* We've put together a marvelous cast and have been in rehearsal for a couple of weeks now, just blocking and feeling our way through each scene. So far we've had a marvelous time, accepting the easy successes and identifying the very real challenges ahead. At this point, two and a half weeks into rehearsal, everybody's hitting that wall where they "know the words," but are not yet making the lines live. Their frustration manifests itself in whining and whimpering; I just give them permission to whine and whimper--then make them get to work. ;) Special thanks goes to Bruce Young for his kindness in sending me a great deal of his writings on the play, the practice of the parental blessing in particular. We've incorporated the kneeling gesture for Mamillius in the first half so that it has some resonance for the modern audience at the end of the play. Random thoughts: An interesting resource that has turned out to have more application than I expected has been the video of "Elizabeth R." I had ordered it as a costuming resource, but the cast has been circulating the six episodes, and we've been able to refer to it for many examples of Renaissance atittude. It has helped the attendant lords see exactly what it is attendant lords do, for example. Recently, in working through V.1, we discovered a useful parallel between Elizabeth's marriage game and the argument between Paulina and Cleomenes. The actors found that playing the scene as the culmination of a longstanding political battle made it come alive. The jailer, a young actor with little experience, has found the jailers' attitudes instructive, in the balancing act he has to play between following orders and not offending Paulina. When we worked through the final scene for the first time, we were stunned by its power. All of us admitted that we had thought that making the scene work would be problematic, but in fact it was an amazing scene even in its first runthrough. So far, everyone's favorite character is Paulina. Cries of "You go girl!" erupt after every one of her scenes. Some new questions: 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? Do audiences laugh at Leontes' line about Hermione's statue being more wrinkled? Is that OK? My instincts say to quash the laugh, but that may be as hopeless a task as avoiding a laugh on "Kill Claudio." IV.4: the scene that would not end. Does this scene ever become whole? It just goes on and on and on. Does it need cutting? How have other people overcome the urge to run screaming from the theatre during this scene? Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 11:21:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0697 Qs: Antonio; Tennyson Anent Tennyson. I can't see how it could be inferred that Tennyson had Gloucester or even *Lear* in mind in section 12 of "In Memorium" -- even in the sense that Bloom, for example, had kidneys in his mind (Leopold -- not Harold). "Lo, as a dove when up she springs To bear through heaven a tale of woe, Some dolorous message knit below The wild pulsation of her wings; Like her I go; I cannot stay; I leave this mortal ark behind A weight of nerves without a mind, And leave the cliffs, and haste away O'er ocean-mirrors rounded large, And reach the glow of southern skies, And see the sails at distance rise And linger weeping on the marge. And saying; :Comes he thus, my friend? Is this the end of all my care?" And circle moaning in the air: "Is this the end? Is this the end?" And forward dart again, and play About the prow, and back return To where the body sits, and learn That I have been an hour away." Hard to see any anxieties about his work there -- tho he might have been anticipating his selection as Poet Laureate and, remembering Cibber, justifiably moan "Is this the end?" T. is imagining himself as a dove released from the ark winging his way to the shore where he can see the ship bearing Hallam's body, he lingers a bit on the marge, circles in the air moaning "Is this the end?" and, rather oddly, plays about the prow of the ship and returns to his body in a rather awkward stanza in which one notices inversions and suspects that "play" is there to rhyme with "away." The cliffs have mostly to do with the fact that the fossils found there show that nature is not "careful of the type" as well as being "careless of the single life: "So careful of the type?" but no. From scarped cliff and quarried stone She cries, "A thousand types are gone; I care for nothing, all shall go." "Is this the end" seems to remind you of lines from another scene -- "Is this the promised end..?" but, given the situation, could only be seen as a conscious or unconscious reference if there were more evidence -- and there isn't. The explicit reference is to the dove released from the ark, the implied promise is, perhaps, suggested by the fact that Noah's story ends with the dove happily gadding about on dry land and a very nice rainbow. I am totally baffled as to what image might "suggest a usurpation of power" though, since you refer to this as a "political" reading you score points as you do by bringing up the word "homosocial" as you see this passage and the putative reference to Lear as an attempt "to bridge the gap in homosocial discourse." Hallam is dead -- so T. has his work cut out for him attempting to bridge this particular homosocial gap. I think that you might have better luck with these lines: "Four voices of four hamlets round, From far and near, on mead and moor, Swell out and fail, as if a door Were shut between me and the sound;" There is an obvious reference to Hamlet and a possible reference to Othello. T. is obviously recalling Q1, Q2, F and Der bestrafte Brudermord oder Prinz Hamlet aus Denmark and avoiding especially the implications of the last. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 14:12:02 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0703 Re: Comics; Marlowe; Antonio Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 703, Wednesday, 20 September 1995 (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 13:38:02 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0699 Re: Comics; Marlowe; Burgess (2) From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 09:46:21 +0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0701 Re: Fictional Christopher Marlowe (3) From: Sarah Richardson Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 17:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0701 Re: Antonio (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 13:38:02 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0699 Re: Comics; Marlowe; Burgess I seem to remember that Shakespeare was featured in one of the Uncle Scrooge comic books in the fifties -- illustrated, I think, by Karl Barth. Donald, Uncle Scrooge and Huey, Dewey and Louie were transported by Gyro Gerloose's time machine to Venice where they encountered Shylock. Of course, Scrooge and Shylock hit it off at once and Jessica was promised in marriage to Scrooge if he could choose the correct casket. Scrooge wanted to go for the gold, of course -- as Shylock hoped -- and would have, for sure, lost his pinfeathers (I see that I have neglected to mention the deal Scrooge and Shylock made) if it wasn't for the timely intervention of the Bard -- portrayed by a crossgartered Goofy. Shylock is foiled. In the meantime, Donald and his nephews have looted Shylock's home with the connivance of Jessica who is, in fact, in love with Donald. In the meantime Antonio, mooning about the docks, discovers the Time Machine and, thinking it a waterclock, ships it off to Othello in Cyprus with whom he is really in love. Scrooge and the gang hurry to the docks with the loot and Jessica only to discover the Time Machine gone. Shylock is in hot pursuit with the Doge by this time but, luckily, two gentlemen from Verona are about ready to cast off. Everyone but Dewey leaps into the ship. Dewey is unlucky enough to be detained by the Ancient Mariner who stoppeth one of three. The rest escape. Donald and Scrooge are about ready to have a go at each other with cutlass and sackbutt when the two gentlemen calm them down and suggest that Scrooge just give Jessica to his uncle. They agree but Jessica is outraged and leaps overboard where she is picked up by Prospero and Miranda who have just been exiled again after Caliban writes an article denouncing them as colonizers. There is much more, of course. I have heard that there is a suppressed version of the ending -- a tragic ending -- in which Donald dies on the field at Dunsinane, Huey and Louie are baked in a pie by Titus Andronicus, Dewey is roasted by a person from Porlock and Scrooge ends up in a cave with Timon of Athens by whom he is killed in what seems a suicide pact. The final panel depicts a host of Disney characters mourning before an urn..."For these dead birds sigh a prayer." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 09:46:21 +0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0701 Re: Fictional Christopher Marlowe Another addition to the list: a recent novel by Robin Chapman, 'Christoferus'. Although the main character is Thomas Kyd - who, in the novel, did not die after his torture and confession - it concerns Marlowe in that Kyd, driven by guilt over his friend's death, sets out to discover who in fact committed the deed. Not a great book, but an interesting contribution to the Marlowe mystery. Soon there will be as many candidates for killer as there are for the Ripper! Robert F. O'Connor ocoreng@durras.anu.edu.au English Department Australian National University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Richardson Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 17:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0701 Re: Antonio I believe this year's June issue of American Theatre contained a lead article dedicated to the survey and comparison of several recent MERCHANT productions. The article even contained a comparison chart that addressed several of the issues that Sam Schimek raises for inquiry. (I don't have the issue in front of me so it may have been the July issue.) I found the article very interesting from a performative perspective, though may not dig as deep critically and textually as you want. Hope this helps... Sarah Richardson University of California - Irvine Dept. of Drama sarah@uci.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 14:21:56 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 704, Thursday, 21 September 1995. (1) From: Jan Stirm Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 16:12:58 PST Subj: Mary Wroth query (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 23:18:53 -0400 (EDT) Subj: owe-own (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jan Stirm Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 16:12:58 PST Subject: Mary Wroth query Dear Fellow Shaksperians, Does anyone have a transcript of Mary Wroth's play *Love's Victory*? Or suggestions for getting hold of a copy? Thanks, Jan Stirm (Stirm@Humnet.ucla.edu) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 23:18:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: owe-own I am curious if any fellow Shakespearians know about the interchangeability of the word "owe" for "own" in Shakespeare's days---if , for instance, there's any IDEOLOGICAL implications to it---The idea seems attractive, and may point towards a different attitude of ownership--that is seen elsewhere in Shakespeare's plays---Yet, I have found no studies or articles on this yet---and maybe I'm reading too much into it-- Can anybody point me towards anything? Thanks, chris stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 14:26:55 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0705 Re: Ethiop (Teaching Shakespeare) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 705, Thursday, 21 September 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 23:09:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0700 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 12:12:48 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0700 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 23:09:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0700 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) Dear Folks, I think Joseph Green misquotes me. As I recall, I said "Let the discussion begin." I did not say, "Let's move on without discussing this issue." One of my points was that "ethiop" has a 16th century context -- as well as a 20th century context. And I cannot be sure of the full meaning of the 16th century context. Most of my classes are discussions in which I contribute only the questions and the summaries. I don't stop debate, and my students feel quite free to argue for contrary positions. Rarely do I take a position in these debates. And any of you who have called me "insensitive," let me call your attention to the insensitivity of calling someone else "insensitive." Name calling, as I recall, is not considered a "sensitive" act. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 12:12:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0700 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) I've been thinking about the dilemma of a white teacher teaching Shakespeare to an all black class and running into racial issues. What about taking the bull by the horns at the outset, making it the focal point right at the beginning. In other words, the class is about Shakespeare, but at the same time it is about the history of racism (and sexism, and antisemitism). That would certainly grab their attention. Here is this writer who practically created the language we speak. See how his prejudice (not his alone, but one he shared with his entire society) shows in his work and how this is a legacy we all live with. Alert them to it from the start. Like an innoculation. Warn them to watch for evidence of all the isms and ask them to point them out. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 14:49:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0706 Re: *AYL*; *WT*; Tennyson Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 706, Thursday, 21 September 1995. (1) From: Sarah Richardson Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 23:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0689 Re: *As You Like It* (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 23:14:19 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0702 Re: *Winter's Tale* (3) From: Snehal Shingavi Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 95 20:25:29 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0702 Re: *Winter's Tale*; Tennyson (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Richardson Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 23:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0689 Re: *As You Like It* With regards to a production of AYLI. Sarah Cave recently wrote: > > The Corporate America as Evil worked in some ways, but for the most part I > believe that Shakespeare should not be "conceptualized." The most powerful, > emotional productions in my experience have been simply costumed, barely > constructed, and heavily textual. > > Isn't it all about words? I hate to stir up a big ruckus about what was probably an entirely innocent and heartfelt observation, but does anyone else's hackles go up over comments like these? While I respect the aversion to over-conceptualized productions and desire to make sure that concept doesn't overwhelm content, I simply don't believe it is either possible or desirable to produce Shakespeare that isn't conceptualized. Nor do I understand what it means to simply perform "the words." The underlying supposition, I assume, is that the text is already endowed with some fixed meaning and that if we just let the words alone, that meaning will be transmitted to the audience. Any mode of theatrical production that you may choose is at some level a CONCEPT -- whether you put your actors in blue suits or doublets or just stand there and speak the words -- and to deny that is to deny your responsibility to the material and how it is presented. I have always instinctively felt this way and have in recent months had my thought reinforced my Charles Marowitz's book RECYLCING SHAKESPEARE. He writes that "a director...who chains himself to unwavering fidelity to the author and pursues his work in selfless devotion to the 'meaning fo the text' is unknowingly abdicating a director's responsibility. Since the only way to express an author's meaning is to filter it through the sensibility of those artists charged with communicating it,"fidelity" is really a high-sounding word for 'lack of imaginative output'. The director who is committed to putting the play on the stage exactly as it is written is the equivalent of the cook who intends to make the omelette without cracking the eggs." As an example, while working on a production of TGV this summer, we had a great deal of disagreement within the cast of how to deal with the final scene. One member of the cast in particular lamented the desire of others to really wrestle with the gender issues -- the attempted rape, the women's silence, etc. He kept saying, "Why do we have to make it so politicial? Why can't we just do it the way Shakespeare wrote it?" Because, simply leaving the text alone (if that is even possible) makes a political statement about the assumed content therein, whether one wants it to or not. And, we have no idea precisely what Shakespeare intended this scene to mean -- to assume so is pure arrogance -- nor are we playing to an Elizabethan audience with Elizabethan sensibilities about the relations between men and women. And let me say, our production was indeed simply costumed, barely constructed and highly textual -- and one could certainly make the argument that our decision to perform in that way was highly conceptualized as well. Lastly, I believe that one of the things that makes Shakespeare so compelling to us still is that he was not just a great writer, he was a great dramatist -- it's not just "the words" but his dramaturgy. His plays provide a canvas upon which innovative, adventurous artists can paint new masterpieces. And unfortunately, that usually involves the laborious, complicated and risky act of developing an interpretation or, if you will, a "concept." Sarah Richardson University of California - Irvine Dept. of Drama sarah@uci.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 23:14:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0702 Re: *Winter's Tale* Dear David Lyles-- Do audiences laugh during the line about Hermione's statue being wrinkled--- In the BBC version (even) the scen was played really well-- I thought---Prolixenes (sic) and Leontes were whispering in each other's ears--as if it were AN ART GALLERY-- it was funny, but also showed them AS FRIENDS for the first time-- and thus undercut the potential bathos in the humour of the scene (which I think is intended--or if not intended, at least justified). Chris stroffolino (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Snehal Shingavi Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 95 20:25:29 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0702 Re: *Winter's Tale*; Tennyson Without trying to make it sound like I am an idiot ... I think, and still do, that Tennyson is attempting to find the language necessary to deal with his relationship with Hallam. Primarily because his death has affected Tennyson so profoundly, but also because of the fact that images of his presence (and subsequent absence) haunt the poem. While not attempting to sound like a moronic academic, I promise you that the use of the term "homosocial " is not merely and attempt to score points and sound as if the argument is something more than it is. This is mere speculation on my part, and it was just a gut distinctive response to the section. Your interpretation (Mr. Green) does make a great deal of sense, but I was merely curious of the implications that a comparison has on the reading. Perhaps I should explain (because that seems to be the problem). In sections 4 and 5 and 6 Tennyson deals with Hallam as a lover (a metaphor he twists to explain his intimacy with Hallam because there are no appropriate tropes to connote the intimacy shared by males in society without receiving strange glances in the very least) and attempts to bridge what I call "the homosocial gap" because he has no way of confronting and dealing with the feelings of loss or absence in his life without comparing them to other tropes of relationships. Consequently, the attempt to connect his position to *Lear* and to Gloucester (who does die near the cliffs, predicting the end, reflecting on his life, talking about his relationship with his son, thinking about the kingdom) is an attempt to find other ways in which Tennyson could have attempted to describe his relationship with Hallam. I thought that this could be a father/son relationship or a fri endly political conversation because when Gloucester dies he doesn't know its his son he's talking to, but if this seems farfetched to you, I can understand because it was just something that I was thinking about. The crisis/anxiety in his career comes from the fact that Hallam (perhaps his best friend and most favorable critic) is dead and so a source of positive feedback as well as inspiration is dead, Not to mentio Tennyson's own attempts at dealing with the changes in literary circles (as his career begins in the romantic tradition and ends in the Victorian). "Is this the end?" refers, Then, to the end of life (he deals with Hallam's body) and the end of his style of writing (he sees a change in himself) and the end of his ways of thinking (consider the borderline existentialist views propounded in the middle sections) ... now while it is clear that you think me an psuedo-academic wannabe intellectual who throws around big words to sound "hip" believe me, All i wanted to do was test an idea, which may be wrong if your interpretation is correct. I will admit to some stubbornness in still pushing to find some sort of support for my interpretation. If you still think that this is very farfetched, consider this section in relation to the earlier sections that deal with Tennyson's inaccessibility to a coherent discourse and inability to convey precise emotions through language. Then consider the problem in *LEAR* which centers itself around the breakdown of a discursive currency (cordelia views language differently than her father and sisters). Then consider the nature and circumstance of Gloucester's death (he lost his sight, he thinks he lost his son, He is old, the state is going to collapse around him). Then consider what it must have felt to be Tennyson trying to deal with the death of his very close friend and attempt to move beyond a preoccupation with death and construct art in a meaningful fashion. It maybe that my conjectures are pure academic masturbation in which case I apologize for spewing all over everyone's screens, but I tend to think that the coincidences and similarities (plus Tennyson's awareness of Shakespeare) lend itself to an interesting reconstruction of the ways in which his own diffracted and dissociated psyche (Tennyson does seem to have an out of body experience in section 12) attempts to find solutions to profound problems For a further reading which suggests a connection between King Lear and Tennyson's In Memoriam can be found in Act 4 scene 6 Gloucester says "What is he dead?" recalling the "Comes he thus ... Is this the end?" of In Memoriam. Also, Gloucester has the same sort of dissociating experience that Tennyson experiences : his mind drifts from his senses. perhaps this is a stretch ... but even so, I think it's interesting ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 14:33:26 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0707 Q: Shakespeare's Rhetoric Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0707, Friday, 22 September 1995. From: Sarah Richardson Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 1995 22:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Shakespeare's Rhetoric A friend and non-SHAKSPERian has asked me to submit a request for information regarding a project she's working on. She's interested in any information/thoughts/resources regarding the use of rhetoric in Shakespeare, especially with regards to soliloquys and monologues. Information from a performance perspective as well as a theoretical perspective would also be useful. Reading lists or syllabi would be appreciated. You may post and I'll forward or respond to her directly at STANKERN@mail.utexas.edu, as you wish. Thanks... Sarah Richardson Univ. of California - Irvine sarah@uci.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 14:41:53 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0708 Re: Comics; *AYL*; Thanks Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0708, Friday, 22 September 1995. (1) From: Tad Davis Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 14:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Shakespeare and Uncle Scrooge (2) From: Peter Schmuckal Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 13:45:46 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0706 Re: *AYL* (3) From: Lawrence Manley Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 10:41:47 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Thanks (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 14:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Shakespeare and Uncle Scrooge I don't remember the story described in the recent message (where Uncle Scrooge meets Shylock). But I'd like to set the record straight on one point. The artist in question is Carl Barks, the "duck man." If you've never read a Carl Barks adventure story, take a break and give it a try. (I have a Carl Barks Uncle Scrooge trading card pinned up in my cubicle in the upper left corner of my Folio-derived poster of Shakespeare, from a flyer advertising "Mr. William Shakespeares Documentary Life set forth by S. Schoenbaum and Printed according to the True Originall Copies." That says it all: all three now marry in an instant. I am contracted to them all.) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Schmuckal Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 13:45:46 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0706 Re: *AYL* Sarah Richardson recent wrote: > ... While I respect the aversion to over-conceptualized productions and >desire to make sure that concept doesn't overwhelm content, I simply don't >believe it is either possible or desirable to produce Shakespeare that isn't >conceptualized. Nor do I understand what it means to simply perform "the >words." Absolutely! I just had to respond to this post since I think it really hits the mark. As an actor who performs Shakespeare frequently, I can concure that it is impossible to just "say the words." The words themselves are only a small part of the presentation. What is is underneath the words and what the character is trying to accomplish by saying those words is what acting is all about. You must make decisions about what the character is trying to do at any given point. If the actor doesn't make choices and understand completely what is being said and why he/she is saying it, then you can bet the audience won't either. - Peter Schmuckal (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lawrence Manley Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 10:41:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Thanks My thanks to all those Shaksper-ians who responded to my queries about fictional Marlowe and comic book Shakespeare. What a wealth of material! Once again this list demonstrates to me (but how to put it without bringing the various champions to the lists?) that Shakespeare is universal. Lawrence Manley Yale University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 14:48:36 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0709 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0709, Friday, 22 September 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 15:18:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0700 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) (2) From: John Drakakis Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 15:24:28 -0100 Subj: SHK 6.0705 Re: Ethiop (Teaching Shakesp (3) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 00:32:13 +0100 Subj: Re: Teaching Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 15:18:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0700 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) Since several people have accused me of using the royal we, let me explain that my "WE" had no royalist motives. (1) It was the metaphoric "we" in that I used "we" to mean "our society in general," "our culture," etc. (2) It was the ironic "we" in that I assumed that the members of this group do not hold the particular esthetic prejudices I listed -- especially since I am short, fat, and old. (3) It was the implicative "we" -- as I explained before. Now, haven't we said enough on this non-issue? Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 15:24:28 -0100 Subject: SHK 6.0705 Re: Ethiop (Teaching Shakesp Where does Stephanie Hughes get the idea that Shakespeare virtually created the language we speak? John Drakakis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 00:32:13 +0100 Subject: Re: Teaching Shakespeare (1) The term "Ethiop" is present in more than 10 of WS's works. In certain cases--e.g., in AYL iv,iii,36 ("Such Ethiop words, blacker in their effect /Then in their countenance")--its negative value is perhaps even more explicit than in the scene of MND that has been discussed so far. (2) OED2 CD-ROM: >**Ethiop** >A. n. lit. = Ethiopian; hence, usually, a person with a black skin, a >blackamoor. Phrase, to wash an (or the) Ethiop (white): to attempt the >impossible. >1382 Wyclif Jer. xiii. 23 Yf chaunge mai an Ethiope his skyn. >... >1509 Hawes Past. Pleas. xxxvii. x, Out there flew, ryght blacke and >tedyous, A foule Ethyope. >1599 Shakes. Much Ado v. iv. 38 Ile hold my minde, were she an Ethiope. > >**wash v.** 3d >... >1596 J. Melvill Autob. & Diary (Wodrow Soc.) 375 We mein nocht to tyne tyme >in wassing of sic Moores. >1604 Marston Malcontent iv. iii. F 3, I washt an Ethiop, who for recompence >Sullyde my name. >1624 Massinger Parlt. Love ii. ii, For, being censured, Or to extenuate, or >excuse my guilt, Were but to wash an Ethiop. > >**snout n.** 2 >... >1693 Dryden, etc. Juvenal x. (1697) 250 What Ethiop Lips he has, How foul a >Snout, and what a hanging Face! (3) It seems to me that Robert Appelbaum is perfectly right in rejecting certain (too easy) solutions to the problem posed by Thomas Ellis: "Ethiop" does not indicate just an aesthetic preference--it is a word that carries a heavy and bulky burden of historical and cultural substance; it cannot be discarded as light-heartedly as someone seems to believe. Besides, are we supposed to show our students only what they can accept--or we presume they can accept--*without* exercising their critical faculties? What makes me feel uncomfortable is not the perplexity of Ellis' students; it is the laughter that preceded it (see Ellis' post of Sept 14). Thanks, Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 14:59:05 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0710 Re: Mary Wroth Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0710, Friday, 22 September 1995. (1) From: Daniel Traister Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 18:45:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Lady Mary Wroth's Love's victory (2) From: Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 22:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own (3) From: Norman J. Myers Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 08:03:38 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own (4) From: Donald Foster Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 10:35:07 +0100 Subj: Re: Mary Wroth (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Traister Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 18:45:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Lady Mary Wroth's Love's victory Jan Stirm asks about finding a copy of the following: AUTHOR: Wroth, Mary, Lady, ca. 1586-ca. 1640. TITLE: [Love's victory] Lady Mary Wroth's Love's victory : the Penshurst manuscript / edited by Michael G. Brennan. PUBLISHED: London : Roxburghe Club, 1988. PHYSICAL DETAILS: xiv, 238 p. : facsims., 1 port. ; 31 cm. OTHER AUTHORS: Brennan, Michael G. Roxburghe Club. OTHER TITLES: Love's victory. SUBJECTS: Wroth, Mary, Lady, ca. 1586-ca. 1640--Manuscripts-- Facsimiles. Manuscripts, English--Facsimiles. NOTES: Facsimile and edited text of the Penshurst holograph on facing pages. Includes bibliographical references. LCCN: 90-112742 Not all libraries have this volume, which was not issued in an especially numerous edition; but many do, and it may even still be found for sale in some U.K. bookselling establishments. Daniel Traister, Department of Special Collections Van Pelt-Dietrich Library, University of Pennsylvania (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 22:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own I have to admit that I do not read this listserv on a regular basis, but my friend Susan said there was a Mary Wroth question, so here I am. Michael G. Brennan edited the Penshurst copy of Love's Victory in 1988, but I am not sure how widely held it is. I know they have a copy of some sort at Ohio University according to my investigations. I assume (but perhaps I should not)that there will be a more accesible version someday. For the time being, check out what Brennan can do for you. You may also want to connect with the Brown University Women's project (I will mail you thier address as soon as I have it myself) They can either send you a copy or tell you how to get one. Good luck with your adventures with Mary Wroth. She is worth every second of research (sorry about the pun) Litwit7@aol.com or mstahlma@phoenix.kent.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 08:03:38 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own You might try the old Readex microprint collection "Three Centuries of English and American Drama". I would bet on something as big as UCLA (if I read your address correctly) having it in the library. Norman Myers Bowling Green State U. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Foster Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 10:35:07 +0100 Subject: Re: Mary Wroth Jan-- The original MS of Mary Wroth's *Love's Victory* is just across town from you, at the Huntington Library (MS HM 600). I've got a photographic copy of the MS, purchased from the Huntington, that I am not allowed to reproduce; but the folks over at the Huntington can accommodate you. The MS is holograph in Wroth's neat italic hand and quite easy to read. The songs from *Love's Victory* are included in Jo Roberts impeccably edited volume of *The Poems.* --Don Foster ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 15:08:39 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0711 Re: owe-own Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0711, Friday, 22 September 1995. (1) From: Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own (2) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 14:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own Chris. You might check Al Shoaf's books on Dante and Milton for a fine meditation on how these words worked together in the Renaissance. I don't know what else he's published on the matter since then, but he was thinking a lot about it ten or so years ago. The third step should be "know," shouldn't it? Shoaf shows how these work together in *Milton, Poet of Duality*. It also seems to work for me in Olivia's "ourselves we do not owe." Please let me know what you find out. Michael Harrawood (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 14:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: Mary Wroth; owe-own Chris has an interesting point. My suggestion would be to head towards the vestiges of feudalism still kicking around, if not in practice, at least in theory, at the time. The liege "owes" protection, etc.,--he therefore "owns" the fief. The mutual responsibilities of the system seem to be neatly expressed in this word-play, or similarity, or whatever. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 15:15:15 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0712 Re: Antonio Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0712, Friday, 22 September 1995. (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 13:53:10 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0701 Re: Antonio (2) From: Joe Nathan Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 18:15:42 -0700 Subj: Antonio -MV (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 13:53:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0701 Re: Antonio Hi. On Antonio's anti-semitism, look up a New York production in the eighties with Dustin Hoffman as Shylock. Apparently the audience response to Bassanio spitting at him was to suck in all the air in the theater. My impression has always been that Antonio is less anti-semitic than Bassanio, and certainly less than the salad-boys. I don't want to make him into an angel, by any means, but he seems curiously stuck between Shylock (definitely on the outside) and the aristocrats (Bassanio, Portia, et. al, definitely the in-crowd). As a merchant, he has a professional relationship to Shylock, and merchants and usurers tended to be associated in the public mind. Don't forget that Portia asks, "Which here is the merchant, and which the Jew?" (quoting from memory, when she enters the trial scene). You could play up the homosocial, if not homosexual, relationship of Antonio and Bassanio by way of explaining Bassanio's liminal position. He owes Shylock, but he wants to have a relationship of some sort with Antonio, which, in this play, is largely represented as debt. Hence his silence regarding Laurencio and Jessica, I suppose. Cheerio, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Nathan Date: Thursday, 21 Sep 1995 18:15:42 -0700 Subject: Antonio -MV I attended the Public Theater presentation of MV starring Ron Liebman last Fall. The potential homsexuality of Antonio and Bassanio was expressed by giving the impression that all the courtiers were homosexual. Two others exchanged a kiss. Not A & B. But the point was well made. Then, the troublesome last scene was presented in a way that underscored that Portia had won Bassanio from Antonio - a victory for hetorosexual love over homosexual. This was achieved by having Bassanio give the ring to Antonio, and then (while Bassanio is off stage), Antonio surrenders it to Portia. The play ended with Portia -- alone on a stage entirely blacked out except for a narrow spotlight shining on her. She slowly lifts the ring in victory and the entire stage blacked out. It wasn't explicit, but it worked. Unfortunately the active (other than Ron Liebman's Shylock) was abysmal. The same group is going to do King Lear starring F. Murray Abraham in the part. I hope they give him a better supporting cast than they did poor Liebman. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 15:26:33 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0713 Re: Burgess-Marlowe; Bloom; "Conceptualized" Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0713, Friday, 22 September 1995. (1) From: Douglas Abel Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 11:31:40 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0693 Re: Marlowe/Comics Part 1 (2) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 20:32:31 +0100 Subj: Re: Bloom and *The Western Canon* (3) From: Tom Gilboy Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 14:39:30 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0706 Re: *AYL*; *WT*; Tennyson (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Abel Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 11:31:40 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0693 Re: Marlowe/Comics Part 1 I can't agree at all that the Burgess novel is the best of those about Christopher Marlowe. I've written and performed a one-person show about Marlowe, *To Ride in Triumph*, and read most of the Marlowe literature, including all the novels I could get my hands on. I found Burgess' work the worst of them all. It's trivial and trivializing, making only two points with annoying repetitiveness: 1/ Marlowe was homosexual 2/ Marlowe had different spellings of his name. What a sad commentary upon one of the most fascinating figures of the Elizabethan period--or any other. When I get a chance I'll post the titles of some other Marlowe novels not mentioned in your list. p.s. I do like most of Burgess' stuff. I stumbled across the novel in the bookstore at the Edmonton airport, was thrilled, and bought it immediately. And because I like Burgess my disappointment was doubled. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 20:32:31 +0100 Subject: Re: Bloom and *The Western Canon* "The French have the great paintings, the Italians great sculpture and music, the Germans music, but the English have their language and the literature it has given them is their great art. And this literature is what it is because of Shakespeare. Can anyone really believe that if we had skipped Shakespeare and had only Jonson, Sidney, Bacon, Raliegh to build on, that the English language would be the second most spoken language in the world today, and the most important in every other way?" Stephanie Hughes' posting of 8 Sept. is so rigorous in its structure that to do it justice one should quote it in its entirety. However, I think this passage is significant enough to remind the reader that in her message Ms Hughes implicitly establishes a sort of hierarchy among the various arts/nations and, after placing literature/England/WS at the top of the list, proceeds towards the grand finale of a hierarchical classification of all languages and literatures and cultures. Thus, thanks to WS--"only [...] Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucious, Lao Tze, have had more effect on human consiousness, and perhaps not even they"--the English language is not only the "second most spoken language in the world today" (the first one is not even worth mentioning), it is "the most important in every other way". I hope I'll be forgiven if I try to object to some of Ms Hughes' articles of faith *indirectly,* by quoting a passage from a paper I read years ago at the University of Graz, Austria (1989, International Conference on "English Literature and the University Curriculum"): "If, on the one hand, English is the lingua franca of the contemporary world (so much so that today no nation can claim the copyright on it), on the other hand the very historical process that has caused the diffusion of the English language throughout the world has also caused the growth of quite a few 'new' literatures in that language, sometimes in countries that are very far--geographically, historically, culturally--from England and from the British Isles. As professors of 'English' in literature-oriented faculties and colleges, we, I think, should aim at helping our students to discover, so to speak, the whole range of literatures in English, to open that jewel-case whose most precious pieces are still, and perhaps will always be, those created by Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth, Hawthorne, Melville, and the other giants of the literary history of England and of the U.S.A., but whose content has also been recently increased by artists--Wole Soyinka, Amos Tutuola, Ngugi wa Thiong'o, Chinua Achebe, Duro Ladipo, Okot p'Bitek, V.S. Naipaul--whose names may still sound strange to our ears, but whose works, no doubt, pertain to the same 'great tradition' as that of the masters I have just mentioned. A 'great tradition,' needless to say, that is to be looked at not with Leavis' nationalistic eyes, but with the same, broad-minded attitude on which it has developed through the centuries. I do not mean that the specific cultural contexts of the single literatures in English are irrelevant [...]. What I mean is that if we agree [...] that the subject of the linguistic side of our teaching [of Eng. as L2] should no longer be the mythical King's (or Queen's) English of our schooldays, but the real English of international communication today (and this of course does not imply any refusal to acknowledge the importance of a diachronic study of the language), then we must also agree that *all* the various literatures in English should be *regularly* present in the university curriculum. Because it is precisely its being the language of so many different cultures, it is precisely the extraordinary flexibility and richness it has acquired by expanding and taking roots in all five or six continents, it is all this, first of all, that has made English the language of international communication today (and, we hope, of international understanding and cooperation)." Thank you. Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Gilboy Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 14:39:30 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0706 Re: *AYL*; *WT*; Tennyson With regard to Sarah Cave's note about "conceptualized" productions, Sarah Richardson wrote: > >The underlying supposition, I assume, is that the text is already >endowed with some fixed meaning and that if we just let the words alone, >that meaning will be transmitted to the audience. > I didn't take that to be Sarah Cave's supposition. The text is endowed with meaning, though it is anything but fixed, as I keep learning. I do respect the belief that something big is taking place between the words and the audience. I sympathize with the feeling that the impulse toward innovation in production, particularly in the form of spectacle or political allegory or self-conscious parody, often blows an opportunity for something bigger to happen. The presentation of a digitized Richard III speaking out to us from a simulated Web site on monitors strewn across the stage -- or Richard II in bunny slippers -- can preempt something in our imagination, keep it from doing the work it has to do, likes to do. And yet as I'm saying all this I'm remembering a Caliban in an outdoor production at St. John's College in Santa Fe: he slinked up through a hatch in the stage, in a varigated body suit and painted face. Still gives me the willies . . . . Tom Gilboy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 09:57:01 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0714 Re: Comics; Marlowe Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0714, Monday, 25 September 1995. (1) From: George Diez Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 12:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Subj: [Comics] (2) From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Saturday, 23 Sep 1995 17:15:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakespeare Comics (3) From: David Levine Date: Sunday, 24 Sep 1995 17:48:15 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0699 Re: Comics; Marlowe; Burgess (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: George Diez Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 12:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Comics] Would someone who has the Workman Press Illustrated books mentioned previously be able to provide the ISBN numbers for them? Much oblidged. George radicus@kaiwan.com (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Saturday, 23 Sep 1995 17:15:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare Comics Comic Book versions of the following plays are available from Pocket Classics, published by Academic Industries, West Haven, CT: As You Like It, Hamlet, Julius Caesar, King Lear, Macbeth, The Merchant of Venice, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Othello, Romeo and Juliet, The Taming of the Shrew, The Tempest, and Twelfth Night. These small-format, black-and-white comics seem to be aimed at a young adult audience. They use a modernized text, and the illustrations look somewhat generic, though the compositions are occasionally unusual and illuminating. I found them in the young adult section of my local bookstore. I too would be interested in hearing more about The Sandman-Shakespeare connection. Yours in completism, Douglas Lanier DML3@christa.unh.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Levine Date: Sunday, 24 Sep 1995 17:48:15 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0699 Re: Comics; Marlowe; Burgess Actually, there was also a Twelfth Night and, possibly a few other comedies. As for Marlowe in fiction, there's George Garrett's ENTERED FROM THE SUN, which is inferior to Burgess's book, but also fun. I recall that when the Burgess book came out in the U.K., it was reviewed in the TLS with two or three other fictional accounts of Marlowe and all you'd have to do is look up the issue. I've fallen behind in reading this list (and thread), so possibly all of this has been said before. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 10:19:31 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0715 Re: owe-own-won Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0715, Monday, 25 September 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 17:01:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: owe-own (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 23:14:02 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: owe-own (3) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Friday, 22 Sep 95 22:15:38 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0711 Re: owe-own (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 17:01:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: owe-own >I am curious if any fellow Shakespearians know about the interchangeability of >the word "owe" for "own" in Shakespeare's days---if , for instance, there's any >IDEOLOGICAL implications to it---The idea seems attractive, and may point >towards a different attitude of ownership--that is seen elsewhere in >Shakespeare's plays---Yet, I have found no studies or articles on this >yet---and maybe I'm reading too much into it-- Can anybody point me towards >anything? Thanks, chris stroffolino Chris Stroffolino's suggestion about owe/own sent me to the OED for a few enjoyable minutes. As early as 888, Alfred used "owe" to mean "have, possess, own," and it appears that "owe" originally had the sense of "own, have." But OED, s.v. "owe" B.II, discusses the connection between "owe" and "own." Apparently in O.E. "owe" meant both "to possess" and "to have to pay." But isn't that life? You get a little geld, and you immediately have to pay it out! Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 23:14:02 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0704 Qs: owe-own >I am curious if any fellow Shakespearians know about the interchangeability of >the word "owe" for "own" in Shakespeare's days---if , for instance, there's any >IDEOLOGICAL implications to it Margreta De Grazia (Shakespeare Verbatim, p9) argues that these being homonyms was a hangover from the feudal linkage of ownership with an obligation to distribute: if you 'owned' you 'owed'. Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Friday, 22 Sep 95 22:15:38 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0711 Re: owe-own Stretching the owe-own in perhaps irrelevant directions . . . any thoughts about the own/one homophony? "One" I am told did not sound like our "won," but rather like the first syllable in our "only." Concordanceless at the moment, I can't look up any usages that would trammel up the problem. As ever Steve Urkownwitz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 10:33:45 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0716 Re; *WT*; *Cor.*; *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0716, Monday, 25 September 1995. (1) From: Bruce Young Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 14:44:56 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: *Winter's Tale* (2) From: Bernie Folan Date: Monday, 25 Sep 95 13:32:08 gmt Subj: Re: SHK 6.0708 Re: *AYL* (3) From: Stuart Rice Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 17:32:10 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0712 Re: Antonio (4) From: Donald Foster Date: Saturday, 23 Sep 1995 13:04:52 +0100 Subj: Re: Antonio (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 14:44:56 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: *Winter's Tale* In response to Dale Lyle's posting on *Winter's Tale*: The decision to have Mamillius kneel in the first half seems to me a brilliant stroke. I'd have to see your production to be sure, but I suspect it will, as you predict, make the ending more resonant. I think it will also help a modern audience share more fully in a feeling Shakespeare's original audience probably had: a feeling that combines a sense of wonder (the "resurrection," etc.) with the familiar. By foreshadowing the blessing ritual in the first half, you'll help give your audience more of a sense that it was part of daily life, and it will come less out of the blue at the end. On laughing at the "statue's" wrinkles: I seem to remember a bit of laughter at this point. (I may, though, be remembering more the reaction from students in class than from audiences. But I think I've heard laughter in both cases.) I think a bit of laughter--not too much, not too uproarious--is fine. One thing I love about the final scene is the way it combines pathos, wonder, joy, love, and humor. You don't want any of the ingredients, especially the minor ones, to overwhelm the rest. But I think this is one point at which a touch of humor comes in. On the length of IV.iv: In the production I worked with, this scene was greatly reduced in length. We cut lots of lines and some of the action (such as the dance of "twelve Satyrs"). In a way, I regret that we had to cut so much. We lost some good lines, some that resonate with others in the play. We lost a bit of the depth the scene can give Florizel and Perdita. And though our production as a whole flowed very smoothly, and few would have noticed any problems in IV.iv, the scene as we did it seemed a bit more disjointed than others. On the other hand, even with the heavy cuts, it still seemed long. My view is that it's supposed to. If it weren't long, it would be hard for us to *feel* that 16 years have passed. I think we need a nice stretch of stage time between the Sicilian action of the first half and our return to Sicily in V.i. Another reason for the length of IV.iv is that it ought to convey a sense of abundance--of life, energy, motion, and all the variety that makes up both the human and the natural worlds. There are references to sea, sky, earth, animals, plants, etc., etc. And, set in the outdoors, the scene also has a feeling of openness (and with all the young people in it, of youth) that helps clear away the somber, claustrophobic feeling of the first half. Having said all of that, I still sympathize with your feeling that people may run out screaming. The scene probably needs some trimming, but it's hard to know where to trim and when enough trimming is enough. I'll be interested to know what you end up doing. Bruce Young (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernie Folan Date: Monday, 25 Sep 95 13:32:08 gmt Subject: Re: SHK 6.0708 Re: *AYL* Peter Schmuckal wrote: >>I just had to respond to this post since I think it really >>hits the mark. As an actor who performs Shakespeare >>frequently, I can concure that it is impossible to just >>"say the words." The words themselves are only a small >>part of the presentation. What is is underneath the words >>and what the character is trying to accomplish by saying >>those words is what acting is all about. You must make >>decisions about what the character is trying to do at any >>given point. If the actor doesn't make choices and >>understand completely what is being said and why he/she is >>saying it, then you can bet the audience won't either. This made me think of a the ending of a recent production of CORIOLANUS I saw in London at the Barbican theatre. It was an incredible performance of a play that I wasn't yet familiar with. When I got home I read various bits of the play in particular the stage directions for the very end after Aufidius and the people have killed Caius Martius and Aufidius asks for assistance to bear his body away. In the Penguin edition I had the directions were simply 'they assist' and his body is carried off. In the production I saw Caius Martius is struck by Aufidius but slain by the common people. When Aufidius tries to get hold of his body after expressing his grief and commending Caius Martius' nobility, the dead body falls on him pushing him to the floor. When he asks for assistance, the people walk away and Aufidius is left centre stage cradling the body. This was a very striking, highly emotive ending that fit so well with the performances and relationships depicted that I was quite surprised to discover that it wasn't the usual or rather common ending to the action. However I felt that its ability in reinforcing two themes which came across strongly from this performance was wonderful and so I felt that the director had used real artistic sense in his interpretation. The two themes I mention are 1) that Aufidius was the only person who really understood Caius Martius, his faults and strengths and his emotional fetters and so was hit hardest in a way by his 'enemy's' death. 2) As sworn lifelong enemies, the death of Caius Martius made Aufidius' existence redundant and superfluous. His greatest challenge and force was gone and this realisation for me was wonderfully illustrated by this final scene. Finally I must clarify the reasoning for this, my first post (so sorry if it's not the kind of thing...). As Peter says there must be more than just the words. The words are the canvas on which the actor paints his masterpiece. If an actor really can interpret the words there is no need to alter them, just breathe life into them. Shakespeare wrote for the stage and for living actors after all. (I realise I may well have moved away from the actor's to the director's role so forgive me). Bernie {folan@sageltd.co.uk} (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Rice Date: Friday, 22 Sep 1995 17:32:10 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0712 Re: Antonio I think that casting the relationship of Bassanio and Antonio as "homosexual" misses the point. I think that there is a valid argument for a "homoerotic" interpretation, especially if you choose to see the play as being a Christian allegory. Under this interpretation, Antonio becomes associated with Christ (so his opening scene becomes an allusion to Gethsemane [is that the correct spelling?]) and Shylock expands to encompass the "Christ-Slaughterer." Bassanio, therefore, becomes the disciple/friend. As such, his love becomes a material expression of a deep rooted spiritual faith. Examples of this in medieval art include the sculpture of John resting his head on the bosom of Christ. Stuart Rice RICESM@Kenyon.Edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Foster Date: Saturday, 23 Sep 1995 13:04:52 +0100 Subject: Re: Antonio On the homoerotic and antisemitic in Antonio: One of my undergraduate students at Vassar (Alexandra Scott) puts it this way: "In *The Merchant of Venice*, Shylock is the embodiment of the archetypal 'other.' His actions (practicing usury, demanding Antonio's flesh out of spite) and his beliefs (Judaism) are the antithesis of the credos of Christianity and generosity idealized at Belmont. While Shylock is in many ways a despicable figure, Antonio's violent animosity towards him cannot be accounted for by his purported reason: that Shylock is a Jew, and charges interest. Antonio is in every other aspect of his character both generous and loving; his spitefulness towards Shylock seems inconsistent with his nature. If, however, one accepts the suggestion that Antonio's emotions towards Bassanio are romantic rather than platonic, then Antonio's dislike of Shylock makes more sense. Aware of the 'otherness' of homosexuality in himself, Antonio sees Shylock as the embodiment of what he could be: an utter outcast, irrevocaubly marked as different. Antonio fears this spectacle of otherness and, because of his fear, loathes what he sees. He hates Shylock because he himself is like Shylock; in the end, neither of them fully belongs anywhere in the play." Don Foster ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 10:48:05 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0717 Re: Teaching Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0717, Monday, 25 September 1995. (1) From: Chris Fassler Date: Saturday, 23 Sep 1995 07:25:23 -0400 Subj: Re: Teaching Shakespeare (2) From: Tom Ellis Date: Saturday, 23 Sep 1995 11:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0709 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) (3) From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 23 Sep 1995 08:25:53 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0700 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Fassler Date: Saturday, 23 Sep 1995 07:25:23 -0400 Subject: Re: Teaching Shakespeare Colleagues: Let me preface a few thoughts on the debate about teaching Shakespeare to undergraduates by explaining that I didn't make the time to participate because I was busy preparing to teach four sections of freshman composition this semester. I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I'm looking for some sympathy by making such a confession, but at the same time, I want you to know that what follows are *not* the bitter sarcasm that they may occasionally appear to be: 1) For those of you who were worrying about how to begin your first day and for those of you who have been teaching Shakespeare courses for some time now--LUCKY YOU! I hope that you all live very long lives, enjoy remarkably long and productive careers and still retire (preferrably) or die (regrettably) soon enough that I might get an opportunity to teach one or two of the courses for which I thought I was preparing myself in graduate school. 2) Without naming names, I was struck in skimming through all of the comments that this discussion seems to have been the occasion for expressing some of our most embarrassing attitudes, about Shakespeare and our students, among other things. Still, I suppose wouldn't want to teach Shakespeare if I didn't harbor some (affectionate or horrified) fascination with the Bard--and if I didn't think that undergraduates ought to be changed (improved? disillusioned? indoctrinated? jaded?--I can't quite decide which) by my course. 3) My experience with high school English teachers (my father, primarily) and my college professors (too many to name) was that I liked *them*, and if they had been teaching me about metalurgical analysis, I would have felt an inclination to follow them in that direction. They were open, forgiving, demanding, and just plain smart. Shakespeare worship comes rather naturally in this culture, and I'm glad I hung out with such good people long enough to find better reasons to be fascinated with reading books. 4) I've reread 1, 2, and 3, and I've decided that I had better shut up while I still have a job teaching composition. Apologies to all potential employers who might have been offended. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Ellis Date: Saturday, 23 Sep 1995 11:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0709 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) First, I wish to thank all the list members who have provided helpful and illuminating responses to my "ethiop" query, and I am especially grateful to Marcello Cappuzzo for his O.E.D. gloss. I am rather puzzled, however, by one comment at the end of Cappuzo's (22 Sept) post: "What makes me feel uncomfortable is not the perplexity of Ellis' students; it is the laughter that preceded it." Why should laughter make us feel uncomfortable, especially in what is (by common consensus) the comic climax of the play--the rapid descent of the four confused lovers from hurt feelings to mutual abuse--? The fundamental purpose and effect of comedy is, after all, to impart the requisite detachment between audience and characters that will allow the audience to laugh as the characters make fools of themselves. Have we grown so serious in our critical address to these plays that we've forgotten how to laugh? Further, as in all good comedy, the laughter engendered is part ridicule and part self-recognition: we see in the antics of Hermia, Lysander, Helena, and Demetrius much of our own adolescent selves. By taking such things too seriously--by frowning on laughter--we murder to dissect. --But the laughter engendered by an ethnically abusive epithet is something else. Though obviously as commonplace in the comic tradition as any other laughter-inducing gag, it is a mean-spirited laughter, and when, as in my case, the reader's life experience has been shaped by inhabiting a hostile dominant culture where such ethnically abusive attitudes have been the norm (and still are--witness the popular appeal of the intellectually fraudulent "Bell Curve"!)--the presence of such epithets in the text impose a barrier to the student's enjoyment of, and willingness to further explore, the text. To simply deal with this by "reading against the text"--actively looking for evidence that Shakespeare was "just another white hegemonic racist"-- is, I think, a cop-out; it reduces the study of Shakespeare to nothing more than a show trial, the classroom equivalent of Chairman Mao's "Anti-Rightist" campaigns. There must be a middle ground between worshiping Shakespeare (a la William Bennett, E.D. Hirsch, et al.) uncritically as "the best that has been thought and said" on the one hand, and a narrow, mean-spirited "Bardicide" on the other. For myself, that middle ground is anthropological: looking at Shakespeare (and all other artists, for that matter) as simultaneously a product of his culture, and an active agent of cultural evolution who seeks, in various ways, to critically examine the default values and attitudes of his culture. Comments? --Tom Ellis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 23 Sep 1995 08:25:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0700 Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) We do perhaps begin to forget how very suspicious of foreigners the English were, have been, and often, like other peoples, still are, and that part of this reaction is indeed "aesthetic" in that foreigners don't really look like us. And they certainly don't sound like us, which is why we change their place-names if we can, from Muenchen to Munich, Paree to Pariss, to put them right, appropriate them in a sense. Shakespeare makes fun of the Welsh, the Scots, the Dutch and other unEnglish folks, sometimes in the peculiarly English way that the objects of his derision may find upsetting. As a Scot, I still don't like the way the Sassenachs talk, although for their part they have over the past thirty years or so begun to allow and even encourage us to invade their theatres and their cinema screens, just as Lancashire and Northumberland --to name but a couple -- have become acceptable speech songs to London ears. Harry Hill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 10:57:41 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0718 EXTRACT/MAIL Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0718, Monday, 25 September 1995. (1) From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Saturday, 23 Sep 1995 12:42:00 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0710 Re: Mary Wroth (2) From: James Harner Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 8:02:59 -0500 (CDT) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0707 Q: Shakespeare's Rhetoric (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Saturday, 23 Sep 1995 12:42:00 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0710 Re: Mary Wroth The address to order from the Brown Women Writers Project is wwp_orders@brown.edu. (My copy of the WWP Text List, which may be somewhat out of date, indicates that Wroth's *Countess of Montgomeries Urania* is available.) For those who aren't familiar with the project, the WWP provides texts of women writers in English; currently there are about 150 titles available. Sara Jayne Steen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Harner Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 8:02:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0707 Q: Shakespeare's Rhetoric The World Shakespeare Bibliography (in _Shakespeare Quarterly_) has a section on rhetoric. Jim Harner ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 22:31:13 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0719 Qs: First Words; CD ROMs; Discrepent Awareness Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0719, Tuesday, 26 September 1995. (1) From: Jeff Myers Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 11:05:45 -0500 Subj: Words first used by Shakespeare (2) From: Peter C. Herman Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 20:44:53 -0400 Subj: Re: CD-ROM (3) From: Ruth Nevo Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 21:54:47 -0400 (EDT) Subj: discrepant awareness (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 11:05:45 -0500 Subject: Words first used by Shakespeare A colleague of mine wants a list of words first used by Shakespeare. The OED, even the elctronic version, doesn't seem very useful. Is there such a list or a not-too-strenuous way of creating one? Thanks, Jeff Myers (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter C. Herman Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 20:44:53 -0400 Subject: Re: CD-ROM Does anyone know what CD-Roms are available for teaching Shakespeare? And do you like them? I'd appreciate knowing why or why not. Also, are these CD-ROMs more suited for high school or college-level teaching? Thanks all, Peter C. Herman Georgia State University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ruth Nevo Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 21:54:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: discrepant awareness Dear list: Thanks to those who've provided some information and conjecture on the owe-own question I raised. Now here's another--for some reason the term 'discrepent awareness" popped up in my head today-- I know what the term means basically, but forget who used the term-- Does anyopne know, offhand... Quote of the day "The question of how follish a Shakespearean fool really is, is always a good question." Ruth Nevo ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 22:39:39 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0720 Re: Mary Wroth; one/won; IBSNs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0720, Tuesday, 26 September 1995. (1) From: Jan Stirm Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 12:03:41 PST Subj: Mary Wroth (2) From: Dave Kathman Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 17:29:04 +0100 Subj: one/own (3) From: Sally Greene Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 14:22:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Workman ISBNs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jan Stirm Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 12:03:41 PST Subject: Mary Wroth Dear Shaksperians, Thanks to everyone who responded to my *Love's Victory* question; I've now read the Brennan edition (in ucla's special collections) and have looked at the Huntington ms. I'm still trying to track down an electronic text. I'm thinking of teaching it in a seminar this spring and I want my students to have something they can read at home, take notes on and bring to class; unfortunately, our special collections won't make a copy, though they will let students use their materials (and indeed have been very cooperative and helpful about it). I may try to get a photocopy (as Don Foster suggested) from the Huntington, if only to give my students a chance to get a second hand look. An etext would be ideal for some of the editorial/canon questions I hope we'll address. Has anyone tried teaching *Love's Victory*? If so, I'd like to hear how it went and what kinds of responses your students had. Many Thanks! Jan Stirm (stirm@humnet.ucla.edu) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Kathman Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 17:29:04 +0100 Subject: one/own Regarding the homophony of 'one' and 'own' in Shakespeare's day: I happen to have at hand a copy of Fausto Cercignani's invaluable *Shakespeare's Works and Elizabethan Pronunciation*, which gives the following rhymes in Shakespeare's works as evidence for the pronuciation of 'one' (and also 'none', which is historically 'no one') as rhyming with 'own'. (The line numberings Cergignani uses are from Kittredge's edition, but it shouldn't be too hard to find the lines in a more familiar edition). thrown / one (Cym. 5.4.59-61) one / alone (MND 3.2.118-19) (PP 9.13-14) (R3 1.1.99-100) (Luc. 1478-80) (Son. 36.2-4) 39.6-8) 42.13-14) (Shrew 1.2.246-7) alone / one (R&J 2.6.36-7) (Son. 105.13-14) one / bone (LC 43-5) (LLL 5.2.331-2) (Ven. 293-4) loan / one (Son. 6.6-8) one / Scone (Mac. 5.8.74-5) stone / thirty-one (Mac. 4.1.6-7) own / none (Per. 1.pr.27-8) none / alone (AWW 2.3.134-5) (MM 2.1.39-40) (TN 3.1.171-2) alone / none (1H6 4.7.9-10) groan / none (2H6 3.1.221-2) moan / none (2H6 3.1.221-2, Q version) Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sally Greene Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 14:22:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Workman ISBNs The ISBNs for the Workman Comics: King Lear 0-89480-673-4 Othello 0-89480-611-4 Macbeth 0-89480-205-4 Sally Greene UNC-Chapel Hill Department of English Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599-3520 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 22:42:07 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0721 Annoucement: Shakespeare Position Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0721. Tuesday, 26 September 1995. From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 17:01:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare Position The University of New Hampshire is seeking an advanced assistant or beginning associate professor with a speciality in Shakespeare. This is a permanent tenure-track appointment, to begin in the fall of 1996. Teaching duties will include undergraduate and graduate courses, primarily in Shakespeare. An additional specialty in drama or sixteenth- century non-dramatic literature would be particularly welcome. Ph.D. required. Send letter, c.v., dossier (including up-to-date letters of recommendation), and a self-addressed stamped envelope to: Shakespeare Search Committee, English Department, Hamilton Smith Hall, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824. Applications must be postmarked by November 15, 1995. UNH is an AA/EEO employer. The UNH-Durham campus is located approximately 60 miles north of Boston, MA, near the coast and the mountains. Other early modernists in the department include Elizabeth Hageman, myself, Rachel Trubowitz, and Jane Bellamy; we are hiring to replace (the irreplaceable) Robert Hapgood, who will be retiring this year. All interested and qualified Shakespearians are encouraged to apply. Sincerely, Douglas Lanier dml3@christa.unh.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 22:49:16 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0722 Re: *WT*; *Cor.*; *R3* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0722. Tuesday, 26 September 1995. (1) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 16:28 ET Subj: WT 4.4 (2) From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 12:12:48 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0716 Re; *WT*; *Cor.*; *MV* (3) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 16:21:33 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Richard III (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 16:28 ET Subject: WT 4.4 The block of the text of _Winter's Tale_ labelled Act 4 Scene 4 in most modern editions is only "long" if you assign some inherent, substantive weight to the Anglo-American editing conventions. Edited in the "French" manner, this stretch of text produces many scenes (I make out 11, with breaks after lines 54, 155, 180, 217, 323, 342, 443, 597, 621, 686 [Bevington ed.]; others might find a few more or a few less), each with its distinctive set of speakers, lexical and rhetorical registers, dominant tonalities, topics, and images, etc.; the physical setting can be imagined or represented as moving from place to place around the Shepherd's property, and the whole thing has a structure very similar to the corresponding stretch of _Antony and Cleopatra_ (with which WT bears other affinities). That doesn't mean it might not stand some cutting (though when I set myself that task it was not easy), but if so it's a line at a time, not whole chunks. Structurally, Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 12:12:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0716 Re; *WT*; *Cor.*; *MV* The alternate ending for Coriolanus at the Barbican doesn't seem to have much to recommend it -- at least as interpreted here. Aufidius, I would think, must be rather pleased that C. is dead. This was the point of the conspiracy. I don't think that Aufidius misses, of a sudden, C. because now that his great rival is dead, the reason for his own existence seems hard to descry. Aufidius wasn't much of a rival for C. in any case. He does rather poorly at single combat with him -- as the servants testify. Aufidius is,of course, also a liar. He speaks of his "great rage" for the benefit of the Lords but we know that he murders C. in cold blood and then tramples his body. I don't know why the producers decided that the people should rise up and kill C. instead of the conspirators. The original ending shows C. -- and maybe even the people a victim of a faction. Aufidius says that he will kill C. so that he may be "renewed in his fall." Aufidius is told that the people will remain uncertain until C. is done away with and one might wonder whether Corioli would be better off with C. as its defender against the inevitable Roman revenge than with Aufidius. In any case, the ending is of a piece -- the people are manipulated, as usual a faction imposes it will (a faction led by a liar and not a bad politician) and "noble memory" is cynically manipulated. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 16:21:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Richard III I've lost the name of the SHAKSPERean who asked for advice on resources for the study of Richard III's villainy but here are two thoughts. The best book I've found on R3 is Wolfgang Clemen's A COMMENTARY ON RICHARD III, London: Methuen, 1968. Hugh Richmond's more recent book from the Shakespeare in Performance series is also very good. For insight into the technique of Richard's villainy, look into the literature of rhetoric/persuasion/propaganda for the concept of The Big Lie technique. It is Richard's main tactic and it has been thoroughly studied in other contexts, most productively in studies of Hitler's tactics. The basis of the Big Lie technique is the fact that if you tell a lie that is big enough and you tell it brazenly enough, a normally decent person will be taken in because he doesn't believe anyone could lie so extremely and with a straight face. That's a simplistic version of the idea but it might put you on a useful tack. If you want to talk about R3, contact me off-list. I've directed the show three times so I've asked myself most of the questions already and found some kind of answer. [I'm surprised that no one else has responded to this query. Have we lost interest in Richard? I'd like to hear some other opinions.] Roger Gross U. of Arkansas ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 23:01:24 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0723 Re: Teaching; Importance; "Conceptualized" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0723. Tuesday, 26 September 1995. (1) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 23:44:25 +0100 Subj: Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 00:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0713 Re: Importance of Shakespeare (3) From: David Skeele Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 95 10:10:43 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0713 Re: "Conceptualized" Productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 23:44:25 +0100 Subject: Re: Teaching Shakespeare (Ethiop) Tom Ellis (23 Sept) is absolutely right. My comment of 22 Sept on his students' laughter was based on a silly mistake of my memory, according to which the class, *after* laughing at the "Ethiop," had suddenly realized that this time the "other" actually coincided with the "self". To put it in Ellis' own words, in my memory this was a typical case of "laughter engendered by an ethnically abusive epithet"--a decidedly "mean-spirited laughter". I apologize to Tom, to his students, and to the List. Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 00:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0713 Re: Importance of Shakespeare Marcello Capuzzo; Thank you for your thoughtful response to my post regarding the importance of Shakespeare. I don't in the least disagree with your feeling that we should welcome the recent additions to English literature from the many cultures who have embraced the language. The point I was trying to make had little to do with Shakespeare's works, or the standard English lit. canon, but with the language itself. It is my belief, based on a good deal of reading in both literature and history, that Shakespeare was a culteral watershed, that is, he collected the myths, fables, obsessions, of his time and rendered them in a newly minted language, made up of what he heard from his fellows, read in ancient texts, heard at his nursemaid's knee as a child, slang, Latin, Greek, French, as well as various dialects, which he used in his plays and poetry. These plays and poems have had a certain life and influence in terms of plot, style, entertainment value, etc., but the language he created to express them has had a life far beyond the works themselves. It is as though I were to create a new medium for covering a canvas, better than either oil or acrylic, with which I painted a number of pictures. These pictures merit attention based on their artistic qualities, but the medium I invented has gone on to be used by scores of other artists, many great and all very different. What Shakespeare did for English was done by Dante for Italian and Ronsard and the Pliade (sp?) for French; it happened when it did because of the process of European communities forming into nations, turning away from their common language of Latin to create literatures and cultures for themselves out of their own vernaculars. To compare the value of one nation's music with another nation's art is to compare apples and oranges, but certainly the creation of a language is on an altogether different level from anything else. Certainly Shakespeare did not set out to create a worldwide language; but I must repeat, had he never been born, had Sidney, Raleigh and Bacon been the best writers of their time, we might be making these posts in Spanish. Stephanie Hughes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 95 10:10:43 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0713 Re: "Conceptualized" Productions I have enjoyed the recent discussion on "conceptualized" vs. "unconceptualized" Shakespeare, and I agree heartily with Sarah Richarson that the latter cannot really be said to exist. I think that in general the word "concept" tends to get bandied about rather irresponsibly. Usually the person employing the term in a pejorative sense means "bad concept" and is referring to a concept which trivializes the text or condescends to the audience. Any director who seeks to bring coherence to a production by foregrounding some idea or theme that they take to be important is using a "concept" (though I should qualify this by noting that in the Postmodern age, one might validly use a concept which deliberately seeks to foster incoherence), no matter how invisible that concept may be to the audience. I also believe that the term "traditional" is often grossly misused--when used to describe the practice of using historically "correct" costuming and scenery, it is both inaccurate and unfair. It is inaccurate because it implies an unbroken line of scenic antiquarianism from Shakespeare's day to our own, when in fact it is a relatively new practice, one that didn't achieve much popularity until the 1850s with Charles Kean. It doesn't seems to have become de rigeur until the 1870s with the Duke of Saxe Meiningen, and it could be argued that its primacy as an approach was challenged as early as 1912 by Granville Barker's fantastical Winter's Tale and Twelfth Night (certainly by Barry Jackson's plus-fours Hamlet in 1925). Thus, in the grand scheme of things, "traditional" Shakespeare really doesn't constitute much of a tradition at all. On the other hand, the term is unfair because it denigrates some really fine historically-accurate productions, implying that directors who clothe their characters in pumpkin-breeches and ruffed collars are simply blindly following tradition, and are incapable of finding any innovation in their interpretations of the plays. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 23:09:10 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0724 Re: Antonio and *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0724. Tuesday, 26 September 1995. (1) From: Cary Mazer Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 09:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0716 Re; *WT*; *Cor.*; *MV* (2) From: Joseph M Green Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:47:25 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0712 Re: Antonio (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary Mazer Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 09:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0716 Re; *WT*; *Cor.*; *MV* Re: Stuart Rice's posting: > I think that casting the relationship of Bassanio and Antonio as "homosexual" > misses the point. I think that there is a valid argument for a "homoerotic" > interpretation, especially if you choose to see the play as being a Christian > allegory. Under this interpretation, Antonio becomes associated with Christ > (so his opening scene becomes an allusion to Gethsemane [is that the correct > spelling?]) and Shylock expands to encompass the "Christ-Slaughterer." > Bassanio, therefore, becomes the disciple/friend. As such, his love becomes a > material expression of a deep rooted spiritual faith. Examples of this in > medieval art include the sculpture of John resting his head on the bosom of > Christ. I knew it was a mistake to read my e-mail on Rosh Hashanah. Cary M. Mazer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:47:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0712 Re: Antonio Readings that see the Antonio/Shylock relationship in terms of "The Other" seem, naturally, to overlook this and that complexity. The reading is almost automatic, isn't it? Combining this with a reading that sees the Antonio/Bassanio relationship as a homosexual relationship is equally automatic. I can't imagine a duller combination -- of an age, for sure. It seems to me that Antonio is, in the opening scene, shown to be himself quite alien to the world of Venice -- where every relationship is assessed as a financial relationship. Money is especially corrupting to the ideal of male frien dship -- an ideal taken seriously, of course. If Antonio and Shylock are both outsideres, they are outsiders for different reasons. Antonio is alienated from Venice's materialism. Shylock is an outsider because he is a Jew -- and if he is anyone's other, he others all those junk bond types who despise him but are not unlike him. Antonia despises Shylock because he is a Jew and because it is convenient to do so -- more or less Shylock represents that which he despises in his friends. This is not entirely clear to him, of course, and maybe never becomes so. Reading the Antonio/Bassanio relationship as romantic elides (that awful word) the "politics" of the play -- its critique of materialism. A very typical move since, as is our wont, we return politics to the private realm. There is no uncomplex contrast between the world of Venice and the world of Christian generosity at Belmont. Portia is shown to be quite self-regarding as she uses this and that person as a foil for her wit. Both Portia and Antonio look to Bassanio for love. They believe that he can make them happy. Antonio need not require a homosexual relationship with Bassanio. He might just like a friend who doesn't use him -- another fellow who doesn't buy into the values of Venice. Antonio's listlessness and despair could be occasioned by the perception that this kind of friendship is impossible and the world becomes weary. stale etc. This means that the play doesn't just become a story (partially) of how Antonio's crush on Bassanio is frustrated when Bassanio gets the girl -- instead it becomes an exploration of the values of Venice and Antonio becomes a victim as well as Shylock -- tho the reasons for their victimization differ. The production is which all the courtiers were presented as homosexual seems especially insulting to homosexuals. The world of Venice becomes a place for the display of homosexual selfishness, shallowness. The corrupting influence of money is replaced by the putative corrupting influence of the "gay" lifestyle. This is not justified by the text -- and the only justification seems to be the usual inane desire to make Shakespeare our contemporary in the most fatuous ways. A gay relationship between Antonio and Bassanio does seem plausible. However, it has the unfortunate effect of overwhelming the critique of the values of Venice that the Bard intends (and I do mean intends). Simply seeing Antonio and Shylock in terms of "The Other" is easy -- this illumination steps from its coach bearing a lemon meringue pie to undergraduates taught by the "well-trained" everyday. Sadly, it misses very very much. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 23:11:44 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0725 Jack Meets Alice Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0725. Tuesday, 26 September 1995. From: Alan Nordstrom Date: Monday, 25 Sep 1995 23:10:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Jack Meets Alice "Jack and Alice"--that is, Jack Falstaff and Dame Alice, the Merry Wife of Bath. Shakespeare should have written it, but he nodded and penned instead _The Merry Wives of Windsor_. Too bad, but we're here to rectify his lapse, and we could use a hand or mind from you. My senior English major seminarians at Rollins College (in Winter Park, Florida) are turning our modest talents to this project, collaborating to compose a new dramatic comedy, perhaps a musical comedy, in a style we hope both Chaucer and Shakespeare will approve (we trust their spirits are supervising our endeavor). Rude mechanicals though we must be in such an grandiose enterprise, we feel compelled to bring about the meeting of these two comedic monuments (or monsters), Jack and Alice. We posit that the Canterbury pilgrims Jack robbed in 1H4 were Geoffrey's jolly company. (The time's off by a tad, but what o' that, it's near enough.) We're busy now drenching ourselves in Chaucer's tales and portraits, and we'll soon review the four plays representing Sir John Sack and Sugar. So, while we're steeping, we appeal to you to join our earnest game. Tell us what episodes you suppose must ensue from this most rare encounter. What wit sallies will scintillate? What songs will be sung? What plots and counterplots will brood and hatch? What themes will resonate? And how can we pull all this off, yet do no violence to the original story lines? Collude with us, we beseech you. Join in our sport. We welcome your imagination and your wit, with which we know you to be nobly graced and well possessed. With humble thanks, Alan Nordstrom Rollins College ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 19:20:54 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0725 Re: Jack Meets Alice Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 725. Wednesday, 27 September 1995 (1) From: Patricia Stewart Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 95 23:13:35 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0725 Jack Meets Alice (2) From: Terence Martin Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 95 07:37:34 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0725 Jack Meets Alice (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia Stewart Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 95 23:13:35 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0725 Jack Meets Alice When I have played this game of picking Jack Falstaff for the sixth husband of the Wife of Bath, my students have been unanimous in declaring Alice the victor in the ensuing battle of the sexes. They don't think Falstaff could defeat her in any argument and certainly not satisfy her in bed. See if your students agree. Writing a play about them would today raise the problem of avoiding any duplication of the Rumpole series with the fat talker and she who must be obeyed. Nevertheless, good luck on the project. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Martin Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 95 07:37:34 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0725 Jack Meets Alice Undoubtably the key event of Jack meets Alice will be when Jack meets the Wife of Bath! While she will figuratively wipe the floor with him, she will definitely have a soft spot for the old rogue. Good luck with the project. Terence Martin UM-St. Louis ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 19:29:19 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0726 Re: Antonio and *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 726. Wednesday, 27 September 1995 (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 20:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0724 Re: Antonio and *MV* (2) From: Terence Martin Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 95 08:13:49 CDT Subj: Antonio (3) From: John Owen Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 13:29:07 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0724 Re: Antonio and *MV* (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 16:26:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0724 Re: Antonio and *MV* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 20:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0724 Re: Antonio and *MV* How is Antonio alienated from Venice's materialism? As a merchant, he seems much more capitalist than those aristocrats who either inherent Belmont, steel Jessica (and her's Dad money), or mooch around merchants like him. I'd say the division is a class distinction between new money and old families. The link between money and friendship seems original to Antonio, as well. It is, after all, he who starts throwing money around in hopes of becoming friends with a part of the aristocratic set. Cheerio, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Martin Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 95 08:13:49 CDT Subject: Antonio Joseph Green's excellent comments on Antonio's character and the role of homosexuality in the play also, to my mind, help explain Shakespeare's choice of title for the play. Terence Martin UM-St. Louis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 13:29:07 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0724 Re: Antonio and *MV* I am grateful for Joseph Green's analysis of the Antonio problem, concise and sensible as it is. Unfortunately, Mr. Green's premises are spoiled by that same old misreading of Shylock's character and motives which seems to infect every discussion of the subject. Shylock hates Antonio because he is a Christian, but MORE than that, because Antonio lends without interest and thus hampers Shylock's business affairs. This is not my version of events, it is Shakespeare's and Shylock's own. I hope someone recognized the source of my paraphrase above -- an aside, where Shylock may be assumed to be honestly revealing his own motives. Conversely, Antonio despises Shylock because it is convenient (Shylock is a member of a persecuted religious minority) but MORE, because Shylock lends money with interest, a practice hateful to the Merchant. Shakespeare presents both characters as deeply flawed, however. Antonio's extreme generosity to Bassanio is no sign of homosexuality -- rather it is a sign of Antonio's inabil ity to recognize the value of his pos sessions. By devaluating the material he lends, he devaluates the loan itself, and the friendship as well. If we can recall Act V without sneering at its good spirits, we see that Portia's main intention with the ring business is to demonstrate to Bassanio the importance of possessions, lest Antonio's victory seem an endorsement of imbecile generosity. It is regrettable that this most important of the play's themes is so often pushed to the sidelines by the racial issue. John Owen (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 16:26:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0724 Re: Antonio and *MV* If Antonio is against the materialism of Venice, why does he continue to be a merchant, a proto-Capitalist if you will. He sends ships out to "buy cheap," and then brings these cheap goods back to Venice to "sell dear." That is indeed how you "make money." When Antonio gets on Shylock's case for "breeding money," I see an example of one money-maker using a metaphor to bash another money-maker greedy. Yours, Bill Godshalk, ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 19:35:25 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0727 Re: First Words; CD ROMs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 727. Wednesday, 27 September 1995 (1) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 95 10:12:00 PDT Subj: Shakespeare's Words (2) From: Mike LoMonico Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 17:28:36 -0400 Subj: words and CDs (3) From: Rod Osiowy Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 20:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0719 Qs: CD ROMs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 95 10:12:00 PDT Subject: Shakespeare's Words This is a reply to Jeff Myers in the "funny you should ask" category! Someone just rang up the Folger asking about words contributed by Shakespeare. We found a partial list of close to 500 words in Michael Macrone's book "Brush Up Your Shakespeare!" (Harper, 1990) on pp.193-203. It's not complete but handy. Georgianna Ziegler Folger Library ziegler@mail.folger.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike LoMonico Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 17:28:36 -0400 Subject: words and CDs In reply to Jeff Myers question about words coined or first used by Shakespeare, I've asked that same question to the librarians at the Folger library, and they seem to think that there is no such book with such a list. Is there a way for the OED to search for a list and if so how do those of us without the CD ROM get the list? In reply to Peter Herman's request for Shakespeare CD ROMS, I've used the WordCruncher CD ROM for several years with great success. I've gotten some great papers from High School students with it. Mike LoMonico (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rod Osiowy Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 20:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0719 Qs: CD ROMs CDRoms are being developed for teaching Shakespeare at Universities all over the US. Unfortunately, most are designed to run on Macs, but hopefully less expensive IBM versions will come available. Check software companies through the local computer store. I'm finding that most of my students far prefer interacting with the Cd's more than they like to look at "comic books." Many of the CD's offer what every excellent teacher would like to offer their students: variety of presentation, open ended learning, some control over the process, guarenteed success and motivation, and some of the right answers. The down side is that it involves technology, money, and time sitting in front of a screen instead of up on the boards where the bard was meant to be explored. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 19:40:51 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0728 Re: Discrepant Awareness Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 728. Wednesday, 27 September 1995 (1) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 09:25:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: discrepant awareness (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 15:59:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0719 Qs: Discrepent Awareness (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 09:25:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: discrepant awareness The phrase "discrepant awareness," which popped up in Ruth Nevo's head may have arrived there from Bertrand Evans' _Shakespeare's Comedies_ (Oxford, 1960). Evans certainly has much to say about the concept and I think he uses the phrase itself. --Ron Macdonald (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 15:59:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0719 Qs: Discrepent Awareness Discrepant Awareness, as far as I know, was (is?) Bertrand Evans's baby, and he traced the concept through Shakespeare's comedies. But back to owe/own, I just finished reading (again) BEOWULF, and it seems to me that the double meaning is surely inherent in that poem, which supposedly has a pre-feudal setting The rituals of giving and receiving seem to play with the paradox of what you own you actually owe, as the Ring-Giver who apparently owns the tribal wealth gives that wealth away (owes it) to his private army. In turn, the thanes who now own the wealth owe allegiance to the Ring-Giver. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 19:46:08 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0729 Re: Importance of Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 729. Wednesday, 27 September 1995 (1) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 11:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Importance of Shakespeare (2) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 21:02:50 +0100 Subj: Re: Importance of Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 11:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Importance of Shakespeare The problem with considering Shakespeare a "historical watershed," it seems to me, is that it is historically wrong, and probably involves a confusion of cause and effect. One can make a case that the writings of Ben Jonson, John Donne, and even John Dryden were more important in the development of the English language between (say) 1610 and 1750 than those of Shakespeare (which of course were not only widely available until about 1710, whereas, say, Donne's sermons were reprinted often.). How many playwrights or poets can Stephanie Hughes name from that period who were imitating WS's diction? How many intellectuals can she name from that period who were actively drawing on Shakespeare's "synthesis" of mythology and Christianity? Unfortunately, one can even say that William Waller was the more influential crafter of language during the late 17th and 18th centuries; and apart from a few successful adaptations of Shakespeareanism on the English stage (like Otway's *Venice Preserved*) one will find, I think, few direct effects of Shakespearean mentality in English culture during that time. (It should not be forgotten that the Shakespeare being performed from Dryden on was a Shakespeare whose language had been cleaned up -- Dryden corrected it into heroic couplets!-- and whose moral ambiguities had clarified if not erased.) The Shakespeare who reinvented the English language is, I think, an invention of a later time. It is true that WS brought together in his work more cultural material from more sources than any other writer of English before or since (though Chaucer comes close); and it is true that WS came to have a disproportionate effect on literary and theatrical production beginning in the late 18th century. It is also true that plausible claims can be made (as Fineman did in *Perjured Eye*) that WS somehow "discovered" modes of subjectivity and writing which have become central to Western traditions. But I don't think we have to reify WS into a kind of force of historical determinism in order to recognize the value of what he achieved; and I don't think that we can really *find* WS's work actually *doing* the kind of cultural work that Stephanie Hughes assigns to it until other individuals of a much later date come along and *assign* to the work the kind of historical force she wants to assign to it. Certainly, it was not Shakespeare's doing that he was being adopted as a cultural deity at about the same time that the industrial revolution, the slave trade, and a devastating navy were making England into the most powerful country inthe world. It was in any case the English military, and not the actors of the West End, who made English into the official language of India, Australia, Canada, Nigeria, Jamaica, etc. And it is the English military that would have made it into the official language of much of the world even if Shakespeare had never "reinvented" it. We are probably doing Shakespeare a favor if we assign the repsonsibility for the cultural imperialism of the modern era to something or someone else. Robert Appelbaum UC Berkeley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 21:02:50 +0100 Subject: Re: Importance of Shakespeare "Certainly Shakespeare did not set out to create a worldwide language; but I must repeat, had he never been born, had Sidney, Raleigh and Bacon been the best writers of their time, we might be making these posts in Spanish." Stephanie Hughes, Sept 26. What is wrong with Spanish? Ms Hughes seems to believe 1. that WS "created" (ex nihilo) a "medium" known as the English language; 2. that the history of this "medium" begins *and* ends with WS; 3. that English is perhaps the best possible language, certainly "the most important" (Hughes, Sept 8), and 4. that therefore "to make these posts in Spanish" would be...what? inappropriate? inopportune? unbecoming? would it be an insult--given the topic of this conversation? I do not share any of Ms Hughes' opinions; however, should Ms Hughes be monolingual, I would understand her sense of relief for not having to learn a second language to take part in this international conference--though one or two other reasons could perhaps be found. Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 19:51:24 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0730 Q: Shakespeare Biographies; *TDR* 147 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 730. Wednesday, 27 September 1995 (1) From: Simon Malloch Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 14:55:22 +0800 (WST) Subj: Shakespeare Biographies (2) From: Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 23:13:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: announcing TDR147 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Malloch Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 14:55:22 +0800 (WST) Subject: Shakespeare Biographies Does anyone have any comments or reviews of two recent works on Shakespeare?: _The Shakespeare Conspiracy_ by Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman (1994) _Shakespeare: The Evidence_ by Ian Wilson (1993) E-mail me privately if you wish. Thanks Simon Malloch sjvenn@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Tuesday, 26 Sep 1995 23:13:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: announcing TDR147 ______________________________________________________________________ ______ ______ ______ ######| ######\ ######\ ##| ##| ##\ ##|__##| ##| ##| ##| ######/ ##| ##|__##/ ##| ##\ ___________________ ##| ######/ ##| ##\_______________________ -- The Journal of Performance Studies - T147 (Fall 1995) -- TDR is the only journal that explores the diverse world of performance with an emphasis on the intercultural, interdisciplinary and experimental. It covers theatre, music, dance, entertainment, media, sports, politics, aesthetics of everyday life, games, plays and ritual. The journal is edited by Richard Schechner of the Department of Performance Studies, New York University, and is published quarterly by The MIT Press. Although TDR is not yet an electronic journal, you can browse through sample articles available on-line through the Electronic Newsstand and order via e-mail from The MIT Press (see directions below). Check out our table of contents! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- // In This Issue - T147 Fall 1995 \\ -------------------------------------- /TDR Comment -------------- Theatre Not Dead - by Jonathan Warman /Letters, Etc. -------------- "TDR Con and Pro" - a letter from Richard Hornby and a letter from Olivia Lynn Pipis /Articles -------------- Performing and the Real Thing in the Postmodern Museum - by Tracy C. Davis A Sense of the Possible: Miles Davis and the Semiotics of Improvised Performance - by Christopher Smith Suzan-Lori Parks and Liz Diamond: Doo-a-diddly-dit-dit - an interview by Steven Drukman No es facil: Notes on the Negotiation of Cubanidad and Exilic Memory in Carmelita Tropicana's Milk of Amnesia - by Jose Esteban Munoz Carmelita Tropicana Unplugged - an interview by David Roman Milk of Amnesia Leche de Amnesia - by Carmelita Tropicana The Stages of Age: The Growth of Senior Theatre - by Anne Davis Basting Kabuki Goes Official: The 1878 Opening of the Shintomi-za - by Takahashi Yuichiro Translating Collaboration: The Joy Luck Club and Intercultural Theatre - by Claire A. Conceison /Book Reviews -------------- Presence and Desire: Essays on Gender, Sexuality, Performance by Jill Dolan - reviewed by Lesley K. Ferris Giving the Body Its Due edited by Maxine Sheets-Johnstone; Body, Movement, and Culture: Kinesthetic and Visual Symbolism in a Philippine Community by Sally Ann Ness; Reading the Social Body edited by Catherine R. Burroughs and Jeffrey David Ehrenreich; The Body Social: Symbolism, Self and Society by Anthony Synnott; The Female Nude: Art, Obscenity and Sexuality by Lynda Nead; Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex" by Judith Butler; Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us by Kate Bornstein - reviewed by Philip Auslander ---------------------- Each TDR issue is filled with photographs, artwork, and scripts that illustrate every article. The journal, founded in 1955, is 7 x 10 and a 184 pages per issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- // To browse and subscribe \\ ----------------------------- 1. For subscription prices and ordering information, contact the publisher: MIT Press Journals 55 Hayward Street Cambridge, MA 02142 Tel: 617-253-2889 Fax: 617-258-6779 Email: journals-orders@mit.edu Or, access the MIT Press Online Catalog: telnet techinfo.mit.edu, under Around MIT/MIT Press/Journals/Arts/ or via gopher by typing "gopher gopher.mit.edu". 2. To browse through an article from one of our issues, logon to the The Electronic Newsstand: via telnet: gopher.internet.com (login name: enews). via gopher: gopher.internet.com (port 2100). Via the gopher menu, go to: North America/USA/general/ The Electronic Newsstand/all titles/TDR:The Drama Review ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 20:02:39 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0731 Re: *WT* 4.4; *R3*; Teaching Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 731. Wednesday, 27 September 1995 (1) From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 07:59:16 -0400 Subj: Re: cutting WT IV.4 (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 16:17:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0722 Re: *WT* (3) From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 95 16:02:08 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0722 Re: *R3* (4) From: Ron Strickland Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 16:41:57 -0500 Subj: Re: Teaching Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 07:59:16 -0400 Subject: Re: cutting WT IV.4 I agree with David Evett that IV.4 of WT is easier to think of in "French" scenes, and of course that's how you would approach it anyway. I think the "here and thereabouts" gloss would be a lot easier to do on film than onstage, though. And I also agree that cutting it is not easy. We've been chipping away one line or so at the time, mostly with stuff that is not going to be immediately coherent to our modern audience and which is not directly relevant to the plot. I will not say precisely which famous two pages are already gone, for fear of creating a firestorm. ;) Now, can any of you people sew? Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 16:17:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0722 Re: *WT* Dave Evett's comments on editing conventions and the length of WT 4.4 puzzle me. The use of French scenes does not make the length of the English scene shorter. Although scenes are not always marked in 16th and 17th century playscripts, when they are marked, they are generally marked in the English manner. (Jonson is an exception.) An English scene begins with a bare stage, and ends when the stage is bare. It seems to me that English scenes reflect stage practice, while French scenes do not. English scenes are theatrical; French scenes, literary Yours, Bill Godshalk. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 95 16:02:08 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0722 Re: *R3* I missed the original message regarding interest in Richard III, but I would add to Roger Gross' excellent suggestions the Antony Sher book "The Year of the King." This is going in a slightly different direction, as Sher was an actor preparing to perform the role of Richard, but he comes to some fresh and exciting conclusions about the character, and the book is wonderfully well-written and illustrated (by Sher himself). David Skeele (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Strickland Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 16:41:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Teaching Shakespeare I've been enjoying the discussion of teaching occasioned by Tom Ellis's classroom experience; like him I use a sort of anthropological (I usually think of it as "cultural studies" approach"). For me this involves addressing such issues as racism in Shakespeare studies by situating "Shakespeare" (Shakespeare as a cultural phenomenon) in a "thick" environment of related intertexts including such things as Shakespeare criticism from different historical periods, a variety of film and other popular and middle-brow adaptations and treatments, and other early modern texts treating some of the same topics that come up in Shakespeare. On race, specifically, some of these texts reveal interesting complexities. In addition to some of the more familiar texts dealing with colonial encounters, like Montaignes "Of the Cannibals," two texts that I have found especially useful are John Pory's 1601 translation of Leo Africanus' (Al Hassan Ibn Mumammed's) _Geographical History of Africa_ and Ben Jonson's _The Masque of Blackness_. Pory's translation of Africanus' text (I use excerpts) indicates an uneven and inchoate proto-racism developing along with, but not exactly preceding colonialism. In his marginal glosses and his introduction, it seems that Pory is not quite sure whether to treat Leo as an African or a European. There is good reason for this, since Leo was born in Toledo, but then captured and enslaved as an African, and since Leo clearly considers himself a European, even though as he writes the text is is a slave of Pope Leo X. Jonson's _Masque of Blackness_ suggests similar ambivalence--it begins with the queen and her friends dressed up in black-face and pretending to be Africans, and it portrays African women as desiring to be white, but it also contains some lines convincingly arguing for the superior beauty of African women. A while back I posted an article entitled "Teaching Shakespeare Against the Grain" on the shaksper archive describing some of the strategies I use in a cultural studies or discourse theory approach to Shakespeare; though I don't talk about the above texts specifically, list members who want to know more detail about these strategies might find it interesting. Ron Strickland Illinois State University rlstrick@ilstu.edu [Editor's Note: To retrieve "Teaching Shaksespeare Againist the Grain," send this one-line command GET AGAINST THEGRAIN SHAKSPER to the LISTSERV address: LISTSERV@UTORONTO.BITNET.] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 15:02:04 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0732 Re: *MV* and Antonio Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 732. Thursday, 28 September 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 21:31:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0726 Re: Antonio and *MV* (2) From: Amy E. Hughes Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 01:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: *MV* (3) From: Terry Ross Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 09:17:49 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Antonio & MV (4) From: Piers Lewis Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 10:20:01 -0600 Subj: Antonio (5) From: Steve Sohmer Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 12:05:09 -0400 Subj: MV (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 27 Sep 1995 21:31:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0726 Re: Antonio and *MV* Regarding the title MERCHANT OF VENICE. Farmer and Henley, SLANG AND ITS ANALOGUES, point out that "merchant" was a term of abuse, and from the citations it's see to see that "merchant" in the late 16th century meant "cheater." So, is the title a pun? Who precisely is the "Cheater of Venice"? Does Shakespeare possibly suggest that all Venetians are cheaters -- in different ways? Why does Antonio lend Bassanio (a light-weight gigolo) money? As auditors, we have to guess, but the script indicates that Antonio and Bassanio have a special relationship. Are they and their friends actively gay? Is Antonio the rich, older man who is trying to buy Bassanio's love? Why isn't this a dramatic possibility? If it is, how does Portia enter the picture? Is she to repair Bassanio's fortunes and to allow Bassanio to have his special relationship with Antonio unrestrained? If Bassanio thinks so, he and the audience see how quickly Portia puts both men in places where she wants them. Antonio ends up guaranteeing Bassanio's faith to Portia. But why, oh why, does Portia want to marry the light-weight gigolo? Does she love ineffectual, spendthrift, upperclass males? Or does she merely want a weak husband that she can control without too much effort? Or does she not really see what Bassanio is like? Does she pick the casket that's gold on the outside? (I assume that she controls Bassanio's choice of caskets.) Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy E. Hughes Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 01:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: *MV* I was impressed and moved by Barry Edelstein's production of MERCHANT at the Public last Spring. Mr. Edelstein chose to include the homosexual implications in his version, and I found it to be a very effective device, truthful or not: Antonio and Shylock are a dramatic "couple" in the sense that conflict arises between them for religious/moral/etc. reasons. Without conflict, obviously, it is hard to have theatre; and these two merchants provide plenty of it. However, they are not the only key figures in the play: Bassanio and Portia must be included in that list. They seem to have little conflict between them, outside of the ring, which seems a bit convenient, and only occupies the last portion of the play. I give Shakespeare the benefit of the doubt and assume that some greater conflict about *this* dramatic couple must exist. Antonio's crush on Bassanio was what Mr. Edelstein saw as the conflict between Portia and Bassanio. It was just fascinating to see the sparks fly between Portia and Antonio and suddenly, the play felt complete to me. Portia's jealousy fueled her way to the courtroom, and it was her guilt that made her finally point out the error in Shylock's contract. Her relationship with Bassanio and Antonio was intensified and more important as a result of this "take" on Antonio's love-life. As a young director I am learning that the text is indeed sacred, and that I have a responsibility to it; but I am also learning that sometimes a play can't work unless you add some considered assumptions that refresh and intensify relationships between the characters. In the case of MERCHANT at the Public, attention paid to this controversial, "lesser" aspect of the play did exactly that. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Ross Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 09:17:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Antonio & MV John Owen hopes the source of his paraphrase is recognized: okay, I'll bite. It sounds like John Barton in the marvelous "Playing Shakespeare" episode wherein David Suchet and Patrick Stewart play two very different Shylocks. It's the best episode in the series, and very useful in a class (once students get over the surprise of seeing Captain Picard as Shylock). (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Piers Lewis Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 10:20:01 -0600 Subject: Antonio Let's not forget that MV is a fairy-tale--an aristocratic fairy-tale; or at any rate, more like a fairy-tale than, say, a play by Ibsen. Or Shaw. A critique of the materialistic values of Venice (or London)? Shylock's Venice perhaps but not Antonio's or Bassanio's or Portia's; and certainly not from the point of view of our contemporary liberalism. The opening scene with Antonio and the "salad-boys" presents Antonio as a great merchant-adventurer; not a petty money-grubber, but a lord of commerce who sends his argosies all over the earth, willingly running the risk that his gorgeous silks may merely "enrobe the roaring waters." The poetry of that line, which has been much admired, would be incomprehensible to Shylock, to whom ships are but boards and such ventures (a key word in this play) as these of Antonio a useless extravagance, a mere squandering forth of resources. Why is Antonio so weary and so sad? Merely, it seems, to give his friends a chance to try to cheer him up and thereby make it clear from the start that this is no ordinary shopkeeper or money-lender, like Shylock who instead of risking or venturing his money lets it safely breed. (Shylock doesn't take chances, would never risk all on a throw of dice or a riddle.) Just as the weariness of Portia gives Nerissa and the play a chance to show us that this is no ordinary heiress . . . Piers Lewis (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 12:05:09 -0400 Subject: MV To clear up some of the mystery about Antonio, the Merchant of Venice, SHAKSPERs will find it useful to remember that this is one of Shakespeare's "city plays," i.e. one of a handful of his plays which includes the name of a city in the title. A common thread through these plays is the commodification of love, honor, etc. SHAKSPERs will also find it useful to consult the calendar. Scholars disagree over whether MV was written in 1596 or 1597. The play was registered on 22 July 1598, and owes a debt to Mosse's "The Arraignment and Conviction of Usury" registered 18 February 1595. MV references a ship named The Andrew. News of the ship's capture reached England on 30 July 1596, according to Wells and Taylor. Calendrical evidence within the play suggests 1596 as the more likely date of composition. In 1596 there were two rival calendars. The English were then living under the old Julian calendar, imposed by Julius Caesar on 1 January 45 BC. But most of the rest of the world was living by the Gregorian reformed calendar of 1582, which was 10 days advanced. In 1.1, Antonio enters flanked by two clowns, Salerio and Solanio. We know from the talk of masking and music in the streets that the day is Shrove Tuesday. By the Julian calendar which was most familiar to Shakespeare's audiences, Shrove Tuesday fell on 24 February in 1596. Due to the 10-day disparity between the rival calendars, on this day Catholics observed St. Valentine's Day. This accounts for all the moody talk of love in 1.1 of MV, and commends 1596 as the more likely date of composition of the play. This argument is supported by evidence in Julius Caesar. A similar (reversed) concordance of Shrove Tuesday and St. Valentine's Day recurred in 1599 when Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar, and accounts for Cassius harping on love in 1.2 of that play. On the night of Shrove Tuesday, Lorenzo and Jessica elope. Presumably, they consummate their union immediately, that is, on Ash Wednesday, 25 February 1596. Marriages could not be performed during Lent, and sexual abstinence was observed. One must read this as a judgment of the (probably unsanctified) union, which has become uneasy by 5.1. It is not clear that Lorenzo and Jessica could have married before she completed the education and rites necessary for becoming a Christian. The Antonio-Shylock bond of 3000 ducats for three months must have been signed on Shrove Tuesday, 24 February 1596, as it could not have been contracted during Lent, during which time the law courts were closed and notaries were banned from sealing oaths. Therefore, the debt came due on 24 May 1596 Julian. This was St. Matthias' day in the Gregorian calendar. Matthias, it will be remembered, was chosen by lot to fill the vacancy in the rank of apostles left by the disgrace and death of Judas. Judas was the keeper of Christ's purse, and sold his master for thirty pieces of silver. The emblem of Matthias is an axe or halberd, signifying his death by an edged weapon. MV is replete with references to, and cautionary lessons about, the love of silver (and gold). The principal lesson is taught by the caskets of Portia, she who brings the message of mercy to the court. The Gospel for St. Matthias' day is Matt 11, in which Christ goes to preach to the cities. Christ's invective against the ways of city people is strikingly appropriate to MV. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 15:14:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0733 Re: French/English Scenes Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 733. Thursday, 28 September 1995. (1) From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 07:41:58 -0400 Subj: Re: French scenes (2) From: Armstrong Eric Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 11:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0731 Re: *WT* 4.4; *R3*; Teaching Shakespeare (3) From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 95 11:20:49 est Subj: Re: SHK 6.0731 Re: *WT* 4.4; *R3*; Teaching Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 07:41:58 -0400 Subject: Re: French scenes Oops, Bill! French scenes are not merely literary: they are delineated by the entrance or exit of a character, which precipitates a change of action onstage. If you think about it for a moment, you will see why this is perforce true. I always divide my Shakespeare scripts into French scenes, for several reasons. It makes scheduling rehearsal blocks easier; doubling is easier to plan; and it's my first step in designing costumes. Also, and I think this is what David meant, it makes the ebb and flow of a scene easier to conceive and handle. Other than that, you're entirely correct about the bare-stage-to-bare-stage structure of English stagecraft, a fact which I used to explain to Cleomenes and Dion why their scene was indeed necessary. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Armstrong Eric Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 11:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0731 Re: *WT* 4.4; *R3*; Teaching Shakespeare In his post on WT, Bill Godshalk said: > It seems to me that English scenes reflect stage practice, while French > scenes do not. English scenes are theatrical; French scenes, literary. Well, I feel the opposite to be true, and certainly my experience in the theatre would support that feeling. When a director takes a script apart for rehearsal, a fairly standard practice is to cut the scenes up into French scenes, especially any long section of a play, e.g. *WT* 4.4. The important thing is to break the play into chunks that are manageable in rehearsal, and so that you don't have people sitting around doing nothing because they're only in for the last 30 seconds. I would prefer to call my actors only for what they are needed and hopefully they would end up much happier. This is not to say that all directors do this. For convenience sake many directors merely use the scenes as they are broken down in whatever edition they have selected. But when confronted with a long scene, using French-style scene breakdowns is often the easiest and most effective way of handling rehearsal. Is it possible that I have misunderstood your meaning of Theatrical and Literary? If so, my apologies. I always thought (though I never ever checked to see whether it holds true) that English scenes were more about location and time rather than who is on stage with whom. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 95 11:20:49 est Subject: Re: SHK 6.0731 Re: *WT* 4.4; *R3*; Teaching Shakespeare Re: WT(French/English scenes) Bill Godshalk's comment that English scenes begin and end with an empty stage may be technically accurate, but there are instances of numbered scenes in Shakespeare in which all of the characters on stage have exited before another character enters. Given that the generally accepted Shakespeare scene breakdown arguably depends upon the somewhat arbitrary whim of editors/typesetters, its only real value lies in the facility of reference to particular lines or moments. From a performance perspective, I have usually found it helpful when directing a Shakespeare play to break it down into whatever scene system makes sense to me, after taking into account such factors of time, place, and practicality. So I end up with, say, an "Antony and Cleopatra" with 42 scenes. No "Act 1 Scene 5" "Act 2 scene 4" stuff; just "scene 5", "scene 15", "scene 41", etc.. The intermission occurs between, say, scenes 25 and 26. This way, the actors lose their preconceptions about the play being divided into five chunks (Acts) with several subchunks (scenes), thus helping them look at the text from a fresh perspective, plus they can easily be told when to be called for rehearsal (No "oh, I thought you meant Act THREE scene four, not Act FIVE scene four" excuses). Plus, since I edit the script with my scene breakdowns and my editorial choices, I get consistency (No problems with an actor saying "solid" instead of "sullied", because his edition's different from yours). This doesn't help alleviate the overall length of WT, but if any scene (by which I mean for this limited purpose the duration of a dramatic "arc") seems to be dragging, get the actors to pick up their cues or reappraise their respective objectives, emotional trajectories, and throughlines, and cut out anything that's boring, superfluous, or meaningless to the audience. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 15:27:28 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0734 Re: Words; owe/own; Importance; Teaching Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 734. Thursday, 28 September 1995. (1) From: David L. Gants Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 08:57:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shaks. First Use (2) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 10:29:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: owe/own (3) From: Brian Corrigan Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 95 11:28:18 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0729 Re: Importance of Shakespeare (4) From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 11:42:22 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0686 Teaching: Questions, Comments, and Observations (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David L. Gants Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 08:57:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shaks. First Use In response to earlier queries about first-use attributions to Shakespeare, the digital OED lists 1986 occurrences where Shakespeare as author falls within the "EQ" or Earliest Quote field. Those familiar with the OED may recall that, when listing Shakespeare as author, the OED editors use "Shaks." or occasionally "Shakes." but never "Shakespeare." Additionally, when citing the above statistic one should bear in mind the probable inflation due to bardophilic editors. *** David L. Gants ** Electronic Text Center ** Alderman Library *** *** University of Virginia ** Charlottesville, Virginia ** 22903 *** *** dlg8x@virginia.edu *** etext@virginia.edu *** (804) 924-3230 *** *** http://www.lib.virginia.edu/etext/ETC.html *** (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 10:29:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: owe/own I certainly agree with Bill Godshalk that the double meaning of "owe" is implicit in _Beowulf_. Perhaps Marcel Mauss's classic _The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies_ (_Essai sur le don_) might be pertinent here. Mauss has some canny observations about the obligations incurred by the receiver of a gift, the way he is not only possessed _of_ a gift, but possessed _by_ it, and in accepting it becomes the creature of the imperative to reciprocation and restitution. Closer to home, there's Olivia in _Twelfth Night_, smitten with the person of Viola, whom she takes for Cesario, stirred from her self-protective narcissism and suddenly aware that the self is not an entity unproblematically at one's disposal and under one's control: "Fate show thy force: ourselves we do not owe; / What is decreed must be; and be this so" (I.v.310-11). The primary meaning of "owe" here seems to be "own," so Olivia seems to say the self is not owned but owed elsewhere. On the other hand, she can't quite help negating the secondary meaning as well, thus making the defensive assertion that we do _not_ owe our selves but possess them to bestow or reserve at will. It's an economic way of suggesting the ambivalence of Shakespearean characters who find themselves falling in love, the mixture of joy and fear, the rapturous giving of oneself up to the experience shadowed by a kind of resentment of the threat to personal autonomy, which begins to look as if it might have been illusory in the first place. --Ron Macdonald (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Corrigan Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 95 11:28:18 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0729 Re: Importance of Shakespeare In Re: Robert Appelbaum Marcello Cappuzzo Importance of Shakespeare Although the "watershed" image *might* be overstated, it seems to me that Applebaum's commentary trying to dismiss the idea actually strengthens it. To be sure, it takes a bit of a bardolator to suggest that Shakespeare alone "reformed" English, but the fact remains that a great number of bardolators fawned over the old marble bust since before the time of John Henry Ireland--the force of this historical obsequiousness, as Applebaum has demonstrated, has created reactions and factions both in favor and opposed to Shakespeare (just read the recent postings on "conceptualizing" the old rascal in performance). Such reactions have kept the centuries- old works alive and hotly-contested today--thereby continuing to influence us. Shakespeare's influence upon our current household words, therefore, should not be dismissed into thin air in one fell swoop. And as to Cappuzzo's knee-jerk response--when, if I may borrow my collegue's idiom, will professors learn to read tone? Hughes' comment, far from deriding the Spanish language, was suggesting that, without the lone contribution of Shakespeare to English belles lettres, the richly- ornamented works of the Spanish Golden Age would have lured us all into embracing that literature rather than that of the English Renaissance, and consequently the SHAKSPER group would possibly be the DEVEGA group. Quite a nice compliment, in fact, to the Spanish tongue. With Applebaum, I am not so ready to dismiss Marlowe, Jonson, Middleton, Marston, Ford, Webster, Shirley and the rest of the happy band of dramatic heathens. I might be willing to sacrifice Massinger (read JOKE). But we must not underestimate the singular influence Shakespeare has had upon our culture and language--surely this was Hughes' point from the beginning; rather romantic and appreciative, to be sure, but it seems to me that we too generally dismiss appreciation for politics today, and I for one was refreshed by Hughes' comments. Brian Corrigan North Georgia College (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 11:42:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0686 Teaching: Questions, Comments, and Observations In reply to Mr. Thomas Ellis - we have been reading Phyllis Wheatley (an 18th Century Afro American poet). In her poem, *To the University of Cambridge, in New England*, the last verse, line 28, she refers to herself as an Ethiop and not derogatorily, more a definition of placement rather than an ethnic slur (if that will help). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 15:31:32 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0735 Q: Conversation in *Oth.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 735. Thursday, 28 September 1995. From: Amy E. Hughes Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 01:29:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Conversation in OTHELLO Previously I posed a question to the readers of SHAKSPER regarding a student production of OTHELLO I am currently directing at NYU. (Thanks again for the comments!) Of course, as I rehearse with my wonderful cast (I condensed it to an ensemble of ten; easy, since it has the fewest characters of any play, I think) questions arise daily: I thought I would again ask for your theories and ideas regarding the text. Something I am noticing about the play is the fact that a good number of the scenes begin in mid-conversation. I am curious about the implications of this decive. Is it one Shakespeare often uses? Unlike any other play (to my knowledge), OTHELLO, indeed, opens in mid-conversation. Roderigo says, "Tush, never tell me," and immediately the audience knows it is "left out," forced to figure out the secret, turned into virtual eavesdroppers. Though the subject of their conversation is Othello, his name is not actually mentioned until well into the scene. Later, other scenes set out in this manner: Iago says to Othello in 1.2, "I had thought to have yerk'd *him* here, under the ribs," and once again the audience must guess at the subject of conversation. In 1.3, the Duke opens the scene the same way: "There is no composition in *these news*." In 3.3, Desdemona's first line is, "Be thou assur'd, good Cassio, I will do/ All my abilities in thy behalf." These are just the first examples of this device in the play. Why are so many scenes in OTHELLO structured like this? Is this a common device in his plays? What are its possible dramatic meanings and how may that be important in production? I look forward to your observations....Thanks in advance. Amy Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 09:09:59 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0736 Re: Conversations (in medias res) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 736. Saturday, 30 September 1995. (1) From: Snehal Shingavi Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 95 20:42:21 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0735 Q: Conversation in *Oth.* (3) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 95 23:02:20 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0735 Q: Conversation in *Oth.* (4) From: Ed Pechter Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 11:07:19 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0735 Q: Conversation in *Oth.* (5) From: Jean Peterson Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 12:33:30 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0735 Q: Conversation in *Oth.* (6) From: Anna Cole Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 11:58:12 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0735 Q: Conversation in *Oth.* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Snehal Shingavi Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 95 15:06:42 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0735 Q: Conversation in *Oth.* Oothello is a play about deception and secrecy. A lot of the unknown/untold action of the play helps the audience to understand exactly why relationships break down ... theirs starts to break down along the same lines. The Anthony Hopkins as Othello production of this is very interesting in that respect: the way that it uses whispering and turning away and movement really makes you reconsider why the end is the only possible ending/outcome for the play. I also think that it is *just* a structural device, so it doesn't sound like actors enter stage having a conversation about nothing ... it makes things follow/flow more smoothly. Also, the play is about uncovering motivations: for evil in Iago, for jeaousy in Othello, for loyalty in Desdemona. Attemping to think about what's missing helps you think about what isn't (missing). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Imtiaz Habib Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 95 20:42:21 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0735 Q: Conversation in *Oth.* Hamlet and Lear also have a lot of that verbal "medias res" effect. Macbeth, it seems to me,is an exception, and so is Antony and Cleopatra to a large degree. Actually, remember also the beginning of The Merchant of Venice and As You Like It. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 95 23:02:20 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0735 Q: Conversation in *Oth.* Conversations on entering . . . This is a leverage trick that Shakespeare uses from the earliest plays onward. In effect, it forces the actors to be "in character" or "in action" even before they move into the playing space. The dramaturgy sometimes seems to be about hurling actors in through doors in as many different ways as can be managed. It will be fun to watch experiments about the effects of beginning to talk at or just before passing through the doors on the Globe reconstruction. Mark Rylance, are you tuned in? Accellerating, Steve Urkowitz (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pechter Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 11:07:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0735 Q: Conversation in *Oth.* Amy Hughes's suggestion is interesting. There are other plays that begin or begin scenes in the middle of things in ways that create a felt need to reach back to something earlier. Antony & Cleopatra's "Nay but," for instance, but then you quickly find out what they're talking about. Hamlet begins with references to "this thing" that are tantalizing & anxiety producing. The final scene of the same play begins with Hamlet asking Horatio to "remember all the circumstance," presumably of an earlier conversation--a matter not clarified, if at all, till much later in the scene. But maybe Othello's a special case. There's an old SQ article that points out that the question "what is the matter?" recurs like a litany in the play. The strategy Amy Hughes points to seem to have the effect of putting us in the position of asking "what is the matter?" Add the emphasis upon "foregone conclusions," the idea that belief depends upon some pretextual matter prior to conscious understanding: This accident is very like my dream, belief of it oppresses me already. How to perform this--you tell us. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 12:33:30 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0735 Q: Conversation in *Oth.* >Something I am noticing about the play is the fact that a good number of the >scenes begin in mid-conversation. I am curious about the implications of this >decive. Is it one Shakespeare often uses? > >Unlike any other play (to my knowledge), OTHELLO, indeed, opens in >mid-conversation. Look at *Antony and Cleo*-- "Nay, but, this passion of our general's o'erflows the measure"--like *Othello*, not only in mid-converse, but mid-argument! Same thing in *Two Gentlemen*--"Cease to persuade, my loving Proteus"--also a continuation of an argument that began "offstage." Not to mention the brawling start of *Shrew*, with Sly & the Hostess going at eachother in vulgar slang in continuation of a verbal battle (and more--"You will not pay for the glasses you have burst?") we've not witnessed the beginning of...there are probably other examples that don't come as immediately to mind. So, yes, it's a frequently used device... WHY is an interesting question. In *A&C*, you can make a case for the play itself as an interrogation of boundaries, "o'erflowing" even its own starting point, (and certainly *shrew* plays with fictions and borderlines in similar ways). Maybe too a dramatic usage of the literary concept of "in media res"--starting in the middle of things because it's a more interesting and exciting point to take the plunge. And I wish I could remember which of my wise Shakespeare profs. of the past told us to regard the opening exchange of most Shakespeare plays as the "DNA particle" in which the "imprint" of the whole can be found--a principle I've found to be pretty much accurate. How this will translate into theatrical terms is still another question. Keep us informed! Jean Peterson Bucknell University (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Cole Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 11:58:12 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0735 Q: Conversation in *Oth.* With reference to Amy Hughes' query regarding Shakespeare's predilection for opening a scene ostensibly in the middle of a conversation, surely there is no better way to engage an audience immediately with the play's action? Anna Cole ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 09:15:21 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0737 Re: French/English Scenes Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 737. Saturday, 30 September 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 17:05:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0733 Re: French/English Scenes (2) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 29 Sep 95 15:13:12 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0733 Re: French/English Scenes (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 17:05:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0733 Re: French/English Scenes Sometimes you learn things by appearing in public with your pants down. Thank you, folks, for pointing out my nudity so gently. Yes, of course, continental or French scenes are important in defining the structure of an English scene. And they are important in rehearsal -- as you say. Blushingly yours, pantless Bill (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 29 Sep 95 15:13:12 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0733 Re: French/English Scenes Thanks to the theater types who have more or less come in on my side in opposing Bill Godshalk's (d)(r)elegation of "French" scene divisions to literature not theater. Such divisions in fact represent traditional "French" theatrical practice (I'm using quotation marks here because I suppose it also the practice in the traditional drama of other Continental cultures), the practice of Corneille, Racine, Moliere, and their followers (that being, as we know, a neo-classical tradition based on the theatrical practice of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Plautus, Terence, and Seneca), in which a relatively small number of characters typically converse among themselves for several minutes at a stretch, until the arrival of a new character initiates a new grouping and initiates a new stretch of discourse. But the dynamics of that structure are deeply theatrical in more ways than the matters of convenience to which the theater types have referred (ease of organizing rehearsals and so on). Consider the development of WT 4.4 in perceptual terms. Autolycus has ended 4.3 by singing a song about sad and merry hearts. As he goes out (up left?)--and modern directors may well have him still on stage when the next bit starts--in come two both feeling both sorts at once, Perdita and Florizel (up right?). They move (down center right?), and talk together for about 50 lines--two and one-half minutes, give or take, in which (chiefly, though other things go on) Perdita explains their dilemma and Florizel announces his plan for resolving it. Lacking further fresh matter, the two of them would be forced, as Rosalind teaches Orlando, to either kissing or entreaty, and us spectators to looking elsewhere out of embarrassment or boredom; but suddenly there is movement elsewhere on the stage (up center?): our eyes are compelled to attend to it, and the arrival of a largish group of new characters gives new matter to not only the couple but us, including, to be sure, further development of the dilemma (streaked gillyvors and short- lived primroses and what not--now, alas, I take it, wilting on Dale Lyles' cutting-room floor), but especially, from a purely theatrical point of view, the suspense engendered by the presence of Polixenes and Camillo (down center left?), disguised (for which we have been prepared by 4.2), raising the possibility of a highly dramatic confrontation between father and son (now a little farther down right?) which it will be an important part of Shakespeare's dramaturgy here, by means of the shifting centers of attention which are our present topic, to prolong for another couple of hundred lines. In other words, the physical entrance of the new characters, making the new French scene, has refreshed the activity of the play and the interest of the audience. And that should be the result of every new arrival, even if it's just a servant sticking his head through a door to announce that So-and-So is waiting without. From a purely literary point of view, we might in fact relish an even longer appreciation of Perdita's charms than Florizel gives us (136-146; has she moved down right to join him, reminding us of the opening of the English scene?); theatrically, however, we need to get on to the admiring comments of Polixenes and Camillo (spatially balanced against the lovers?), which play so elegantly against the confrontational expectations aroused by their arrival, especially when echoed and amplified by the bucolic jocularities of 181-341-- and against which Polixenes' rage, when it does flash out, with its wonderful echo of Leontes' corresponding rage in the first half, will play in its turn. I take this play among visual and verbal elements, words being uttered from and toward particular points in space, to be at the base of the theatrical as distinct from the literary experience, and French scenes, because they articulate it a little more fully than English ones, to be correspondingly more theatrical. (It could, of course, be argued that the primal theatrical experience is the arrival of that first actor on the bare stage, and the bare- stage-to-bare-stage convention of English scene divisions therefore more theatrical than the French. But of course we are not so much interested in settling this not-terribly-important dispute as in the discussion it provokes. I hope.) Frankishly, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 09:26:10 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0738 Re: Antonio and *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 738. Saturday, 30 September 1995. (1) From: Bruce Young Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 18:15:06 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0726 Re: Antonio and *MV* (2) From: Stanley Holberg Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 22:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Reply to SHK 6.0732 (3) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 11:31:16 SAST-2 Subj: Re: Merchant of Venice (4) From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 11:56:17 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0732 Re: *MV* and Antonio (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 18:15:06 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0726 Re: Antonio and *MV* Two recent postings have questioned how Antonio could be against or detached from materialism if he is THE merchant of Venice (and a proto-capitalist, etc.). I don't mean to suggest throwing out any of the interpretations of his character offered in these postings. Sometimes symbolic or thematic threads in a play may be at cross purposes with character development, and even when all threads seem headed in the same direction, Shakespeare's plays are notoriously open to various interpretations. But to consider Antonio simply another money grubber ignores the contrast between his generosity (lending money gratis, etc.) and Shylock's stinginess. What I offer here is another way of looking at Antonio's "getting on Shylock's case" for "breeding money." Maybe it's not just one greedy money maker bashing another. Antonio tells Shylock that Jacob's breeding of sheep does not justify usury since what Jacob did was a "venture ... / A thing not in his power to bring to pass, / But sway'd and fashion'd by the hand of heaven" (1.3.91-93). The word "venture" is used repeatedly in the play (along with the related word "hazard"). The words are associated with courtship and marriage ("He who chooseth me must give and hazard all he hath") as well as with Antonio's sending out of ships. Antonio's point seems to be that there is a difference between (1) making money by binding people legally to pay you what you lent them plus interest and (2) making money by "venturing" and--not having the "power to bring to pass" what one hopes will happen--having to trust in heaven or providence. By analogy, courtship and marriage are also "ventures" requiring trust. It seems to me the play is trying to portray two approaches to life: one associated with Shylock and based on control and closure ("Bind fast, bind fast"), the other associated with Antonio et al. and based on trust and openness. Of course, this simple dichotomy is complicated and made ambiguous by the suggestion that the Christians are hypocritical and, in their openness, too free and loose and easy ("prodigal," profligate, untrustworthy, etc.) and by the suggestion that Shylock's controlling impulse also makes him in some ways more reliable than the Christians (not to mention their persecution of him, etc., including Antonio's remarkable lack of generosity in this one case). But the dichotomy is still an important part of the structure, the play of ideas, in *MV* and I'd hate to lose it by explaining Antonio's speech away as simply nonsensical or hypocritical. If Antonio is a materialist, he is one in a very different sense than Shylock is. For Antonio, material things are for giving and enjoying. For Shylock, they are for gathering, for guarding, for lending, yes, but only with guarantees. For Antonio, since you never know what will happen, you may as well "venture"; for Shylock, since you never know what will happen, you'd better be careful. Bruce Young (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stanley Holberg Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 22:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Reply to SHK 6.0732 Bill Godshalk's trenchant questions about the merchants of Venice almost answer themselves. Isn't the main difference between Antonio and Shylock one of degree rather than kind? They're both in the business of buying cheap and selling dear. Antonio does it with merchandise, Shylock with money. It is hard to imagine that Shakespeare did not grasp this fundamental reality. --Stanley Holberg holberma@potsdam.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 11:31:16 SAST-2 Subject: Re: Merchant of Venice Piers Lewis's comments about the difference between Shylock and Antonio set me thinking about the _Jew of Malta_. Barabas is certainly the kind of grand merchant adventurer that Antonio is in MV: But now how stands the wind? Into what corners peers my halcyon's bill? Ha! to the east? Yes. See how stands the vanes? East and by south: why then I hope my ships I sent for Egypt and the bordering isles Are gotten up by Nilus' winding banks; Mine argosy from Alexandria, Loaden with spice and silks, now under sail, Are smoothly gliding down by Candy shore To Malta, through our Mediteranean sea. (I.i.38) No "water rats" here! Would it be useful to compare the two plays, and their respective representations of merchants and Jews? David Schalkwyk University of Cape Town (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 11:56:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0732 Re: *MV* and Antonio Piers Lewis suggests that the "much admired" poetry of the line "enrobe the roaring waters with my silks" splendidly celebrates Antonio's risk taking and adventuring. Antonio is a "lord of commerce" who sends his argosies hither and yon taking risks that Shylock would ridicule. Antonio's Venice is a city of merchant adventurers and a contrast to Shylock's Venice of usury and money grubbing. However, all that glitters is not gold. Precisely the Bards point in this instance, I think. For example, the speech that contains the line cited is one of two speeches given by two gentlemen of Venice that (so saith M. M. Mahood in the intro to the New Cambridge edition) "so strangely trivialize and fictionalize the hazards of sea trade. Antonio's argosies are seen as comfortable burghers or the water pageants of the tranquil Lagoon, tempests are represented by a storm in a soup bowl, disasters at sea are reduced to picturesque conceits such as "enrobe the roaring waters with my silks" Salrino's shipwrecks come from the world of Greek romance, in which the venturer always swims ashore to win and heiress, rather than from Shylock's world of calculated risks where ships are but boards, sailors but men" (25). In other words, the two gentlemen offer a very comfortable version of what it might be like to be a merchant. They are no more interested in the reality than they are interested in Antonio's feelings. Another reason, I think, to pay attention to Antonio's isolation. Antonio's reply to all this is, of course: "Believe me, no. I thank my fortune for it, My ventures are not all in one bottom trusted, Nor to one place; nor is my whole estate Upon the fortune of this present year; Therefore my merchandise makes me not sad." Of course, after he dismisses these two, he tells Bassanio that his fortunes are, indeed, all at sea and that he has neither "money nor commodity." That is, he is, in fact, a merchant adventurer. He knows the reality -- and the reality is not as comfortably romantic as the "reality" imagined by the two gentlemen. He pretends to them that he is only taking a calculated risk and obviously resents their romantic impositions and refuses to become a means through which they can safely live out their fantasies: he refuses to be a Merchant-Adventurer in the grand A. L. Rowse sense for them. But, for some reason, he has taken a great risk and for some reason he wants to keep this secret -- not only from the fellows at the exchange but also from the glittering hangers on, Venetian aristocrats. If he is, by risking all on the throw of a die, enacting the myth of Venice, he is strangely secretive about it. More evidence, I think, for his isolation and alienation. He is isolated both from the money grubbing of Shylock and from those who want to celebrate the myth of the Merchant Adventurer through him and who, of course, would treat his ruin only as an occasion for gossip and celebration -- for the myth requires the occasional ruin, silks prettily enrobing the waters, to maintain its splendid force for those who are safely disatanced from the actual consequences. Taking the risk that he does is actually a symptom of alienation from the myth and from the values of Venice, and not a celebration of them. Risking all for Bassanio is another instance of this alienation. Or -- restating my case anent Antonio as a fairy tale embodiment of the Merchant Adventurer. If Shakespeare wanted to employ the myth in an uncritical way he wouldn't have put the usual version of the myth in the mouths of two characters whose glassy essence seems to be superficiality and then, at once, had Antonio undercut them by lying to them. Inside the glittering gold casket of the myth is a carrion death. And, just to complicate things, it isn't at all clear to me that Shakespeare's contemporaries would be all that ready to celebrate the Merchant Adventurer -- or believe that he really existed. The actual Merchant Adventurers, of course, presented themselves as patriots and risk takers. There were plenty who didn't believe this. They were resented by retailers, accused of impoverishing the realm by trading english bullion for trinkets and foreign gee-gaws, keeping prices artificially high, of refusing to take risks by restraining free trade, of creating and sustaining a taste for foreign fashions, of monopoly, of undue influence in the government, -- all of these accusations came to a head in a Report on Free Trade drawn up in the House of Commons in 1604. There might have been much less unstinted admiration for "Lords of Commerce" by Shakespeare's audience than is often suggested. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 09:59:47 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0739 Qs: Food Imagery; Summer Shakespeare in Toronto Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 739. Saturday, 30 September 1995. (1) From: Roland Nipps Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 95 17:41:21 EDT Subj: [Query] (2) From: Patti Friesen Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 07:54:21 -0400 Subj: Shakespeare Festivals Toronto? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roland Nipps Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 95 17:41:21 EDT Subject: [Query] I am presently working on my graduate thesis at the University of Rhode Island. The work involves studying Shakespeare's use of food imagery in the Bollingbroke tetralogy. I hope to show how a study of this imagery compliments existing scholarship on how man, as a microcosm, reflects the communal ordering of human experience. I would appreciate hearing from anyone with relevant materials. Thank you, Roland Nipps. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patti Friesen Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 07:54:21 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare Festivals Toronto? I am interested in taking a holiday to Toronto next summer. Could you please send me some info on the Shakespeare festivals and plays that will taking place in the Toronto area in the summer of '95? PF ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 10:06:29 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0740 Re: Productions; Biographies; Importance Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 740. Saturday, 30 September 1995. (1) From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 15:38:46 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0684 Conferences; CFP; Announcements (2) From: J.H.Sawday Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 12:09:29 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0730 Shakespeare Biographies (3) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 18:28:29 +0100 Subj: Re: Importance of Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Thursday, 28 Sep 1995 15:38:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0684 Conferences; CFP; Announcements To Fiona C. Quick @ U. of Minnesota. Shakespeare Rep. Co. will be producing Othello, Twelfth Night and Richard III this season. Othello runs from 10/13 thru 12/10 and seems the only play that will accommodate your time schedule. Call (312) 642-2273 for more info. TN runs from 01/17 thru 03/03/96 and RIII from 04/10 thru 05/26. They perform at the Ruth Page Theater on the near north side of Chicago and they are absolutely marvelous!! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: J.H.Sawday Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 12:09:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0730 Shakespeare Biographies Simon Malloch asks (27 September) for comments on two recent Shakespeare `Biographies': Phillips and Keatman, _The Shakespeare Conspiracy_ (1994) and Wilson, _Shakespeare: The Evidence_ (1993). I don't know the second work, but earlier this year I was asked to take part in a BBC local radio discussion programme with one of the authors of _The Shakespeare Conspiracy_. A lively discussion ensued. _The Shakespeare Conspiracy_ is (at best) a fantasy work pretending to offer a series of astounding revelations (eg. Shakespeare was a double-agent, or even a double; he was disfigured by a theatre fire, etc. etc). All this is pretty harmless fun - the sort of stuff one can feed to an undergraduate lecture on the theme of `potty theories concerning WS'. Where, however, _The Shakespeare Conspiracy_ was deeply dishonest was in its jackets- off, sleeves-up, style of delivery. Essentially, the book raided the standard `academic' work on Shakespeare (Schoenbaum etc), in order to present `facts' which have long been in the public domain (even the 2nd best bed was trotted out) as astonishing revelations which these two tireless authors had excavated through their own honest labour. The `conspiracy' was in the authors' claim to have rumbled the cover-up which generations of self-serving academic researchers had perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. But, of course, it was only thanks to the largely unacknowledged work of those academics who were castigated in the book that Phillips and Keatman were able to retrieve the materials which they employed in their construction of this fantasy. No doubt the two of them have made a tidy profit out of their endeavour (good luck to them!), but one wonders about the ethical standards of the publishers involved. Jonathan Sawday Department of English, University of Southampton Southampton, Hants. UK (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Friday, 29 Sep 1995 18:28:29 +0100 Subject: Re: Importance of Shakespeare "And as to Cappuzzo's knee-jerk response--when, if I may borrow my collegue's idiom, will professors learn to read tone? Hughes' comment, far from deriding the Spanish language, was suggesting that, without the lone contribution of Shakespeare to English belles lettres, the richly- ornamented works of the Spanish Golden Age would have lured us all into embracing that literature rather than that of the English Renaissance, and consequently the SHAKSPER group would possibly be the DEVEGA group." (Brian Corrigan, Sept 28) I am afraid I cannot agree with Corrigan's interpretation of Stephanie Hughes's recent posts on the "Importance of Shakespeare". In her second message (Sept 26), Ms Hughes made it clear that "The point I was trying to make [on Sept 8] had little to do with Shakespeare's works, or the standard English lit. canon, but with the language itself. [...] These [WS's] plays and poems have had a certain life and influence in terms of plot, style, entertainment value, etc., but the language he created to express them has had a life far beyond the works themselves." It seems to me that Ms Hughes has never, in her recent postings, focused her attention on WS the *artist*; she has never said, I think, that WS contributed to literature qua literature more than Sidney or Marlowe or Jonson...or Lope de Vega: what Ms Hughes has certainly said is that WS "created" a language, that "the creation of a language is on an altogether different level from anything else," and that the language WS created is modern English, i.e. "the second most spoken language in the world today, and the most important in every other way". "Had he [WS] never been born, [...] we might be making these posts in Spanish." To me, this last sentence means--approximately--that since WS did come into the world, and since he did create the English Language, it would be a nonsense (perhaps even a *sin*) to discuss WS (if not *any* subject) in Spanish or in any other (*minor*) language. My most recent post to this List may have been a "knee-jerk" reaction, but not, I think, as erroneous or erratic a response as it appears to professor Corrigan. What I objected, and still object to is the idea--somehow present, I suspect, in Ms Hughes' interventions, in both of them--that the English language is of a superior, a-historical, metaphysical, divine nature, and that therefore this language *and* (necessarily) the culture of which this language is the "medium" have a superior role, a *mission* to perform in the world at large. For this idea and for its various implications I have no respect, nor do I think I have to show any. However, since my mother tongue is not English, and I cannot be sure that my way of reading Ms Hughes' "tone" is correct, I offer her my apologies. I apologize also to professor Corrigan. I must confess that, when I first read his post, I thought that the passage I have already quoted meant --approximately--this: "thanks to WS, whose contribution made English belles lettres of the Renaissance into the most important literature of the period, which in turn is the most important of all literary periods, we do not run the risk of being lured into embracing the literature of the Spanish Golden Age or any other minor (?) or foreign (?) literary production...: we have SHAKSPER, why on earth should we engage in a discussion on DEVEGA?" This was my interpretation at first sight. Now I'm not so sure that this reading is legitimate. Again, there may be, there *must* be something in the tone of Corrigan's text that I am not able to grasp--and perhaps not only in its tone, even in its literal meaning: for example, when professor Corrigan says "we," "we all," etc., whom exactly is he referring to? I feel I'd have something else to confess and...other misreadings, other suspincions to apologize for. But let's relax--today is Friday! Have a joyful weekend. Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 13:57:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0741 Re: First Words Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0741. Monday, 2 October 1995. (1) From: Moray McConnachie Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 16:06:31 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0719 Qs: First Words (2) From: Donald Foster Date: Monday, 02 Oct 1995 11:37:55 +0100 Subj: Re: First Words (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 16:06:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0719 Qs: First Words I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, because my mailer's on the blink, but might I suggest that an easy way to get at this kind of information is to look at the chronological version of the O.E.D. (words arranged according to their first appearance): there is an explosion during the years of Shakespeare's writing which is largely due to him - or is it rather to his central place in the knowledge of the 1st edition O.E.D. compilers? I am replying to the list because i would promote this volume to anyone who hasn't come across it - a fascinating linguistic cross-section of change. It is not widely consultable, and is edited by two German gentlemen whose names I do not recall. If there is interest, I will find out. Moray McConnachie (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Foster Date: Monday, 02 Oct 1995 11:37:55 +0100 Subject: Re: First Words Jeff Myers asks whether there exists "a list of words first used by Shakespeare. ... or a not-too-strenuous way of creating one." If this means, "Can we identify which English words were never uttered or written down until Shakespeare came along?" then no such list can be constructed, either with or without the OED. One limitation of the OED is that it depends heavily on Shakespeare as a source of citations. We may take virtually any Renaissance text, and look up all of its unusual words in the OED, only to discover that Shakespeare supplies more citations for those words than any other author (including some words for which Shakespeare provides the earliest instance). For example: the OED cites Shakespeare's *WT* as its first instance of "wert" (citing *WT*), leading A.C. Partridge to remark that "Shakespeare seems to have been the first to use *wert*, and leading various other scholars to suppose that the mere appearance of *wert* in a text earlier than Shakespeare's *WT* constitutes evidence of Shakespearean authorship. But Shakespeare was not in the business of inventing auxiliary verbs. For earlier examples of *wert* we need turn no further than to Sidney or Marlowe or Daniel (or to Shakespearean texts earlier than *WT*). One should not assume that *any* Shakespeare citation in the OED was a coinage. If it were possible to construct such a list, we would probably find that Shakespeare coined many words--but the list could be surprisingly small, comprised chiefly of compound-formations. Spenser, Marston, Florio, and others are sometimes cited or ridiculed by their contemporaries as the coiners of fire-new words; I do not recall any instance in which Shakespeare was ridiculed on the same grounds. Don Foster ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:09:26 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0742 Re: Conversations (in medias res) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0742. Monday, 2 October 1995. (1) From: Bill Liston <00wtliston@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 15:44:51 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0736 Re: Conversations (in medias res) (2) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 13:35:27 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0736 Re: Conversations (in medias res) (3) From: Nina Walker Date: Sunday, 1 Oct 1995 11:44:53 -0400 (EDT) Subj: SHK 6.0736 Re: Conversations (in medias res) (4) From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 2 Oct 1995 13:07:31 -0400 Subj: Re: Conversations in MV (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Liston <00wtliston@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 15:44:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0736 Re: Conversations (in medias res) Isn't Shakespeare's practice of bringing characters on stage in mid-conversation largely a consequence of having neither a curtain nor variable lighting, both of which enable a dramatist to begin a scene with a tableau or some other static situation? And doesn't a certain modicum of realism require walking characters to be talking, and to have been talking? Wouldn't it be absurd for characters to signify by their movement that they have to get to a certain spot on stage before beginning talking, and that they have not talked beforehand, knowing that they could not until they attained that spot? Bill Liston (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 13:35:27 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0736 Re: Conversations (in medias res) In response to Amy Hughes query: from a purely practical/directorial point of view, it seems that starting a scene mid-converstaion is a plea for speed on the playwrights part. It has a sort of "lets get on with it" ring that begs you to keep pushing forward. Do you find that this is so as you direct the play? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nina Walker Date: Sunday, 1 Oct 1995 11:44:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SHK 6.0736 Re: Conversations (in medias res) Re: Entering into the midst of conversation I point this out to my students often and, it seems to me that it is a device Shakespeare uses *more* often than not. The simple explanation is, that while we are presented with the explicit action, we are invited to think about the implicit context of the action. Much has gone on before and just as importantly much will go on after. I'm reminded that when Hamlet dies, time does not stop and the play ends with the entrance of Fortinbras, insinuating not only the future but the immediacy of it--just as the immediacy of the past is insinuated by us coming into the middle of conversation. What happens on the stage is the consequence of what went on before and up until the moment we entered. It's a perfect device to set up the audience particularly where conspiracy is afoot. The more classic chorus introduction of *HV* gives way to the rather conspiratorial mid-conversation of Canterbury and Ely in opening Act 1. It makes for an interesting comparison of techniques. Nina Walker nwalker@lynx.dac.neu.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 2 Oct 1995 13:07:31 -0400 Subject: Re: Conversations in MV This may be simply a personal preference for quick pacing, but I've found very few scenes in Shakespeare that can't be begun even as the actors walk onstage. Remember, the Globe didn't have dimmer boards, and even if we do, there is no deadlier rhythm than lights-out-lights-up. I'm not taking the time to go and check my impressions, obviously, but I'd bet that many if not most scenes begin, if not in the middle of a conversation, then at least in immediate response to something that has occurred just offstage. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company P.S. Yes, the gillyvors are gone; but now Perdita wants them back. What's a director to do? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:14:57 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0743 Re: Antonio and *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0743. Monday, 2 October 1995. (1) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 14:10:17 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0738 Re: Antonio and *MV* (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 01 Oct 1995 15:18:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0738 Re: Antonio and *MV* (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 2 Oct 1995 00:54:43 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0738 Re: Antonio and *MV* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 14:10:17 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0738 Re: Antonio and *MV* In response to Bruce Young's post: Is Antonio's money lending without usury really "generosity"? There are several indicators to suggest otherwise. First, as has been pointed out already, he is taking a huge risk borrowing from Shylock conidering all his fortunes are at sea. Why does he do this? To impress Bassanio and continue to cultivate their relationship. Working from this point, it appears Antonio wants to make friends with influential/important people, even at the risk of great financial loss. Even if he loses, he wins. That door is open to him, as it most certainly NOT to Shylock within the context of the Venetian society. So is his lending wiht no interest really generosity, or a shrewd tactical social-climbing move? Secondly, Antonio can afford to lend without interest since he has another source of income. Shylock does not. Keeping these factors in mind the idea of Shylock's controlling/closure vs. Antonio's venturing/opnenness becomes a question of necessity vs. choice; incarceration vs. freedom. Shirley Kagan. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 01 Oct 1995 15:18:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0738 Re: Antonio and *MV* Bruce Young is quite right: there is a different between Shylock and Antonio. Shylock does not spit on Antonio, neither does he kick him. As far as we know, Shylock does not try to undermine Antonio's business ventures. And the two make their money in different ways. But, since I've just finished Wm. Ingram's THE BUSINESS OF PLAYING, I wouldn't think that a sixteenth century audience would have seen money lending as "risk free." After reading Ingram, I am wondering why any sixteenth century person would have lent money. Debts seem rarely to have been promptly and ungrudgingly paid in the world Ingram describes. Bruce Young also brings up the issue of control, which is, of course, a big issue in the play. Portia is, according to my students, a "control freak." Perhaps she does not control Bassanio's choice of caskets, but she does gain control of Shylock, and she gets her husband's ring in order to control her husband and Antonio. Antonio tries to control Bassanio (1) by giving him money, (2) by writing him that pathetic letter, and (3) by convincing him to give his wedding ring away. Both Portia's dead father and Shylock try to control their daughters, Portia's father with the caskets, Shylock by direct command. Obviously (?), the playwright hints that we think about these two controlling fathers. Is Portia the dutifull daughter, Jessica the rebel? Or do both daughters break free of paternal control, Jessica leaving Venice, Portia Belmont? Both daughters dress as boys or young men for their "escapes." I'm not surely that Shylock is more controlling than the Christians. All in all, I think Portia wins the control game. Addendum: sixteenth century merchants did lend money, of course. They "sold" merchandise at a greatly inflated price to a person who wanted to borrow money. The borrower could then resell the merchandise (sometimes to the same merchant) at the normal price. The borrower then had the money he wanted, and he promised to pay the merchant the inflated price, say, in a year. This way the merchant could get around the ceiling on loan interest. Did Antonio ever lend money in this fashion? Not in the playscript! Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 2 Oct 1995 00:54:43 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0738 Re: Antonio and *MV* Antonio tells us about his polymorphic homosexuality: ANT. My ventures are not in one bottom trusted (1.1.42) Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:29:11 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0744 Re: Cds; Scenes; owe/own; *MND* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0744. Monday, 2 October 1995. (1) From: Jim Helfers Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 08:48:52 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0719 Qs: CD ROMs (2) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 13:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0737 Re: French/English Scenes (3) From: Susan Mather Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 18:24:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: [owe/own] (4) From: Susan Mather Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 18:48:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0706 Re: *AYL*; *WT*; Tennyson (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Helfers Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 08:48:52 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0719 Qs: CD ROMs In answer to Peter Herman's 9/25 question on CD-ROM Shakespeare material -- I've generally been underwhelmed and sometimes disappointed by the CD's I've used and seen concerning Shakespeare. I'll admit that I'm an IBM guy, and don't have access to what are probably the best CD things on Shakespeare. I've heard, for example, that "Shakespeare's Life and Times," available, I think, from Intellimation, is something good in Mac format. On to what I've used. My best success has been with World Library's "Shakespeare Study Guide," which is most useful as an electronic concordance to words and phrases (by the way, I feel that the most interesting current usage of computerized materials deals with this referencing, hypertextual function). I do, however, have a problem, in that it's hard to figure out just where the developers got their texts for the electronic versions. Few bother to put editorial information on their products. I've also picked up the "Shakespeare's London" from Clearvue/eav. Since it cost twice as much as the "Shakespeare Study Guide," I was expecting more sophistication. Instead, its presentation of Shakespeare information is primarily visual -- there are plenty of pictures, but little concrete information on what London was like in the late 16th and early 17th century. Into the bargain, the company has filled the disk with lots of miscellaneous (and extraneous) information -- audio bites of Chaucer in old English, U.S. government documents, and ads for their other products. I too would be interested in hearing what folks have been doing with specific CD-ROMS at the college/university level. --Jim Helfers Grand Canyon University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 13:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0737 Re: French/English Scenes Just to complicate the French/English scene division question a bit, does anyone think that English (bare stage to bare stage) scenes are new in Shakespeare's time? I was just reading Gammer Gurton's Needle, where the stage is only emptied between acts. At least some of the characters seem to stay on stage between each scene. That said, the entrance of a new character doesn't always herald a new scene, at least not in the edition I'm using. Cheers, Sean. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 18:24:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [owe/own] W.L. Godshalk, In what source did you find this reference to owe/own? I find this very interesting--especially about pre-feudal society. I tried this previous summer to read up on English history but, I'm afraid that with having to work at Walgreens drugstoreand dealing with 90 degree temps. and no air conditioning--I did not get very far. Let me know where I can start, Susan> (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 18:48:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0706 Re: *AYL*; *WT*; Tennyson I realize I am getting in on this late but, this reminded me of a performance I saw of Midsummer Night's Dream in Stratford, ONT. The production was set in 1993. On stage there was a tree/phallic symbol as well as a rock/female genitalia. My group was told of this beforehand--I guess to allay the shockwaves. Even so, there were somewho responded to the director's concept as pretty much blasphemy--he had distorted Shakespeare's concept when he wrote this drama, etc., etc. I'm sure you have heard this and much more. But, all I can say is I think it is really a smoke screen--the director kept my group interested, why did they stay through the performance? Further--with you, Sarah, I want to know how one could just say the words without sounding like the science teacher (I think it's science) on "The Wonder Years." But then again--I guess that's still conceptualizing Shakespeare--although as being very dull. Thanks for listening!> ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:46:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0745 Qs: Tim Curry; New Cambridge Eds.; Translations; Fools Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0745. Monday, 2 October 1995. (1) From: Susan Mather Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 18:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0730 Q: Shakespeare Biographies; *TDR* 147 (2) From: Susan Mather Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 18:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0718 (3) From: Chiu-yee Cheung Date: Monday, 2 Oct 1995 16:18:51 +1000 Subj: [Translations] (4) From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 2 Oct 1995 12:49:01 -0400 Subj: Re: Quote of the day (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 18:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0730 Q: Shakespeare Biographies; *TDR* 147 Can anyone tell me how I might find information on Tim Curry's performance with the Natl. Shakespeare Company? I believe this is right--I just cannot find any background on this aspect of his acting career. There doesn't seem to be that much information about him. Thanks, Susan> (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 18:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0718 Can anyone tell me if there is a New Cambridge edition of Shakespeare's Complete Works? I am beginning to feel that my editionis outdated and this next semester I plan to begin research on my Master's Thesis. I already have the New C-edition of King Lear but, I'd rather have the complete works. Thanks-Susan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chiu-yee Cheung Date: Monday, 2 Oct 1995 16:18:51 +1000 Dear SHAKSPEReans, As a new member/subscriber, I want to say hello to all the SHAKSPEReans. I am comparing a couple of Chinese translations of the following lines in Hamlet (II.2): What a piece of work is a man, ... in form and moving how express and admirable, ... The translations differ from each another considerably, especially the word "express". I suspect that some of the translations are from other language translations such as German, French, Japanese and Russian. I will appreciate if someone can inform me of the translation of the above lines in those languages. Thank you very much. Chiu-yee Cheung (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 2 Oct 1995 12:49:01 -0400 Subject: Re: Quote of the day Quote of the day "The question of how follish a >Shakespearean fool really is, is always a good question." > - Ruth Nevo Hm. Was she talking about *us*? ;) Dale Lyles ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 15:02:34 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0746 Death of Robert E. Burkhart; New Web Site; CFP Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0746. Monday, 2 October 1995. (1) From: Joan Hartwig Date: Sunday, 01 Oct 95 23:33:21 EDT Subj: Death of Robert E. Burkhart (2) From: Nina LeNoir Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 19:28:16 -0500 Subj: Theatre InSight on the World Wide Web (3) From: Jon Connolly Date: Sunday, 1 Oct 1995 17:26:26 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Call For Papers (fwd) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joan Hartwig Date: Sunday, 01 Oct 95 23:33:21 EDT Subject: Death of Robert E. Burkhart I am sad to report the death of Robert E. Burkhart, professor of English and Shakespearean, on September 26, 1995, in Lexington, KY. Bob was a member of the Shakespeare Association of America, and many on this list will have known him. He was author of *Shakespeare's Bad Quartos* and co-editor of a collection of essays titled *Perspective on Our Times* and had recently published a book of poems, *Places in Time.* He had served as chair of the English department at Eastern Kentucky University from 1979-1986 and was past president of the Kentucky Philological Association. We shall miss him. Joan Hartwig University of Kentucky (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nina LeNoir Date: Saturday, 30 Sep 1995 19:28:16 -0500 Subject: Theatre InSight on the World Wide Web Theatre InSight, a journal of performance and theatre studies, is proud to announce that it now has a web site at: http://www.utexas.edu/students/ti/ Come visit us! Nina LeNoir "Web Editor" nlenoir@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jon Connolly Date: Sunday, 1 Oct 1995 17:26:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Call For Papers (fwd) ** CALL FOR PAPERS ** WORK: REALITY AND REPRESENTATION The Sixth Annual Interdisciplinary Conference of the Renaissance Studies Program University of California, Santa Barbara 16-17 February 1996 Keynote Speaker: Professor Randolph Starn, Department of History, University of California, Berkeley This conference is designed to bring together students and faculty from a variety of disciplines to consider aspects of work in late medieval and early modern culture. Possible topics include, but are not limited to: the division of labor: topography, class, gender * specialization in the urban context * guilds * professional identity * public perception of individual occupations * competition * training * mastery * labor and production * labor as process * body and mind * "industry and idleness" * play as work * the cult of "sprezzatura" and the erasure of work * the culture of the workplace * technology * obsolescence * unemployment * leisure * barter and trade * labors of love * domestic labor * "women's work" * working class culture * the theorization of labor, utopian and other * cultural work: the function of art, literature, spectacle. Interested scholars should submit abstracts for 20-minute presentations. Abstracts must be postmarked by 1 December 1995 and sent to Robert Williams, Dept. of the History of Art and Architecture, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. Tel. (805) 893-7586,fax (805) 893-7117. Please include holiday/January address and telephone number. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 15:13:43 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0747 Self-conscious Irony Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0747. Monday, 2 October 1995. From: John McClain Date: Sunday, 1 Oct 1995 23:35:48 +0900 Subject: Self-conscious Irony Dear Fellow SHAKESPEReans, I've been a lurker here for a couple of months. I've enjoyed it immensely. But one message has piqued my interest and brought me to make a request. In The Compass of Irony D.C. Muecke discusses a form of self-reflexive (or self-conscious) irony that he characterizes (borrowing from the Schlegel bros.) as a paradoxical, "dis-illusioning" reference by a character IN a play to the fact of they're actually being a character in a play (ala Beckett or Pirandello). Examples such as Jacques' "All the world's a stage...," or Macbeth's "Life's but a walking shadow..." being the most obvious examples (and isn't Hamlet in its entirety--from the "existential" uncertainty of "Who's there?" to Fortinbras's final command a full-fledged treatment of this theme?). I'd like to know of any recent studies that explore this aspect of Shakespeare's drama and poetry. Thanks in advance, John McClain ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 09:51:18 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0748 Re: First Words Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0748. Wednesday, 4 October 1995. (1) From: John Lavagino Date: Monday, 2 Oct 1995 14:49:06 -0400 Subj: First Words (2) From: Ken Steele Date: Tuesday, 3 Oct 95 03:21:56 UT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0741 Re: First Words (3) From: Matt Steggle Date: Tuesday, 03 Oct 1995 17:44:25 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0741 Re: First Words (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lavagino Date: Monday, 2 Oct 1995 14:49:06 -0400 Subject: First Words There is a systematic study of the OED's exaggeration of Shakespeare's innovations: Jurgen Schafer's Documentation in the OED: Shakespeare and Nashe as Test Cases (Clarendon Press, 1980). If I recall rightly, Schafer simply went through a list of words first cited from Shakespeare in the OED and looked for earlier instances in Nashe. He found a bunch of them. Of course, it's not just admiration for or knowledge of Shakespeare on the part of the OED's creators that leads to this effect: there's also the fact that lexicographers, like other scholars, are dependent on the available scholarly resources, and there just happen to be a lot more indices, concordances and the like for Shakespeare than for, say, Nashe. Even if they had hated the man, they would have found it very difficult to avoid this exaggeration. John Lavagnino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Steele Date: Tuesday, 3 Oct 95 03:21:56 UT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0741 Re: First Words Donald Foster is, of course, quite right to point out that using the OED to determine coinages by Shakespeare is subject to a good deal of circularity. The OED has very clear Shakespearean prejudices. This is perhaps one impetus behind the movement, which I assume is still ongoing, to catalogue, transcribe, or OCR scan early printed texts to create a searchable on-line corpus of literary works -- the raw materials for a completely impartial OED. (Of course, there will still be major debates about the assignment of dates of authorship, lost first editions, etc.) Even if we managed to assemble a digital corpus of all surviving incunabula, quartos, folios, duodecimos, etc., there will NEVER be certainty that a word apparently coined by Shakespeare wasn't in fact something he read in a no-longer-extant broadsheet, or heard in a cycle play in his youth. And of course, even if Shakespeare THOUGHT he coined a word, who's to say that some shepherd lad in a remote corner of Yorkshire didn't utter it a few days earlier? -- Oh, and yes, I am back in cyberspace after a prolonged absence. I'm no longer a professional Shakespearean, so I don't imagine I'll frequently have much to add to discussion on SHAKSPER, but it's a pleasure to be lurking here again... Hello to all my old friends! Yours, Ken Steele Stainless Steele Communications, London Ontario -- Stainless_Steele@msn.com (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matt Steggle Date: Tuesday, 03 Oct 1995 17:44:25 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0741 Re: First Words re: Shakespeare and coinages. See Jurgen Schaefer, _Documentation in the OED_: a book which addresses all these issues of Shakespearean "coinages" in the OED, comparing him to Thomas Nashe's coverage. It's frighteningly meticulous... All the best Matt. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 10:04:21 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0749 Re: Antonio and *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0749. Wednesday, 4 October 1995. (1) From: John Owen Date: Monday, 2 Oct 1995 14:23:26 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0743 Re: Antonio and *MV* (2) From: Robin Farabaugh Date: Monday, 2 Oct 1995 17:07:50 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0743 Re: Antonio and *MV* (3) From: Bruce Young Date: Monday, 02 Oct 1995 17:16:00 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0743 Re: Antonio and *MV* (4) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 02 Oct 1995 20:52:18 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0743 Re: Antonio and *MV* (5) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 3 Oct 1995 12:59:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0743 Re: Antonio and *MV* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Monday, 2 Oct 1995 14:23:26 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0743 Re: Antonio and *MV* W.L. Godshalk writes: "Bruce Young is quite right: there is a different between Shylock and Antonio. Shylock does not spit on Antonio, neither does he kick him." Nor does Antonio try to skin Shylock alive in public. Nor is Antonio a ruthless loan shark, despite Mr. Godshalk's extraordinary and futile efforts to pin some kind, any kind of commercial skullduggery on him. Nor can we make Shylock a tragic hero by completely inverting the author's obvious intentions and making everyone ELSE a villain. John Owen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robin Farabaugh Date: Monday, 2 Oct 1995 17:07:50 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0743 Re: Antonio and *MV* Re Antonio announcing his "polymorphic homosexuality" by noting that his ventures are not in one bottom trusted, one might want to consult the OED which notes that the word bottom, meaning that which you sit on,or do whatever else with, did not come into the language until 1794. The meaning of this word was of some concern to my students with respect to Bottom the weaver, whose name they saw as a pun on ass, and would have connected nicely to his ass's head, but it was not to be. Cheers, Robin Farabaugh (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young Date: Monday, 02 Oct 1995 17:16:00 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0743 Re: Antonio and *MV* Okay, okay. So Antonio only seems to be, or thinks he is, or is taken by other Venetians to be "generous," while we can see that he's really acting, out of self-interest, to promote himself. (He pushes things pretty far, though, in being willing to die for a friend. But maybe he did that just to impress people, too.) And Portia is a self-seeking controller, however much her style and her rhetoric might make us think that there's something attractive and liberating about her. And of course Bassanio bashing is so common I don't need to say anything about him. But I suspect we would find *MV* an even more interesting play if we didn't turn all the characters into self-seeking controllers. The tendency to make all the characters essentially the same and to ignore differences in style and attitudes (if not in "underlying" motives) seems to me to make the play two-dimensional. That doesn't mean we always need to take the characters at their word. And even where the play shows two contrasting approaches to life (as I think it does), it's helpful to see--as Shirley Kagan does--that the differences may arise in part from forces and structures outside the characters' control. (E.g., maybe both Antonio and Shylock are products of their environments. To some extent they are both making money in the ways open to them.) Still, I think it's clear the play invites us to see a contrast between venture/risk/hazard/openness/generosity on the one hand and control/safety/enclosure/hoarding on the other. And for several reasons I don't think we can simply dismiss the first of these options as merely a cover for the second: (1) It's easy to assume that any "good" or "generous" behavior is self-interested. But when no character escapes this judgment (e.g., Cordelia "really" wanted to impress everyone, get even with her sisters, and secure her right to the British throne), then what we're really learning is how the critic views human nature generally, not how the characters differ within the play. (2) In some cases there's solid evidence that, contrary to their pretensions, particular characters are aiming mainly to promote themselves at the expense of others. Is this true of Antonio? My impression is, that whilef the text is that it leaves room for various interpretations, Antonio's attempts at generosity are sincere. (But I'd be glad to be reminded of specific evidence to the contrary.) (3) The fact that Antonio may be sincere doesn't of course mean that he's as generous as he thinks he is. There's plenty of evidence that the play's characters don't live up to their ideals. (And in particular the characters' treatment of Shylock contradicts their rhetoric.) But I don't believe that means Antonio or the others are essentially vicious or are conscious, calculating hypocrites. (4) How about Portia? Is she a "control freak" and even more of a controller than Shylock? I guess that's an interesting way to look at her, but I don't think it's a view the text requires of us. (If appealing to other characters or testing them makes one a "control freak," then many of Shakespeare's characters, some quite surprisingly, would qualify. Not to mention Shakespeare himself--e.g., in prologues, epilogues, and the whole course of many plays.) If Portia is a controller, she certainly does it in a very different way from Shylock. Shylock doesn't like music or festivity, wants to close himself and his daughter off from the rest of the world, and not only has a crabbed, claustrophobic attitude, but an idiom that often reflects that attitude. Whatever degree of controlling we may see in Portia or other characters, they still have an open, risk-taking style (and corresponding language and ideals) that contrasts with Shylock's. Shakespeare (as opposed sometimes to Ben Jonson) creates characters who are complicated enough that we can admire and yet be disappointed by them at the same time. Instead of being characters (usually) that we can easily condemn and feel superior to, Shakespeare's characters often strike us as being uncannily like ourselves. *MV* seems to me to be much more dramatically effective, and (besides) to have more ethical and philosophical substance, if it includes characters who are really trying to be and believing they should be generous, but whose attempts and awareness are flawed. In fact, it makes little sense--and is certainly not very interesting--to find flaws in characters if there is nothing in them except for flaws. Self-interest becomes a much more interesting phenomenon when it's not simply all there is, when instead it can be seen in counterpoint with some degree of real or attempted generosity. Yes, it would be naive and foolish to see *MV* as simply a romanticized glorification of Portia, Antonio, et al. But I think it's equally superficial to see nothing positive in their ideals or actions. When I say Shakespeare's characters are "uncannily like ourselves," I'm thinking especially of this difficulty in reducing them to good guys or bad guys. Bruce Young (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 02 Oct 1995 20:52:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0743 Re: Antonio and *MV* In response to Bill Godshalk's question of "why, oh, why does Portia like Bassanio?"---well--that's a good point--in terms of plausibility there is no reason---but it seems that women liking men who are not their match is more often than not the norm in Shakespeare--- think of Rosalind with orlando (before she "teaches" him), Imogen with posthumus, even Titiania with Bottom, maybe this gets to a crucial point in Shakespearean characterization of women--i.e. Lucetta in TGV-- "I have none other than a woman's reason, I like him because i like him"-- which is why many feminists say that women in Shakespeare are often more aporetic than not(?) Chris Stroffolino (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tuesday, 3 Oct 1995 12:59:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0743 Re: Antonio and *MV* The dispute between Antonio and Shylock regarding the lending of money at interest reflects one of the most passionate debates of Shakespeare's time. The aristocracy clung to the feudal/Catholic prohibition of usury as a social evil, while the burgeoning middle class saw no harm in it. Lord Burliegh is known to have commented at some point that he would like to see lending at interest made legal, but that he was afraid to make his point of view known. If Shakespeare was making some kind of political point about the lending of money at interest, legal maneuvering, or the kinds of people who engaged in lending at interest, he would not have been inditing jews as such, since legally jews had not been allowed in England for some time (don't remember exactly when they were banned, think it was not long after their banishment from Spain), and although there were probably jews in England, they kept their origins a secret. As for Shylock being an outcast in Venice, it is my understanding that there was a large population of jews in Venice during the mid 16th century, with all levels of income represented, including some wealthy enough to lend immense sums to the governments of Europe. Indeed, this was often the only source of such funding. This community was extremely powerful politically, and had no need to be included in Antonio's circle. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 10:15:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0750 Re: Self-conscious Irony Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0750. Wednesday, 4 October 1995. (1) From: Ken Steele Date: Tuesday, 3 Oct 95 03:25:27 UT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0747 Self-conscious Irony (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 3 Oct 1995 20:46:41 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0747 Self-conscious Irony (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Steele Date: Tuesday, 3 Oct 95 03:25:27 UT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0747 Self-conscious Irony John McClain will find hundreds of articles and not a few books on the subject of "Metatheatricality" in Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Many in this discussion group will have more up-to-date bibliographies than I. Ken Steele (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 3 Oct 1995 20:46:41 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0747 Self-conscious Irony John McClain asks >I'd like to know of any recent studies that explore this [self-reflexivity in >characters speaking of themselves as players] aspect of >Shakespeare's drama and poetry. Anne Righter (now Barton) _Shakespeare and the Idea of the Play_ (London: Penguin, 1962) presents an argument for increasingly sophisticated and increasingly self-conscious self-referentiality in English drama from the medieval Mysteries and Moralities through to the Caroline period, with Shakespeare (of course) as the most outstanding exponent. If I recall she thinks it became something of tired cliche towards the end. This doesn't qualify as a recent study, however. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 10:21:36 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0751 Re: Scenes Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0751. Wednesday, 4 October 1995. (1) From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 3 Oct 1995 09:36:58 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0744 Re: Scenes; (2) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Tuesday, 3 Oct 1995 12:14:28 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0737 Re: French/English Scenes (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 3 Oct 1995 09:36:58 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0744 Re: Scenes; Following the recent discussion of 'scenes' I wonder if the book by Charles A and Elaine S Hallett 'Analyzing Shakespeare's Action: Scene versus Sequence' (Cambridge, 1991) might be useful? So too, Emrys Jones's 'Scenic Form in Shakespeare' (Oxford, 1971) has many insightful things to offer. However scenes are classified, it's the consequence for the analysing and understanding of action on stage that's important - and both these books, in their different ways, have significantly modified my understanding of how the plays actually work. David Lindley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Tuesday, 3 Oct 1995 12:14:28 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0737 Re: French/English Scenes Dave Evett and Bill Godshalk (what is this, the Ohio push?) raise fascinating questions about the segementation of theatrical action on page and stage and its perception by readers and audiences. For my part, trained to look at "English" (that is, let's face it, Shakespearean, since others e.g. Jonson, often used the "French" that is classical) scripts, I find the blank space at the end of a "scene" a useful visual analogue to the blank stage, which the continental scene division method obscures, making the action jerkier in a way I dislike. This is probably mere prejudice and my training to "see" the blankness on the page "as" a blank stage, where those trained the other way would see it differently. I am unaware of any distinction in the "French" method between these modes of script signing, and assume there is some other clockwork going on in readers heads which signals "Blank Stage". Maybe they are better readers than me. Bill Godshalk is, however, right to call the French method "literary" in at least one sense I believe, given its firm connection with the tradition of publishing classical plays so segmented (though whether that in turn derived from MSS or from theater practice I do not know. I'd guess the former.) The issue of the difference mainly arises in New Comedy, I would guess, since all the tragedies I can remember are a continuous scene in the English sense, at least the Chorus being present throughout after their first entrance. But Plautus and Terence were the "first reads" anyway. The very fact that the English method differs may telegraph an important point about the relative independence of English theatrical traditions _from_ the literary as a genetic matrix. The phenomenology of the "scene break" itself can be rather complicated. Consider the "break" at Macbeth's lines "Hear it not Duncan...". In most scripts this is chunked up as a new scene (I dont have my Folio to hand here), yet on stage, the pause that follows is not an "end of scene" time for blowing the nose or unwrapping a candy (crackle crackle) but represents the very real, tense and silent moment in which Duncan is being killed. "Empty stage" here means "scene horribly inaccessible -- imagine it yourselves" and the play will continue to use that blankness relentlessly throughout -- all those invisibilities here buckle. On the other hand, a production of King Lear I once saw staged the blinding scene in the hovel vacated only moments before by Lear et al, with Gloster tied to the "Goneril" joint-stool, a very powerful "jerking" use of our mistake about the meaning of "bare stage" at that point -- "you thought you were going to get a break didnt you, no chance folks". For rehearsal convenience, therefore, by all means cut up WT 4.4. But the complexities of ebb and flow, bareness and irruption, wont be fully solved by either method, as Dave Evett noted, and though a director might choose to "relocate" sections, it seems to me important that the "wide gap of time" that is the scene be kept intact to counterweigh those first three acts. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 10:34:47 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0752 Re: Conversations; CD ROMs; owe/own; Importance Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0752. Wednesday, 4 October 1995. (1) From: Fran Teague Date: Monday, 02 Oct 95 15:45:39 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0742 Re: Conversations (in medias res) (2) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 03 Oct 95 12:17:00 PDT Subj: Shakespeare on CDRom (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 03 Oct 1995 12:34:49 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0744 Re: owe/own (4) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 14:22:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0734 Re: Importance of Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Monday, 02 Oct 95 15:45:39 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0742 Re: Conversations (in medias res) On the subject of initial dialogue that leads one into a play's action: I've just been directing _The Merry Wives of Windsor_. While it begins in the midst of a conversation, it does not operate in quite the way that folks have said other Shn. plays do. That is, the problem that the characters are discussing as they enter is not made at all clear by the immediately following dialogue nor does the initial dialogue necessarily function as the play writ small. Since MWW is sometimes cited as an analogue to Oth, I just thought I'd mention how very differently its opening lines work from those of Oth. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 03 Oct 95 12:17:00 PDT Subject: Shakespeare on CDRom We've received a number of calls about the availability of Shakespeare text on CD Rom. I generally refer people to two versions well-reviewed in an article by Anita Lowry, a Reference Librarian at Columbia U., entitled "Electronic Texts in English and American Literature." The article appeared in a special issue of Library Trends on "Electronic Information for the Humanities" in Spring 1992. She spends considerable time discussing and comparing WordCruncher (based on Riverside) and OUP Electronic Shakespeare, and comes down in favor of WordCruncher for its ease of use. WordCruncher is distributed by Johnston & Company, Electronic Publishers, Box 446, American Fork, UT 84003. Phone: 801-756-1111, FAX 801-756-0242. We've also had companies approach us as to which edition of Shakespeare they should use. The problem is, that they don't want to pay for the rights to use an existing and editorially acceptable text, which is why you find a lot of fly-by-night electronic versions that don't say what they're based on. I've always told them that if they want something out of copyright, then it's got to be a good 19th-c edition, but that the scholarly world will want a more standard text, and if they're not willing to use one, then they've basically closed themselves out of that market! Georgianna Ziegler Reference Librarian, Folger Library (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 03 Oct 1995 12:34:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0744 Re: owe/own Susan Mather The OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (OED, sometimes NED, or Murray's) is my basic source for the information on owe and own as cognates. Ron Macdonald suggests also Marcel Mauss's THE GIFT. Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 14:22:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0734 Re: Importance of Shakespeare I regret that my choice of example of what our culture would be like without Shakespeare offended Professor Capuzzo. Certainly it would be hard to have more affection and appreciation for the Spanish language than I do, or for Italian or French, the ony three languages that I am familiar with besides English, though, sadly not familiar enough. (To my undying joy, my daughter is now fluent in both French and Italian.) All languages have their strengths and weaknesses, and certainly English doesn't cover all bases. (Take for instance the awful gender problems we face when trying to be general, with no neutral form of the third person singular, a wretched lack, which poses infernal problems.) Certainly English imperialism was the major factor in spreading English around the globe, and then when that phase came to an end, the continuation of its use by the American influence after WWII. Yet how much did the nature of the language have to do with the ability of the English and the Americans to spread their control in the first place? I am not saying this out of chauvinistic pride, simply trying to examine the phenomenon with a measure of detachment. Certainly many individuals have contributed to the development of the language both before and after Shakespeare. Still, it is my belief that no <> individual has influenced the language more than this one. It is also my belief that that influence was immediate, and was disseminated throughout the theatergoing public during the years his plays were first produced, spreading thus throughout the language, but even if, as Robert Appelbaum states, this influence did not begin for several generations after his death, what difference does it make when it began? If you discover a chest full of treasure buried in your backyard, what difference does it make when it was buried? It makes you just as rich as it would if it were buried the day before. I think it is important that we recognize that great changes come not only from general movements but also from individuals. Great moments give us great men and women, but these moments are stamped as well by their ideosyncrasies and special qualities. In our current existential noman's land we suffer terribly from our lack of belief in heroes. True it is no good to inflate an ordinary person into a hero, from such we get tyrants and cult leaders, but perhaps it is even worse to deny ourselves some devotion to those who deserve it. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 12:45:53 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0753 Re: Antonio and *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0753. Thursday, 5 October 1995. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Wednesday, 4 Oct 1995 11:39:57 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0749 Re: Antonio and *MV* (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 04 Oct 1995 14:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0749 Re: Antonio and *MV* (3) From: Bruce Young Date: Wednesday, 04 Oct 1995 14:20:26 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0743 Re: Antonio and *MV* (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 04 Oct 1995 16:28:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0749 Antonio and *MV* (5) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 04 Oct 1995 17:07:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0749 Antonio and *MV* (6) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 08:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0749 Re: Antonio and *MV* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Wednesday, 4 Oct 1995 11:39:57 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0749 Re: Antonio and *MV* The effort to turn Antoinio into a money -grubber seems perverse, yet typical. There is no evidence in the play that this is so. We see, in the first act, that he has taken the kind of risk that he will take again. He initially denies this to the courtiers -- and I still think that this is because they are not quite the folks he wants to reveal himself to -- but he does reveal the true nature of his actions to Bassanio and to the audience. The effort to convict him of this and that pettiness seems so obviously of an age -- our age -- that I would think that it would be suspect at once. We have our doubts about merchants and bankers and other fine cankers but there are no doubts about Antonio in the play. I contributed a brief note about some ideas/attitudes the audience might have held about the Merchant Adventurers. My point was that Antonio was not like this. If the audience had plenty of reasons to resent merchants, they have no reasons to suspect that Antonio is like these merchants. Suspicions are overcome, for many reasons, including, of course, the fact that Antonio makes the bargain he does. He is lighting a candle in a naughty world etc. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 04 Oct 1995 14:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0749 Re: Antonio and *MV* I'd like to respond to John Owen's comment about the "either/or" VENICE---Granted, Owen is not the only one who argues that we can't accept both Antonio as a hero and everyone else-- and it hardly matters "which side you're on"--pro Christian or pro-Jew or pro-Portia 9as woman). I mean these debates are getting tired (not just on the list either). There are some crittics who seem to acknoweldge that it is not just an either/or debate-- and it seems this MUST be the way to deal with this play in which Shakespeare is trying to put certain conventions of tragedy into dialogue with certain conventions of comedy-- The formal brilliance of this dialogue in the play is obviously still maddening to those who demand a "moral"---chris stroffolino (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young Date: Wednesday, 04 Oct 1995 14:20:26 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0743 Re: Antonio and *MV* One more thing (from me) on *MV*: Bill Godshalk, whose frequent postings are for me one of the delights of SHAKSPER, claims that "Shylock does not spit on Antonio, neither does he kick him. As far as we know, Shylock does not try to undermine Antonio's business ventures." It's hard not to agree with the first two claims, but I must disagree with the last one. Shylock obviously tries to undermine Antonio's business ventures. That's one of his motives for insisting on the pound of flesh: "for were he [Antonio] out of Venice I can make what merchandise I will" (3.1.127-29). That's the only point I can think of where Shylock contemplates specific action against Antonio and his business activities, but it fits with his attitude throughout the play ("I hate him for he is a Christian, / But more, for that in low simplicity / He lends out money gratis, and brings down / The rate of usance here with us in Venice. / If I can catch him once upon the hip [i.e., bring him down], / I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him" [1.3.42-47]). In pointing out what I think is a clear instance of Shylock's hostile behavior toward Antonio, I don't mean to be taking a stand on whether this (or his treatment of his daughter) is justified or on whether he's better or worse than Antonio. But even if you think Shylock is the hero of the play, totally justified in everything he does, and as nice a person as you could possibly expect him to be, you have to acknowledge that he's trying to improve his business operation by killing Antonio. Bruce Young (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 04 Oct 1995 16:28:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0749 Antonio and *MV* John Owen seems to suggest that Shylock skins Antonio "alive in public," and that Shylock is "a ruthless loan shark." As far as I can see neither assertion is undoubtedly true. Shylock doesn't get his pound of flesh, so we don't really know if he would cut into Antonio's flesh. Shylock is never called a ruthless loan shark in the play, and all we know is that he lends money at interest -- a banker's function. But let's try to empathize with the revenger, Shylock, for a minute. Let's imagine that a privileged member of society -- one whom we cannot with impunity oppose -- spits on us and kicks us recurrently, calls us names in the marketplace (Riverside ed., 1.3.48-51, 111-118), promises to do it again (130-135), and is a bigot to boot (48). And further it appears that his plutocrat wishes to put us out of business (44-45). How would we respond to such treatment at the hands of a wealthy merchant who apparently has no sense of civility? I honestly do not think it was (or is) Shakespeare's obvious intention that the audience admire Antonio unquestioningly. I rarely find Shakespeare's intentions obvious. Yours, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 04 Oct 1995 17:07:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0749 Antonio and *MV* Bruce Young suggests that *MV* would be "more interesting if we didn't turn all the characters into self-seeking controllers." But wouldn't a play in which all the central characters were self-seeking controllers -- of different kinds and types -- be filled with tension? I think a case could be (probably has been) made that Antonio, Bassanio, Shylock, and Portia are all looking for some kind of personal gain, and each of them tries -- in different ways -- to gain control of situations that appear to be beyond his or her control. As Bruce suggests, these characters are complicated, not all of a piece. Portia's struggle for control is far different from, say, Shylock's. And I'm not convinced that there's a simple contrast between venture/risk/hazard/openness/generosity and control/safety/enclosure/ hoarding in the play. For example, Portia begins the play "enclosed" in Belmont. She (apparently) has no control over her fate (but look at 1.2.95 where she talks with Nerissa about controlling the choice of the Duke of Saxony's nephew). When Portia comes to Venice, she comes in disguise (not openly), nor is she open about her intentions. How much does Portia venture or hazard? When she comes as judge to the trial, she already has her legal trick in mind. I think the apparent contrast seems less strong after a close consideration. Yours, Bill Godshalk (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 08:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0749 Re: Antonio and *MV* I applaud Bruce Young's comments on Shakespeare's magical ability to create characters that are combinations of good and bad, attracting our interest with the eternally tantalizing nature of the ambiguous. As for Portia's attraction to Bassanio, surely he was a "hunk", as witness Antonio's attraction, so powerful he was willing to risk everything, "hunkiness" being a quality not transmitted explicitly through play texts, but here, certainly implicitly. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 12:56:07 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0754 Re: WordCruncher; CD ROMs; Importance of Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0754. Thursday, 5 October 1995. (1) From: Mike LoMonico Date: Wednesday, 4 Oct 1995 15:40:55 -0400 Subj: Re: WordCruncher (2) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Wednesday, 4 Oct 1995 16:10:48 -0500 (CDT) Subj: cd-roms (3) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 02:33:52 +0100 Subj: Re: Importance of Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike LoMonico Date: Wednesday, 4 Oct 1995 15:40:55 -0400 Subject: Re: WordCruncher Just a correction to Giorgianna Zeigler's comments about WordCruncher. The new address is: Box 6627 Bloomington, IN 47407 Phone : 812-339-9996 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Wednesday, 4 Oct 1995 16:10:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: cd-roms For my interests, the most useful cd-rom is the one called Shakespeare Database CD-ROM. It was created and is distributed by the Shakespeare-language gang at Westfalische Wilhelms-Universitat in Munster, Germany (excuse my lack of diacritical marks). They say it "makes available the structured totality of texts and grammar and various other literary, linguistic, and lexicographical perspectives necessary for complete interaction with the Shakespeare corpus. Most of the database information is based on original research undertaken [at that University]." The access modes provided on this cd-rom go far beyond anything I have seen before. This is a big-league scholarly tool. Fortunately, the basic text is the Riverside Shakespeare. Unfortunately, the disc costs about $900. !!! If you want to know more about this disc, call up the makers' home page: http://ves101.unimuenster.de/www/shadcd.html They provide a thorough description of the system, info on the makers, a bibliography of studies based on their work, etcetera. Among the prestigious list of makers are Marvin Spevack (of concordance fame), H. Joachim Neuhaus, and Peter Kollenbrandt. I would like to second the recommendation of Wordcruncher. I have been using it for six years now. It works beautifully with that company's indexed version of the Riverside Shakespeare. It has simplified and speeded up all of my language and verse studies and has made it possible for me to find things which were "invisible" before. Roger Gross Univ. of Arkansas (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 02:33:52 +0100 Subject: Re: Importance of Shakespeare "I regret that my choice of example of what our culture would be like without Shakespeare offended Professor Capuzzo [Cappuzzo]." Stephanie Hughes, Oct 4 Ms Hughes' opinions do not offend me at all. I just object to them, while trying to express mine. I hate to quote myself, but in this case I cannot do otherwise. In my note of Sept 30 I wrote: "What I objected, and still object to is the idea -- somehow present, I suspect, in Ms Hughes' interventions, in both of them [Sept 8 and 26] -- that the English language is of a superior, a-historical, metaphysical, divine nature, and that therefore this language *and* (necessarily) the culture of which this language is the 'medium' have a superior role, a *mission* to perform in the world at large. For this idea and for its various implications I have no respect, nor do I think I have to show any. However, since my mother tongue is not English, and I cannot be sure that my way of reading Ms Hughes' 'tone' is correct, I offer her my apologies." In her posting of Oct 4, Ms Hughes wrote: "Certainly English imperialism was the major factor in spreading English around the globe, and then when that phase came to an end, the continuation of its use by the American influence after WWII. *Yet how much did the nature of the language have to do with the ability of the English and the Americans to spread their control in the first place?* I am not saying this out of chauvinistic pride, simply trying to examine the phenomenon with a measure of detachment." (My emphasis.) [Yes, and how is it that today the English control nearly nothing? Do they speak Spanish now, or have they put WS aside? Was it from WS that they derived their "ability" to massacre entire populations in all five or six continents? And what about the "ability" of the American government and military in certain, well-known phases and episodes of the recent history of the U.S.? Had all those people specialized in WS and Early Modern English?] It seems that, notwithstanding the *fact* that my mother tongue is not English, my tentative interpretation of Ms Hughes' opinions and 'tones' was quite correct. And, I repeat, for these opinions and for their various implications (some of which are now slowly surfacing) I have no respect -- how can I have or show respect for Ms Hughes' suggestion that behind a bigger gun there is necessarily a linguistically and culturally bigger man!? Opinions of this nature do not offend me: they offend the very culture that Ms Hughes pretends to represent. Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 13:02:04 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0755 Universal Human Experience (was Qs: Food Imagery) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0755. Thursday, 5 October 1995. From: Erika Lin Date: Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 09:32:03 -0700 Subject: Re: universal human experience (was Qs: Food Imagery) In his posting on Sep 28, Roland Nipps makes the following request: |I am presently working on my graduate thesis at the University of Rhode Island. |The work involves studying Shakespeare's use of food imagery in the |Bollingbroke tetralogy. I hope to show how a study of this imagery compliments |existing scholarship on how man, as a microcosm, reflects the communal |ordering of human experience. I would appreciate hearing from anyone with |relevant materials. Thank you, Roland Nipps. The question he raises in my mind is what exactly he means by "communal ordering of human experience." What people generally mean by this is the experience of (male) Western Europeans and Americans. Unlike some New Historicists, though, I would not make the blanket generalization that *all* human experience is culturally-based. Although I understand the sentiment, since what American and British scholars in the past century or so have called universal aspects of human experience (all humans want love, all humans need a God or God-like figure to believe in) are decidedly Western characteristics, I would still have to say that some universal characteristics of human nature do exist. They just may not be the same aspects as those proposed by Western critics. My reasoning is this: within the time frame we are talking about--say, 5000 years or so-- biological evolution of the human species is negligible, and, therefore, based on the fact that we are still the same animal as we were 5000 years ago and that humans from different cultures can still reproduce with each other (for the time period we generally look at) there must be some aspects of human nature which are constant through that time. However, to determine what those universal aspects are, we would have to study Asian, African, and Latin American cultures, not merely an array of Western European ones. Any thoughts on the matter? Erika Lin University of California at Berkeley P.S. Thanks to everyone who helped out with my request a couple of months ago regarding advice on PhD programs. The application process is continuing, and I'm indebted to all the postings on the subject I received. Thanks again for all your help. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:48:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0756 Re: Antonio and *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0756. Friday, 6 October 1995. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 14:07:32 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0753 Re: Antonio and *MV* (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 05 Oct 1995 16:25:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0753 Re: Antonio and *MV* (3) From: Stanley Holberg Date: Thursday, 05 Oct 1995 20:56:09 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Antonio et al (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 14:07:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0753 Re: Antonio and *MV* Bill Godshalk asks how "we" would feel if we were spat upon and treated rudely by a plutocrat. The question seems odd. If it is an attempt to direct us to place ourselves within Shylock's perspective, it seems beside the point. We know how Shylock feels. If the question has other purposes, then it seems equally beside the point. Isn't the question a question of how Shakespeare's audience might feel? They might, first of all, not see Antonio as a plutocrat -- the word is loaded with a lot of modern connotations. They might see him, instead, as a generous merchant of the sort the myth of Venice might lead them to imagine, of the sort Antonio's actions might suggest. In the same way, they might think of Shylock as a usurer and a despised Jew -- someone who deserves Antonio's contempt. Maybe Shakespeare attempts to modify this attitude, but it seems that, if we are trying to understand the play, loaded and anachronistic words such as "plutocrat" are not helpful and assume what is to be proved. But concepts such as "usury" are very much to the point. Antonio enters and Shylock says: "If I can catch him once upon the hip, I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him" I don't find it credible that the audience would not have recognized Shylock as a usurer. He was not just a "banker." Audiences would also understand (how could they not) that Antonio "Lends out money gratis." Shylock: "How like a fawning publican he looks, I hate him for he is a Christian; But more, for that in low simplicity He lends out money gratis, and brings down The rate of usance here with us at Venice." This is an aside, of course, and is to be believed. It seems impossible to conclude from this that Shylock is just a "banker" and that Antonio is a "plutocrat." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 05 Oct 1995 16:25:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0753 Re: Antonio and *MV* Okay! Years ago, as I remember, I told one of my students, "Shylock is not the nice Jewish man who runs the candy store down the street." Shylock has not responded well to the diaspora and to living with mean-minded Christians who force him to wear gaberdine and to make a living doing essential business (i.e., banking) that the Christians find objectionable. He has himself become as mean-minded as the Christians. (How would you like to be addressed as "Jew," the old J word?) My basic point is that Shylock is not unmotivated in his hatred of Christians. If he has become suspicious, vengeful, angry, and so on, he has just cause. Were I living next to Antonio (would he really live next door to me?), I would have beat him up long ago, i.e., after the first time he spit on me. Yours, Violent Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stanley Holberg Date: Thursday, 05 Oct 1995 20:56:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Antonio et al It seems to me that Antonio's lines at the end of III.iii reveal something interesting about him and about the world in which he and Shylock operate: The Duke cannot deny the course of law; For the commodity that strangers have With us in Venice, if it be denied, Will much impeach the justice of the state, Since that the trade and profit of the city Consisteth of all nations. But the fact is, the reason why the Duke cannot deny the course of law is that *it is the law.* The law does not exist to promote "the trade and profit of the city." --Stanley Holberg holberma@potsdam.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 10:07:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0758 Qs: Hughes' Goddess; Cardenio Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0758. Friday, 6 October 1995. (1) From: Michael Sexson Date: Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 11:38:15 -0600 Subj: Ted Hughes' Goddess of Complete Being (2) From: Robert Caisley Date: Wednesday, 4 Oct 1995 01:14:26 -0400 Subj: Cardenio? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Sexson Date: Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 11:38:15 -0600 Subject: Ted Hughes' Goddess of Complete Being I have just finished Ted Hughes' book Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being. I found it infuriating and frustrating, tautological, and often spurious, egregiously lacking in footnotes, bibliography, index. I also found it the most interesting, provocative, original and inspired book on Shakespeare I've read in over a decade. I'm distressed to find the hardback version of the book largely remaindered and unavailable in paperback except in the UK. I would like to hear what others in the group have to say about this problematic text. ---- Michael Sexson (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Caisley Date: Wednesday, 4 Oct 1995 01:14:26 -0400 Subject: Cardenio? [Editor's Note: A former SHAKSPERean sent in this query. Please adress ALL responses directly to him. HMC] Could you please send me some brief info. re. CARDENIO. I read about a production in Pittsburgh--also heard that they were attributing it to Shakespeare. Could you give me any info. you may have on the play, or point me in the right direction. I mentioned the play the other day and everyone looked at me like I was speaking a foreign language. I didn't dream this, did I? This play does exist, right? Thanks. Robert Caisley ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:59:32 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0757 Re: Conversation; Universal; Importance; Salvini; Thanks Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0757. Friday, 6 October 1995. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 05 Oct 1995 12:53:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0735 Q: Conversation in *Oth.* (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 05 Oct 1995 20:16:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0755 Universal Human Experience (3) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Friday, 6 Oct 1995 00:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Importance of Shakespeare (4) From: John Mucci Date: Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 22:32:47 -0400 Subj: Fwd: Salvini;Sleepwalking (5) From: Peter C. Herman Date: Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 21:52:20 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0754 Re: WordCruncher; CD ROMs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 05 Oct 1995 12:53:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0735 Q: Conversation in *Oth.* To Amy Hughes: All drama is an imitation of a conversation, and one of the things that differentiates a mediocre a good-or-better playwright from a mediocre one is the ability to make us believe that we are overhearing a "natural" conversation. If two characters are together at the very beginning of a scene -- as opposed to meeting each other onstage, having come from separate locations -- our belief is increased if we get the feeling that they have already been talking before we discover them _in medias res_. Thus, in *Hamlet*, Polonius and Reynoldo, II.i: Pol. Give him this money and these notes, Reynoldo. Rey. I will, my Lord. Reynoldo doesn't ask, "Who, my Lord?" -- although we do -- because they are already in the middle of this conversation. *AYLI* opens similarly in mid-stride: "As I remember it, Adam...." Orlando and Adam need no preliminaries; the old retainer has been listening patiently to the dispossed son's complaints for some time. This technique fosters the feeling that the stage's world is one that is continuously alive. Plays in which each scene starts like a first-year foreign language primer's conversation -- Hi!. Hello. My name is .... -- really drag. Unlike passing conversations heard in real-life restaurants and subway cars, the playwright usually doesn't leave us in the dark about the presumbed earlier information: we learn who/what/when/where, and especially why, From the later dialogue, gradually filling in the past as we go, just as we come to know people with whom we talk in real life. Jim Schaefer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 05 Oct 1995 20:16:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0755 Universal Human Experience I think Erika Lin is essentially correct in her believe that the human animal, like any other animal, may be described in general. "Culture" -- whatever that is -- has not transformed us into non-animals. But each "culture" wants "recognition." (I share K, Anthony Appiah's skepticism about the entities that now demand to be called "cultures.") And the concept of general human/animal traits seems, to some people, to stand in the way of recognition. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Friday, 6 Oct 1995 00:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Importance of Shakespeare I don't want it to seem like Marcello Cappuzzo and I are ganging up on a fellow SHAKSPERian. As Marcello might say, it's the idea that we are arguing against. In any case Marcello has already made a remarkably strong case, I believe, against the implications of the idea that English somehow DESERVES to be dominant language in the world, and that Shakespeare is largely responsible for the language's morally privileged position. I only want to make two smaller points: 1. It *does* matter that several generations were skipped before Shakespeare became absorbed into English culture. History matters. In the present case it matters partly because it was just while Shakespearean texts were more or less in hiding, part of an academic and theatrical subculture which formed only a small part of English life as a whole, that modern English became standardized and codified in its present form. The language we speak and write, today, now, developed without much input from the Bard. To see my point, think about what it would take to rewrite this paragraph in the language of Defoe or Dr. Johnson; then think about what it would take to rewrite it in the language of an Elizabethan. I am using words here that would be foreign perhaps to Johnson and Shakespeare alike -- "subculture," "input," "codified." And my periods are comparatively brief. But I think it is clear that my syntax and diction are considerably closer to Johnson's then to Shakespeare's, and most of you would think there was something wrong with me if they weren't. Something happened between 1620 and 1710 to make English English in its present form; but what happened wasn't the dissemination of the Shakespearean canon. 2. It follows from this, or is implied in this, that we do NOT now speak or write the language of Shakespeare. Nor, in general, do the people of Ireland, South Africa, or Jamaica. So what, finally, is the point of claiming that Shakespeare somehow invented our language? This is the issue, it seems to me, that Marcello Cappuzzo is addressing. And it is the issue that the Bardolaters among us are refusing to address -- apparently because it is more "refreshing," as someone remarked, to mystify history than to come to terms with it. Robert Appelbaum UC Berkeley (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mucci Date: Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 22:32:47 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Salvini;Sleepwalking To me,Salvini is way off the mark when he suspects that the LM sleepwalking scene was originally assigned to M himself and then later reassigned to LM. My feelings are that LM pushes her husband because she loves him and understands and shares his ambitions. She is his strength when he is weak. But she shows the first signs of weakness when after seeing the murdered men she declares her heart "so white". So begins her journey that ends when she takes her life. Consciencely, she maintains a hard exterior but underneath she is cracking. With each crack underneath she presents an even harder outside. She is no longer able to admit to herself or anyone else how deeply her misgiving plague her. So how does the playwright show us this? One way is to put into a state where she cannot control the way she presents herself. Many playwrights use drunkedness for this purpose. In this case it is in sleepwalking that the truth is revealed to the audience. In the way of metaphor, the next the audience hears of LM she is dead. taken her own life, unable to continue living with the life that was only a dream at the beginning of the play. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter C. Herman Date: Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 21:52:20 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0754 Re: WordCruncher; CD ROMs Thanks very much to everyone who responded. The comments were all very useful, and I really appreciate your taking the time to answer my query. Yours, Peter C. Herman ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 11:59:42 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0759 [was 6.0659] Re: Antonio and *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0759. Sunday, 8 October 1995. (1) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Friday, 6 Oct 1995 09:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0756 Re: Antonio and *MV* (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 06 Oct 1995 13:27:25 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0756 Re: Antonio and *MV* (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 06 Oct 1995 13:43:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0756 Re: Antonio and *MV* (4) From: Michael Saenger Date: Friday, 6 Oct 1995 22:25:05 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0756 Re: Antonio and *MV* (5) From: John Drakakis Date: Saturday, 07 Oct 1995 12:46:05 +0100 Subj: SHK 6.0756 Re: Antonio and *MV* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Friday, 6 Oct 1995 09:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0756 Re: Antonio and *MV* Greetings all! Bill Godshalk writes something about Shylock that surprised me: "Shylock has not responded well to the diaspora and to living with mean-minded Christians who force him to wear gaberdine and to make a living doing essential business (i.e., banking) that the Christians find objectionable." What caused my eyebrow to lift was the idea that the gaberdine was an enforced uniform for Jews a la the yellow armband with the Star of David the Nazis forced Jews to wear. I've actually done some looking around about this whole "gaberdine" line, and it seemed to be one of the only loci for complete critical consensus and bafflement. It's a crux when juxtaposed with "which is the merchant here and which the Jew?" Furthermore, Shylock seems quite defensive of his "Jewish gaberdine" which also seems to grate slightly against the idea that it was enforced. Now, let me be clear, especially since people have seemed quite sensitive on this list lately: Bill, I'm *not* jumping down your throat here. I am, however, intensely curious as to how you came to the idea that the gaberdine was enforced. Can you please enlighten me? On a slight tangent, John Gillies exceptionally intelligent SHAKESPEARE AND THE GEOGRAPHY of difference points out not only that Shylock and Antonio are more alike than differing, financially-speaking, when both are compared with Portia but also that the only other person to wear a gaberdine in Shakespeare is Caliban. All the best, Bradley Berens Dept. of English U.C. Berkeley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 06 Oct 1995 13:27:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0756 Re: Antonio and *MV* > The Duke cannot deny the course of law; > For the commodity that strangers have > With us in Venice, if it be denied, > Will much impeach the justice of the state, > Since that the trade and profit of the city > Consisteth of all nations. > >. . . the reason why the Duke cannot deny the course of law is that >*it is the law.* The law does not exist to promote "the trade and profit of >the city." > >--Stanley Holberg I'm not sure I agree with Stanley Holberg's reading of this passage. It seems to me that "commodity," "trade and profit" are intricately related to the "course of law." Why must the Duke follow the law? Because if he doesn't his actions "Will much impeach the justice of the state." Yes. But Antonio implies that the justice of the state cannot be impeached because of economic , NOT ethical reasons. Apprently, if Venice were not a trading center, the Duke could abrogate the law. That's the way I understand these lines. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 06 Oct 1995 13:43:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0756 Re: Antonio and *MV* In response to Joseph Green, yes "plutocrat" is a loaded word, and that's why I used it. That's the way that I feel about Antonio. (Although "plutocrat" is a 19th century word, "Plutocracy" was first used in the 17th.) And regarding Shakespeare's audience, aren't we all one of Shakespeare's audiences? If we are talking about Shakespeare's original audiences (plural), I think they would be mixed in their reaction to someone who takes interest. Many of the original audience (I gather) did take interest on loans. I imagine these interest takers might feel rather ambivalent about Antonio's condemnation of interest. Did Shakespeare ever lend money at interest? How did Shakespeare the businessman feel about making money? Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Friday, 6 Oct 1995 22:25:05 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0756 Re: Antonio and *MV* I have nothing against wrestling with the Merchant's Jewish stereotypes in the modern age, but I also think it's helpful to remember the play's original context. Most important is the play's relationship to Marlowe's the Jew of Malta. Shakespeare took several of Marlowe's dramatically provocative plays and did something like a rewrite, or a transformation. So Tamburlaine became Henry V, Faustus became Macbeth, and so on. Marlowe was really a genius at creating drama. In fact Shakespeare's genius seems to lie more in poetry and subtlety- when Shakespeare has no clear source play he often also has little plot. So let's take a look at Barabas, the Jew of Marlowe's play. We find a character who starts out sympathetic and becomes a horrid stereotype, one which is difficult for any modern reader. So if Shakespeare does anything to his "source" he softens it, but we must remember that even a soft picture of a Jew by Elizabethan minds will cause us to be offended. If Shakespeare were writing now he would never make any such offence. I see in Shakespeare a profoundly a-political playwright. He borrowed the fundamental dramatic pattern of his play from Marlowe, simply adding exquisite poetry. Perhaps Shakespeare's lack of a strong interest in creating plots corresponds with his lack of interest in politics, in taking sides. Perhaps he was simply a poetic dramatist. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Saturday, 07 Oct 1995 12:46:05 +0100 Subject: SHK 6.0756 Re: Antonio and *MV* Wow! Bill Godshalk has REALLY been on the red wine!! Maybe if the discourse about "character" could be suspended, and replaced by a discourse which deals with representations, we might get a little further. It is interesting to see those of a liberal humanist persuasion (but whose liberalism becomes a rather red-necked conservatism (and violently so) bending over backwards to deny that The Merchant of Venice is, in very large part manifestly anti-semeitic. Have some valium on me Bill, John Drakakis ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 12:03:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0760 Q: Laughter in *Mac.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0760. Sunday, 8 October 1995. From: Jung Jimmy Date: Friday, 06 Oct 95 09:12:00 PDT Subject: Laughter in the Scottish play Recently, I saw a local production Macbeth, that has been well received by the critics. My own response was mixed. At the heart of my disappointment was laughter during the banquet scene. When Macbeth sees, and then doesn't see Banquo, there is a confusion among the dinner guests, but is the typical reaction from the audience laughter? jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 12:16:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0761 Re: Shakespeare Database CD-ROM Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0761. Sunday, 8 October 1995. (1) From: H. Joachim Neuhaus Date: Friday, 06 Oct 1995 15:34:38 EDT Subj: Correction: Shakespeare Database CD-ROM (2) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Friday, 6 Oct 1995 15:13:31 -0500 (CDT) Subj: shakespeare database cd-rom and other things (fwd) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. Joachim Neuhaus Date: Friday, 06 Oct 1995 15:34:38 EDT Subject: Correction: Shakespeare Database CD-ROM The Shakespeare Database CD-ROM by H. Joachim Neuhaus Olms Verlag, Hildesheim Germany ISBN 3-487-09915-2 Information about this forthcoming publication can be obtained in the World Wide Web: URL http://ves101.uni-muenster.de At the 47th Frankfurt Book-Fair (11 - 16 Oct. 95) the product will be on display: Halle 1.1 (Electronic Media) Stand G 1118 Telephone +49-69-7442979 Technical Specifications: for Windows 3.1 or higher, 8 MB RAM, XGA (1024 x 768) display, double speed CD-ROM drive Prices (all in Deutsche Mark) Subscription Prices (until 15 April 1996) Single User Version: 980 DM Network Version, 2-5 Users: 2,180 DM Network Version, more than 5 users: 4,380 DM Regular Prices Single User Version: 1,310 DM Network Version, 2-5 Users: 2,850 DM Network Version, more than 5 users: 5,700 DM H. Joachim Neuhaus (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Friday, 6 Oct 1995 15:13:31 -0500 (CDT) Subject: shakespeare database cd-rom and other things (fwd) I'm passing along a post I received re. the Shakespeare DATABASE cd-rom because it gives more detail and also tells of another Shakespeare cd-rom I haven't yet seen. Roger Gross Univ. of Arkansas ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dear Professor Gross, Prof. Joachin Neuhaus forwarded your email to him concerning the Shakespeare database to us, as our company is the North American distributor for the cd-rom's publisher, Georg Olms Verlag. Professor Neuhaus can answer questions about content, but not about pricing. However, he did tell me that supposedly there are new prices for subscribers and more than one user version. The problem is that I have not heard anything about that yet from Olms, and I probably won't be able to until the Frankfurt Book Fair closes. So it's a bit confusing. I think Olms prematurely announced the database before a lot of the details had been worked out, which is only adding to the confusion. I will try to find out as much as I can in the coming weeks and keep you in- formed. In the meantime, we do have another cd-rom entitled "Shakespeare: His Life, Times & Works," based on c. 5000 pages of manuscripts and documents from the 16th & 17th centuries. The menu offers 5 main sections: Prologue: The Life, which gives biographical details; Theatre, which examines the workings of the Elizabethan stage; The Social and Intellectual Contexts; Sources; and Texts, which contains the complete works in the original. Each section breaks down into a variety of subtopics offering descriptions and pictures of the actual documents which can then be read in close-up and printed out. Some of the texts included are John Aubrey's "Brief Life of Shakespeare"; Visscher's "View of London in 1660": Thomas Heywood's "Apology for Actors"; selections from Hakluyt's "Principal Navigations (1598-1600); and "The Hysterie of Hamlet" (1582), the only surviving copy, at Trinity College, Cambridge. Minimum requirements: PC386 with Windows, 4MB RAM, 8MB free on hard disk, DOS 3.1 or higher, VGA monitor. Price is $200. The publisher is World Microfilms, London (we're their N.A. agent). We also have other Shakespeare and drama collections on microfiche. If you would like me to send you a list of titles, please let me know. Very truly yours, Todd Bludeau Vice President Norman Ross Publishing 330 West 58th Street New York, NY 10019 tel: (800) 648-8850 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 12:37:26 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0762 Re: Importance; Cardenio; Universal; First Words Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0762. Sunday, 8 October 1995. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 6 Oct 1995 08:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0754 Re: Importance of Shakespeare (2) From: David Skeele Date: Friday, 06 Oct 95 14:00:33 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0758 Qs: Cardenio (3) From: Tom Clayton Date: Friday, 06 Oct 1995 13:05:54 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0755 Universal Human Experience (4) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 11:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0748 Re: First Words (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 6 Oct 1995 08:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0754 Re: Importance of Shakespeare I seem to be unable to express my thought, or perhaps I should say, question, without offence to Marcello Capuzzo (and probably others as well), so I should probably drop it, but in hopes that one more try will do it.... which is, that any culture that arrives at the crest of empire does so in part because of the qualities of the language it uses and spreads, and the ideas inherent in that language (for all language is sensitive to certain ideas and awkward with others), this being true of the Latin of the Romans, the Italian of the Renaissance, the Spanish of the Conquistadores, the French of Napoleon, and probably the Greek of Alexander. English is the language of the hour, and, if history is any guide to the future, it will in turn be superceded by another (perhaps Chinese). My critics here may well be correct, that it is weaponry alone that spreads culture. But I will continue to persist in my notion, however eroneous, that the weapons are but the right hand of an ongoing thrust of which language, language created to a great extent by literary artists, is the left hand. Nor do the languages that assist in these succeeding waves of culture blot out those that went before, but just as Latin absorbed Greek, Italian absorbed Latin, French and English absorbed much of the Italian of the Renaissance, so will whatever next language comes of necessity absorb much of English. Forgive me if these ideas offend. Stephanie Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Friday, 06 Oct 95 14:00:33 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0758 Qs: Cardenio In response to Robert Caisley's query regarding Cardenio, I saw the Pittsburgh production (or at least five scenes from it which they toured to a conference). What they did was actually a play that can only be reliably identified as The Second Maiden's Tragedy. This is a play that recently been attributed to Shakespeare, based solely on handwriting analysis (comparing it to signatures and to her writing on Shakespeare's wills). The play is good old bloodcurdling Jacobe an fun, but the language is far clumsier than even the worst that can be found in any other play attributed to Shakespeare--if the writing does indeed match t hat on the wills, I would be more inclined to ascribe the play to Shakespeare's lawyer. Whether or not the play is Shakespeare's, it is highly doubtful whether the play is in fact Cardenio. Cardenio is a "lost" play, and there is pretty good evidence to suggest that it existed, but there is very little to suggest that this script is it. There is infact no character in the Second Maiden's Tragedy named Cardenio. As I remember, the Pittsburgh production's director, Kev in Wetmore, had some interesting arguments as to why the title might have been changed--along with the characters' names--but they were entirely hypothetical. Hope this helps a little! David Skeele (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Friday, 06 Oct 1995 13:05:54 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0755 Universal Human Experience Thanks and congratulations to Erika Lin for astute and sensitive observations on human nature, an entity all too often and ludicrously denied by reference to diverse social conditionings. Cheers, Tom C (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 11:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0748 Re: First Words Regarding the first usages of words by Shakespeare, perhaps it is our use of the term "coin" that is questionable. As has been pointed out, there is no way for us to pin down with any certainty the first use of a word so long ago with so many texts lost and no way to know if the word was first used in conversation or compostion. "First known published use" might be a better term. With the burgeoning creation of a vernacular literature, not only Shakespeare, but most, if not all, his fellow writers were coming up with "new" words, some coined, some dug up out of old English, some modified from French, Italian, Spanish, and of course many derived from Latin. There are derisive references to the word-coining of certain writers in the plays and pamphlets of the day, in one play the satirized writer was forced to vomit out the obnoxious words he was trying to foist off on the public (Jonson writing against Harvey? Can't remember exactly what or where.). Regarding Nashe's use predating Shakespeare's, there are those who believe that the plays as we have them are the end products of several rounds of rewrites over the years, so that the word may well have been used by Shakespeare before Nashe. At the very least it seems right to claim for Shakespeare that he was far and away the most successful purveyor of "new" words, whether or no he himself actually invented them, for it has been through his works that such words have been seen and heard through reading of his works and attending his plays over many generations. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 12:43:17 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0763 Colloquium on The Tempest October 14 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0763. Sunday, 8 October 1995. From: Harry Keyishian Date: Friday, 6 Oct 1995 13:21:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Colloquium on The Tempest October 14 Shakespeareans in the NJ, NY, CT, PA area might wish to know of a day-long colloquium entitled "The Disputed Island: Shakespeare's The Tempest Today," to be held at the Madison, NJ campus of Fairleigh Dickinson University on Saturday, October 14, from 9:30 to 3:30. Speakers are: David Scott Kastan, Barbara Howard Traistor, James Lusardi, and June Schlueter. The colloquium is funded by the NJ Council on the Humanities, a state program of the NEH. Admission is free, but pre-registration is requested. Call 201 593-8564. Box lunches are available at $6.00; checks for box lunches (made out to FDU) must arrive by October 12. Write to Project Director: Harry Keyishian, Department of English Box 105A, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison NJ 07940 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 12:49:23 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0764 Help for Irwin Matus Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0764. Sunday, 8 October 1995. From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 8 Oct 1995 00:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Help for Irwin Matus I have received word that Irwin Matus, Shakespearean author and lecturer, has had some reversals of fortune through no fault of his own, and is living at present in a shelter for the homeless in Washington D.C. He is experienced in library work, research, and teaching, and is available for house-sitting. Matus is honest and trustworthy, and certainly deserving of a helping hand. If anyone has any leads for jobs or feels moved to assist a fellow Shakespearian in a more immediate way (i.e. cash) Matus can be reached at 202-722-1600, or through the Master Host Inn, 6711 George Ave.N.W., Washington D.C. 20012. Stephanie Hughes [Editor's Note: I too would encourage anyone who can help to help. --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 12:59:38 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0765 Welcome Back Ken Steele Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0765. Sunday, 8 October 1995. From: William Proctor Williams Date: Saturday, 07 Oct 95 19:09 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0748 Re: First Words It is nice, very nice, to see Ken back. [Editor's Note: Although I have done so privately, I would not like publically to join Professor Williams in welcoming Ken Steele back to SHAKSPER. Ken Steele was SHAKSPER's founder. Everyday I see the following and think of the great debt I owe to Ken: * SHAKSPER Electronic Conference - created 16 July 90 Ken, welcome back and best wishes, Hardy] ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 21:06:26 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0756 Welcome Back Ken Steele: Blushing Correction Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0766. Sunday, 8 October 1995. From: William Proctor Williams Date: Saturday, 07 Oct 95 19:09 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0748 Re: First Words It is nice, very nice, to see Ken back. [Editor's Note: Although I have done so privately, I would NOW like publically to join Professor Williams in welcoming Ken Steele back to SHAKSPER. Ken Steele was SHAKSPER's founder. Everyday I see the following and think of the great debt I owe to Ken: * SHAKSPER Electronic Conference - created 16 July 90 Ken, welcome back and best wishes, Hardy] Postscript: In my haste to rush to my nephew's first birthday party with modem problems that kept cutting me off, I seem as at least one of you has noted made a rather unfortunate typo. If I had not been so rushed, I would have lavished even greater praise on the man whose vision created this conference -- NB: conference was Ken's choice -- we all are such an integral part of, but now I'm tired and face my Monday 12-day-on-campus, so again Ken welcome back and thanks to all who keep me so busy. --Hardy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 15:50:48 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0766 Re: Importance of Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0766. Monday, 9 October 1995. (1) From: Paul Crowley Date: Sunday, 08 Oct 1995 19:34:39 GMT Subj: Importance of Shakespeare (2) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 20:09:35 +0100 Subj: Re: Importance of Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Crowley Date: Sunday, 08 Oct 1995 19:34:39 GMT Subject: Importance of Shakespeare I'd like to come in on the side of Stephanie Hughes in this debate. We are dealing with some very fundamental questions as to the relationship between literature and society as well as with the facts of history. First we must, as far as we can, eliminate the "moral" issue that Marcello Cappuzzo appears to be so sensitive about: "that behind a bigger gun there is necessarily a linguistically and culturally bigger man!" It is simply an historical fact of life, from long before Genghis Khan and up to and including Desert Storm, that those with the bigger guns have massacred and/or enslaved the others. And I am not an imperialistic Brit. My mother was born in sight of Kilcolman castle where Spenser was burnt out in 1598. My father was brought up near the place where Ralegh and Spenser, as officers in a force of 200 English soldiers, cold-bloodedly murdered 600 prisoners after promising them safety. "Lord Grey's word" is remembered around there as though it was last week. Our right to hate those "wolfish English Earls" goes back a long, long way. That's what they were like. But that's what people with guns are always like. It's almost futile to complain about it; it's certainly unhistorical. The first question is: How did the Brits and then the Americans become the world's most powerful nations? To summarize Western history in two lines we could say that they did it by having very stable governments. They got this from democracy - in a broad sense (many were excluded or had restricted rights). But within the group recognised as "citizens" the rule of law prevailed, rights were respected, freedom and the individual were recognised. The recognition of the individual is also the foundation stone of literature. Literature and the absence of tyranny (in other words: a broad democracy) go hand in hand. The strength of English literature can only be properly understood as arising from English civil liberty, and vice-versa. They are closely intertwined. English literature, effectively, starts from WS. And his influence was the deepest and most intense of all. Whether Joe Bloggs had heard of him, or used his words, is irrelevant. He affected all those that mattered - directly, or indirectly: Milton, Donne, Ben Jonson, Samuel Johnson. He was the favorite playwright of Elizabeth, James I and Charles I - and of all who mattered then, and from then on. It was not so much his language, although that was important; it was much more his attitudes, and those that he so well articulated; it was the sense of history, national identity and respect for the individual, that he expressed so eloquently. Literature, at least of the WS variety, is different from the other arts. You cannot come out from most of WS's plays and be in a mood prepared to tolerate tyranny. My Spanish is non-existent, and whether you can say the same for De Vega or Spanish literature in general I can't say; but looking at Spanish history, and that of other Spanish-speaking countries, I must express grave doubts. Paul Crowley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 20:09:35 +0100 Subject: Re: Importance of Shakespeare On Oct 7 Ms Stephanie Hughes wrote: I seem to be unable to express my thought, or perhaps I should say, question, without offence to Marcello Capuzzo [Cappuzzo] (and probably others as well), [...] .... which is, that any culture that arrives at the crest of empire does so in part because of the qualities of the language it uses and spreads, and the ideas inherent in that language (for all language is sensitive to certain ideas and awkward with others) [...]. My critics here may well be correct, that it is weaponry alone that spreads culture. But I will continue to persist in my notion, however eroneous, that the weapons are but the right hand of an ongoing thrust of which language, language created to a great extent by literary artists, is the left hand. It seems to me that the more Ms Hughes clarifies her original suggestions the higher and the thicker grows the wall that tends to separate her world from that of some other SHAKSPEReans, amongst whom myself. In her most recent posting Ms Hughes does not answer Robert Appelbaum's question ("So what [...] is the point of claiming that Shakespeare somehow invented our language?"), but I think that Ms Hughes' thought is now sufficiently clear and, from my point of view, almost totally unacceptable. As I understand it, Ms Hughes' great argument is modelled on Aristotle's syllogism (e.g., "all men are bound to die, all Greeks are men, therefore all Greeks are bound to die"): Shakespeare's inventions can be said to be of a special and superior quality, the English language is one (and the most important) of Shakespeare's inventions, therefore the English language can be said to be of a special and superior quality. The sentence 'works,' and, consequently, Appelbaum's insinuation that Ms Hughes' second proposition is perhaps not as credible as the correspondent premise in the above example of Aristotle's reasoning may well be ignored. After all, what really matters is one's own faith and one's intention to justify the ways of English to men; if a few (?) incorrigible pagans have something to say on this subject, well, surely their opinions do not deserve any direct response. Anyway, I must say I'm happy. At last I can perceive something in Ms Hughes' thought that perhaps I can agree with: weapons [of all kinds, I suppose -- and I hope I suppose well] are located on the right, language and culture on the left (see epigraph). But surely my happiness is not complete. Unfortunately, my personal idiom, sensitive to the concept of "weaponry" as, collectively, weapons of war, instruments of destruction and death, is decidedly awkward with the idea that "weaponry alone [...] spreads culture". Nor does my native culture (but I acknowledge that this is a serious limitation) allow me to misappropriate a thought that I haven't in the least contributed to conceive or express. Thus, alas, all the credit for this idea is to be given to Ms Hughes, perhaps, certainly not to me. Finally, I have a request and a supplication. May I ask Ms Hughes to make just one or two examples of the ideas that clearly characterize modern English and make it into "the most important" (Hughes, Sept 8) of all languages and cultures today? [I take the liberty of reminding Ms Hughes of the inspiring suggestions offered on this matter by certain French thinkers of the 18th century; of course, those people aimed at demonstrating the superior quality of their own language, but I'm sure that, if duly revised and adapted, many of their arguments and examples would readily embrace the case of American English.] As to my supplication, here it is: will Ms Hughes be so magnanimous as NOT to use the power of her Imperial Language to systematically deprive my poor family name of one of its two -- only two -- little supports. Thank you. Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 16:01:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0776 Re: Antonio and *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0767. Monday, 9 October 1995. (1) From: Sean Lawrence Date: Sunday, 8 Oct 1995 15:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0659 Re: Antonio and *MV* (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 08 Oct 1995 22:39:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0659 Re: Antonio and *MV* (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 08 Oct 1995 22:46:52 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0659 Re: Antonio and *MV* (4) From: John Owen Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 11:53:27 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0753 Re: Antonio and *MV* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Sunday, 8 Oct 1995 15:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0659 Re: Antonio and *MV* Given that Professor Godshalk hasn't been calling anyone names, I think Professor Drakakis should reconsider who needs valium to calm themselves down. Sincerely, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 08 Oct 1995 22:39:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0659 Re: Antonio and *MV* Regarding gaberdine and Bradley Berens' polite inquiry, apparently I was wrong again. I was going on hearsay evidence -- always bad, especially when I can't remember who I heard it from -- that the gaberdine was enforced on the Jews as a distinguishing costume. I just checked in my old 1947 Britannica which tells me that Jews wore the gaberdine because they, the Jews, were conservative dressers! I'm wondering if there is any good evidence that Jews were forced to wear the gaberdine. I'll ask some of my Judaic Studies friends. In any case, when Portia asks, "Which is the merchant here? and which the Jew?" (Riverside 4.1.174), I'm not sure how to take that question. Surely she can tell the merchant from the Jew? Is she playing at impartiality? Is the playwright trying to indicate some identity between the two? "You just can't tell them apart!" But I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the gaberdine would distinguish Shylock from Antonio. Are the questions a little joke? I find it also interesting that Portia knows Shylock's name (176), but talks about him as "the Jew" (182). That's always the way to make someone feel part of the group! Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 08 Oct 1995 22:46:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0659 Re: Antonio and *MV* For John Drakakis: (1) I surely didn't realize that Cultural Materialists were non-violent. (2) Anti-Semiticism is in the mind of the beholder. (3) Have a little wine for the stomach's sake, John! Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 11:53:27 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0753 Re: Antonio and *MV* Messrs. Young and Green have covered this ground so neatly that I will only clarify some details of my earlier post which have been misrepresented. Chris Stroffolino - "Granted, Owen is not the only one who argues that we can't accept both Antonio as a hero and everyone else" Well, I said Shylock, not Antonio. Aside from that, I am not arguing for an Either/Or Venice. Quite the reverse -- I am arguing for a Venice where each character is allowed the full scope of his/her personality. This means that I accept the attack on Antonio's anti-semitism -- his behavior toward Shylock is appalling; however, he is also an honest and generous friend who behaves with such exceptional kindness to Bassanio that some critics detect the motive of homoeroticism. But I insist that Shylock's flaws be recognized in equal proportion -- the moneylender is a member of a brutally oppressed minority, and posesses intelligence, humor and passionate human feelings, but he is an unscrupulous businessman who will commit murder to remove a hated business rival. Mr. Stroffolino's remarks show every sign of haste, so I assume that the staggeringly naive implication that everyone in the play can be a "hero" (note the simplification -- I used the term "tragic hero" in my original post) was unintended. As for progressive criticism, I am surprised that there are critics who still believe that Shakespearean criticism can exist outside of some moral framework. "With Kottlike tread, upon our prey we steal"? J.O. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 16:17:51 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0768 Qs: Neoplatonism; Rom CD-ROM; Rosalind Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0768. Monday, 9 October 1995. (1) From: Alison Horton Date: Sunday, 8 Oct 1995 12:09:43 -0700 Subj: Neoplatonism (2) From: Jim Swan Date: Monday, 09 Oct 1995 10:29:53 -0400 (EDT) Subj: R&J CD-ROM (3) From: Naell Dennaoui Date: Monday, 09 Oct 1995 12:37:50 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Any thoughts on Rosalind? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alison Horton Date: Sunday, 8 Oct 1995 12:09:43 -0700 Subject: Neoplatonism In the Riverside introduction to MND, Anne Barton mentions recent arguments concerning Shakespeare and neoplatonism but she doesn't mention any names. Anyone know who? Has there been much recent work done? This issue seems to be looming large on my critical horizon at this point so any help would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks ahorton@uclink2.berkeley.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Swan Date: Monday, 09 Oct 1995 10:29:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: R&J CD-ROM Has anyone seen or used a new CD-ROM of _Romeo_ developed by the BBC and Attica Cybernetics in the UK? I ran across a review lately in "CD-ROM Power" magazine, which rated it highly (a 9 out of a possible 10). It is designed to run under Windows. Apparently it combines footage from the BBC TV production and two documentaries (_Shakespeare in Perspective_, _The Story of English_) with contributions on the history and culture of the English Renaissance. It offers six ways to explore its offerings: Background, Plot, Performance, Characters, Language, and Themes--plus access to the text, which is "footnoted" via hypertext (click on a word or phrase, and an explanation pops up). Unhappily, the review fails to say whether it is sold in the US, or what the address of Attica Cybernetics is. Has anyone in SHAKSPER space used this CD-ROM? Is it as good as the review says? Jim Swan SUNY at Buffalo (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naell Dennaoui Date: Monday, 09 Oct 1995 12:37:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Any thoughts on Rosalind? Hey Everyone, Does anyone have any refreshing thoughts on Rosalind...I need to find some new and unexplored territory to cover. Reply to nwd1@axe.humboldt.edu Thanks very much Naell ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 16:22:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0769 Re: Hughes' Goddess; Laughter in *Mac.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0769. Monday, 9 October 1995. (1) From: Howard Weinberg Date: Sunday, 8 Oct 95 16:10:28 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0758 Qs: Hughes' Goddess; (2) From: Norman J. Myers Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 14:41:18 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0760 Q: Laughter in *Mac.* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Howard Weinberg Date: Sunday, 8 Oct 95 16:10:28 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0758 Qs: Hughes' Goddess; re: Ted Hughes S& the Goddess I agree with Michael Sexson that this is an astonishingly stimulating book. Its the reason I started working through the Shakespeare Corpus several years ago, and thus responsible for my presence on the list. The lack of scholarly apparatus doesn't bother me: this is one poet commenting on the work of another. What excites me is Hughes' ability to trace a conflict phrased in mythological terms, a problem, as it were that Shakespeare is working out from Venus and Adonis through to the Tempest, a resolution he eventually accomplishes without violence, in the midst of the barely contained cold war of archetypes and religions over which Elizabeth and James preside. That Hughes calls Shakespeare's work the " national epic" of the English makes perfect sense to me, and makes the work relevant in ways I had not appreciated before. I don't mind that the book is remaindered. It makes it cheaper for me to buy copies and give them to my friends. Howard Weinberg (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 14:41:18 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0760 Q: Laughter in *Mac.* On October 6, "Jung Jimmy" wrote: >Recently, I saw a local production Macbeth, that has been well received by the >critics. My own response was mixed. At the heart of my disappointment was >laughter during the banquet scene. When Macbeth sees, and then doesn't see >Banquo, there is a confusion among the dinner guests, but is the typical >reaction from the audience laughter? Well, it would depend on what was going on on stage, wouldn't it? In James Thurber's wonderful short story "The Macbeth Murder Mystery," an American woman who's a mystery story fanatic regards Macbeth as a murder mystery and doesn't believe Macbeth did it. She says something to the effect that "A big strong man like that doesn't go around seeing ghosts. He was protecting somebody." Perhaps all in this production that had preceeded the banquet scene suggested that Macbeth was, indeed, a big strong man who wouldn't see ghosts, and the audience laughed accordingly when he did see one. Most of the time audiences (or students) tell us something we didn't know about our productions (or our classroom teaching of the play)--or perhaps something we didn't really *want* to know. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 16:24:23 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0770 Hypertext Edition of *A Midsummer Night's Dream* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0770. Monday, 9 October 1995. From: Stan Beeler Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 12:00:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hypertext edition of _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ I would like to announce the net publication of a hypertext edition of Shakespeare's _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ by Jacqueline Siedlecki. This edition was created by a student in the UNBC interdisciplinary MA program as a course project under my supervision. This is not just a rendering of the text in html format. It includes an extensive set of references. The address is http://quarles.unbc.edu/midsummer Stan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 17:19:01 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0771 Re: Antonio and *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0771. Tuesday, 11 October 1995. (1) From: John Owen Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 15:14:44 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0776 Re: Antonio and *MV* (2) From: David M Richman Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 17:40:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0776 Re: Antonio and *MV* (3) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 09 Oct 1995 19:16:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0776 Re: Antonio and *MV* (4) From: Stanley Hoberg Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 10:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Antonio and *MV* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 15:14:44 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0776 Re: Antonio and *MV* Sean Lawrence offers an untargeted rebuke for name-calling. So far, no one is guilty of this. Drakakis was out of line, but I cannot see what value there is in misrepresenting the nature of his offense, unless it be to escalate this thread's heady abandonment of rationality. Speaking of misrepresentation, just what is this statement of Godshalk's? "John Owen seems to suggest that Shylock skins Antonio "alive in public,"" This is completely untrue. I stated that Shylock ATTEMPTS to skin Antonio alive. That he fails in the attempt is no fault of his own. With tempers running high, we should be clinging desparately to clarity and precision even in disagreement. J.O. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 17:40:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0776 Re: Antonio and *MV* Considering that, all hatred driven hence, The soul recovers radical innocence.--W. B. Yeats No soul in *MV* is innocent. The hatred of Shylock taints the Christians, even in their professions of generosity and mercy. Shylock is bent and warped into a monstrous shape. Finally, and it is a long devolution, he is indeed the wolf-descended monster of Gratiano's description. (Gratiano is a chattering monster of another description.) I find it instructive to regard this play as a represenation of mutual hatreds feeding each other fat. "You called me dog before you had a cause." Is a play about anti-Semitism necessarily an anti-Semitic play? David Richman University of New Hampshire (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 09 Oct 1995 19:16:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0776 Re: Antonio and *MV* Dear John Owen--thank you for responding to my admittedly "hasty" note-- Yes, I KNOW you said Shylock--I was addressing the larger "either/or" question and perhaps my desire to move the argument onto the "aesthetic" and "formal" plane rather than the "moral" or "ethical" one is, by itself, problematic--I'm just arguing for such a reading as a necessary supplement-- for I contend that the play definitely registers the LOSS of Shylock and the voice given to him as a LOSS (hence all the disaapointment about music etc in the last scene, lurking beneath the "comic resolution"), but that this play is more about the generic difference between comedy and "tragedy" in many ways--The function of Gratiano (who in many ways is more realistic than bassanio to the tone) becomes significant here, as do many other issues I can't go into here-- I do wish to address the question of HUMOURS in this play-- for, this play seems to be the closest Shakespeare comes to a comedy of humours. When Bill Godshalk asks about "who is the merchant, who is the jew" I th ink this could be read metadramatically as about the thinness of distinction--after all, Antonio in the first scene THREATENS to become a tragic-hero, but doesn't have enough energy for it and Gratiano's speech about who Antonio SHOULDN"T BE is in some ways a description of a tragic hero... It's plausible to me that Shylock is Shakespeare's attempt to try out the convention of a "tragic hero" in a play that doesn't make any room for it. Another side point, I'd like to raise---Portia's suitors---the second suitor in some ways (her description) resembles ANtonio and the 3rd one resembles Gratiano (the first one is similar to Bassanio, but more like Morroco--but both are braggarts). Anyway, this is another "hasty" note--if yu'd like to see my paper on the play I'd be happy to send it---Chris Stroffolino (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stanley Hoberg Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 10:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Antonio and *MV* I am not entirely sure whether Bill Goshalk and I agree or disagree about Antonio's lines at the end of III.iii. I think that Antonio is sayi, foreign traders who profit from Venice's mecantile arrangements will find the city blameworthy, unworthy of their trust if they observe that Venice does not uphold its uphold its laws (since these laws are supposed to uphold the mercantile arrangements), and the damage to the city will be great because all nations trade with us and contribute to our trade and profit. Surely Antonio is not speaking for the Duke, but he seems to be voicing an attitude that is common among the city's merchants. We do agree on the point that Antonio "implies that the justice of the state cannot be impeached because of economic, NOT ethical reasons." --Stan Holberg ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 17:22:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0772 Virtual *H5*; Decorum Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0772. Tuesday, 11 October 1995. (1) From: Marilyn Mosher Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 18:28:25 -0300 Subj: Virtual Henry V (2) From: Terry Ross Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 17:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Decorum (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marilyn Mosher Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 18:28:25 -0300 Subject: Virtual Henry V The following site contains a hyper-texted Henry V, including movie clips from both the Kenneth Branagh and Olivier films, still photos, and definitions of archaic terms: http://sec-look.uiowa.edu/henry/preface.html Marilyn Mosher (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Ross Date: Monday, 9 Oct 1995 17:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Decorum Judging by several recent contributions, one might be forgiven for thinking SHAKSPER members a touchy and testy lot. If I want to read flames, I can go to "alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die" or some such newsgroup. If there must be invective, at least let it be Shakespearean (e.g., "You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things"). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 17:27:49 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0772 Re: Neoplatonism; Rosalind; Importance of Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0773. Tuesday, 11 October 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 09 Oct 1995 19:20:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0768 Qs: Neoplatonism (2) From: Sarah Cave Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 08:37:34 EST Subj: Re: Thoughts on Rosalind (3) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 17:11:18 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0766 Re: Importance of Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 09 Oct 1995 19:20:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0768 Qs: Neoplatonism Dear Alison Horton--Peggy Munoz Simond's recent book on CYMBELINE (1992, Assoc. Univ. Press) provides a good background on much Neoplatonic thought in Shakespeare and much of this could be usefully applied to MND.....chris (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Cave Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 08:37:34 EST Subject: Re: Thoughts on Rosalind SHAKESPERians: In response to Naell Dennoui's request for insights on Rosalind, would you mind posting replies to all of us? I, too am looking for some interesting ideas regarding AYLI, but especially this strong female character. Thank you. Sarah Cave (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 17:11:18 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0766 Re: Importance of Shakespeare What makes Paul Crowley so sure that Shakespeare produced 'Literature'? He didn't. And what makes him so sure that you can't come from a performance of most of the plays 'in a mood prepared to tolerate tyranny'? Audiences in Nazi Germany did. Finally, who decides who 'all those who matter' are? Terence Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 17:32:36 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0774 Re: Shakespeare on CD ROM Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0774. Tuesday, 11 October 1995. (1) From: Stephen Gagen Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 04:26:41 +1000 (EST) Subj: Re: R and J CD-ROM (2) From: Michael Best Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 13:02:40 -0700 Subj: Shakespeare on CD ROM (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Gagen Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 04:26:41 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: R and J CD-ROM >Has anyone seen or used a new CD-ROM of _Romeo_ developed by the BBC and Attic >a Cybernetics in the UK? I ran across a review lately in "CD-ROM Power" >magazine which rated it highly (a 9 out of a possible 10). It is designed to >run under Windows. I have just acquired this CD-ROM and it seems to live up to its promise. The BBC was most unhelpful in supplying this CD. I read a review in "BBC Worldwide" magazine some months ago, and tried to get a copy from them. I faxed and phoned them in London, and after being passed from branch to branch was eventually told they do not sell overseas except through their agents. Their agents in Australia did not stock it, and had never heard of it. Then, miracles of miracles, a solitary copy turned up in my local computer store, in a job-lot of CD-ROMs the owner had bought in. On the subject of Shakespeare CD-ROMs, I was very disappointed in Voyager's Macbeth (for the Mac), which I bought at the same time: it is very slow in operation, has a cumbersome installation procedure, and has very poor quality video clips, and not many of them. Both these CD-ROMs were reviewed in the May edition of "Computers and Texts", published by the Office for Humanities Communication, Oxford, UK. The review said that the R and J CD-ROM could be obtained from Attica Cybernetics, Unit Two, Kings Meadow, Ferry Hinksey Road, Oxford OX2 0DP, Telephone +441865 791346, Fax +441865 794561. Stephen J. Gagen. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 13:02:40 -0700 Subject: Shakespeare on CD ROM The original query about Shakespeare CD ROMs was asking for information about those available for teaching. I know of at least three that are up and running, including my own _Shakespeare's Life and Times_ (no relation to the similarly named product recently mentioned on the list from Norman Ross Publishing). Several other projects of varying ambition are in the works. Those here are all at the level of senior high school / introductory university. _Shakespeare's Life and Times_ allows students to introduce themselves to the renaissance background of the plays: life, stage; social, historical, intellectual and literary backgrounds; colour graphics, renaissance music, some video clips. The texts are there too, but are not fully edited versions, mainly provided for convenient cut-and-paste and for a hypertext concordance. The hard drive version of the program was reviewed for this list by Nate Johnson a couple of years ago. Macintosh only. $89.00. (Site licence available.) Order from Intellimation. PO Box 1922 130 Cremona Drive Santa Barbara CA 93116-1922 Tel: 800-3INTELL Fax: 805-686-9685 _Macbeth_ (ed. A.R. Braunmuller) is available from Voyager. Based on the Braunmuller's New Cambridge text, includes critical commentary, sources, sound (complete) and video (selected scenes). Macintosh. $50.00. 578 Broadway Suite 406 New York N.Y. 10012, Tel: 212-431-5199 Fax: 212-431-5799 _Romeo and Juliet_ will be available from CAMBRIX Publishing (they say in the next couple of weeks). Windows. No price quoted, but is about 50 pounds in the UK. I've heard some good things about it but have not seen it. 6269 Variel Avenue, Suite B Woodland Hills CA 91367 Tel: 800 446-2001 Fax: 818-992-8781 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 09:07:17 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0775 Re: *MV* and Antonio Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0775. Wednesday, 11 October 1995. (1) From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 18:07 ET Subj: MV and the Law (2) From: John Boni Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 17:05:36 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0771 Re: Antonio and *MV* (3) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 13:54:11 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0776 Re: Antonio and *MV* (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 21:56:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0771 Re: Antonio and *MV* (5) From: Naomi Liebler Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 95 01:01:00 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0771 Re: Antonio and *MV* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 18:07 ET Subject: MV and the Law Not wishing to oversimplify anything, let me nevertheless suggest that there are generic as well as local reasons why the Duke cannot abrogate the law. It's a general feature of comic plots to spring from situations where law or custom restrain life-giving or life-seeking desire from achieving its goal, even when the law or custom is manifestly irrational or irrelevant. At the beginning of _Err_, the Duke must deny his expressed sympathy for Egeus and condemn him do death if he cannot find his bail. At the beginning of _MND_ Theseus must pass sentence on Hermione at her father's insistence: death or the convent if she refuses to marry Demetrius. The irrationality of the feud supplies the ground in which _Rom_'s initial comic movements have their roots. At the beginning of _Mer_ Portia is constrained by the terms of her father's world. (Tragedies, by contrast, are likely to take off from acts--of those in authority, not those subjected--that deny or violate law or custom, such as Titus's effective denial of the responsibilities of fathers or Lear's division of the kingdom.) Under the circumstances it is predictable that the Duke will plead helplessness. The development of comic plots, to be sure, leads by processes that on close inspection almost always look arbitrary to the abandonment of legal or customary rigidity. Theseus decides that he can override Egeus after all. The Duke of Ephesus rescinds the fine. The implication here is that in the comic world actions do not necessarily have their normal consequences. By the same token, in the tragic world causality is remorseless. Somebody in the current discussion (it's not a thread, it's a frigging hawser!) suggests that Shylock is a tragic character (sorry, representation) trapped in a comic plot--where, indeed, he escapes the strictest letter of the law on which he has, of course, insisted--that is, is obliged to accept the consequences of life in a world of inescapable linear causality. Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 17:05:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0771 Re: Antonio and *MV* I agree with Terry Ross' call for decorum in our discourse. Regarding Antonio & Shylock, perhaps it has all been said, but then, perhaps about Shakespeare it has all been said. Years ago, I reached the conclusion that Shakespeare had painted himself into an artistic corner with Shylock, allowing a character (or an element of the overall design) to become too large for the play (the design). A novelist friend told me she was having trouble with a work in progress because she had become too interested in a major character. The remarks about the interplay of the conventions of tragedy and comedy in *MV* seem to the point. And there is another way to look at it, Shakespeare's wonderful, maddening tendency to give with one hand and take away with the other. In *Shakespeare and the Common Understanding* Norman Rabkin treats that idea, the presence of unresolved opposites, very thoroughly. I tell my students to think while reading Shakespeare of a continual process of "yes/but." So here. No, the Venetian Christians aren't all that forgiving. But, then, perhaps what Shylock has attempted would stretch any human's creed of forgiveness. And, yes, Shylock has been horrible to Antonio, but then no one appreciates being rated and spat upon in public. Is a play about anti-Semitism necessarily an anti-Semitic play?, asks David Richman. Not necessarily. (Witness, say, *The Deputy*.) But, it is likely, isn't it, that a liberal-minded Shakespeare writing for a mostly educated twentieth-century, mostly liberal audience might have drawn his Jew slightly less fanged. He was "of an age." Recently, I viewed *The King of Comedy*, a favorite film. My viewing companion described it as a film in which no character is likeable. Is that the case with *MV*? John Boni Northeastern Illinois University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 13:54:11 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0776 Re: Antonio and *MV* In a recent post John Owen remarked that Shylock's business dealings are unscrupulous enough that he "will commit murder to remove a hated business rival." I would just like to point out that in normal cases of murder, the victim does not have much of a choice. Antonio does. I am not trying to take anything away from Shylock's general nastiness, but I am shocked at the amount of Antonio apologia and justifications for his clear anti-semitism that is coming over this line. Antonio goes into the bargain with Shylock against the protests of his friend Bassanio and with so much macho bravura that it is a REAL stretch to refer to it as generosity. Shirley Kagan (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 21:56:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0771 Re: Antonio and *MV* My apologies to John Owen for misquoting him. John wrote: "Nor does Antonio try to skin Shylock alive in public." Actually, Shylock is to have "A pound of flesh . . . /Nearest the merchant's heart" (Riverside 4.1.232-3). I perhaps was objecting to John's allusion to flaying -- which is not in the text. And, yes, I agree that we should try to be civil. My communications may sound angry, and, if so, I apologize. I obviously like to argue a point (any point will do!), and I may get carried away. Yours, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 95 01:01:00 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0771 Re: Antonio and *MV* Regarding Bill Godshalk's most recent spewing: "Antisemiticism [sic] is in the eye of the beholder." This time you've gone too far, Bill. Whom have you been talking to? Louis Farrakhan? Leonard Jeffries? What's next? The holocaust never happened? This latest in your seemingly endless string of thoughtless, undisciplined, downright ignorant abuses of this list is finally intolerable. I'm not sure whether I am more offended by your antisemitic vomit or by the fact that absolutely no one on this list has called you out on it. I had to wait 24 hours before I could calm down enough even to write this. And don't bother to offer your usual "Gee, I guess I was wrong; I didn't really mean THAT." I won't accept it. If you "didn't mean it," then you are only an irresponsible jerk; if you did mean it, then there are a few other things I can think of to call you, perhaps most notably neo-nazi racist. And let's have no whimpering about how we should all be too professional to "call names." If you think antisemitism is "in the eye of the beholder," I can send you a list of the names of my relatives whose ashes never left Auschwitz. Their eyes beheld altogether too much of what you deny. "Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?"--Cicero. "Never again."--The survivors and the remnant, and we mean it. --Naomi Liebler ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 10:23:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0776 Re: Importance of Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0776. Wednesday, 11 October 1995. (1) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 18:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0766 Re: Importance of Shakespeare (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 22:12:03 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0772 Re: Importance of Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 18:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0766 Re: Importance of Shakespeare From Paul Crowley: 1. > The first question is: How did the Brits and then the Americans become the > world's most powerful nations? To summarize Western history in two lines we > could say that they did it by having very stable governments. They got this > from democracy - in a broad sense (many were excluded or had restricted > rights). But within the group recognised as "citizens" the rule of law > prevailed, rights were respected, freedom and the individual were recognised. However, the sailors who manned the great British Navy were frequently impressed. The wealth that the British and Americans acquired during the 18th century was frequently achieved through the sale and exploitation of slaves (millions -- literally millions -- of them). The land the Americans exploited was literally stolen from the Native Americans, millions of whom died for the sake of stability of "democracy." The land the British exploited was literally stolen from more peoples than I have the space here to mention, millions of whom died for the sake of "King and Country." And the violation of the rights of American and British citizens by the American and British governments is a central part of British and American history. Conversely, the Swiss Confederacy has been practising representative government longer than any Anglophone nation; and it has never, as far as I know, conquered any foreign country. Obversely, the Russian nation had a stable government without even the suggestion of representative democracy; and its own empire, though it collapsed five years ago, lasted longer than the United States has lasted so far as a nation. 2. > > The recognition of the individual is also the foundation stone of literature. > Literature and the absence of tyranny (in other words: a broad democracy) go > hand in hand. This is plain hooey. There is no record of King James summoning Parliament and granting it new rights in the aftermath of attending a play by Shakespeare. There is, however, a record of SHAKSPERians mistaking hegemony for democracy and conquest for culture; and there is a record of SHAKSPERians dismissing the dignity of other cultures, other languages, and other peoples in the name of "literature" and "freedom." Robert Appelbaum UC Berkeley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 10 Oct 1995 22:12:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0772 Re: Importance of Shakespeare Terence Hawkes asks: >What makes Paul Crowley so sure that Shakespeare produced 'Literature'? He >didn't. And what makes him so sure that you can't come from a performance of >most of the plays 'in a mood prepared to tolerate tyranny'? Audiences in Nazi >Germany did. {Apparently Tudor and Stuart audiences did too!} Finally, who decides who 'all those who matter' are? I'd say that Shakespeare produced "literature" IF we say he produced literature. Each of us can decide what we think Shakespeare produced. Some folks may have a cruder noun to described his output! But as Terry suggests, let's not allow our enthusiasm for the Big S to cloud our vision. The study of Shakespeare will not make students "better people or citizens." And most Americans (I wouldn't speak for other nationalities) don't think of Shakespeare every day, nor do they find his plays essential reading. Those of us who read, study, and enjoy Shakespeare's poems and plays are in a distinct minority. Are we a "culture" onto ourselves? Can we demand cultural recognition? Are we culturally better than the Joyceans? Yours, cynically, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:32:10 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0777 Re: Re: *MV* and Antonio Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0777. Thursday, 12 October 1995. (1) From: Sam Schimek Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 09:11:48 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0775 Re: *MV* and Antonio (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 12:56:40 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0775 Re: *MV* and Antonio (3) From: John Owen Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 13:59:30 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0775 Re: *MV* and Antonio (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 16:01:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0775 Re: *MV* and Antonio (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Schimek Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 09:11:48 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0775 Re: *MV* and Antonio First of all, thank you to all Shakespeareans for the lively debate. Unfortunately it is now a little too lively for my tastes. Now that the discssion has reached exactly the point that I wished to avoid (i.e. Ms. Lieber's posting), I would like to attempt to return the question to those raised in my orginal posting. Namely, the presentation of Antonio in *performance*. 1) Antonio & Bassanio's potential homosexuality: Was this mined on stage? Did it undermine of help the performance? Did it give Antonio more dramatic power as an outsider a la Shylock? 2) Antonio's Anti-Semitism: How was this presented to the audience? How was it received? Was it glossed over in order to compliment the numerous "good Antonio" speeches? 3) Antonio as Christ-figure: Was this addressed overtly, left as an undercurrent or ignored? Was any stage-symbolism milked from this? 4) In general, what was the final opinion of the play? Worthy of production or racist script that offends? While my opinion is of the former, one cannot overlook the large body of opinion leaning towards the latter. Then again, being offensive never alone makes a play unworthy of production. As is obvious by the discussion, this script is difficult to present with emotions overtaking intellectual considerations. Mr. Godshalk can defend himself, but I think we must raise our defenses and thicken our skins a little more in this debate. Offense was not intended, it was placed there. As I am sure the error of my ways will be pointed out, please send them to my e-mail address, personal criticism of other people is tedious to read. Thanks to all, Sam Schimek (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 12:56:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0775 Re: *MV* and Antonio Naomi Liebler writes: >Regarding Bill Godshalk's most recent spewing: "Antisemiticism [sic] is in the >eye of the beholder." This time you've gone too far, Bill. Whom have you been >talking to? Louis Farrakhan? Leonard Jeffries? Sorry for the misspelling. (I'll take twenty points from my grade for the misspelling and for spewing in public. Always bad form,. my ma said.) What I meant was that -- in regard to this play -- anti-Semitism seems to be a matter of individual reading. We do not ALL agree that this play is anti-Semitic. The play is not transparently a barb aimed at all or even some or one Jew -- so I read. I don't feel threatened by this play. (I do feel threatened by Nazis, Auschwitz {see Oswiecim}, the KKK, bad drivers, etc.) To my way of thinking, the play may be anti-Christian or even anti-human. I find a very dark underside to this play, reading against genre imperatives. I find the cynical "conversion" of Shylock especially distressing. Antonio reveals no deeply religious side to his "dramatic figure." He has no priest at his side as he prepares to die; he wants Bassanio instead. BUT he insists that Shylock become a Christian. Why? Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 13:59:30 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0775 Re: *MV* and Antonio "I would just like to point out that in normal cases of murder, the victim does not have much of a choice." Recall, Shirley, that Shylock represents the penalty as a joke and that Antonio treats it that way, calling it a "merry bond". He would certainly not do this if he had any idea that he would have to pay this insane penalty, or that Shylock would insist on it. Yes, Antonio is stupid above and beyond the call of the plot for not recognizing the level of hatred he has provoked in Shylock, but murder is not justified by the foolishness of the victim. "I am not trying to take anything away from Shylock's general nastiness," General nastiness? "but I am shocked at the amount of Antonio apologia and justifications for his clear anti-semitism that is coming over this line." As far as I know, no one has attempted to justify anti-semitism in Antonio or in anyone else. If you have a specific example, produce it. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding at the root of this which can only be dispelled through discussion. If you intended to accuse anyone here of anti-semitism and then retire from the accusation under the cloak of vagueness, I challenge the statement and request that you either clarify or retract your remark. Unfortunately, there can be little doubt that Shakespeare shared some of the anti-semitism of his environment and that this attitude has crept into his plays. Attempts to deny that Shylock is drawn as a primarily villainous character may spring from an unwillingness to believe that the most celebrated author in the English language possessed a serious and extraordinarily repellent character flaw. But it serves no one's interest to deny that flaw, even if it seems mitigated by Shylock's virtues and Shakespeare's rather enlightened awareness of his sufferings. The sensible course is to admit the problem, discuss its implications on teaching MOV in the classroom and performing it in public, and exploit whatever shadow of a consensus we can arrive at. The irrational course is . . . .well, we're living that, aren't we? Can an anti-semitic play be about anti-semitism? John Owen (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 16:01:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0775 Re: *MV* and Antonio I find myself more disturbed by Naomi Liebler's attack than I, perhaps, should be. In any case, I am driven to point out the specific context of my remark: "(2) Anti-Semiticism is in the mind of the beholder." My generalization is aimed precisely and only at John Drakakis's comment. This is the context: "It is interesting to see those of a liberal humanist persuasion (but whose liberalism becomes a rather red-necked conservatism (and violently so) bending over backwards to deny that The Merchant of Venice is, in very large part manifestly anti-semeitic. Have some valium on me Bill, John Drakakis" (Apparently neither of us can spell anti-Semitic or anti-Semitism.) But my point is (and was) that the reader or the auditor of *MV* determines whether or not the play is anti-Semitic. I was not thinking of (or denying the existence of) anti-Semiticism in Nazi Germany. Perhaps Naomi's evaluation of my thought processes is correct, but I'm not stupid enough to doubt the Holocaust. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:43:22 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0778 Q: Jonson/Jones Feud; Reading Q (w/ MV Comments); MV Sequel Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0778. Thursday, 12 October 1995. (1) From: Michael Field Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 11:33:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Jonson & Jones (2) From: Kay Pilzer Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 20:25:57 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Decorum and Delight (3) From: Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 03:05:21 -0400 Subj: Merchant of Venice (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Field Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 11:33:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Jonson & Jones I am interested in the infamous feud between Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones and wonder if any SHAKSPERians can recommend books--including, possibly, novels or other works of fiction--that might throw additional light on this subject. Thanks, as always, for your help in this matter. Mike Field (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kay Pilzer Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 20:25:57 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Decorum and Delight My thanks to Bill Godshalk (I've blipped the message already, so I shall spell your name creatively) and Naomi Liebler for demonstrating that academic sorts are real people--prick us and we bleed, too. As a lurker on SHAKSPER for the past year, I've enjoyed watching the ebbs and energies of so many different sorts of discussions. As a graduate student, I have been comforted by exhibitions of folly and inspired by exhibitions of wisdom. This latest exchange puzzles me: this Bill person doesn't seem like a monster, and I often have read his postings with interest and edification. Could there be a context problem for the statement Naomi responded to? *MV* depends on anti-semitism in the way that, well, all of Shakespeare's stuff seems to depend on misogyny. It seems to me that our job, then, is to see how these plays negotiate and exploit--and often negate--the assumptions on which they're built. In that sense, then, anti-semitism or misogyny or imperialism or racism or tyranny all are, in a real sense, in the eyes of us beholders. And, since I've finally summoned the courage to post to the list: I'm in the process of designing my reading list for exams--and thanks to so many of you who have already contributed to it. So: I have a sort of desert-isle question: If you could recommend only ONE book to a graduate student to read as a supplement to her work on Shakespeare and the Early Modern Period, what would it be? I look forward to your suggestions Kay Pilzer Vanderbilt University (pilzerkl@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 03:05:21 -0400 Subject: Merchant of Venice With all the intense feelings on this subject, I hesitate to enter the fray, but I have a need, so here goes. I am a playwright. I spent the last year in a workshop sponsored by the Mark Taper Forum here in Los Angeles. I have written a sequel to the Merchant of Venice and would like to get some informed feedback on the script from people who know and love Shakespeare. Please do not ask to see the script if you aren't actually going to take the time to read it and get back to me soon. I've had more than enough of that kind of thing. A workshop production, where I could get the play on its feet in front on an audience would really be great, for all you courageous drama professors out there. A breif synopsis: The play opens with the arrival of Daniel and Jessica at Belmont. Daniel is the son of Jessica and Lorenzo, and is ignorant of his Jewish blood, Jessica having chosen to hide it from him and the family staying away from Venice all this time. Then Tubal arrives at Belmont to annouce Shylock's death. He is trying to get word to Jessica through Portia, the only way he knows of to reach her. So, the truth having come out, Daniel embarks on an identity quest which in effect reverses the "conversion" of Shylock and renews the Christian's conflict with him through his grandson. Finally, yes, I am aware of the A.R. Gurney sequel that opened this summer at the Old Globe. I saw it, and I've corresponded with Mr. Gurney. My sequel has nothing to do with his, the two plays are nothing alike. I'm looking for feedback on my play, not his. Thank you very much. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:56:23 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0779 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0779. Thursday, 12 October 1995. (1) From: Michele Crescenzo Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 95 12:57:37 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0776 Re: Importance of Shakespeare (2) From: Michael Harrawood Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 10:25:24 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: The Triumph of English; was Importance (3) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 18:51:51 +0100 Subj: Shakespeare & Democracy (was Importance of WS) (4) From: Paul Crowley Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 22:38:20 GMT Subj: Importance of Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michele Crescenzo Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 95 12:57:37 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0776 Re: Importance of Shakespeare I'd like to join in the fray here, and write in earnest about the Importance of Shakespeare. First, bravo to Robert Appelbaum, who writes: > [...] Conversely, the Swiss > Confederacy has been practising representative government longer than any > Anglophone nation; and it has never, as far as I know, conquered any foreign > country. Colonialism, slavery, the genocide of Native Americans, etc., have more to do with British and American power than "democracy" or the "superiority" of the English language. And let's face it, when did you last read a poem in Swiss? Appelbaum goes on to say: > [...] [The assertion that the recognition of the individual is also the > foundation stone of literature] is plain hooey. There is no record of > King James summoning Parliament and granting it new rights in the > aftermath of attending a play by Shakespeare. > There is, however, a record of SHAKSPERians mistaking hegemony for democracy > and conquest for culture; and there is a record of SHAKSPERians dismissing the > dignity of other cultures, other languages, and other peoples in the name of > "literature" and "freedom." And to this I would add, if literature glorifies the individual that is because the literature that has been canonized has a specific political and cultural world view. Marxist literature, for example, tends to favor group over individual experience; it is also dismissed as "propaganda." I see no *inherent* connection between literature and the individual. W. L. Godshalk, to me, sums this up in saying, > I'd say that Shakespeare produced "literature" IF we say he produced > literature. Finally, a list member recently accused the participants in this debate of "flaming." To me this has been a lively and interesting discussion, and the posters have been respectful in their disagreement. This does not constitute flaming, probably not even in the more decorous Elizabethan times. But the content of this discourse--our assumptions about our literature--calls into question our assumptions about our language, our culture, and our politics. And that is something we must always continue to question. Michele Crescenzo (currently facing the trauma of Ph.D. program applications, so I apologize if this is incoherent) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Harrawood Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 10:25:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: The Triumph of English; was Importance After this last flurry of exchanges I feel like adding a few words of support to the argument of my friend and colleague Bob Applebaum on the vexed issue of Shakespeare's "greatness" or "importance" -- which at some very important level I don't think any of us want to dispute. But its true that our tradition has a history of talking out of both sides of its mouth when throwing around words like "freedom" and "individual," and its equally true that the creation of the Shakespeare industry is so historically evident that we can just look it up without having to get personal with each other. Thomas Carlyle, for example, dwells at length in *Of Heros and Hero Worship* on the question of whether England can better afford to lose Shakespeare or the India Colony. After some meditation, it turns out that by keeping Shakespeare, England will get the India Colony back, because now the English have a gift -- a source of language and culture -- that will make it worth it for the Indians to be colonized. Giving the colonized world Shakespeare will be to give it its voice -- and Carlyle ends by fantasizing English as the language which conquers the world (the Tzar has cannon and cavalry; we have Shakespeare). Thirty five or forty years later, Matthew Arnold makes a similar pitch in *Culture and Anarchy* -- this time its Can England Give Up Shakespeare or its Coal Mines. I don't think it takes a lot to see how "Shakespeare" is being both created and made to perform as part of project that isn't literary or about sacred individualism, despite, perhaps the good intentions of the authors. A more compelling question might be to compare these two authors with Jonson in "For William Roe" -- with the idea of an English essence that can travel through the continent and extract the best things and return with them unchanged; or with Ascham's comment that one year of serious study of Hoby's translation of The Book of the Courtier is better than three years of being in Italy. Maybe by doing this we can tease out a sense of what has been behind this discussion so far, and ask ourselves how it has happened that we are thinking the way we do about these matters. Michael Harrawood (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 18:51:51 +0100 Subject: Shakespeare & Democracy (was Importance of WS) First we must, as far as we can, eliminate the "moral" issue that Marcello Cappuzzo appears to be so sensitive about: "that behind a bigger gun there is necessarily a linguistically and culturally bigger man!" (Paul Crowley, Oct 8) I have the impression that the "moral issue" Paul Crowler wants to get rid of is much stronger than his reasoning, whose main terms -- if I may take the liberty of summarizing them -- are the following: 1. wars and genocides are just historical facts, therefore to abhor them is "almost futile [...and] certainly unhistorical"; 2. the English and, later, the Americans became the most powerful nations "by having very stable governments"; 3. what makes governments stable is democracy; 4. "literature and the absence of tyranny (in other words: a broad democracy) go hand in hand"; 5. "English literature [...] starts from WS. And his influence was the deepest and most intense of all." This discourse, it seems to me, does *not* answer the question I posed, which was, approximately, "is it always true that behind a bigger gun there is a linguistically and culturally bigger man?" Behind the bigger gun Crowler sees "the Brits and then the Americans"; he may be right; but, as to the "*linguistically* and *culturally* bigger man, he himself admits he cannot make any real comparison ("My Spanish is non-existent," etc.). Moreover, what is the exact meaning of Crowler's statement according to which to abhor wars and genocides is "almost futile [...and] certainly unhistorical"? Isn't this the same as saying that commoners (let alone intellectuals) should not meddle in state affairs? Is this the "democracy" that makes governments stable and nourishes literature? And, by the way, supposing that WS produced "literature" (Professor Hawkes' suggestion of Oct 10 did not fall on deaf ears -- I intend to come back to this subject another time), what makes Paul Crowler so sure that "Literature and the absence of tyranny (in other words: a broad democracy) go hand in hand"? If it were so, if literature could not exist without democracy and civil liberty, then, I believe,... many shelves in our libraries (English sections included) wouldn't probably have much to boast. Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Crowley Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 22:38:20 GMT Subject: Importance of Shakespeare Terence Hawkes asked: > What makes Paul Crowley so sure that Shakespeare produced 'Literature'? He > didn't. And what makes him so sure that you can't come from a performance of > most of the plays 'in a mood prepared to tolerate tyranny'? Audiences in Nazi > Germany did. Finally, who decides who 'all those who matter' are? The topic we are trying to discuss is so vast, and our space and time so limited, that broad generalities must be forgiven. Professor Hawkes is almost nitpicking, given the breadth of some of my other statements; certainly he is on the definition of 'literature'. Collins has: 'the art of composition in prose and verse'. In any case, I was referring to Stephanie Hughes's points about the various arts and their respective wider influences. If I say that only one person mattered in Germany 1933-45, everybody knows what I mean, accepting the over-simplification. Who 'matters' is a question of historical fact: who had the power, influence, money, votes or voice at the time; who made the decisions and took the initiatives; whose existence made a difference to his/her fellows, for good or ill (e.g., Karl Marx). You can certainly come from a WS play unaffected in mind or body. I left out the words "having understood the ideas". I can only turn the question back on Professor Hawkes and ask him why he would never be prepared to tolerate tyranny. It is, of course, his sense of personal dignity, his sense of history and national identity, and the affront it would be to the traditions of his country. The expression of such concepts in a WS play (usually deeply embedded in the context of English history) would hardly, in 1935, influence a German audience. Most, if not all, of the idiom would be lost. That such concepts have never been better expressed, before or since WS, hardly needs stating. And that literature (please don't quibble) can have great influence is evidenced by the artists imprisoned by dictators. It's the Pasternaks, Solzhenitsyns and Havels who are the most feared. I believe that WS's works were far better understood in his time, and close to it, than they are now; that his theater audiences were much more knowledgeable, literate and politically aware, than we are usually given to believe; that the performances of his plays in private places were much more common. Only occasional references come down to us; one example is that on board the ship on its way to India (in 1614?). Further, his printed works had an excellent circulation and were read by those "who mattered". I must admit that I regard the effect of most academic teaching of WS as baleful. He lies dead in the pages. Nothing he says is taken seriously as though it were a real person saying something he meant to say in a real political and historical context. Everything, even the expression of the most profound thoughts, becomes a 'convention' in a de-politicised, de- historicised, banal puppet show. Paul Crowley ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:12:42 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0780 Re: CD *Rom.*; Marlowe Novels; Laughter in *Mac.*; Rosalind Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0780. Thursday, 12 October 1995. (1) From: Alan Young Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 14:49:24 AST4ADT Subj: CD-Rom ROMEO AND JULIET (2) From: Douglas Abel Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 13:10:31 -0700 (MST) Subj: Marlowe Novels (3) From: Stacy Keach Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 00:23:48 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0760 Q: Laughter in *Mac.* (4) From: Nael Dennaoui Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 12:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0772 Re: Rosalind (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Young Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 14:49:24 AST4ADT Subject: CD-Rom ROMEO AND JULIET Those interested in the CD-ROM edition of ROMEO AND JULIET may be interested to know that a very favourable review by Ruth Halpern recently appeared in the magazine CD-ROM TODAY (Oct 1995), p. 79. The price quoted for this Windows product is $49 (U.S.). The U.S. telephone number for Attica Cybernetics is (818) 882-9184. I ordered a copy using this number earlier today. Alan Young (Young@ace.acadiau.ca) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Abel Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 13:10:31 -0700 (MST) Subject: Marlowe Novels Rather late for this response. Neverthless-- Three other "novelistic" treatments of Marlowe's life: Hugh Ross Williamson, --Kind Kit: an Informal Biography of Christopher Marlowe (London: Michael Joseph, 1972) Philip Henderson, --And Morning in his Eyes: a Book about Christopher Marlowe (London: Boriswood, 1937). A wonderful novel called --To Be a King--. Unfortunately I have misplaced the author's name and publishing information. And for a blatant bit of self-promotion, there is the one-person play about Christopher Marlowe, --To Ride in Triumph--, by me. It's available from Playwrights Union of Canada 54 Wolseley St., 2nd Floor, Toronto, ON Canada M5T 1A5 phone (416) 947-0201 or 1-800- 561-3318 FAX (403) 947-0159 Douglas Abel Keyano College Fort McMurray, Alberta (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stacy Keach Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 00:23:48 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0760 Q: Laughter in *Mac.* Dear Jimmy Thank you for your comment re: the Banquet scene in MACBETH. Nervous laughter is certainly appropriate, I feel, when the host is convinced he sees someone (in this case, Banquo's ghost) and the other guests do not. If the production you are referring to is the Keach Macbeth in Washington, I can tell you that the moment when Macbeth ascends the table is in fact an homage to the late Laurence Olivier, whose Macbeth was heralded by the British critic Kenneth Tynan as one of the most daring and original of its time. Stunned silence in awkward situations oftentimes gives rise to nervous laughter, which, I feel, in no way diminshes the personal horror of the main character. Mac (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nael Dennaoui Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 12:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0772 Re: Rosalind I'll definitely let you know what I find out about Rosalind, I have this paper on it due in a month and I have to come up with some brilliant idea for me to receive my M.A. What I've noticed about AYLI, is that Rosalind seems to be to similiar to portia in the way that both of these characters lead the plot as well as the men. They are in control; they take and choose as they please and really move the whole plot. Much like Eve took what she pleased; the forbidden fruit that she wasn't supposed to have. I don't know, this is just to get you thinking, I'm not as knowledgable as I would like to be in Shakespeare, my emphasis is in American Lit but this is what I've come up with so far. Any thoughts?> ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:19:20 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0781 Conference Announcements and CFPs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0781. Thursday, 12 October 1995. (1) From: John Wall Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 15:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Conference Announcement-- Please Post (2) From: Lou Burnard Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 10:18:37 +0100 (BST) Subj: Conference: DRH96 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Wall Date: Wednesday, 11 Oct 1995 15:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Conference Announcement-- Please Post Meeting Announcement and Call for Papers SOUTHEASTERN RENAISSANCE CONFERENCE The 53rd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Renaissance Conference will take place on the campus of Duke University, Durham, North Carolina on March 22 - 23, 1996. We are now receiving papers on all aspects of Renaissance culture. Please send two copies of papers with a twenty minute reading time, and a one-page Abstract, postmarked by January 15, 1996 To T. H. Howard-Hill, President, SOUTHEASTERN RENAISSANCE CONFERENCE, Department of English, University of South Carolina, Columbia, Sc 29208 A selection of the papers presented will be published in the journal RENAISSANCE PAPERS. For membership information concerning the Southeastern Renaissance Conference, contact John N. Wall, Secretary-Treasurer, Southeastern Renaissance Conference, Box 8105, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, or at jnweg@unity.ncsu.edu. Annual dues for membership in the Southeastern Renaissance Conference are $12.50. This includes all mailings, conference fees, and a subscription to RENAISSANCE PAPERS. The Southeastern Renaissance Conference Is a Regional Conference of the Renaissance Society of America. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lou Burnard Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 10:18:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: Conference: DRH96 DRH96 : DIGITAL RESOURCES FOR THE HUMANITIES A Conference to be held at Somerville College, Oxford July 1-3 1996=20 Sponsoring Institutions The Centre for Humanities Computing, Oxford; The Humanities Research Institute, Sheffield; The British Library; The Office for Humanities Communication, Oxford; The Institute for Electronic Library Research, De Montfort University; The Centre for Information Management and Technology for Scholarship, London Guildhall University The Conference Theme Advances in computing affect all who work with the fundamental resources of humanities scholarship. Archivists are learning new ways to conserve their holdings of primary materials, ranging from manuscripts through electronic texts to video. Electronic materials are becoming increasingly important to librarians, who are developing new forms of structured access to them. Scholars explore these materials with new tools, and produce new kinds of scholarship with them. As electronic publication increasingly gives individual archives and scholars the power to publish, the traditional role of the publisher is also changing. Long-held paradigms of scholarly resources--their ownership, their use, their distribution--are being transformed. Archivists, librarians, scholars and publishers have to rework their relationships in this new information world, without losing sight of the traditional values of academic discourse. The Conference This conference will provide a forum for archivists, librarians, scholars and publishers to explore these changes, and to seek the best ways to exploit them together. The conference will have four strands, as follows: * News from the front: papers and sessions on work done and in progress, focusing on innovation in resource handling, scholarship, and in delivery systems. * As we may think: papers and sessions on the intellectual framework, discussing (for example) issues of standards design, copyright and wider social implications. * Hard answers to practical problems: workshop sessions pitched at various levels, from novice to expert. Suitable workshop topics might include: project management, fund-raising strategies, encoding design, resource discovery, Internet publishing, digitization, copyright management, time-based media, image recognition, application of international standards. * For sale or rent: an exhibition of computer software and electronic publications. Who should Attend? All who are concerned with the impact of computing on work with the fundamental resources of humanities scholarship =D1 traditional primary textual and still image material, and newer sound and moving image media also =D1 will find this conference of interest. Some conference presentations will be addressed to those engaged in projects addressing large-scale scholarly resources. Other presentations will be addressed to those interested in the legal or cultural aspects of these developments. Others will be suitable for those seeking the best way to begin a project in this area. Call for Proposals Conference sessions will be of ninety minutes, with up to three sessions at once, and at least one plenary session on each of the three days of the conference. The conference will open and close with addresses from distinguished invited speakers. We invite proposals for the four strands of the conference outlined above, as follows: * Formal papers of 20-25 minutes for the News from the front and As we may think strands * Session proposals of 90 minutes length for the News from the front and As we may think strands * Workshop proposals for the Hard answers to practical problems strand * Exhibition proposals for the For sale or rent strand A particular theme of the conference will be standards and their power to unite the worlds of archivists, librarians, scholars, and publishers. Papers, workshops or exhibitors focusing on standards and open systems will be especially welcome. Submission of Proposals Proposals should be submitted in the following form: Formal papers: abstracts of 500-1000 words * Session proposals: a session abstract of 500-1000 words, with session title; full details of all session participants with abstracts of their papers (where relevant) * Workshop proposals: a 500-1000 word summary of the workshop content together with the following: a 40 word short description; statement of prerequisite knowledge for workshop attendees; description of materials to be provided to attendees; who is to take the workshop and whether he or she has given this workshop before. * Exhibition proposals: exhibitors should describe what they wish to exhibit, detailing space and any other requirements (e.g. internet access). All paper, session and workshop proposals must be prefixed with: proposal title; proposer's name, academic affiliation and address, phone, fax and email. All proposals will be reviewed by the programme committee. Proposers are invited to submit names of one or more referees (with contact details) where they think this may help the programme committee reach an informed decision All proposals must be submitted by Friday 15 December. The programme committee will advise acceptances by Friday 15 March 1996. Submission, preferably by email, may be made to drh96@sable.ox.ac.uk, or by post to: DRH96 Conference Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 6NN, UK. The conference URL is http://info.ox.ac.uk/~drh96/ The Conference Venue The conference will be held at Somerville College, Oxford. Somerville is situated just a few minutes from the centre of Oxford, which is widely regarded as one of the most beautiful cities in Europe. Oxford has excellent rail and road links, with frequent bus and train services to and from London and all other major cities in the UK. For international delegates, frequent coach services are available from the bus stations situated at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. The journey from Heathrow Airport takes about one hour. Accommodation and meals will be provided for all delegates at Somerville College. The accommodation will be in single study bedrooms which are comfortable, if unpretentious, with washbasin and shared bathroom facilities. Conference Organization The conference is being organised by the Continuing Professional Development Centre of the University of Oxford. For further information, please contact: Anna Morris CPD Centre Oxford University Centre for Continuing Education 67 St Giles Oxford OX1 3LU Tel: +44 (1865) 288 169. Fax: +44 (1865) 288 163. THE PROGRAMME COMMITTEE * Norman Blake, University of Sheffield * Andrea Bozzi, CNR Pisa * Lou Burnard, University of Oxford * Vito Cappellini, University of Florence * Charles Chadwyck-Healey, Chadwyck-Healey * Mel Collier, De Montfort University * David Cooper, University of Oxford * Colin Day, University of Michigan Press * Marilyn Deegan, De Montfort University (Chair) * Robert Faber, University of Oxford * Richard Gartner, Bodleian Library Oxford * Susan Hockey, Rutgers University * Claus Huitfeldt, Bergen University * Mary Keeler, Indiana University * Donna Kurtz, University of Oxford * Stuart Lee, University of Oxford * Ann Leer, University of Oxford * Peter Lyman, University of California, Berkeley * Chris Mullings, Office for Humanities Communication * Charles Oppenheim, University of Strathclyde * Andrew Prescott, British Library * Julian Raby, University of Oxford * Peter Robinson, University of Oxford * Seamus Ross, British Academy * Andrew Rosenheim, Oxford University Press * Harold Short, Kings College London * Anthony Smith, University of Oxford * Geoff Tagg, Oxford Brookes University * Kevin Taylor, Cambridge University Press * Manfred Thaller, Max-Planck-Institut, Goettingen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:51:47 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0782 Re: Suggested Readings Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0782. Friday, 13 October 1995. (1) From: W. Russell Mayes Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 09:09:20 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0778 Q: Reading (2) From: David Skeele Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 95 12:08:04 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0778 Q: Readings (3) From: Harry J.C. Hill Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 13:19:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0778 Q: Reading (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. Russell Mayes Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 09:09:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0778 Q: Reading Kay Pilzer asks for _one_ book to assist in the study of Shakespeare and the early-modern period. Before revealing my nomination, I will state that I take this to mean not "the most important book of Shakespeare criticism," but the one that will be the most general help for both WS and the period in which he wrote. That said, I nominate Julia Briggs, _This Stage-Play World_. W. Russell Mayes Jr. University of North Carolina at Asheville wmayes@unca.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 95 12:08:04 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0778 Q: Readings In response to Kay Pilzer, I would have to ask two questions: how early in the Modern period, and are you primarily interested in criticism or production? If you are thinking about early twentieth century and are interested mostly in production, then I would recommend either Cary Mazer's "Shakespeare Refashioned: Elizabethan Plays on Edwardian Stages" or Dennis Kennedy's Looking At Shakespeare: A Visual History of Twentieth-Century Performance." If critical history, then Gary Taylor's "Reinventing Shakespeare" is the bible. Hope these suggestioions help! David Skeele Slippery Rock University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry J.C. Hill Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 13:19:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0778 Q: Reading For Kay Pilzer, I recommend one book readily. John Wain's. Why? It strikes me as honest and gifted, the product of a fine ear. Harry Hill Montreal ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:39:53 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0783 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0783. Friday, 13 October 1995. (1) From: John E. Perry Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 10:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Importance of Shakespeare (2) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 17:40:03 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0779 Re: Importance of Shakespeare (3) From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 13:01:38 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0779 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues (4) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 11:34:05 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0779 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues (5) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 23:49:40 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0779 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John E. Perry Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 10:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Importance of Shakespeare Please let me inject some fact (hopefully) into all the (allow me to euphemize a bit) opinioneering going on in this discussion. First, I was taught in my Shakespeare class (25 years ago, I admit) that Shakespeare's work all but disappeared from view for nearly a century after he and his immediate contemporaries died. Is that not so? Second, there is no question that the work of WS's contemporaries, the committee that petitioned King James for formal authorization to publish a new Authorized Version of the Bible, was much better known, and had more to do with stabilizing the English language than all the "literate" publications. It outsold all other books in English for three and a half centuries. So whether the English language worked for good or ill, or was irrelevant, its effect cannot be rationally laid at Shakespeare's feet. Finally, even a cursory look at history will show us that the size of the gun at the beginning of a substantial conflict has little to do with the outcome. Obvious examples are the two World Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, and the American Revolution. john perry jperry@cebaf.gov (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 17:40:03 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0779 Re: Importance of Shakespeare Dear Paul Crowley, 1. Shakespeare was a playwright. 'Literature' is something that has been thrust upon him. Listen to your uncle Bill Godschalk (for once) on this issue. 2. Who 'matters' is not a question of historical fact. 'Historical fact' may be a question of who matters. 3. So you left out the words "having understood the ideas". Don't apologise. Given your argument, it was very wise. Terence Hawkes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 13:01:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0779 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues Ascham's comments anent the Book of the Courtier don't reflect a xenophobia that is particularly English. There may be some cultures that did not fear the foreigner -- but not many. Obviously, for Ascham, fashioning oneself by reading the best Italy had to say about such self-fashioning instead of actually going to Italy and coming back all Italinate and Devil Incarnate made sense. One avoided the allure of Babylon. The attempt -- as it seems to me -- to demonize England and imply that its crimes are not the same sorts of crimes committed by most cultures if they can seems very ahistorical, of a piece with the usual creation of cultural capital that many are abhorring here, and typical. If we ask about the English essence that thinks it can scoot about taking and not being polluted, we should also ask about the many other essences -- including non-european ones -- that think/ thought they could do the same thing. And, alas, there is an inherent connection between literature and individuals. Individuals view/read it, individuals -- even when working as collectives or passing down some Volkish runes -- write it. And, for a good part of its history in the West, it glorified individuals -- either the individuals who wrote it or the individuals remembered in it, or the groups that individuals wanted glorified (catalogues of ships at Troy) or the individual who recited it and wanted some cash/position/favor/admiration from individuals. Also, Shakespeare wrote literature -- whether the term is an invention of 18th century fellows intent on hegemony or a description of a body of writing admired and preserved by whomever off and on in the last few thousand years. As to who gets to decide -- by and large artists decide with critics and kings mucking about, or representatives of the "people" or actual members of "the people" (the folk songs Tolstoy admired), or priests and merchants, or the fellows who burnt the library at Alexander, or the bookworms who chewed up the last remaining scroll of the only social realist epic at UR. And, of course, the individuals in all these situations were not the sort of individuals gadding about assuming that they had ungraspable essences that made for meonic freedom -- but neither were they everywhere persons wholly given over to membership in a collective. Aside from the suspicion that maybe vast forces were moving one's hand across the page, my bet is that there was some "I" felt to be moving the hand. Nameless persons medieval -- no matter how completely identified by whatever hegemony -- felt an "I." Only, it seems, Kings, Popes, and odd bishop here and there, modern demagogues, and, of course, many modern critics, feel/felt the odd "WE" coming on in most situations. To say that the bourgeoise individual was not necessary for literature is trite. Of course not -- since the "bourgeois" individual is a representation constructed (perhaps to achieve a particular hegemony for its creator) and its essence is that it did not exist before so and so (fill in your favorite guess here, do not neglect your specialty of study and the group consensus on the bursting forth of capitalism). (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 11:34:05 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0779 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues Dear Mr. Crowley, How can you presume to include "everybody" in this statement: "If I say that only one person mattered in Germany 1933-45, everybody knows what I mean, accepting the over-simplification. Who 'matters' is a question of historical fact." Although I believe I understand who you are referring to here, to assume that I or many others "accept" your GROSS oversimplification as historical fact is beyond shocking. It is historical fact that to myself and to MILLIONS such as myself, the families we have irrevocably and untraceably lost matter a great deal more TO THIS DAY than your person of "historical fact". Shirley Kagan (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 23:49:40 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0779 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues Paul Crowley writes > Professor Hawkes is almost >nitpicking, given the breadth of some of my other statements; certainly he is >on the definition of 'literature' Doesn't literature have to do with the written word? (Latinists please join in). Shakespeare was producing plays for the stage. Sounds like a perfectly clear distinction to me. > Who 'matters' is a question of >historical fact: who had the power, influence, money, votes or voice at the >time; who made the decisions and took the initiatives; whose existence made a >difference to his/her fellows, for good or ill (e.g., Karl Marx). What is a "historical fact"? I thought historians had abandoned such silly notions, and if they haven't they need to. > I can only turn the question back on >Professor Hawkes and ask him why he would never be prepared to tolerate >tyranny. It is, of course, his sense of personal dignity, his sense of history >and national identity, and the affront it would be to the traditions of his >country. Perhaps Paul Crowley knows Hawkes personally, and these are Hawkes's own reasons. If not, and these reasons for resisting tyranny are offered as general ones, then may I demur. Some people's sense of their personal dignity, of history and national identity, and the traditions of the country in which they live, are the very things which have brought about tyranny for many of the citizens of the UK. Northern Ireland is good example: the rhetoric of C17 anti-papism is used by people desperately afraid of losing the priviledges given them in return for supporting the British state. The state's police force (the Royal Ulster Constabulary) has an internal crime rate higher than the population they serve, and it is used to intimidate the civilian population of one religious minority. Tyranny is not very far away for many citizens of the UK, and yet the three theatres in Stratford are frequently packed. > Further, his [Shakespeare's] printed works had >an excellent circulation and were read by those "who mattered". When exactly? Figures for pre-1623 sales of quartos that you've just discovered? Or the fact that the Folio ran to several editions? If the latter then 'death of the author' needs to be considered in all its ramifications. > Nothing he says is taken seriously as >though it were a real person saying something he meant to say in a real >political and historical context. My turn to nit-pick...Shakespeare doesn't say anything, he's dead. The remnants of his plays are available to us through mediated texts which bear some relation to the scripts for performance. The texts are available for interpretation, and those who are interested in political and historical context can claim to do some kinds of reconstruction of these contexts and locate the texts within them. This process is not the same as asking your friend her/his opinion, and can't be taught as such without intellectual dishonesty. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:20:39 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0784 Re: *MV* and Antonio Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0784. Friday, 13 October 1995. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 11:49:56 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0777 Re: Re: *MV* and Antonio (2) From: Leslie D. Harris Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 95 15:24:00 PDT Subj: FW: Antonio and *MV* (3) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 11:04:47 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0777 Re: Re: *MV* and Antonio (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 17:44:17 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0777 Re: Re: *MV* and Antonio (5) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 22:57:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0776 Re: Antonio and *MV*: Gaberdine (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 11:49:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0777 Re: Re: *MV* and Antonio Regarding William Godshalk's question as to why Shylock is converted -- the answer seems to be that he is converted because this was considered a good thing. This is too well-known to need much elaboration. As for why Antonio wasn't provided with a priest... not much can be made of this. WS didn't want one cluttering up the stage. A priest isn't needed if confession has already been made. WS didn't want to call attention to the Catholicism of his Christians. He didn't think about it. The priests were busy burning liberal humanists. Anent this last term and the whole sequence of events that one reader is grateful for because it shows this and that person's humanness... I've tried for some time to avoid the inference that the players in the drama I have been "viewing" for the last years (by trudging home with "Materialist Shakespeare" or by reading a liberal humanist screed obtained from the closed stacks by means of a false name and a false beard that makes me look a bit like Erasmus) would, in "real" life actually use these sorts of epithets. That's why I have avoided the MLA: I didn't want to see some poor old fellow blinking into the void as he tried to find a place at table and someone to talk to only to overhear, in a stage whisper, hissings of "Oh, that's Professor Blank -- the liberal humanisty essentialist." But, things are as they are, and I would like to suggest that, since this is so, some sort of system might be devised so that one can only read postings by ideological sisters and brothers and, of course, so that liberal humanists might be identified and appropriate action taken. A system of virtual icons would do the job -- the icons identifying the ideology of the writer and her place in the food chain. Liberal humanists would be represented by a tiny Polonius face (easy to find, I would think) and this would appeal to their sense of irony and, for others, tell us all we need. Old Historicists are represented by a crown; New Historicists by a Crown over a Death's Head (indicating their powerful critique of the "absolute" rule of the Tudors); Cultural Materialists might want to choose the dagger Macbeth saw before him, or they might (I think this is best) choose a simple wheel of fire. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leslie D. Harris Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 95 15:24:00 PDT Subject: FW: Antonio and *MV* Fellow SHAKSPERians: I've read the thread about Antonio and *MV* with tremendous interest, primarily because I'm as appalled by _Merchant_ as those African-American students who were silenced by "ethiop." I think Shakespeare's culture is at times disgustingly racist, and the depiction of Shylock (along with Barrabas before him, in a more intentionally egregious way) is one example of that racism. I think Shakespeare does give us a sense of the hypocrisy of the Christians, though, since we learn of Antonio's abusive behavior towards Shylock. One of the basic critiques against money-lending was that it violates Christian charity. If we are to be true Christians (and if we are all brothers under God--and I choose "brothers" intentionally, since the world of commerce in the play is a male one), then we should help one another in need. We should give to others out of the kindness of our hearts, and we should not profit from that charity (otherwise it's not true charity). Shylock's money-lending violates that principle (along with the related medieval idea that money should not breed, and that usury involved money producing more money). What's interesting to me, though, is that money-lending is condemned as a violation of Christian charity, but making a profit on one's merchandise is not condemned. Antonio buys at one price, sells to others (including his fellow Christians, I assume) at a higher price, and thereby becomes a wealthy man. He expends a certain amount of money, and his return is a greater amount of money. The goods that people buy from him intervene in this equation, but I wonder to what extent they are necessities and to what extent they are fineries. We learn that Antonio's vessels (that founder) are "richly fraught" (II.viii.30) and that his "ship of rich landing" (III.i.2) wrecked itself. Does that mean that they are heavily laden with objects (and therefore collectively of great value), or does that mean that they are full of objects that are collectively *and* individually "rich" (in other words, luxuries)? If we are all supposed to be "brothers" in our faith, why do we profit at our brothers' (and sisters') expense? Leslie Harris lharris@susqu.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 11:04:47 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0777 Re: Re: *MV* and Antonio I'm coming in for another round. John Owen's recent posting included the following: "Recall, Shirley, that Shylock represents the penalty as a joke and that Antonio treats it that way, calling it a "merry bond". He would certainly not do this if he had any idea that he would have to pay this insane penalty, or that Shylock would insist on it. Yes, Antonio is stupid above and beyond the call of the plot for not recognizing the level of hatred he has provoked in Shylock, but murder is not justified by the foolishness of the victim." John also urged me to produce examples of the Antonio apologia and anti-semitism that I had mentioned in my previous post. Let me try and get one thing clear first. When this discussion first started (by Sam Schimek, I believe) the questions clearly referred to MOV in production and the implications of Antonio's characteristics IN PRODUCTION. I have treated this discussion from beginning to end within that context and it is within that context that I speak of Antonio apologia and justifications of anti-semitism. I couldn't care less if Shakespeare was anti-semitic within the context of this conversation. The only element I am concerned about is how we read his problematic script in production TODAY as per the original post's request. Having said this I will refer back to your most recent post, John, and say that in my opinion it is not at all clear that the bond is a total joke. If it is, why do they go to the bondsman to seal it? If it is, why does Bassanio balk at it? It is also not clear that Antonio accepts it out of mere stupidity. He may be acting out of other motivations which have already been discussed. I am not insisting on one reading or another here, nor am I saying that your interpretation of the script (because that's what it is - a performance script) is incorrect. All I am saying is that NOTHING is clear here, and can be played several different ways with different implications. For me, however, the Antonio apologia and anti-semitism enter the debate when Antonio and the Chriatians' side is taken out of some belief that that is what the text requires us to do or clearly states. As modern interpreters of a performance script I think it is our duty to view "Merchant of Venice" as a fluid entity, open to multiple readings. The next step from that is to see why and where it fits into the context of our own society, otherwise, why stage it at all? Finally, I will venture that what has kept Shakespeare alive and vital in performance to this day is precisely the interpretability of the scripts. I would suggest that this is why we see many more performances of "Merchant" than we do of "Malta". Thanks for the attention span. Shirley Kagan (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 17:44:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0777 Re: Re: *MV* and Antonio Since we apparently have plenty of steam left for discussing Antonio and Shylock, I'd like to point to two passages (both from the Riverside): (1) *MV* 1.3.133-159: In this passage, Antonio asks, "when did friendship take / A breed for barren metal of his friend?/ But lend it {the money} rather to thinne enemy,/Who if he break, thou mayst with better face /Exact the penalty." These lines certainly indicate that Antonio will sign the bond with Shylock even if Shylock presents himself as "the enemy." Shylock goes on to suggest the "merry sport" of a pound of flesh, a sport which Antonio accepts, even after Bassanio's warning (155-159). Antonio tells Bassanio that he will have the money to pay off the bond in three months. No problem. So does Shylock pull any wool over Antonio's eyes by proposing the "merry sport"? Richard Levin (the younger!) suggests that Shylock is seriously trying to make friends with Antonio here, and it's only after the elopement of Jessica that he turns vicious. I doubt that suggestion will be accepted by many. Nevertheless, the question: "Is Antonio deceived by Shylock at this point in the plot?" remains open -- for me. (2) *MV* 3.1.58-73, widely known as the "Hath not a Jew eyes speech?" How does this apparent assertion by Shylock of a common humanity, in which both Jews and Christians participate, square with a vision of this play as basically anti-Semitic? Does this passage complicate things -- at least a little? Shylock seems to be saying that we Jews are just like you Christians -- even down to the faults. Of course, this passages ends with an indictment of the Christians -- an indictment that I find quite telling. Christians are not supposed to seek revenge, and yet they do. That is, Christians have been trying to take revenge on the Jews for the death of Jesus for hundreds of years. How does this square with the basic teachings of Christianity? One further point: Kenneth Myrick used to argue that Jessica's marriage to a Christian undermines the contention that the play is anti-Semitic. Myrick asked, if Lorenzo had genuinely anti-Semitic feelings, would he marry a Jew? Myrick answered his question "no." I realize that the present stage tradition is to represent the marriage beween Lorenzo and Jessica as flawed, but it might just as easily be represented as intimate, teasing, and acceptable to the Christian community. Yours, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 22:57:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0776 Re: Antonio and *MV*: Gaberdine Regarding the wearing of the gaberdine, Gila Safran-Naveh writes: The Jewish gaberdine" was and is still worn by orthodox Jews (in NY and Israel) for religious reasons in part having to do with modesty, etc. But it is also true that in some parts of the world, Jews were forced "not" to wear certain colors as well as certain types of fabrics (it had to do mainly with gold fiber, purple colors, etc. Now the Halackhah, the Jewish law, is very clear on the "kosher" types of clothing ( I really mean it) a Jew should/could/must wear For instance, one has to know that the animal whose wool one uses was slaughtered according to the law (least pain, jugular vein, recitation of prayers etc) and that the fabric was woven also according to proper laws. But rest asure that Shakespeare was not interested in this. At least we have no evidence of it (and there were very interesting and intelligent studies done at the Hebrew U and at the Univ of Tel Aviv on the subject.) Oh, well, if you really want to get into it, I might give you the email of a colleague who was very much involved in these issues at the U of Beer Sheva. (NAVEHGO@uc.edu) * * * * So much for my idea that the gaberdine was enforced clothing for Renaissance Jews. Sorry if I misled anyone. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:33:25 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0785 Marlowe Novels; Spelling; Laughter; Web Page; *WT* Prod. Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0785. Friday, 13 October 1995. (1) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 95 09:35:35 -0500 Subj: SHK 6.078 Re: Marlowe Novels (2) From: Michael Best Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 08:52:53 -0700 Subj: In Defence of Approximate Spelling (3) From: Jeff Goode Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 12:50:36 -0400 Subj: Laughter in Mac (4) From: Leslie D. Harris Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 95 19:33:00 PDT Subj: Shakespeare Multimedia Project Web Page (5) From: Dale Lyles Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 07:56:31 -0400 Subj: *WT* Production (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 95 09:35:35 -0500 Subject: SHK 6.078 Re: Marlowe Novels As one of the obsessive Marlowe novel readers, I wanted to thank Douglas Abel for his post, but also to let other interested folks know that the Playwrights Union of Canada has a new phone number (and the 800 number doesn't seem to work when calling from the U.S.): (416) 703-0201. They take VISA but not MasterCard. (I'm ordering your play, Doug, as soon as I can borrow my partner's VISA card!) Chris Gordon (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 08:52:53 -0700 Subject: In Defence of Approximate Spelling O gentle son, Upon the heat and flame of thy distemper Sprinkle cool patience. (_Hamlet_, somewhere) While it's good to know that academics are human (bleed and flame and so on), I'd like to offer a gentle defence of misspellings, typos, vague references to books, and such informalities. It is important (to me anyway) that we all be free to dash of a quick response to a thread without running it through our spell checkers, grammar checkers, culture checkers, and so on before posting. The level of formality on this list is already higher than on most (we are after all proud of our wordsmithing and our sensitivities). Can we agree to do without the dreaded "[sic]" as we comment on each other's postings? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Goode Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 1995 12:50:36 -0400 Subject: Laughter in Mac Jimmy: Without seeing the scene, it is, of course, difficult to guess, but... I would like to note that there is quite a bit of humor in MACBETH (and not just the Porter) and all of it is appropriate. There tends to be a modern misconception that the three unities are Time, Space, and Mood. This is a belief that the Elizabethan/Jacobean playwrights did not share. Their eclectic style embraces comedy even in the tragedies. There can be no doubt that Juliet's Nurse is a comic character, but that doesn't in any way diminish the tragedy of R&J. The comic moments in (pick a title) are not flaws in the text, but an integral part of how the play works. Example: When I was researching 'TIS PITY SHE'S A WHORE, I found that historically many directors have tried to remove the extraneous comic subplot involving Bergetto and Poggio, or downplay their humor in keeping with the mood of the main story. I also found that historically the critics, in those cases, generally found the play to be OVERBEARINGLY tragic. The clowns are critical to the success of the play, because the lighter moments keep the audience comfortable as they are drawn deeper into the depravity of the main story. The death of Bergetto is MORE tragic if he is our beloved clown. And after his death, the audience finds itself inextricably caught up in Jacobean bloodbath that is the more horrific for it's absent comedy. Romeo & Juliet works in exactly the same way. So I would like to suggest (only for the sake of argument) that an other possible explanation is that you were caught off guard by the audience' laughter because you had preconceptions about the moment, which the rest of the audience did not share, so they were more able to go along with the director's (and possibly the playwright's) sense of humor in that scene. ...JEFF (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leslie D. Harris Date: Thursday, 12 Oct 95 19:33:00 PDT Subject: Shakespeare Multimedia Project Web Page Hi, Folks. Last Fall, I had my Shakespeare students use multimedia authoring software to annotate passages from a Shakespeare play of their choice. They worked in small groups, with each group responsible for a passage from one of the plays we read during the semester. (I described the project to the list last year.) The idea was to make them "editors of the future," choosing what words to annotate, what useful graphics to include, and so on. I've created a Web page about the project, whose URL changed recently. (My Computer Center let me know that a few folks have tried to access the page at the old address.) Here's the new URL: http://www.susqu.edu/ac_depts/arts_sci/english/lharris/shakweb/shakmult .htm I've included some documents related to the project, along with a few screen captures from a sample student project on "the Scottish play." Happy viewing! Leslie Harris Susquehanna University (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 07:56:31 -0400 Subject: *WT* Production Re our production of WT: Part I is breathtaking. Our Leontes is worth your time to drive to Newnan, GA. Part II still needs work, but it too will cause the audience to suck wind. Details I think you might appreciate: when the Shepherd picks up the baby, I've told him to do all those "pretty one"s as baby talk to the baby--and suddenly there's the warmest moment in the play so far. It almost seems to become the turning point of the play. Our Hermione doesn't put it on her resume, but early in her career she was a living mannikin at a major mall. So not only is she able to do the statue thing, but when we perceive she moves, it is truly startling. We have her all the way upstage R on our wide and shallow stage, with the rest of the cast on the other side; it's parallel to the staging of the trial scene. We can take a vote on this one: when Autolycus tells the Shepherd and the Clown that he's going to "look on the hedge," we have him doing just that: taking a leak upstage and finishing his speech over his shoulder. It's ridiculously vulgar, truly funny, but should we do it? Our audiences are unflappable, by the way. When you do this play, costume it in jeans and t-shirts. Trust me. I don't think I've mentioned that the costuming for this show is being supported by several grants and donations under the title of the NCTC Elizabethan Costume Project. After WT is over, the costumes will become part of a project wherein we loan them to area high schools as a part of an integrated curriculum approach to Shakespeare, literature, and history. Each school will get a notebook of lesson plans, handouts, and research projects [written by me--I'm also an educational designer] that will show the teachers how to use not only the costumes but also music, dance, and art in the regular classroom. Any ideas you might have for this notebook would greatly be appreciated. Our Mamillius is going to be charming, even if I do report it who should be silent. In casting my own 7-year-old son, I thought it was important to have a Mamillius 1) who could read; and 2) whose TV privileges I could revoke. The sheepshearing scene keeps getting shorter and shorter, Fortune be praised. For future reference, you can cut two pages between Florizel's "where we're going you don't need to know" and Camillo's "Have you thought of where you might go?" without serious damage. The satyr dance is short and satisfying. I've given the actors carte blanche to decorate their burlap ponchos any way they choose, and they've responded with all manner of furs, animal head, horns, twigs, leaves, etc. All in all, the more the show comes together, the more apparent it is how incredibly complex and rich its universe is. My only fear is that it appears that way to us because of concentrated study, but that we will fail to make it immediately apparent to our audiences. But then, that's always my fear. :) Exhaustedly, Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 08:09:44 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0786 Re: Recommended and Recreational Reading Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0786. Sunday, 15 October 1995. (1) From: David Jackson Date: Friday, 13 Oct 95 10:02:50 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0782 Re: Suggested Readings (2) From: Peter Herman Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 15:51:11 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0782 Re: Suggested Readings (3) From: Gavin H Witt Date: Saturday, 14 Oct 95 0:20:20 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0782 Re: Suggested Readings (4) From: Chris Gordon Date: Saturday, 14 Oct 95 17:04:30 -0500 Subj: Recreational Reading (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Friday, 13 Oct 95 10:02:50 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0782 Re: Suggested Readings From a production point of view, if the already suggested works have been read, I would suggest Charles Marowitz's "Recycling Shakespeare", which may raise the hackles of some, but he always has interesting insights, he is pragmatic, and he doesn't suffer fools gladly. As a supplement, I would add Peter Brook's Shakespeare materials in "The Shifting Point". Of course, everyone has his/her favorite, and it will be interesting to see how many (if any) people suggest the same book. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Herman Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 15:51:11 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0782 Re: Suggested Readings My nomination would be Stephen Greenblatt's _Renaissance Self-Fashioning_. More than ten years after its initial publication, it's still the most suggestive, and certainly among if _the_ best written, critical book I've read. Peter C. Herman Dept. of English Georgia State University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gavin H Witt Date: Saturday, 14 Oct 95 0:20:20 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0782 Re: Suggested Readings For a single book to open up a study of Shakespeare's plays, I have found John Barton's _Playing Shakespeare_ to be a bible when considering issues of performance. Even better if you can get your hands on the accompanying videos. It is scholarly without being academic, historical but incidentally so; not for a theoretical or literary critical reading necessarily, but truly indispensable if you need access to issues of how the texts are brought to life on a stage. Including some generally useful guides to close reading of the plays. Just a thought from a different angle.. Gavin Witt University of Chicago ghwitt@midway.uchicago.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Saturday, 14 Oct 95 17:04:30 -0500 Subject: Recreational Reading For those Shakespeareans who enjoyed Stephanie Cowell's first novel, *Nicholas Cooke* (which centered on a man who is a member of Shakespeare's company), the second volume (it's designed as a trilogy), *Physician of London,* is being published by Norton in November. I found a copy in a bookstore today, however, and wish I had time to read it right now. Stephanie will also be reading from the novel in NYC in November. Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 08:20:48 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0787 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0787. Sunday, 15 October 1995. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 11:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0779 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues (2) From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 12:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0783 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues (3) From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 11:48:44 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0783 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues (4) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 18:49:43 +0100 Subj: Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 11:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0779 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues I have been pondering Terrence Hawkes statement that what Shakespeare produced was not literature. What was it then? And if what he produced wasn't literature, who did "produce literature"? Is this observation the result of some four-syllable ism that has somehow passed me by? I hope someone will enlighten me lest I continue to operate under what appears to be a vast misunderstanding. Michele Cresenzo states, if I have read her meaning correctly, that it is ideology that has determined the selection of works and authors for our western canon, leaving Marxist works in the dust. I am astonished by this as well. What Marxist works does she have in mind? And what ideology is it that has so wrongfully scorned Marxism? Some as yet unnamed ideology of the individual? Certainly it has taken millions of individuals who have read and reread Shakespeare, Dante, Moliere, Cervantes, over and over and passed them on to their friends and children to place these works in the niche they now occupy. Isms come and isms go but Art, like gold, remains untarnished, however faulty its producers. I agree with Michele about the so-called flaming among this group. I find it exhilarating. If others are offended they might try reading some of the Thomas Nashe/Gabriel Harvey exchanges from the 1590s. Now there was flaming! Thanks to Michael Harrawood for the very interesting items on Carlyle and Arnold. Certainly there is no argument (not from this sector anyway) on the capacity of the English for pure and unalloyed hypocrisy of the worst kind, and it is certainly necessary and worthwhile to examine the record and put it right where necessary. Still we must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath. Stephanie Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 12:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0783 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues Two recent posts made similar points. Terence Hawkes writes: > 1. Shakespeare was a playwright. 'Literature' is something that has been > thrust upon him. And Gabriel Egan argues similarly: > Doesn't literature have to do with the written word? (Latinists please join > in). Shakespeare was producing plays for the stage. Sounds like a perfectly > clear distinction to me. I agree with both of these comments implicitly. Too implicitly, I am sometimes afraid. My question is this: can/should we consider the non-dramatic works "literature?" This question would turn us aside from the topic of "the importance of Shakespeare" (I don't think anyone would argue that the modern world would not be the same without "The Phoenix and the Turtle") on to the question of how we define "literature." On the one hand, I teach in the Dept. of Literature and Language (a name that begs the question of this topic). On the other, I regularly tell my students "Shakespeare did not produce literature." I wonder if I should be saying "Shakespeare did not produce *much* literature" or if I should be taking a key from Hawkes' suggestive phrasing. What do other people do? Is it a distinction we make in the classroom? How many of us regularly teach the non-dramatic works in the "standard" Shakespeare survey? I guess what I am asking is how unique am I in pondering such issues as I prepare for class? W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Dept. of Literature and Language University of North Carolina at Asheville wmayes@unca.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 11:48:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0783 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues Well, Gary Taylor's "Reinventing Shakespeare" (cited by one fellow as the bible on this sort of thing) doesn't have Shakespeare (that vexing word -- person or panoply?) disappearing 100 years after his death. He has him (since he begins at the Restoration) adapted all to hell then, played not becaiuse of his greatness but because of various factors (including economic) affecting the repertoire -- and so on. The case he makes is deliciously tendentious. It all depends on what one wants "disappear" to mean and this wanting might even be driven by idelogy -- as is the wanting to refer to the texts we have as "remnants," or deciding -- even tho, for example, one notes the Swan's plays are in the "Norton Anthology of LITERATURE" and that the word "literature" has included plays for many years in one of its very common senses, that a weighty point has been made by saying that Shakespeare did not produce literature. Deliciously tendentious. For example, Gary Taylor cites Dryden who notes that two of B&F's plays were produced for every one of Shakespeare's -- this in an overall effort to suggest that S's post on the peak of Parnassus is -- well, the usual, suspicious, constructed and so on) yet he never mentions that Dryden also notes that S had the most universal soul or the greater wit and that, perhaps, the plethora of B&F was not something that Dryden might completely approve. And, for our purposes, it might be important to note that a rather significant poet thought so and, for our purposes, celebrating, as we are, S's disappearance one might note that Milton -- a rather good poet and rather good things to say about S, who, for him at least had not yet been disappeared. Why S is even present in this and that way in his poetry. It all depends on who decides, of course -- and don't you think (I must be appealing to the gods) that the poets might have a say? Or is it only Gary Taylor who has a say? Who, as another example, cites Tolstoy in the effort to question S's singularity (why is it that Tolstoy, Shaw and others who have negative opinions are always dismissed he grumpily asks) but neglects to mention that Tolstoy also sent Michaelangelo, Beethoven, and Dante to hell. And why when, as a test case, Taylor compares The Menaechmi to The Comedy of Errors and prefers the former for its lack of wholesomeness and its pagan hardness doesn't he mention that these are the very qualities that Tolstoy abhors in Shakespeare (allowing, for Tolstoy, pagan to merge into aristocratic). If we are to take Tolstoy seriusly how can we take Gary Taylor seriously -- critical wants being opposed and all? The answer is that Taylor is shading some facts (I may use the word, I hope, without at once signaling to others that I believe in access to unmediated reality -- as most historians do not and, in fact, as many do not even when they use the word in the company of those for whom the "fact" of no access to unmediated reality is a "fact" of vasty ideological importance). As T. Hawkes seems to do when he writes that, because, S had literature thrust upon him he did not write literature -- a "fact" construed so as to make an ideological point and no more a fact in the sense that we must all tug our forelocks and agree than any other fact. The fact that is shaded here so that Mr. Crowley might be condescended to is that "literature" has a very common meaning that, of course, includes S's plays and, if you are a person who accepts this meaning it is obvious to you that S wrote literature. If you want to demolish this category because it spoils your party's pudding, then you shade the fact that the word can have this meaning. After all, if S is dead and cannot speak (a fact, for sure,and given vasty significance by another writer), what does it matter that the category of literature was not available to him? Or, more reasonably, when has it it been decided that the categories of action available to the understandings of persons in one age must forever be described in their own terms? No-one does this -- especially culture critics. Does the fact that Shakespeare couldn't describe what he had as an "ideology" mean that he didn't have one? "Remnants" a word shaded in the same way. "Death of Author" also a category of convenience. And -- as a parting shot -- there is no way except a determination to always see the worst in a fellow who disagrees with one to construe Crowley's attempt -- in an effort to show that he is being willfully misunderstood -- to conclude that he thinks only Hitler mattered and that none of the victims did. He -- in no way -- implies this. However, if one wants him to shut up, there is, I think, no more effective way. And -- as a parting wave from the foul and reeking orlop of what my disagreements might be thought to imply -- I will note that I do not think S the creator of English, in no way endorse any atrocity whatsoever, wish health and happiness to everyone -- the drowned and the saved. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 18:49:43 +0100 Subject: Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues This is an addition to my previous posting (Oct 11), an attempt to make my point as clear as possible. Unfortunately, today (Friday!) I haven't much time, so I apologize in advance for the schematic form of this intervention (not to mention the probable, numerous typos and imperfections of various kinds that I won't have the possibility to look for and amend). 1. As far as I can see, no SHASPERian is questioning the "importance" of WS or the "importance" of the role of English in the world today. The problem was (at the beginning of this discussion) and is (as far as I am concerned), (a) *which* English are we talking about, and (b) *what* is the English we are talking about. My opinion is that to say, as it has here been said, that we are talking of Shakespeare's language (in the sense that English was "created" by WS -- and there an end) is the same as maintaining that the history of England (and of the whole world) began and ended with WS. I think that we should make a distinction between *International* English and the various national "Englishes" in the first place. The former is an almost merely "instrumental" language; it is a language almost completely devoid of cultural substance referable to a particular nation; it is, in short, a language that, in all its aspects, is being developed *internationally*, by international politics, international economics and finance, international science, international tourism, etc. etc. (the predominance of the US in most of these fields is beyond dispute, but as to the "English" of -- say -- contemporary physics, there is nothing in it that can be traced back to the culture of the American people and ONLY to that: it's a sort of code through which the physicists of ten or more different nationalities and mother languages working for -- say -- the "Conseil Europeen des Recherches Nucleaires" exchange ideas with their colleagues, they too of ten or more different nationalities and mother tongues, working somewhere in the US, or in India, or in Ukraine: the words are [most of the times, not always] English, but the thought these words *mean* is neither peculiarly American nor peculiarly French or Italian or Indian -- it's *inter-national*; a decidedly *international* literature has not yet been born, as far as I can see, though the works of some authors -- V.S. Naipaul's, for instance -- may perhaps be looked at as the first step in this direction). A completely different case is that of the various national "Englishes". If I read -- say -- "The Second Coming," 1920, either I am able to recognize it as a discourse inseparable from certain problems of the Irish culture of the time, and from the language of certain areas of that culture, or I'll understand nothing of it -- nothing of its thought, or pathos, or poetical truth, nothing even of its literal meaning. In *The Palm-Wine Drinkard* -- just another example -- the words are (generally) English, but the thought that *informs* them, and the rhythm, and the imaginative content of Tutuola's prose are distinctly African, Nigerian, more precisely Yoruba. 2. If the foregoing can be broadly agreed on, what -- to put it in Appelbaums's words -- is the point of claiming that Shakespeare somehow invented English? What is the point of proclaiming that English is not only the second most spoken language in the world, but "the most important in every other way"? Which English are we talking about? American English? OK: it is a very important language -- it's the language of the culture of the American people (or, better, of the majority of that great and composite nation); English English? it is very important, it is the language of the English people; Australian English? my answer is always the same; are we talking of Nigerian English? OK: it is very important, it is the official language of Nigeria and the language of an important section of the literature and culture of that people. And what about Turkish, Aramaic, Zulu, Xhosa, Swahili, Russian, Finnish, Japanese,... Spanish? Are these languages, or any one of the other idioms issued from the Tower of Balel, less "important" than any one of the "Englishes" I've hinted at? I'm waiting for someone to say that the Zulus, or the Afghans, or any one of the other nations of this planet is not as "important" as any one of the English-speaking nations. I warn this potential "someone" (should such a SHAKSPERian exist): I can say "stupid ignorant racist" in no less than twenty different languages (in five or six of which, International English included, I could add something even more precise and pungent). 3. If we want to do WS justice, if we really want to acknowledge his "importance", then, I think, we must not deify him: on the contrary, we must question his greatness and, in any case, not worship, but *discuss* his works (which, by the way, as works of art, belong to the whole world -- not because of an abstract moral principle, but because no *Hamlet* or *Lear* or *Merchant of Venice* or *Macbeth* or anything could ever have been "created" by a WS out of the history of European society, of European culture, of European art, including all links between that history and the history of all other parts of the world then known). Thank you. Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 08:27:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0788 After the New Historicism?; Historical Fact Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0788. Sunday, 15 October 1995. (1) From: Dan Pigg Date: Friday, 13 Oct 95 10:56:37 CST Subj: After the New Historicism? (2) From: David Lindley Date: Saturday, 14 Oct 1995 09:13:55 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0783 Re: Historical Fact (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Pigg Date: Friday, 13 Oct 95 10:56:37 CST Subject: After the New Historicism? Several months back there was a discussion on the impact of the New Historicism on Shakespeare and early modern studies. Either it is my perception or it seems true that New Historicism seems to be on the decline or is being in some way modified. What do we call this new and developing school of criticism that seems to be replacing NH? Someone has called it neo-formalism. Has anyone else heard this term, and if so, how has it been used? Thanks, Dan. Daniel Pigg Department of English The University of Tennessee at Martin (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Saturday, 14 Oct 1995 09:13:55 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0783 Re: Historical Fact Gabriel Egan confidently asserts that he thought historians had abandoned the notion of historical 'fact' - and if they haven't they should. It is this notion that seems to me 'silly'. Whilst it is certainly proper that we recognise the degree to which 'history' is constructed - and relies upon traces that are always mediated through text - the fashionable abandonment (by literary critics rather than historians) of the whole notion of factual evidence is perverse and damaging. Two simple examples: 1) Elizabeth died in 1603 and was succeeded by a Scottish monarch, James I. Fact(?) This has significant consequence for the understanding and explication of Shakespearean dramatic texts, and the student not aware, either of the chronology of the plays or of this most basic piece of information is liable to make a hash of reading them. It's not the most important thing about the tragedies of Macbeth and King Lear, or the anxieties of Measure for Measure (so distinct from the earlier 'Elizabethan' comedies), certainly - and I would agree that arguing that this 'fact' is sufficient to explain, or explain away, those texts is indeed plainly 'silly'. But it is surely a significant constituent of their preoccupations? 2. For a long time it was assumed that Jonson's masque, Golden Age Restored, was performed in 1615. 'Factual' evidence - the ambassadorial reports discovered by John Orrell - demonstrates incontrovertibly that this is wrong, and that the masque was performed in 1616. Once this is recognised then the whole reading of the work changes, since it becomes obvious that it is keyed to the events of the Overbury trial. These are things I would call 'facts' - and would claim make significant difference to the way we might understand literary texts. Not to give our students some respect for the evidential and demonstrable is a grave dereliction of scholarly duty, it seems to me. Of course things become much more complex and difficult once one begins to ask about things treated as 'givens' (the 'crypto-facts' of much historicist criticism, new and old) - the 'absolutism' of the Jacobean state, or 'patriarchy' - or the 'anti-semitism' of the period, for example. But even here, one way of escaping the tyranny of prepackaged assumptions so often crudely mobilised by critics of all theoretical persuasions is through an ever more attentive regard for those things that can be 'factually' established. To re-iterate: I'm not for one minute denying that the historian/critic is implicated in the construction of the history they present as 'fact', and that we are judging between competing stories etc. etc. I think it essential that we and our students should be sceptical and critical of history's claims to 'truth'. But, even if it means I have to wear the penitential badge of 'empirical old historicist' over a white sheet weekly in my lectures, I'm not prepared to abandon the notion that 'facts' matter, and the consequent belief that scholarship is about founding hypothesis as securely as may be in evidence, whilst at the same time knowing and acknowledging that the evidence is never complete, never free from interpretation. David Lindley ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 08:31:17 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0789 What is this list for, exactly? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0789. Sunday, 15 October 1995. From: J.H. Sawday Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 17:42:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: What is this list for, exactly? I'm at a loss to understand what this list is for, or what it thinks it is doing. I joined (as I recall) because I had a professional interest in Shakespeare studies and Renaissance culture. I'm a Shakespeare editor, and I try to write and think about Early Modern European culture. I teach (and have taught) the plays, texts, images, philosophy, politics, and science of that era to undergraduates and postgraduates here in the UK, and in Ireland, and in the US. Working at a British provincial University, E-mail and discussion lists seemed like a gift to an academic such as myself: a way of keeping oneself informed, of trying out ideas, of chancing one's arm (perhaps) in ways that formal publication doesn't allow. To make such a forum work, however, a degree of self-restraint (judgement?) seems a prerequisite. But one of the first tasks I now get out of the way when I come into my office, having switched on the computer and lit up the first fag of the day, is to scan through all the messages from `Hardy M. Cook' with my finger hovering over the `D' key on the keyboard. What am I deleting? More often than not: personal responses to a group of late 16th and 17th cent. plays which pretend to universal significance, an absurd devotion to having one's name spelt correctly, a line of reasoning which will allow one respondent to accuse another of neo-fascism, which prompts the co-respondent to artlessly sneer at his accuser for preferring the German to the Polish spelling of a concentration camp, a desire to claim for oneself the status of `victim of history' by appropriating the histories of others (whether `related' or `unrelated'), the right to pronounce on other cultures whilst freely acknowledging that this other culture is a closed book due to (an absence of) linguistic competence, and, of course, day after day, like Macbeth's line of kings, a `message-from-Godshalk'. I feel sorry for Mr Cook. We have never met, but I have come to associate his name (when it flashes up on my computer) with more messages from the egoists of the ether. So may I now pose the question: What, exactly, does this list think it is for? My guess would be that it no longer has an intellectual rationale, and that it should disband itself forthwith. But perhaps I am wrong? Jonathan Sawday Department of English, University of Southampton, Southampton S017 1BJ UK ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 08:35:38 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0790 Politeness vs. Political Correctness (Was "Spelling") Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0790. Sunday, 15 October 1995. From: Ken Steele Date: Saturday, 14 Oct 95 11:28:58 UT Subject: RE: Politeness vs. Political Correctness (Was "Spelling") Hi everyone, again. I'd like to second Michael Best's plea for informality in SHAKSPER's discussion threads. When we originally conceived SHAKSPER, it was after attending my first Shakespeare Association conference in Vancouver, at which I was intrigued by several papers and panels, but energized and stimulated most by the informal programme -- late-night discussions of textual theory over dinner with Steve Urkowitz and others, chatter in the lobby about the session we'd just attended, putting human faces to the many articles and books academic Shakespeareans must constantly digest. In pitching the idea to the SAA Executive for their endorsement, we emphasized that SHAKSPER could be a year-round continuation of both formal and informal activities at the annual SAA conference, with a fileserver for formal papers and discussion threads for notes, queries, and spirited discussion. The academic world has more than enough traditional forums for juried publication of thoroughly-researched work -- but the online community which has grown up around SHAKSPER can offer so much MORE. In particular, I hope, a renewed sense of international fellowship and scholarly cooperation (something the traditional channels unfortunately do NOT foster). Michael is quite right to defend approximate spellings, vague references, contractions, colloquialisms and friendly jests -- without these, ordinary conversation becomes stilted and tedious. But I would go a little further, to suggest that the great enemy of our fragile virtual community is not so much formality as intolerance. By all means spell-check if it means fewer misunderstandings. If an ambiguous word becomes central to your argument, by all means "[sic]" it. But remember that there's a world of difference between clarification and pedantry -- particularly the sort of pedantry that seeks to impugn another's intelligence or the worthiness of their argument because of a mere typo. Let's tolerate a typo in cyberspace as we would a stutter in the classroom -- by generously, politely affording the typist the benefit of doubt. I have no desire to fan the flames which have engulfed several threads in recent weeks by taking sides, but Michael's "culture checker" brings up an important issue for any online discussion group -- political correctness. Now, please understand me, I firmly believe that political correctness is in many ways an evil which threatens to stifle academic freedom and to eliminate virtually all humour from the face of the earth. Nonetheless, we must always bear in mind that an internet discussion group such as SHAKSPER may incorporate participants from every imaginable human culture, and that unlike our hallway chatter at the SAA, every word we share here is in print and very, very public. In SHAKSPER's early days, it was feasible for me to correspond privately with writers of potentially inflammatory postings and quite literally "moderate" our discussions BEFORE things were said. (It may appall you to know that I even experimented briefly with correcting everyone's spelling to prevent unnecessary embarassment.) I'm no longer so sure that such editorial intervention is necessary or desirable -- we are all adults (I think) and can fight our own fights, after all -- and certainly would not wish any further chores on our already overworked editor, Hardy Cook. I would, however, urge that we all police ourselves to some extent, and tolerate others even more. Those who indulge in ad hominem invective and petty nit-picking lose my respect far more than those who make erroneous arguments or express offensive opinions -- but both threaten the spirit of trust and camaraderie which lies at SHAKSPER's heart. Ken (un-spell-checked, forgive me) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 08:44:48 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0791 Re: Jonson/Jones Feud; Q: Royal Shakespeare touring company Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0791. Sunday, 15 October 1995. (1) From: Bob Evans Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 11:45:56 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0778 Q: Jonson/Jones Feud (2) From: Keith Ghormley Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 22:56:14 -0500 Subj: Royal Shakespeare touring company (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Evans Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 11:45:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0778 Q: Jonson/Jones Feud Mike Jones asked about discussions of the feud between Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones. Here are some possibilities: D. J. Gordon, "Poet and Architect: The Intellectual Setting of the Quarrel between Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones," in _The Renaissance Imagination_, ed. Stephen Orgel (1975), 77-101. Orgel, _The Jonsonian Masque_ (1965), esp. p. 61. Orgel and Roy Strong, _The Theatre of the Stuart Court_ (1973). James Lees-Milne, _The Age of Inigo Jones_ (1953), 19-52. J. Alfred Gotch, _Inigo Jones_ (1928), 136-51. Graham Parry, _The Golden Age Restored_ (1981), 146-64. C.H. Herford and Percy and Evelyn Simpson, _Ben Jonson_ (1925-52_, 10: 689-92. See also H&S 1: 145. R. C. Evans, _Ben Jonson and the Poetics of Patronage_ (1989), 158-65, 183-84, 235-36. There is also a recent note by Anthony Johnson in _Notes and Queries_. I don't have the exact citation handy, but it can be found through the MLA Bibliography. Hope this helps. Bob Evans bobevans@strudel.aum.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith Ghormley Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 22:56:14 -0500 Subject: Royal Shakespeare touring company Can anyone tell me anything about the Royal Shakespeare Company's current touring company that's doing R&J and Macbeth? I understand they are a black company and put the Macbeth setting in Africa. I have a chance to attend. Any critiques? Keith Ghormley, Lincoln Nebr ghormley@inetnebr.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 08:50:58 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0792 Re: *MV* and Antonio Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0792. Sunday, 15 October 1995. (1) From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 15:58:48 UTC+0200 Subj: SHK 6.0777 Re: Re: *MV* and Antonio (2) From: Joan Hartwig Date: Friday, 13 Oct 95 22:48:06 EDT Subj: RE: Antonio and *MV* (3) From: Joe Nathan Date: Saturday, 14 Oct 1995 05:31:03 -0700 Subj: MV (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 13 Oct 1995 15:58:48 UTC+0200 Subject: SHK 6.0777 Re: Re: *MV* and Antonio Dear Shakespeareans, I am afraid I have missed much of the debate on *MV* and I do not know whether my suggestion has already been made. Has anyone thought that Shakespeare's Shylock could be the embodiment of a critique against Puritans covered with the veneer of what seems to be antisemitism? For some reason or another, Shakespeare concealed his disapproval of Puritans unlike Jonson in *The Alchemist* and *Bartholomew Fair* or Thomas Randolph in *The Muses' Looking Glass*. Perhaps, Shakespeare fancied antisemitism as "politically correct" -if I may say so- as a contrast to the overt depiction of a Puritan on stage. The literal reading of the Bible, favoured by some sects, would be the idea aimed at in the whole business of the bond and the trial scene. Here's a new turn in the discussion. Does anyone agree? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joan Hartwig Date: Friday, 13 Oct 95 22:48:06 EDT Subject: RE: Antonio and *MV* Although it is a bit late to enter into the discussion, I was delighted to find Bill Godshalk considering the possibility that Portia (and Shakespeare) would make a joke to "take the audience with her" in asking "Which is the merchant here? and which the Jew?" I have always understood that this was a joke to tease the audience out of the all-too-serious stances it may have taken on judging either Antonio or Shylock. Not that serious matter does not follow. Comic shifts in perspective are, to my reading and seeing, one of Shakespeare's fortes. Has anyone mentioned Bernard Grebanier's *The Truth About Shylock* (New York: Random House, 1962), in which he reviews almost twenty analogues for the "pound of flesh story" both in ancient times and in fiction more contemporary with Shakespeare's time? Shakespeare was not only aware of Marlowe. Considerately, Joan Hartwig (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Nathan Date: Saturday, 14 Oct 1995 05:31:03 -0700 Subject: MV This thread has certainly produced some lively posts. I read them all with great interest. This is not an original thought, but I wonder if anyone agrees with my conclusion that - particularly in this play - our beloved bard lost control over the key characters. Did Shakespeare's script turn out as he originally intended? I have this mental image of Shakespeare setting out to write his play -- and then the characters took over. For instance -- Who wrote the Hath-not-a-Jew-eyes-speech? Shakespeare or Shylock? I doubt - given the standard image of the Jew which was prevalent in Shakespeare's day -- if the author set out to arouse any sympathy for Shylock -- but he did. Where does the line *Which is the merchant and which the Jew?* come from? Did Shakespeare write it as comic relief? Or did Portia make her entrance and surprise Shakespeare (and us) with it in order to make a point we had never considered? And what about that last act? With Shylock disposed of, who insisted on a confrontation with Bassanio/Antonio -- Shakespeare or Portia? As I said, I know there is nothing original here. This concept has been expressed many times. But for some reason I feel it more in MV than in any of Shakespeare's plays. The only other writing which gives me such a strong feeling of an author losing control of his own creation is Wagner's Ring. Is this totally crazy - or does someone else feel it too? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:05:24 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0793 Re: Historical Fact Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0793. Monday, 16 October 1995. (1) From: John Drakakis Date: Sunday, 15 Oct 1995 20:08:47 +0100 Subj: SHK 6.0788 Historical Fact (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 15 Oct 1995 21:07:21 +0100 Subj: Re: Historical Fact (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Sunday, 15 Oct 1995 20:08:47 +0100 Subject: SHK 6.0788 Historical Fact If David Lindley thinks that "history" is constructed (by whom, under what conditions, and for what purposes?), and "relies upon traces that are always mediated through text", how can he persist in his thoroughly empiricist belief in the integrity of "fact"? Moreover, how can he then proceed to assert that Macbeth, Lear or Measure For Measure have as "a significant constituent of their preoccupations" the "fact" of Elizabeth's death in 1603 and her succession by James I, without himself constructing a narrative? The movement here from "fact" to "crypto-fact" to use Lindley's own tendentious expression, seems palpable. Perhaps instead of lecturing others he might like to ponder a little more seriously than his inadequate digestion of fashionable positions seems to have permitted, the philosophical horns of his own dilemma. That might require a little less self-righteousness, and a greater willingness to examine his own clearly faulty assumptions, particularly those which depend upon his reluctance to acknowledge the interconnections between "fact" and interpretation. Even F.R.Leavis knew that there is a value implicit in the realizing. Best wishes John Drakakis (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 15 Oct 1995 21:07:21 +0100 Subject: Re: Historical Fact David Lindley offers two 'facts': >1) Elizabeth died in 1603 and was succeeded by a Scottish monarch, James I. I've never encountered a serious argument to the contrary. It is generally accepted without gainsay. >2. For a long time it was assumed that Jonson's masque, Golden Age Restored, >was performed in 1615. 'Factual' evidence - the ambassadorial reports >discovered by John Orrell - demonstrates incontrovertibly that this is wrong, >and that the masque was performed in 1616. This issue clearly is one about which conflict has arisen. Orrell put forward some documents in an effort to change what gets said about the subject. Lindley has chosen a good pair of examples of why the notion 'fact' is not very useful to describe such disparate cases. In the latter example I guess (I have no knowledge of the particular case) that before Orrell's work the earlier view was presented as 'fact'. If not, there are plenty of other examples: the flatness of the world is a good one. The phenomena do not divide themselves up into two categories, 'fact' and 'opinion'. Rather we do the dividing when we find an example of the latter so compelling and apparently incontrovertible that we promote it to the former category. Lindley's notion of 'fact' requires that these unchangeable, unchallangeable statements must be available for periodic alteration. The category 'fact' undoes itself. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:21:30 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0794 Re: *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0794. Monday, 16 October 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 15 Oct 1995 16:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0792 Re: *MV* and Antonio (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 08:27:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0792 Re: *MV* and Antonio (3) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 08:34:24 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0792 Re: *MV* and Antonio (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 15 Oct 1995 16:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0792 Re: *MV* and Antonio I am reading John Lyon's book-length study of MV now and he says something to the effect that every time we think we are presented with a character whose "interiority" or psychological depth we can identify with, that sure enough Shakespeare (or the play) will take that away from us. I think there is something to be said for that (re Shylock, Portia, Antonio, etc.)... I also saw recently an offhand quote (not pursued) by W.T. McCrary that claims that Antonio is like Timon of Athens in the first half of his play-- and Shylock is like Timon in the second half. I find this worth exploring in terms of the relation between these two characters, whether viewed psychologically or functionally ("politically"). cs. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 08:27:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0792 Re: *MV* and Antonio Jesus Cora; I agree that Shakespeare's target with Shylock was more puritanism than anything relating to the jews,( but there is no question about his anti-semitism as well). We see the same issues involved in his outburst about the value of music in the same play, showing in vivid terms his scorn of those who deride music. Who would do such a thing? The puritans were doing just that, from pulpit and bookstall, blasting music, poetry, musicians and poets as tools of the Devil. I believe that in Sir Toby's remark to Malvolio, "Dost think because thou art virtuous there will be no more cakes and ale?" (not sure I remember it right) we have the playwright's statement to the rising tide of Puritanism that was threatening even then to engulf the theater, and all the arts in England. I see Shakespeare's work as in great part an effort to save what he saw as golden in the culture, encapsulate it in works of theater that would survive the cultural holocaust to come, to gladden a less ideological time at some future date. An unconscious effort probably, although he did have his eye on posterity in the sonnets. The antisemitism is all too real however, as is the sexism in Shrew and the racism in Titus Andronicus. These should not be seen as personal flaws in the author's character, but an expression of the feelings of the time. Shakespeare felt himself on firm ground comparing the Puritan moneylender to a Venetian jew, because he could count on his audience's antisemitism to get his point. Earlier I suggested that teachers of Shakespeare to minority students might tackle Shakespeare's racism by discussing it right at the start, explaining it in cultural and historical terms, and enrolling the class in discovering instances of it. I still feel that this is a very beneficial approach, both to making Shakespeare relevant to their personal experience, and to healing the social wounds that remain open due to a cultural bias so deep that it is embedded in the language itself, dark still a synonym for evil or danger, fair still a synonym for goodness. Stephanie Hughes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 08:34:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0792 Re: *MV* and Antonio Joe Nathan; I believe that someone else a little earlier expressed the same thought, that Shakespeare lost control of Shylock. I agree, but would take it further. I believe that this loss of control was part of Shakespeare's method and to some extent a measure of his greatness. I believe that he would start with a combination of persons known to him and historical or classical or folk characters he knew from reading and form his characters by combining them into one character, but that at some point the character would come to life, and he would simply follow. The measure of his greatness is that he was usually able to manage these powerful and independent personas sufficiently to create a balanced drama. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:27:02 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0795 Shakespeare and "Literature" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0795. Monday, 16 October 1995. (1) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Sunday, 15 Oct 1995 18:26:06 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0787 Shakespeare and "literature". (2) From: Ed Gieskes Date: Sunday, 15 Oct 1995 19:58:13 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0787 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Sunday, 15 Oct 1995 18:26:06 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0787 Shakespeare and "literature". Terry Hawkes, one of my favorite SHAKSPERean clowns, offers the following thought: >> 1. Shakespeare was a playwright. 'Literature' is something that has been >> thrust upon him. Now, as far as I can recall, "literature" in around 1600 meant something like "acquaintance with authoritative cultural writings, mostly classical poets and philosophers." In this sense, "literature" was something one had rather than something one did, and W.S. had it thrust upon him at Stratford Grammar School, not very thoroughly if we choose to believe Greene and Jonson. In this sense, then, he did "have" literature. But more than this, what he was by the standards of his time, was a _poet_, a very ancient profession whose basic canons were well understood by most Elizabethans. He was fully recognized as such in his own time. He worked for a living in the theater, writing and acting in plays (and so produced "literature" in the slightly later sense of "things written down") and at one time tried to get a toehold on the poetry/patronage circuit, but gave that up for reasons we do not know. So that though we could say that "literature" was thrust upon him, "poetry" was a vocation he chose for himself (or one that was the product of some divine thrusting on, if you like). Much that we now call "literature" was once covered by the category "poetry" which still does a pretty good job of pointing us at certain recurrent questions about human imaginative activity, questions very relevant to what we now call "Shakespeare". Is anyone going to object if I choose to talk about Shakespeare as a poet? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Gieskes Date: Sunday, 15 Oct 1995 19:58:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0787 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues Stephanie Hughes writes: >I have been pondering Terrence Hawkes statement that what Shakespeare produced >was not literature. What was it then? And if what he produced wasn't >literature, who did "produce literature"? Is this observation the result of >some four-syllable ism that has somehow passed me by? I hope someone will >enlighten me lest I continue to operate under what appears to be a vast >misunderstanding. It's a fairly simple issue. Shakespeare wrote (primarily) plays for the public theatre in early modern England. Such plays were not considered "literary" (this term itself is problematic in the period) until later. "Literature" is a category invented later (the OED dates the earliest use of the term in the modern sense to 1779 (Samuel Johnson)). The observation is the result of attention to the contemporary reception and evaluation of what Shakespeare produced, not any -ism in particular. Literature meant something more like learned written discourse in the period and did not necessarily (or even often) apply to what we might call literary art. I hope that helps. Ed Gieskes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:34:36 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0796 Re: What is this list for, exactly? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0796. Monday, 16 October 1995. (1) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 01:06:46 +0100 Subj: Re: What is this list for, exactly? (2) From: Milla Riggio Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 00:15:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0789 What is this list for, exactly? (3) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 07:54:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0789 What is this list for, exactly? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 01:06:46 +0100 Subject: Re: What is this list for, exactly? May I ask Jonathan Sawday a very simple question? You are "a Shakespeare editor," and you "write and think about Early Modern European culture." You "teach (and have taught) the plays, texts, images, philosophy, politics, and science of that era to undergraduates and postgraduates in the UK, and in Ireland, and in the US." In a word, you are a scholar who *could* give SHAKSPER valuable contributions. Why don't you do so, why don't you state what you'd like to discuss to start with, instead of wasting your time (and perhaps not only yours) listing what you do not like of other people's discussions? Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo P.S. If you want to teach me how to get rid of my "absurd devotion to having [my] name spelt correctly," I'm ready to listen to you, but on one condition: that you don't really believe that as long as you wear your wig and don't take sides people'll mistake you for a man *super partes*. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 00:15:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0789 What is this list for, exactly? A postscript to Jonathan Sawday's message: When I first joined SHAKESPER, I looked forward eagerly to the exchanges on the list. I don't know whether they have simply become so familiar to me that I no longer find them exciting or whether they have become so personal, so repetitive, and well, on the whole, to me at least so nearly banal or what, but I now discover that I have 244 unread letters in my system. I haven't taken to deleting them, because I fantasize that when I get around to actually reading them, I will find something of real value imbedded there. But, in truth, I have not found the time even to open the files for the past two months until today and I chose to read the one message that questioned the meaning of the list. For what it's worth.... Milla Riggio (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 07:54:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0789 What is this list for, exactly? Mr. Sawday, This list, or any list, is for members to exchanges views on topics related to the subject of the list. The various threads are labelled, in part, so that members may skip what doesn't interest them. The twelve step program has a very useful motto which is passed along to all who take part: "keep what you like and leave the rest." The discussions that seem fruitless to you may not seem so to those involved in them. I suggest you ask questions or bring up topics on subjects that are of interest to you. You'll find that you attract others who share your interests. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 11:01:47 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0797 Qs: Italy connection; *Shr.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0797. Monday, 16 October 1995. (1) From: Lee Buchanan Date: Monday, 16 Oct 95 14:18:15 1000 Subj: Shakespeare and the Italy connection (2) From: Bernie Folan Date: Monday, 16 Oct 95 12:42:11 gmt Subj: Taming of the Shrew (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lee Buchanan Date: Monday, 16 Oct 95 14:18:15 1000 Subject: Shakespeare and the Italy connection Did Shakespeare travel to Italy? What do you reckon? What's the latest on this hypothesis? I'd be grateful for any info? Best wishes, Lee Buchanan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernie Folan Date: Monday, 16 Oct 95 12:42:11 gmt Subject: Taming of the Shrew Few questions possibly worth discussing: 1. Can we see TTOTS as a socio-historical comment on the necessity of a woman to become subservient in order for the institution of marriage to work. 2. Is there a message, does Shakespeare have a point of view on this or is it merely a reflection of the dynamics of the married state at this time. Bernie {folan@sageltd.co.uk} ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 10:58:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0798 Re: *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0798. Tuesday, 17 October 1995. (1) From: David Jackson Date: Monday, 16 Oct 95 10:20:24 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0784 Re: *MV* and Antonio (2) From: Stanley Hoberg Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 13:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Subj: *MV* (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 15:14:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0784 Re: *MV* and Antonio (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Monday, 16 Oct 95 10:20:24 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0784 Re: *MV* and Antonio Re: Leslie Harris' observations about Christian hypocrisy and money-lending violating principles of Christian charity, let us not also forget that the Christian powers-that-were in many parts of Europe barred Jews from many trades and professions, conveniently leaving them limited to providing such services as good Christians wouldn't do (but obviously needed someone to perform), such as money-lending. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stanley Hoberg Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 13:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: *MV* I think that the so-called "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech requires a closer look than it is usually given by those who regard it as a bid for sympathy for Shylock. It is really a speech about revenge. That is the subject with which it begins and ends, and, on the whole, shows us Shylock at his worst. He starts out by justifying his desire for revenge against Antonio and then launches into the "Hath not a Jew eyes?" passage. After the question "If you poison us, do we not die?" which ends the passage, we *expect* him to say something to the effect "Why, then, do you not treat us as human beings?" But he doesn't He returns to the subject of revenge, now on a more general plane: "If we are like you in the rest, we wil resemble you in that," and so on. In this way, Shakespeare undercuts what might have been a touching appeal for sympathetic understanding by turning it into yet one more insight into Shylock's inhumanity: unable to exper- ience fellow-feeling, he is incapable of asking for it. And to add a mordantly comic touch to the proceedings, Shakespeare allows Shylock to waste the speech on two such lightheads as Solanio and Salerio. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 15:14:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0784 Re: *MV* and Antonio Shirley Kagan wrote: >Let me try and get one thing clear first. When this discussion first started >(by Sam Schimek, I believe) the questions clearly referred to MOV in production >and the implications of Antonio's characteristics IN PRODUCTION. I have >treated this discussion from beginning to end within that context and it is >within that context that I speak of Antonio apologia and justifications of >anti-semitism. I couldn't care less if Shakespeare was anti-semitic within the >context of this conversation. The only element I am concerned about is how we >read his problematic script in production TODAY as per the original post's >request. I wonder if we can see our quarrels over interpretation as really quarrels over possible ways of staging *MV*. It is possible, of course, to present Antonio on stage as a Christian who learns charity from his experiences in the play. When he demands Shylock's conversion in Act 4, he is geuinely concerned with Shylock's soul. Antonio has changed through his suffering; he is no longer kicking and spitting on Shylock. He is now a good, concerned Christian. Just as obviously, this is not the way the BBC presented the conversion of Shylock. Here it is presented as a violent act against Shylock's identity. The cross is forced on Shylock, and he is summarily baptized. It seems to me that either interpretation can will work on stage, but I prefer the second. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 11:09:28 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0799 Re: What is this list for, exactly? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0799. Tuesday, 17 October 1995. (1) From: Moray McConnachie Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 15:29:41 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0789 What is this list for, exactly? (2) From: John Boni Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 16:03:24 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0796 Re: What is this list for, exactly? (3) From: Norman J. Myers Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 11:06:50 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0789 What is this list for, exactly? (4) From: Amy Ulen Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 00:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0796 Re: What is this list for, exactly? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 15:29:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0789 What is this list for, exactly? If Jonathan Sawday finds this list such a fag, why doesn't he simply unsubscribe from it? Clearly the rest of us find it useful or enjoyable in some respect, or we wouldn't still be out here. Certainly, I delete some messages from this list unread. That is my prerogative. However, others may be interested. Moreover, I frequently read messages simply because it gives me some idea of what scholars, directors, or even (God help us!) "Joe Public" are thinking about and working on in Shakespeare: even if I don't agree with them, I think it's important to know what directions Shakesperean studies are taking. Why should I assume that because I'm not interested, no one else is or should be? I work in the Renaissance field, but not specifically on Shakespeare. SHAKSPER never pretended to be a highly specific, academic-only list. A purely academic list might be useful, I suppose, but I see no reason why SHAKSPER should become this. Even if the tone of discussion occasionally irritates, I have had several (factual) queries usefully answered from the list, and I personally am extremely grateful to Hardy for his work on it, and hope he feels able to continue with it. Certainly, we could take a vote on closing the list, but why should Jonathan assume that because he gets little out of it, it should close? Really, sir, if you wish to go, then go quietly. I can with pleasure give you detailed instructions on how to unsubscribe if you have any difficulties with it. Yours, Moray McConnachie (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 16:03:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0796 Re: What is this list for, exactly? A brief comment. I've been on this list for about a year now. When I first entered, I sent a post commenting on the trivia of some posts and wondering if the lack of an editor and copyright protection might be a factor. Perhaps I assumed that an academic list would be solely one of high seriousness. In the past year I have found the list valuable on balance. Perhaps my situation is relevant to the value I find in the list. As an academic dean (and an administrator for the last fourteen years), I do not find it easy to "keep up" with scholarship. The bibliographic suggestions on SHAKSPER have been invaluable; the discussions haave often been illuminating; and the (usually) predictable clashes of personalities, sometimes disguised as clashes of critical philosophy, have been amusing. Not everything has been of value; some is a waste. As far as the "waste," I recall my smug and youthful satisfaction when I saw a failed Ingmar Bergman film years ago. (Smile, everyone.) We removed the authorship question issue. What, exactly, would anyone want to change? John M. Boni, Dean ujboni@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu College of Arts & Sciences phone 312-794-6130 Northeastern Illinois University FAX 312-794-6689 Chicago, Il 60625 (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 11:06:50 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0789 What is this list for, exactly? Re: Jonathan Sawday's Statement/Question Wonderfully put! I'm beginning to wonder myself. One of the pitfalls of college teaching must be the temptation to listen to our own words or read our own writings and think they are important when we really should be helping our students find out for themselves what really *is* important. We should also be listening respectfully and in a civilized manner to what our colleagues have to say. Who knows, we all may learn something. In the meantime, thank heaven for the "D" key Norman Myers Bowling Green State University. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Ulen Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 00:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0796 Re: What is this list for, exactly? Marcello Cappuzzo asks Jonathan Sawday, "why don't you state what you'd like to discuss to start with, instead of wasting your time (and perhaps not only yours) listing what you do not like of other people's discussions?" This question is the reason why I don't post to this group. Mr. Cappuzzo flames Mr. Sawday for expressing his views. I have questions that I would like to ask of the group, but I don't want to be flamed by people who feel my questions are stupid. Luckily, I run a Shakespeare list for participants of the NEH National Institute on Teaching Shakespeare with Shakespeare & Company. I take all of my questions to this list, because I know the people will be supportive. Amy Ulen Moscow Alternative School Center ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 11:22:15 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0800 Re: Historical Fact Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0800. Tuesday, 17 October 1995. (1) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 16:48:35 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0788 Historical Fact (2) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 09:56:14 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0794 Re: *MV* AND historical fact (3) From: William Proctor Williams Date: Monday, 16 Oct 95 21:52 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0793 Re: Historical Fact (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 22:59:30 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0793 Re: Historical Fact (5) From: Michael Yogev Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 95 09:32:30 IST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0793 Re: Historical Fact (6) From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 09:41:55 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0793 Re: Historical Fact (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 16:48:35 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0788 Historical Fact Oh dear, David Lindley's first simple 'historical fact' seems very dubious. Elizabeth was certainly NOT succeeded by 'a Scottish monarch, James 1'. Keep trying. T. Hawkes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 09:56:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0794 Re: *MV* AND historical fact It has often been suggested -- even here on our list -- that Shylock is a cipher for what Professor Hughes calls a "rising tide of Puritanism." If Patrick Collinson is correct, however, Puritanism as an alternative system of religious and cultural practices was all but dead during the 1590s; Elizabeth and her bishops had seen to that. Perhaps the absence of Puritan oppositionism, like the absence of Jews in England during the 1590s, is another one of those "facts" that has something to tell us about what WS was up to. But in this case "the fact" is just the opposite of what empiricists want facts to be; it is the trace of an absence whose verifiability can only be deduced from the presence of countervailing "facts" in other places and at other times. Positivist criticism -- as in the example of the reinterpretation of *The Golden Age Restored* subsequent to a new dating of the masque -- can only tell us what a text might mean in terms of what seems to be immediately present. It cannot tell us what a text means in terms of what is absent. In the case of *MV* Jews are absent; England is absent; in England itself mercantile capitalism is by and large absent, a juridical system capable of adjudicating the dispute at the end of the play is largely absent, and Puritans are by and large absent too. All of which may serve to remind us, as Freud pointed out, that *MV* is something of a fairy tale. Which is not to say that it doesn't MEAN anything -- only that it can't be expected to mean exactly what it says, or to correlate exactly with what a positivist might come with as a "fact." Robert Appelbaum (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Monday, 16 Oct 95 21:52 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0793 Re: Historical Fact I really do not wish to jump into this controversy, but I feel I must. Don't we have the "death certificate" fact that Elizabeth I died on 24 March 1602/3? If she didn't, is she still alive? The important issues must be: what did it mean? why did James VI become James I of England? What did that mean for politics, religion, literature, and us? When I die the "fact," I would have thought, is that I am dead. The questions for people to ponder and discuss: 1. did he not hear the train? 2. did someone distract him so he did not hear the train? 3. did someone trip him so he fell under the train? 4. did he have a fit a fall under the train? 5. did someone push him in front of the train? 6. was he reading +Hamlet+ and just walk in front of the train? 7. he saw the train as his destiny and tried to grasp it? 8. fate? 9. he was drunk? 10. the entire English department saw this as a way to get another tenure-track position? Some of these are odd, some are a little odd, but all should be considered. My point is, that I am dead is a fact, the reason why I am dead is not. Does this help? Probably not. William Proctor Williams (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 22:59:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0793 Re: Historical Fact Would it help to distinguish between "data" (raw, uninterpreted evidence) and "facts" (primary interpretations of this data)? William Ingram, *The Business of Playing,* has a good discussion of "data" and "fact" vis-a-vis Shakespeare's marriage in his first chapter. Yours, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 95 09:32:30 IST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0793 Re: Historical Fact In the spirit of the debate/critique of "fact" vs. "interpretation/opinion" it seems to me that William Blake's notion of a "contrary" might be a most useful and even essential idea to consider. Basically, Blake saw too many "Negations" like Body/soul, reason/imagination as the guiding errors of his day, and he set about trying to show that without recognizing the interconnectedness and indeed the essential reliance of each of these concepts on their paired "other" we fall into a situation in which one concept attempts to annihilate its other, or "negate" it. It's not that Blake saw Derrida's binary oppositions coming, but rather that he recognized in his peculiarly Romantic way that all so-called "facts" are a function of perception, AND that perception is likewise inescap- ably a function of "facts." Hence he coined his version of a new, non-negative relationship of tense coexistence and interrelationship, "Contrary." When he states that "Without Contraries is no Progession" (Marriage of Heaven and Hell) he means, I think, that the sort of tense and even acrimonious discussions we have witnessed over the past weeks on SHAKSPER are very important to progress in "Mental War and Hunting" as long as no-one tries to turn them into negations or domination. This is of course to take sides with those who recognize the constructedness of history, but also to point out that the facts (as David Lindley constructs them) have constructed us and our perceptions. We need not then placidly sit back and fall into some comfortable form of anomie or stasis, but rather take up mental arms and try to stride once more into the many inter- pretive breaches the works of WS and others present--without fooling ourselves that they are any more "real" than our perceptions and the facts that have and continue to condition them are. It's exhilirating, to me, and even important if one accepts, as Blake would, the proposition of Paolo Freire that our one ontological vocation in this world is to become more human. Non-tendentiously yours, Michael Yogev (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 09:41:55 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0793 Re: Historical Fact Well, I must have 'arrived' on the list to have elicited a lecture from John Drakakis (though to be rebuked by John for 'self-righteousness' does seem a bit ripe!) My points were brief, and no doubt 'tendentious' - but when Gabriel Egan says that the change of reign 'is generally accepted without gainsay' he in essence admits the central, simple point I was trying to make. I don't disagree with John Drakakis that it's in the movement from the 'fact' to interpretation that a narrative is constructed, but would argue that there is independence as well as interdependence between the two things. We can agree or disagree about the significance of the event, but not about the date of its happening. Gabriel Egan suggests that John Orrell's evidence about the dating of Golden Age Restored is merely the 'putting forward of some documents ... to change what gets said'. That is the effect of his evidence, but not the single purpose or sole validation of it. The empirical discovery of the actual document materially and irrevocably changed the framework for interpretation. Of course 'facts' are often provisional, often later proved to be mistaken. Of course what we do with the evidence changes as, from our particular positions, we seek to construct a story - John can rest assured that I have read my Hayden White, etc.- but it seems to me, perhaps naively, that the scope of interpretation is limited and controlled in some significant measure by the stubborn materiality of evidence. I don't think I was ever trying to argue, as John Drakakis suggests, for 'the integrity of "fact"' in a simple kind of way. I was rather worrying that the very valuable recognition of the constructedness of history has itself congealed into an over-simple formulation which lifts the responsibility of scholarship from the shoulders of the critic. Gabriel Egan is right, of course, that what was once treated as 'fact' may turn out to be mistaken - but this doesn't seem to me to render the notion of factuality totally untenable. Some things are, as he accepts, incontrovertible - and some things are entirely a matter of opinion or interpretation. I don't suggest that the world is divided up into 'two categories', but that there is a sliding scale - and one which ends in demonstrable error. I'd actually want to go further, and say that abandonment of any notion of the possibility of 'factual' evidence resisting and challenging interpretation has fearsome consequence for our political and social life. There may be a connection here with some of the heated debate about Merchant of Venice that has been pursued on this list. Auschwitz - fact or construction? David Lindley ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 11:35:07 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0801 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0801. Tuesday, 17 October 1995. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 12:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0795 Shakespeare and "Literature" (2) From: An Sonjae Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 09:49:08 +0900 (KST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0795 Shakespeare and "Literature" (3) From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 16 Oct 95 13:06:54 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0787 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues (4) From: Michael Harrawood Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 15:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0787 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 12:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0795 Shakespeare and "Literature" Ed Gieskes, Thanks for the post regarding what is literature and what isn't. I still don't understand, however, why we should interpret what Shakespeare wrote, or Donne, or Moliere, or Dante, or Jane Austen, with sixteenth century terminology. What are we to call the great written works that have been penned since the classical period? Why not literature? To know how the term was used in Shakespeare's day is interesting, but it seems more important to find an agreed upon term for here and now. Can anyone think of a better one? Stephanie Hughes It is of interest of course to know what Shakespeare himself thought he was writing, but what do we think he wrote? I think he wrote great literature. I can't think of any other way to say it. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: An Sonjae Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 09:49:08 +0900 (KST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0795 Shakespeare and "Literature" For some helpful ideas on the early use (Shakespeare - Restoration) of the term Literature, see Gerald MacLean's opening essay in -Culture and Society in the Stuart Restoration- Cambridge UP 1995 ISBN 0-521-47566-X which points out that Shakespeare only once uses any form of the word literature, in -Henry V- (4.7.153-54) where Fluellen ways "Gower is a good captain, and is good knowledge, and literatured in the wars" and develops the connection bewteen being "literatured" and being part of a society's culture, following Raymond Williams. Anthony, An Sonjae, Sogang University, Seoul, Korea anthony@ccs.sogang.ac.kr (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Monday, 16 Oct 95 13:06:54 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0787 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues I am not sure if my referring to Gary Taylor's "Reinventing Shakespeare" as "the bible" was one of the things that set Joseph Green off on his anti-Taylor crusade. The last chapter of Taylor's book--"Singularity"--has angered a lot of people (occasionally myself included), who find many of his assertions questionable. However, in Taylor's defense, I should remind Dr. Green and others that Taylor would be the last person to set himself up as some kind of unchallengable authority or (God forbid) unbiased, nonideological interpreter of history. In that same chapter, he cheerfully invites readers to examine "evidence which I have suppressed or ignored in writing this narrative" (I don't have my copy with me, but it's something like that). My glowing recommendation of his book was in direct response to a query regarding good texts on Shakespeare and the early Modern period, and I maintain that his chapter on this period (entitled "Goodbye to All That") is one of the finest analyses of early Modern Shakespeare criticism that one could find. It is lively, insightful, humorous, infuriating and thought-provoking. Rather like the Bible. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Harrawood Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 15:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0787 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues Joseph M. Green writes about "the cultural relativity of Ascham's xenophobia," and then chastizes those (I think he means me) who would "demonize England" by accusing English xenophobia of being different from everybody else's; Stephanie Hughes writes about Carlyle's and English's "hypocrisy" and then warns against throwing the baby out with the bath water when making moral or cultural judgments. None of this is what my post was about, and so, with apologies in advance to Mr. Sawday, I thought I'd take another run at it. First, Ascham was not being xenophobic in his plug for Hoby's _Courtier_ (that one year's serious study was of more value to an English student than three years in Italy). I don't think I was suggesting he was. Ascham was an Italophile, and was deeply committed to Italianizing English culture (though not the language). Also, Italy was not Babylon but home to much of England's Protestant aristocracy during the Marian exile. Hoby lived there for eight years, and Ascham's teacher, John Cheke, was lecturer in classics at Padua for several years. There is a great deal of complexity to be teased out of English attitudes toward the Continent at this time, as there is also out of Ascham's comment. Similarly, instead of imagining Carlyle's hypocrisy, I think it much more intriguing (and more difficult!) to imagine a learned and reflective (even if somewhat hysterically polemical) man writing something that made absolute sense to him at the time. The hypocrisy -- if that's what it is -- comes from our perspective, not his. If we can come to think about how Ascham and Carlyle (and many others) were able to think the way they did about English, then we'll have a purchase on the history of our own thinking about it, and why the discussion here has taken its present shape -- including the flames, the mobilization of the usual pieties on both sides, and so forth. The real question seems to me not to be how English self-perception (or xenophobia if you want the talk to stay at a certain level of fervor) is just like everybody else's, but how, instead it is particular and unique. Maybe the writers of histories of other modern languages have chosen titles like the one R. F. Jones chose for his history of English: The Triumph of Pharsee, The Triumph of Finnish. But if not, maybe we ought to ask ourselves why the notion of "triumph" gets applied to English, and what that means to our present discussion. Michael Harrawood ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 11:50:45 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0802 Qs: Throckmorton: *Tmp.*; *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0802. Tuesday, 17 October 1995. (1) From: R. Abrams Date: Monday, 16 Oct 95 11:53:29 EDT Subj: Throckmorton (2) From: Michael Saenger Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 17:24:13 -0400 Subj: The Tempest (3) From: Jan Kraft Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 10:17:31 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Merchant of Venice as a banned play (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: R. Abrams Date: Monday, 16 Oct 95 11:53:29 EDT Subject: Throckmorton John Pym Yeatman writes in _The Gentle Shakespeare_ (1896) that a Clement Throckmorton "seems ... to have sheltered members of the Shakspere family, when ruined through the rapacity of Henry VIII" (p. 271). He gives no source, as though this were common knowledge. No subsequent researcher or biographer whom I've checked (including Stopes, Bernard, Fripp, Chambers, Eccles, Schoenbaum) retells the tale, nor can I find reference to the incident in my readings on the Throckmorton clan. Can anyone shed light? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 17:24:13 -0400 Subject: The Tempest One note on this list: True, it has been exasperating at times, but also quite inspiring. There is a democratic nature to this format that enables people from a wide range of backgrounds to link up and discover that their love of Shakespeare can lead to a 'virtual' community. Let's try to remember that we're all on the same side. Now, at the risk of tooting my own horn, I would like to ask a question about The Tempest. In the most recent issue of Notes and Queries (September 1995), I point out that two costumes, originally made for a royal pageant, were given to Shakespeare's acting troupe in 1610. I argue that these costumes, of a sea-monster and a sea-nymph were used as the costumes of Caliban and Ariel when the latter appears as a sea-nymph early in the play. Obviously, I also argue that these costumes inspired the characters who wore them. In other words, that Shakespeare received the costumes and created a play around them. I would like to know how people are receiving this. Are you convinced? If so, how does this affect the way we see the play? I hope this will lead to an understanding of Shakespeare as a working, active theater person rather than an introspective genius. Thanks in advance, Michael Baird Saenger (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jan Kraft Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 10:17:31 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Merchant of Venice as a banned play I'm hoping someone on the list can help me with a problem. A literature class in which I am currently enrolled is covering a chapter on books and plays which have been banned in the schools at one time or other. One of the listed plays was Merchant of Venice. Does anyone out there know why, where and how it was banned. I've not been able to find much information beyond the anti-semitism complaint and I'd be curious to learn a little more in detail. Thanks in advance. [Editor's Note: You can use the Database Function to obtain previous discusssions of anti-semitism and the play; however, the years of that exchange are not currently available from LISTSERV at the University of Toronto -- they will be available after the move to Bowie State, as soon as we get our domain name change official and a new name server arrives. --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 12:00:02 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0803 Polite v. PC; African *Mac.*; Misunderstanding; Cowell Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0803. Tuesday, 17 October 1995. (1) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 23:24:23 +0100 Subj: RE: Politeness vs. Political Correctness (2) From: Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 17:59:26 -0500 (CDT) Subj: *Macbeth* in Africa (3) From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 16 Oct 95 21:14:50 -0500 Subj: Stephanie Cowell readings (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 23:24:23 +0100 Subject: RE: Politeness vs. Political Correctness I received Ken Steele's most recent posting as a wisely conceived and extremely interesting contribution to the (necessarily) continuous revision and adjustment of the methodology of this electronic discussion. However, ever since my first reading of it, I sensed in Ken's message something disturbing, something that made me feel a little uncomfortable. Today, after reading it a second time, I think I found the source of my uneasiness in certain aspects of Ken's thought, in particular in the tone of the following sentence: "we must always bear in mind that an internet discussion group such as SHAKSPER may incorporate participants from every imaginable human culture, and that unlike our hallway chatter at the SAA, every word we share here is in print and very, very public." What is it that makes me feel uncomfortable. It is my impression (only an *impression* -- it may be I'm completely wrong) that here Ken is addressing not the whole group (the "public"), but only a section of it (the"actors"?) -- which impression, in turn, causes in me a sort of "guest syndrome," i.e. the unpleasant sensation one normally feels when, solitary guest of an acquaintance's large family, one happens to overhear a senior member of that family recommend his or her younger relations not to pick their noses in the guest's presence and, first of all, not to laugh at the guest's funny accent. The main consequence of all this is that such terms as "political correctness" or "tolerance" start sounding strange to my ears, and tend to mean "diplomacy!" rather than reciprocal, scholarly "respect" and "understanding". And then I start perspiring, don't know what to do with my hands, try to whistle my uneasiness away while (slowly) moving towards the back door... Do you think there is something wrong with my psyche? If so, I apologize for my wrong use of this medium. Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Monday, 16 Oct 1995 17:59:26 -0500 (CDT) Subject: *Macbeth* in Africa A *Macbeth* set in Africa came here to Vanderbilt last year. It may have been the Carolina Festival production; I have forgotten which company it was. The interesting thing about the production for me was how, though they set it in Africa, and seemed to allude to colonialist conflicts, there seemed to be no consistent resonance with the energies of the play, except to provide an extremely violent aura (this production began with a rape of the witches by soldiers). The white characters seemed to be scattered fairly randomly through the cast, so we couldn't figure out how race was supposed to figure into their take on the tragedy. (Macbeth and Lady M were both black.) Nearly the entire last act of this particular production becomes more a reader's theater treatment than a drama--another innovation we didn't find particularly successful (perhaps to show the characters riveted into their places in destiny?). If you see the Royal Shakespeare production, let us know how they employ the African setting. In the production I saw, it seemed mostly to provide beautiful costumes and violent setting, but not much dramatic fullness. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 16 Oct 95 21:14:50 -0500 Subject: Stephanie Cowell readings Bernice Kliman asked for details about Stephanie Cowell's upcoming NY readings from her new novel, *Physician of London.* She'll read at 7:30 pm, Tuesday, November 14, at the Community Book Store, 143 Seventh Avenue (between Garfield and Carol) in Park Slope, Brooklyn; and at 7:30 pm, Wednesday, November 15, at the new Barnes and Noble Superstore in Union Square (33 E 17th Street). Wish I could be there. Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 12:02:42 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0804 Memorial for M.C. Bradbrook Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0804. Tuesday, 17 October 1995. From: John D. Cox" Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 10:09:23 -0100 (bst) Subject: Memorial for M.C. Bradbrook I discovered recently from friends in Cambridge that M. C. Bradbrook had died on June 11, 1993, and I would like to mention her appreciatively on this list, since her death has not been noticed here before. I knew her slightly in the last eight years of her life, after she retired. (She died at age 84.) She was still remarkably sharp and somewhat crusty in those days, but I had occasion to verify her reputation for unfailing kindness, for she was generous to me in many ways, as I know she was to countless others. Her record of publications is remarkable, from *Elizabethan Stage Conditions* (1932), *Themes and Conventions of Elizabethan Tragedy* (1935), and *The School of Night* (1936) to *The Rise of the Common Player* (1962) and *The Living Monument* (1976). She also published books on Marvell, Conrad, and Ibsen, in addition to a history of Girton College, *That Infidel Place*. Girton was the first college for women at Cambridge and an institution with which Muriel Bradbrook was closely related for over 50 years. She was herself the first woman appointed to the English faculty at Cambridge with professorial rank. From 1941 to 1945 she supported the war effort by working for the Board of Trade and did her part in helping to spot enemy aircraft on the east coast. Muriel told me once that when a young woman under her charge refused to wear trousers, Muriel sent her up a coastal watch tower during a high wind. She soon climbed down to don the required gear. M. C. Bradbrook worked from time to time at the Huntington and the Folger Libraries and had visiting appointments at Kenyon College and UC Santa Cruz, as well at universities in Kuwait, Japan, and South Africa. She was indeed, as a friend described her to me, "a formidable Shakespearean." John Cox Hope College (visiting in Cambridge, 1995-96) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:00:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0805 Re: *MV* as Banned Play; African *Mac.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0805. Wednesday, 18 October 1995. (1) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 11:18:22 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0802 *MV* as banned play (2) From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 07:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0803 African *Mac.* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 11:18:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0802 *MV* as banned play For Jan Kraft, who writes: ******************************************************* I'm hoping someone on the list can help me with a problem. A literature class in which I am currently enrolled is covering a chapter on books and plays which have been banned in the schools at one time or other. One of the listed plays was Merchant of Venice. Does anyone out there know why, where and how it was banned. I've not been able to find much information beyond the anti-semitism complaint and I'd be curious to learn a little more in detail. *********************************************************************** Jan, there *is* nothing beyond the "anti-semitism complaint" with regard to banning and this play. Three or so summers ago, the Jewish community in Santa Cruz, CA raised a big stink about SHAKESPEARE SANTA CRUZ performing the play specifically because they felt it to be an anti-semitic piece. Two summers ago, the outgoing artistic director Danny Scheie directed an interesting production which de-emphasized Shylock in favor of the romance plot. As a Jew and a Shakespearean in the audience, I was uncomfortable with the emphasis, but very interested. One of Danny's best tricks is doubling, and the most memorable double was when Shylock and Lorenzo were played by the same actor (Jessica's move from father to husband was made quite strange by this). This production and three others were recently discussed in a theater journal, the name of which I'm forgetting at the moment. Does anyone know? The place to find out about banning is in production history, probably, rather than literary criticism. Ed Gero-- can you come to my rescue on this one? Sincerely yours, Brad Berens Dept. of English U.C. Berkeley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 07:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0803 African *Mac.* The African Macbeth was put on last year by a group directed by Stephen Rayne and calling themselves Committed Artists of Great Britain. I am not sure what they call themselves this year; they were to do Romeo and Juliet this fall and Macbeth in the spring, but they have cancelled the tour at the last moment, due to financial problems, leaving a lot of schools in the lurch. However, they are not an arm of the RSC; like ACTER, which I manage, they use actors with experience in the RSC and National, but they are not a legitimate part of the RSC touring company, nor are they authorized to advertise themselves as such. They do have a multi-racial cast and do a few workshops in the places they perform, but unlike ACTER they travel with large sets and costumes, and do not spend a week doing a teaching residency, as we do. ACTER's Romeo and Juliet tour is currently in progress; reports are that the production is very good, selling out most places, and they are in Furman this week. If you want more info on ACTER or the 1996 Spring tour of Macbeth or the 1996-97 season (filling up fast), contact me at csdessen@email.unc.edu or 919-967-4265(phone and fax). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:13:29 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0806 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0806. Wednesday, 18 October 1995. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 18:09:31 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0794 Re: *MV* (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 22:45:02 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0801 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance (3) From: Jodi Clark Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 14:54:18 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0787 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues (4) From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 14:32:27 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0801 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance (5) From: Paul Crowley Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 01:15:05 GMT Subj: Re: Importance of Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 18:09:31 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0794 Re: *MV* Stephanie Hughes writes >I believe that in Sir Toby's remark to Malvolio, "Dost think >because thou art virtuous there will be no more cakes and ale?" >(not sure I remember it right) we have the playwright's >statement to the rising tide of Puritanism that was threatening >even then to engulf the theater, and all the arts in England. It's a short step from here to the kind of thing still appearing in 'Shakespeare Calendars' on sale in Stratford UK bookshops: 'Never a borrower or a lender be' - William Shakespeare >I see Shakespeare's work as in great part an effort to save >what he saw as golden in the culture, encapsulate it in works of theater that >would survive the cultural holocaust to come, to gladden a less ideological >time at some future date. What evidence is there for this? Doesn't his non-participation in the printing of his plays suggest the opposite? Compare with Jonson's meticulous control of the printing of his own works. Since the only way for plays to be revived after an anticipated cultural holocaust would be either to preserve the prompt books (and we've no evidence Shakespeare tried to do this) or to have as many copies printed as possible (and we've no evidence that Shakespeare tried to do that either) I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Your use of the term "ideological" to mean 'tight-assed' prevents any serious discussion of the concept. Some SHAKSPERians, however, do consider themselves to be free agents who've escaped being 'jerked around' by ideology; so they must be using a different definition from the Althusserians. So that's three possible meanings expressed just on this list. I personally couldn't face another round of that debate. >An unconscious effort probably, although he did have >his eye on posterity in the sonnets. Could you explain? Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 22:45:02 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0801 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance Stephanie Hughes writes >What are we to call the great written works that have been penned since the >classical period? Why not literature? To know how the term was used in >Shakespeare's day is interesting, but it seems more important to find an agreed >upon term for here and now. Can anyone think of a better one? For Shakespeare, try 'drama'. (Except the poems) Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jodi Clark Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 14:54:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0787 Re: Importance of Shakespeare and Related Issues I just wanted to throw in one comment on this that may have already been thrown in. When I look at Shakespeare from a student's point of view, I see plays. The first time I was introduced to Shaksepeare was in high school, sophomore year, Julius Caesar. I though it was the most boring thing I had every read. Why? Because as many people, teachers and students, have already contested, Shakespeare was not written to be read as regular literature, it was meant to be seen. Actors are the ones who will read it, tear it apart, and with the director, suck out all of the images and symbolism and give it to the audience. Then the audience can go back to the text if they wish and come up with their own readings. At the very least, this is what a sophomore in high school needs to get through her first experience with the Bard. Now I'm not denying that you can look at Shakespeare as literature. The stories that are presented in the plays are absolutely wonderful. But for someone who is not a scholar of Shakepeare, yet, and to appreciate the beauty of the language and the imagery, seeing the play before reading the literature is vital. Now, being an college grad who studied Shakepeare in depth, saw many of the plays performed (in London and else where), I can say that I adore Shakepeare. But it wasn't until junior year in hgih school when we had to perform scenes in class in addition to looking at the story that I really appreciated what I was looking at, both on the page and on the boards. Jodi D. Clark Marlboro College (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 14:32:27 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0801 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance There are (probably) no books entitled "The Triumph of Finnish" because the Finns didn't have the ships, money, guns, interest, opportunity etc. etc. to create an empire or to establish the prestige of their language in the usual ways -- economic, military, cultural. However, it doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to suppose that in the next 100 years we will see a book entitled "The Triumph of Chinese." Linguisitc nationalism is hardly peculiar to speakers of English and that is why I think a larger context is needed if we are to look for an English "essence" that can "travel through the continent and extract the best" and return unchanged. Mr. Harrawood reminds me that attitudes towards Italy were complex and, of course, this is part of my point. Everyone knows this -- Italy at once the repository of culture (the best) and the center of Catholicism (the Papacy in particular) which was equated with "the worst." And, lots of room for complexity here. Ascham's comment, of course, doesn't have to be interpreted as xenophobic but, in the context of wondering about an English essence, I thought that Mr. Harrawood saw it as such and, if it is seen as such, it is an entirely typical comment for persons of any nationality to make. In any case, his citations of Carlyle and Arnold and his allusions to an English essence that might be pursued led me to assume that these were examples of the English essence projecting itself -- and my point is that these projections seem typical. If Shakespeare represents "Englishness" (with the ability to gad about the continent doing as Mr. Harrawood suggests), then Pushkin represents "Russian-ness" and Racine (maybe) represents Frenchness and so on. My remarks on the deficiencies of Taylor's book were not part of an anti-Taylor crusade (doomed, anyway, if I were to lead it) but simply a placing of T. Hawkes remarks as to Shakespeare not writing literature into a larger context. My point is that both fellows are making the same sorts of moves. Taylor may gleefully announce his bias and his shading of "facts." T. Hawke may assume that this sort of thing is all that is done and not care to announce it at this time or may, in fact, think that he is triumphantly making a weighty point. I don't know. But these moves are of a piece with much contemporary criticism. It is not clear that everyone reinvents Shakespeare as Taylor does or uses an easy sophistry to attain a temporary advantage as I think T. Hawke does. The usual gesture -- proclaiming that this book is ideological and an interpretation and after all what else can be done -- begs the question. It can't be very serious. How many would welcome a book on, say, the treatment of Native Americans in which the author, in a self-delighting mood and convinced that this is, after all, all that can be done invites the reader to find what he has suppressed? Some might feel that he is being admirably honest and that he is admitting that he may *unconsciously* suppress this and that as everyone does who wreaks his will on the "facts." Others might feel that there are options that might be followed to help reduce the chances that this might happen. I pointed out a few of these and following them was what used to be expected even of undergraduates. What should I say to an undergraduate who objects to my disapproval of his poor scholarship who then tells me "I never claimed I was the ultimate authority. Sure, I never mentioned that. Do you expect me to weaken my case?" I suppose I must look soulfully at him and inform him that he is, by God, right and all we can do is celebrate our differences. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Crowley Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 01:15:05 GMT Subject: Re: Importance of Shakespeare What interesting responses! I had forgotten the reasons I fled academia all those years ago. However, I expected a certain amount of "flaming" because my broad thesis is very simple, if not banal. If it is true then the concepts it expresses should form the bedrock of literature courses. They do not. So either the thesis is false or there is much that is wrong with most courses and much thinking on WS and on English literature. Personally, I have no doubt that it is the latter. The thesis is, in essence: WS = literature = individual_freedom = democracy = stability = power The "equals" signs need elaboration in each case. To take the last one first: this is a straightforward historical question, and Robert Appelbaum quotes Switzerland as a counter-example. However, stability is only a necessary condition of long-term power; it is not a sufficient one. There are many other factors, such as geography, which would have inhibited any imperial ambitions by the Swiss. On another of Appelbaum's comments: Of course, James_I did not get enthusiastic about individual rights as a result of seeing a WS play. Potential tyrants can always find good reasons to extend their power. The point is that he could not extend it. The citizens had to courage and confidence to stand up to him. The "tyranny" exercised by the Stuarts was minimal in comparison to that of Henry VIII or any modern dictator. Charles_I did not meet his end for anything he had done - merely for the possibility of what he might do with unlimited power. It was the absorption of the implicit lessons of WS by the cultured elite that mattered. Whether this came directly from WS, or through Milton or through others, is irrelevant. At the core of this discussion is the sense of individual liberty, of rule of law and freedom of debate, that dates back to the reigns of Elizabeth and James_I. Their achievement were the greatest glories of those times. It's impossible to say how much literature contributed to them; my own view is that it was indispensable; and I'm even more sure that literature would have been very different without WS; almost certainly too different. To Michele Crescenzo who says: "I see no *inherent* connection between literature and the individual." I would reply that the connection is almost certainly inherent. Great literature is invariably produced by intensely egocentric and eccentric individuals. They must necessarily live in tolerant open-minded communities. (Another problem for the Swiss - historically.) Marcello Cappuzzo asks: ". . what is the exact meaning of Crowler's [[sic]-sic] statement according to which to abhor wars and genocides is "almost futile [...and] certainly unhistorical"? Isn't this the same as saying that commoners (let alone intellectuals) should not meddle in state affairs?" No, no, no . . . how do you derive this sense? All I meant was that historians try to prevent their judgements being clouded by emotional issues. It is hard to forgive the conduct of the English in my country for 800 years. It must never be forgotten, but it is in now in the past and should not unduely affect current policy. My country allowed its history to affect its views in 1940 and took no part in the fight against Nazism. That is still a source of shame, however understandable it may have been. To Cappuzzo's question: "Is it always true that behind a bigger gun there is a linguistically and culturally bigger man?" I would say that "linguistically and culturally bigger" is far too vague; a statement that "Culture X is bigger (or better) than Culture Y" instantly arouses our hackles and usually displays only the speaker's ignorance - especially of Culture Y. Germany undoubtedly produced more effective soldiers and army corps than did (say) Italy from 1914-1945. But a Prussian sense of duty and obedience hardly counts as being "culturally bigger". A more relevant point, surely, is that Germany lost those two disastrous wars which, if she had been "culturally bigger", she would never have started. I am appalled by an attitude of intellectual/moral agnosticism which I feel has pervaded this discussion, and is best expressed by Gabriel Egan: 'What is a "historical fact"? I thought historians had abandoned such silly notions, and if they haven't they need to.' The simplest way to counter this is to note Shirley Kagan's contribution. She is, of course, utterly wrong in the attitude she infers from me. My hasty analogy about there being only one person who 'mattered' in Germany 1933-45 was solely to do with political power; perhaps I should have been more circumspect in using it, since those horrific events are so recent and so painful to so many of us. However, it is a salutary reminder that we are *not* discussing abstractions. No one questioning "historical facts" would ever dare to put theory into practice and say "The Holocaust is not an historical fact". A certain amount of questioning is appropriate. We should often ask "Do we really know what we claim to know?". But we must never extend it into "We can know nothing, and should say nothing, and must never make any judgements". This extension has, unfortunately, become all too common, leading to an intellectual and moral vacuum. Dictatorships *are* vile. Hitlerism and Stalinism are just recent instances; they will inevitably lead to holocausts of one kind or another. The concepts of individual liberty, literature, democracy and the rule of law are all bound up together. If you are claiming to teach one without the others then, at best, you are teaching nothing. If you are undermining any of them (for example, with foolish nonsense that there is no such thing as an "historical fact") then you doing your bit to set the stage for yet another holocaust. Paul Crowley ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:22:34 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0807 Re: What is this list for, exactly? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0807. Wednesday, 18 October 1995. (1) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 95 12:49:03 -0500 Subj: SHK 6.0799 What's the list for, exactly? (2) From: Michael Yogev Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 95 11:22:47 IST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0799 Re: What is this list for, exactly? (3) From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 95 08:16:24 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0799 Re: What is this list for, exactly? (4) From: Robert C. Baum Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 95 09:52:50 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0789 What is this list for, exactly? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 95 12:49:03 -0500 Subject: SHK 6.0799 What's the list for, exactly? I hope that Moray McConnachie's "even (God help us!) 'Joe Public'" was intended ironically, since some of the most interesting posts to me are those from people outside academia. While scholars may quibble and quarrel over minutiae, many others are simply passionate about Shakespeare's work and enjoy the opportunity to discuss it from multiple perspectives. I like to read just about everything that is posted to the list, though the sometimes spiteful attacks are tiresome. I'm here because I love the plays and the poems, and because I enjoy being part of a community (virtual or otherwise) that feels the same way. Chris Gordon, aka Jane Public (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 95 11:22:47 IST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0799 Re: What is this list for, exactly? Dear Ms. Ulen, It may be a cultural distinction for one living in Israel where ad hominem and "flaming" attacks are such common fare as to constitute a norm of public and private discourse (and don't misunderstand, I do not really enjoy such a "normal" mode of discourse), but I think it a shame that someone involved, as you apparently are, in the activity of finding new methods and approaches to teaching Shakespeare feels she has no forum for her ideas on SHAKSPER. Granted the dominant voices here become somewhat tendentious and even "flamish," but one advantage of the list is that it brings together people from solid (stolid? sullied?) academic posts and others from the hinterlands or margins of those same academies, as well as a number of folks simply interested in WS. I find the variety refreshing, the acrimony bracing (if sometimes a bit too abrasive), and I wish someone with your particular interest in Shakespeare for a broader audience would feel more comfortable about posting her responses--and more importantly her teaching experiences and suggestions--for the rest of us. I for one would value any insights you may have about alternative means of bringing WS to life for my students in the same way his works live for me. Yours, Michael Yogev (m.yogev@uvm.haifa.ac.il) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 95 08:16:24 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0799 Re: What is this list for, exactly? Although I will no doubt be accused of flaming Amy Ulen, I must point out that simply asking why someone doesn't post questions is hardly a flame. That practice involves the use of vulgar language, brutal and personal attacks and a the sole desire to humiliate the recepient. In fact, the SHAKSPER list has been remarkably flame free, even during heated discussions. As to the question of closing the list, my vote is hell no. I have found some of the discussions uninteresting personally and I have felt that the breakdown along theoretical lines can quickly become predicatable. But I have also found much of the discussion interesting and academically useful. And I find the "trivia" fun. Why must we be serious all the time? Annalisa Castaldo (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert C. Baum Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 95 09:52:50 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0789 What is this list for, exactly? To Jonathan Sawday of the University of Southampton: Unsubsrcibe, you dolt! And leave the vapid selfaggrandizement on your resume. This group is for a broad range of interests, some of which may not be to your liking. Many times I, too, find myself doing the "apple-delete" shuffle one too many times in a given day. But I always remember that I invited these posts into my life and that I always have the option to, um, DELETE, and, oh here's a radical concept, UNSUBSCRIBE, when off-topics flood the hard drive K reservoir. And just imagine what posts DON'T make it to the group! But wouldn't one assume this when one subscribes to an international, downloaded computer conference? I suppose not, given that today *I* had to read your verbal flatulence when I would've prefered to continue with the informative (albeit tangential at times) posts on MoV and the importance of Shakespeare. In case you were wondering, Mr. Sawday: this was a flame and I do become a net fascist when it comes to the degree of intolerance you displayed. Criticism is one thing; patronizing ignorance is another. Robert Baum Dartmouth College ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:37:52 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0808 Re: Historical Fact Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0808. Wednesday, 18 October 1995. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 22:44:58 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0800 Re: Historical Fact (2) From: David Lindley Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 09:33:54 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0800 Re: Historical Fact (3) From: Ed Pechter Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 11:51:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0800 Re: Historical Fact (4) From: Nick Ranson Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 95 12:07:50 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0793 Re: Historical Fact (5) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 13:46:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0800 Re: Historical Fact (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 22:44:58 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0800 Re: Historical Fact I take issue with David Lindley: >The empirical discovery [by Orrell] of the actual >document materially and irrevocably changed the framework for interpretation. I know this sounds pedantic but the discovery of the evidence changed nothing other than the contents of the hands of the discoverer. It being even recognised as material evidence was an interpretative step. >Gabriel Egan is right, of >course, that what was once treated as 'fact' may turn out to be mistaken - but >this doesn't seem to me to render the notion of factuality totally untenable. >Some things are, as he accepts, incontrovertible - and some things are >entirely a matter of opinion or interpretation. I said no such thing. I thoroughly reject this view. BECAUSE what we call facts keep being overturned we need to abandon the term. Nothing is incontrovertible. Let's get this straight: there are no facts. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 09:33:54 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0800 Re: Historical Fact In reply to Terence Hawkes: James was Scottish, and at the moment of his succession to Elizabeth he became James I; I could, of course have said that 'James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603' - and perhaps should have done - but I'd like, in all openness, to ask Prof. Hawkes this: In his entertaining essay on 'Coriolanus' in 'Meaning by Shakespeare' he makes witty play with Victor Sylvester's membership of a first-world war firing squad. Does he feel that it would make any difference to the persuasiveness of his argument if it were to be conclusively demonstrated that the dance-band leader had actually not been so involved? If not, why not? David Lindley (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pechter Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 11:51:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0800 Re: Historical Fact The debate about historical facts reminds me of Peter Laslett in The World We Have Lost. "This is not true," he said, commenting about Juliet and Miranda's early marriages. I take it Robert Appelbaum's point is the same as Laslett's, though in reverse. If Laslett was saying that you can't infer the social from the theatrical, Appelbaum says you can't determine the theatrical by the social. At least I think he is. Is he? Are you? Anyway, I think it's a good point, but where does this leave us? Do we jettison cultural studies and all those other cultural isms that are supposed to save us from whatever we need to be saved from? Do we go back to formalism? If you say MV is a fairytale, that's another way of saying it's a romantic comedy, no? So then, all those life-is-real materialist concepts like Early Capitalism, and all those idealist concepts that animated the old discussion, like Mercy & Justice and the Old Law and New Law--all these, both sides, are meaningful only within generic frames? O Northrop Frye, where art thou at this hour? (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Ranson Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 95 12:07:50 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0793 Re: Historical Fact On the question of 'fact' I have found Michael Stanford's The Nature of Hostorical Knowledge (Blackwell 1986) quite useful, and its attempt to distinguish between historical facts and our knowledge of them. He raises the distinction between "history-as-events" (res gestae) = history(1) and "history-as-story" (historia rerum gestae) = history (2), which goes back to Hegel at least, I think. The brief section in his book on "Facts" (71-74) may help clarify the status of the term facts. It seems crucial to determine whether facts belong to the world of things or the world of ideas, or partake of elements of both, and to what degree. I hope this doesn't sound like a little lecture . . . . Could John Drakakis explain his last comment: "Even F. R. Leavis knew there is a value implicit in the realizing." I see John is gesturing towards something, but could he explain it for me? Cheers. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 13:46:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0800 Re: Historical Fact In discussing historical "fact" and/or "data," we seem to be questioning the nature of "truth." How do we determine what's "truth"? One answer is that what we can all agree on is "true" (the intersubjective answer). Perhaps we all agree on the "fact" that the earth circles the sun. But what happens to this "truth" when we consider a time when most people believed that the sun circled the earth? Intersubjectively, it was then "true" that the earth was stationary. So there does seem to be -- appear to be -- a truth that transcends intersubjective agreement. The problem is, since we all apprehend reality subjectively, how can we verify "objective," "real" truth. Nevertheless, as David Lindley suggests, it's damn hard to eat your breakfast if you can't bring yourself to believe that it exists! Is it possible to be too, too skeptical? Maybe Queen Elizabeth I really did die in 1603. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:43:32 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0809 HUMANIST Announcement Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0809. Wednesday, 18 October 1995. From: Humanist Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 18:31:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Announcement about Humanist PLEASE CIRCULATE/POST --------------------- Humanist: an electronic seminar for humanities computing What is Humanist? Humanist is an international electronic seminar devoted to all aspects of humanities computing. Members use it to exchange information among themselves, ask questions, make announcements, and volunteer information they think will be useful to others. Its primary goal is to provide a wide-ranging forum for discussion that will help advance our understanding of the field and will foster the development of a community out of the many individuals for whom computing is integral to the humanities. Humanist is published by the Center for Electronic Texts in the Humanities (CETH, Princeton and Rutgers). Technical support is provided by Computing and Information Technology (CIT, Princeton), and both CETH and CIT are involved in software development. Its editor is Willard McCarty (Toronto). A brief history. Humanist began in May 1987 as a means of communication among a small group of people concerned with the support of humanities computing. At the time e-mail was relatively new among humanists and mechanisms such as ListServ almost unknown. Humanist grew rapidly and, in response to the community it helped to discover, developed quickly into a international, interdisciplinary forum primarily distinguished by the quality of its discussion. From the example of Humanist, many if not most of the current online groups in the humanities were inspired. For details of the early history, see "HUMANIST: Lessons from a Global Electronic Seminar," Computers and the Humanities 26 (1992): 205-222. Whither Humanist? Since the electronic world has grown radically in the last few years and become part of what most humanists do, we must begin by asking if there is any need for the seminar now that so many of its progeny and others populate the virtual world. Its members seem to think so, but to answer positively obliges one then to face the more difficult question of what role remains for it to play. However much people fondly remember the old Humanist, they should remember accurately that it was always changing. Humanist must serve an existing function or it is simply a waste of time for everyone. The significant fact here is negative: despite the proliferation of discussion groups for the conventional academic disciplines, none other has arisen to serve humanities computing as such. This fact suggests a real question for Humanists to consider: is there any need for humanities computing as a distinct pursuit now that computing has penetrated the conventional disciplines? Can we say about it what Ole Johan Dahl said about computer science, that "One may wonder whether [it] is really a discipline of its own, or whether it is merely a set of loosely connected techniques drawn together from different sources" (in Linguaggi nella societa\ e nella tecnica, Milano 1970, p. 371). If humanities computing is merely a rag-bag collection of techniques, then why spend precious resources on it? If it is not, then what forms its core? Answering the question requires that we examine what we have been doing across the disciplines to see where the common ground lies. There are other (and, for some, more serious) questions the new Humanist has to deal with. These arise out of the social and institutional setting in which the new Humanist operates. As Stanley Katz pointed out in his keynote speech at the recent ACH/ALLC conference in Santa Barbara, computing is transforming how we think about and organize learning. In consequence, we are beginning to see a shift in the power to distribute knowledge, from universities into the commercial sector, with its very different (and sometimes inimical) agendas. At the same time, applications of the technology shed fresh light on ancient problems. The mechanical efficiency of computers is the advertised benefit, but the real revolution in thought has far more to do with the computer as cognitive model and genuinely new means of scholarly research, teaching, and publication. The effects of this model are ubiquitous and powerful but largely go unexamined, and imitation of older means still muddies the waters. Our job in the academy is precisely to examine these effects, discover what is new about computing, and so both improve the model and refurbish our cultural heritage. The principal mandate this suggests for the new Humanist, then, is to put the job before the community most qualified to undertake it. High-level scholarly discussion of computing in the humanities will address one aspect of a much broader need. We in the academy have not done a good job communicating our raison de^tre to the rest of the world -- arguably because so many of us do not ourselves know what it is. Within the university, as outside it, fundamental questions are seldom asked, but our fault is more serious because asking such questions is our principal justification. The profound impact of computing on all aspects of modern life provides therefore a great opportunity to engage in a long-overdue re-examination of what universities do for the society of which they are a part. Humanist cannot take on the whole of this re-examination, of course, but it does have a role in it -- potentially a crucial role. How to join. Humanist has a homepage on the WorldWideWeb, at the URL http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/ where information is supplied about how to apply for membership, search the archives, and manage one's subscription. The only requirement for membership is that one complete the subscription form, giving some biographical information as well as addresses and the like. Experience has shown that the "Humanist biographies" furnish a valuable means of building the sense of community and introducing like-minded people to each other. Willard McCarty Editor, Humanist October 1995 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:45:29 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0810 Edmund Ironside Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0810. Wednesday, 18 October 1995. From: Robert Hatch Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 18:03:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Edmund Ironside SHAKSPERians: This Friday I'm presenting, to a bibliography seminar, an informal paper on Eric Sam's controversial attribution of *Edmund Ironside* to Shakespeare. The relevant reviews, articles and letters are voluminous, but dated for the following reason: Sams and others appeal to stylometry and other forms of textual analysis using computers but, at the time of the controversy (roughly 1982-6), the theory and practise of such analysis was both developing and disputed, and not all the potentially elucidating work had been done with regards to *EI*. Alas, as far as I have been able to discern, little has been printed on the matter since. Can anyone provide or nod towards an update? If you care to remark on the attribution of *EI* to Shakespeare, on the use of stylometry in this case or in general, or, if you are familiar with the dispute/disputants and thus the shall we say vigorous rhetorical strategies employed in some cases, the issue of editorial ethics and courtesy, I would love to hear from you. Courteously Yours, Robert Hatch University of Victoria (rhatch@sol.uvic.ca) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:51:00 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0811 Conference on "Teaching Shakespeare Through Performance" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0811. Wednesday, 18 October 1995. From: Curt L. Tofteland Date: Tuesday, 17 Oct 1995 22:35:46 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Conference on "Teaching Shakespeare Through Performance" International Conference to be held in Louisville, Kentucky February 29, March 1 & 2, 1996 "Teaching Shakespeare through Performance" is an international conference bringing together English language arts educators (grade 6 - college) and Shakespeare theatre professionals to exchange skills for teaching Shakespeare through a performance-based approach that integrates literature, language arts, theatre, music, dance, visual arts, history, and social customs. The Kentucky Shakespeare Festival, National Council of Teachers of English, Folger Shakespeare Library and the Greater Louisville English Council are co-sponsoring this conference in Louisville, Kentucky February 29, March 1 & 2, 1996. WHO SHOULD ATTEND? Classroom teachers in the English language arts (grades 6 - college), curriculum specialists, and theatre professionals who wish to: * implement a performace-based study of Shakespeare * empower students as actors and directors * select a play/scene to produce * unlock the mysteries of Shakespeare's language and imagery * incorporate period dance and movement into performance * organize a Shakespearean Scene Festival * plan classroom activities that encourage creativity * develop practices that promote critical thinking * assess learning of the performance process * integrate creative writing activities * utilize video and hands-on activites * encourage visual and hands-on activites * engage students at all ability levels FEATURED PRESENTATIONS INCLUDE: * Christine Adaire, "Discovering Your Natural Voice through Shakespeare: the Linkletter Approach" * Kathaleen Breen, "Teaching the Tempting and Tempestuous TEMPEST" * Josh Cabot & Heather Lester, "Youths that Thunder at a Play-house: How to stage a Shakespearean Scene Festival at any Level" * Carole Cox, "Shakespeare for Kids: Performing the Play with Younger Students" * Donna Denize, "OTHELLO: The seven Deadly sins" * Janet Field-Pickering, "Of Bears and Chairs and Empty Spaces: Staging Scenes in the Classroom" * Hal M. Foster, "A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM Marathon: Performing the Play" * Barry Gaines, "The Challenge of Editing Shakespeare" * Michael LoMonico, Nancy Goodwin, Martha Harris, "OTHELLO: Sex, Lies, Race, and Videotape" * Jerry Maguire, "Wills Review: Real Live High School Students Perorming Shakespeare" * John Murphy, "KING LEAR: Working With Shakespeare in the California Prison System" * Martha Christian Mutrie, "Shakespeare for the Reluctant Learner" * Louisa Newlin, " Comedy in the Classroom: Staging Scenes from TWELFTH NIGHT" * Skip Nicholson, "Teaching Shakespeare's Language" * Patricia G. Ocanas, "Ruining Shakespeare's Bad Reputation" * Randal Robinson, "Commanding Shakespeare's Language: Exercises and Schemes for Student Actors" * Curt L. Tofteland, "Eliminating ShakesFear: Rhythm is One Answer" * James R. Tompkins, "Staging Movement and Dance in ROMEO AND JULIET" CONFERENCE COSTS NCTE member $120.00 nonmember $140.00 Full-time student $ 70.00 Registration includes all conference workshops & materials, a Friday Luncheon and morning refreshments. BROWN HOTEL ACCOMODATIONS Single Room $78.00 per night Double Room $88.00 per night Parking in Hotel Garage $7.00 per day Questions can be addressed by telephone: Curt L. Tofteland, Producing Director Kentucky Shakespeare Festival 502/583-8738 or by e-mail: Tofter@aol.com To request a complete brochure on all conference activites, please call NCTE at 217/328-3870, extension 203. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:46:35 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0812 Tmp.; MV; What is; Italy; African Mac.; Reading Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0812. Thursday, 19 October 1995. (1) From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 15:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Tempest about costumes (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 14:09:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0798 Re: *MV* (3) From: Tom Clayton Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 14:08:49 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0807 Re: What is this list for, exactly? (4) From: Andy Grewar Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 09:27:32 GMT+120 Subj: Shakespeare's Italian connections (5) From: Stephen Buhler Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 10:10:20 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: "African *Macbeth*" (6) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 95 00:36:46 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0786 Re: Recommended and Recreational Reading (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 15:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Tempest about costumes On my last post, I received a direct question from Steve Sohmer. I though the rest of the list might be interested in our dialogue, so I am forwarding it. >Professor Richard Wilson of the University of Lancaster (UK) has recently made >some remarkable discoveries about the inspiration behind The Tempest. I do not >know if he has published yet, but you might write him for a copy. >You're quite right about the nature of the list, though I don't think you're >right about the costumes...which is like saying Proust wrote what he did when >he did because he smelt a cookie, n'est ce-pas? My response was this: >Well, you're free not to be convinced, but the point I'm making is that >Shakespeare was more of a theater man than an auteur. Now if a theater man >gets a valuable resource, be it a star actor, new stage machinery, or whatever, >he uses it. We don't tend to think of Shakespeare in this way, but I believe >we should. Steve responded: >If you think the note would be useful to the group, by all means post away. >You might support your argument by reminding everyone that WS certainly wrote >to the strengths and around the weaknesses of his acting company, worked out >which parts could be doubled with which, and concerned himself with other >stagecrafty devices during the drafting process. P.S. from Michael Saenger: Good point. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 14:09:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0798 Re: *MV* I agree basically with Stanley Holberg's reading of the "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech (Riverside 3.1.59ff.). The context of this speech is revenge. The question is: how far does the context influence the auditor's feelings about Shylock's assertion that Jews and Christians are alike? Alfred Harbage told his classes (I was there) that this speech, i.e., "Hath not a Jew eyes?", was never spoken in a German production when the Nazis were in power. Although I don't know Harbage's source, he seemed to be sure that it wasn't. My question is: if the speech is completely undercut by the context of revenge, why was the speech NOT delivered in Nazi Germany? One answer (among the many!) may be that the speech seems -- to the auditor -- to be in italics, to transcend the context. We auditors remember the apparent plea for the recognition of a common humanity, and forget that the plea is imbedded in a justification for revenge. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 14:08:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0807 Re: What is this list for, exactly? This is getting better than bear-baiting! (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andy Grewar Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 09:27:32 GMT+120 Subject: Shakespeare's Italian connections On Monday, 16 Oct 95, Lee Buchanan asked: >Did Shakespeare travel to Italy? What do you reckon? What's the latest on this > hypothesis? I'd be grateful for any info? As I understand it there is no proof whatsoever that Shakespeare ever left England, though he *could* have. Some of his fellow actors did in fact travel as far as Italy, most notably William Kemp, but that was *after* he left the Shakespearean company. The reason for the Italianate qualities of many of Shakespeare's plays has not been adequately explained. I have a theory that it was due to the influence of the travelling Italian actors, who performed all over Europe from the 1540s onwards in what later became known as the commedia dell'arte. Shakespeare or the actors he worked with probably had some contact with the Italian actors, and it seems likely that Shakespeare used their plots and the stock characters of the Italian comedy as a basis for much of his own drama. I've written two articles on the subject, and would be glad to communicate with anyone who has any ideas about it, and to give publication details of my articles to anyone who's interested. Andy Grewar, Academic Development Centre, University of Fort Hare, Alice 5700, Eastern Cape, South Africa. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Buhler Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 10:10:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: "African *Macbeth*" The troupe currently touring with modern-day settings for *Macbeth* and *Romeo and Juliet* bills itself as the Haworth Shakespeare Festival. Local promoters may stress the actors' past experiences with the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal National Theatre, but Haworth and their management do not present the plays as official RSC or RNT productions. The *Macbeth* is based upon the Haworth/Committed Artists of Great Britain staging which appeared in this country as part of the 1991 New York International Festival of the Arts. The reviews of that production, which featured a contemporary African setting but no "updating" of the text, were for the most part very positive. This *Romeo and Juliet* features Lucy Whybrod (in the real starring role) and Adrian Lester (in the runner-up role). Mr. Lester, incidentally, is an alumnus of the Cheek-by-Jowl productions of *As You Like It*. Stephen Rayne repeats as director and Cindy Kaplan as producer; both were involved with the original Haworth *Macbeth*, with Voza Rivers as co-producer. I'll be attending both shows here in Lincoln. Should I report on them for the benefit (I would hope) of other SHAKSPEReans? Stephen M. Buhler (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 95 00:36:46 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0786 Re: Recommended and Recreational Reading Best book? For me, Michael Long, THE UNNATURAL SCENE (1975). I found it after reading the SQ review of it by G Blakemore Evans, who said that it was the first book in a long while that he actually LEARNED totally new things from, new ways of thinking about the plays. For the last 20 years Long's insights have shaped the ways I think about the texts, the social constructs they generate, and my own dancing through today's equivalent constructs. Long elsewhere writes on Modernist poetry; his epigraphs for THE UNNATURAL SCENE come mostly from Yeats. 'Tis late. I wish I could do justice to the rich pleasure and wisdom that I've drawn from this volume. It came out in paperback around 1980 and was almost immediately pulped. Don't know why. I treasure my copy. ---g'night. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:52:59 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0813 Re: Banning *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0813. Thursday, 19 October 1995. (1) From: Douglas Abel Drama Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 14:09:51 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0802 Qs: *MV* (2) From: Nat Colley Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 09:58:51 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0805 Re: *MV* as Ba... (3) From: Karin Magaldi-Unger Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 08:46:50 U Subj: Re: SHK 6.0805 Re- *MV* as Banned Play (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Abel Drama Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 14:09:51 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0802 Qs: *MV* On banning of Merchant of Venice: There was a big controversy in Kitchener/Waterloo, Ontario, about 1988. The accusation by some parents was that studying the play was making kids anti-semitic. They were apparently doing things like throwing pennies at Jewish kids in the schoolyard. The story made one edition of CBC television's Monitor series. For more info, contact me personally. Douglas Abel Keyano College Fort McMurray, Alberta Doug.Abel@Keyanoc.ab.ca 403-791-8983 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nat Colley Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 09:58:51 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0805 Re: *MV* as Ba... Brad Berens responded to Jan Kraft and then asked about a theater journal that discussed MV, the name of which he could not recall. American Theater did a cover story on MV this summer. Perhaps that is the publication you are thinking of? The article is called "Wrestling with Shylock" and is in the July/August 1995 issue. Nat Colley (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karin Magaldi-Unger Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 08:46:50 U Subject: Re: SHK 6.0805 Re- *MV* as Banned Play A response to Jan Kraft & Brad Berens regarding The Merchant of Venice: I work at Shakespeare Santa Cruz (I am the Education & Outreach person) & lived through the "controversy" of which Brad speaks. We initiated several opportunities for dialogue within the community as a means of examining intolerance in addition to attending the actual production: --a version of the play that toured local high schools & was preceeded by an extensive curriculum guide; --an open forum in Santa Cruz with historians, a local rabbi and the director of the play; --post-show discussions between the cast, invited community members and audiences; --a weekend conference with Dr. James Shapiro of Columbia University as the keynote speaker; --public radio discussion with community members & the director --program material that addressed intolerance, etc. etc. Several brief thoughts: * Part of Danny Scheie's concept was to expose the intolerance in the play not only of Shylock but of the love relationship between Antonio & Bassanio. The anti-semitism in the play was not overshadowed by the romance plot, rather the emphasis on both highlighted the hypocritical nature of the Venician quality of mercy. * You might try contacting Dr. James Shapiro at Columbia: his knowledge of the play and response to it post-holocaust is extensive. Just before he came to speak at our Festival, he attended and reviewed a very exciting Israeli production of the play. M of V is alive and well in Israel. * John Gross' book SHYLOCK is a helpful compendium of the legacy of Shakespeare's character for the Western world and includes some performance history you can use. * The article Brad refers to appeared in the July/August 1995 issue of AMERICAN THEATRE. (While the comparison of four recent productions of M of V is interesting, you might find the analysis of the issues somewhat simplistic). * The group, People for the American Way, in Washington D.C. is another source you may find helpful. They research and document instances of censorship in the arts. Our production, as well as others were covered in one of their recent publications. Karin Magaldi-Unger Education & Outreach Shakespeare Santa Cruz ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:57:48 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0814 Qs: Sonnet Society; Neo-Latin Trivia Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0814. Thursday, 19 October 1995. (1) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 95 15:40:00 PDT Subj: Sonnet Society (2) From: Timothy Billings Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 23:44:03 -0400 Subj: neo-latin trivia (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 95 15:40:00 PDT Subject: Sonnet Society Have any of you Shaksperians out there in cyberspace ever heard of a "Sonnet Society" or even a "Shakespeare Sonnet Society"? This question came over my desk today (one of many such from Jane Q. Public) and proved a real stumper. I may be missing something, but I've never heard of one. Any information will be gratefully received. You may reply to me or to the List. Thanks! Georgianna Ziegler ziegler@mail.folger.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Timothy Billings Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 23:44:03 -0400 Subject: neo-latin trivia I've cudgel'd my brains out about it and now come crawling for help. O Hominum mores, O gens, O Tempora dura, Quantus in urbe Dolor; Quantus in Orbe Dolus! Not strickly a Shakespeare question, I apologize, but in an article I have drafted on Latin, Dress, and Gender chiefly in *Merry Wives of Windsor* and the *Hic Mvlier* debate, I am stuck on this couplet attributed only "the Poet" (in *Haec Vir*). So I lean on your collective learning. I have spun the IBYCUS dizzy. It is not classical. Of course it alludes to Cicero. But does that help? Henderson and McManus do not gloss it, nor does anyone else, to my knowledge, who has written on it (not a few). Any leads will be repaid with professional courtesy and obscene fawning. Abjectly, hopefully, Timothy Billings ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 14:44:50 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0815 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0815. Thursday, 19 October 1995. (1) From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 17:49 ET Subj: Literature (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 17:52:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0806 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance (3) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 18:11:58 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0806 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance (4) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 02:37:26 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0806 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance (5) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 10:27:24 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0806 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance (6) From: Michael Harrawood Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 14:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: Importance, Triumph, etc (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 17:49 ET Subject: Literature A follow-up to An Sonjae's telegraphic reference to Raymond Williams' survey of the various and variously interconnected uses of the word "literature" in English--a drafty, rambling old house, with many mansions, in which Terence Hawkes and Joseph Greene can each feel, like the Roman Catholics in the old joke, that they are the only ones up there. Williams cites C16 uses of the word as far back as Colet (d. 1519)--already anticipating (by his contrast with "blotterature") the colloquial distinction between the stuff in the *Norton Anthology* and all other texts; he gives support to Tom Bishop's remarks about "poetry" as a tolerably appropriate Early Modern (not early Modern) synonym; and he does the informative and provocative things that he does with the other 99 terms he investigates in *Keywords*. Check it out. Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 17:52:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0806 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance Alas, I don't save my messages for long, so can't defend myself against misinterpretations, or ask forgiveness for lack of clarity. Some use of the term "ideological" raised Gabriel Egan's hackles. Sorry. Sorry also to Mr. Harrawood for my response which must have sounded to him as though I were accusing Matthew Arnold and Carlyle of hypocrisy, which I was not. I found his quotes from them of great interest, and the remark about Engish hypocrisy really wasn't meant to apply to them. It's hard to be as clear and thorough as one would like in these posts. I find everyone's thoughts on these subjects of great interest, and am delighted to be involved in such serious and broad-based discussions with this erudite group. Stephanie Hughes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 18:11:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0806 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance Problems surrounding the use of the word "literature" are similar to the problems surrounding the use of the term "classical" for music. The symphonic music being written today can't technically be called "classical", so they usually call it "serious music." That doesn't really do it either. I guess I'll just go on calling what Shakespeare wrote "literature". Of course it was drama too, but the language needs a word that means "writing that is so beautiful or powerful, whether by subject or style, that it has influenced the development of culture." That would include such things as The Gettysburg address, certain passages from the King James bible, and so forth. When I asked what else I could call it, it was this that I meant. If we don't have words for thing we can't talk about them. (My daughter had a Japanese roommate in high school, who told her that there are no specific words in Japanese for the male and female sex organs.) Stephanie Hughes (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 02:37:26 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0806 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance Paul Crowley expresses a view >Great literature is invariably produced by intensely >egocentric and eccentric individuals. That rules out Shakespeare's plays then. The theatrical companies for which he worked and later shared in were without doubt collaborative. Our modern notions of individual creativity and individual intellectual property are thoroughly anachronistic in application to Shakespeare and his milieu. To further the 'did Shakespeare produce Literature?' debate, I'd like to throw in a reminder that literature is a private experience (for the study) whereas drama is necessarily a social event (for the theatre). Modern theatre conventions like lowering the lights to help the audience forget its own presence owe much to the literary culture emphasis of individual over collective experience. Crowley's attempts to claim for Shakespeare a literary status which Shakespeare and his contemporaries would find incomprehensible come from a long and risible academic tradition. Gabriel Egan (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 10:27:24 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0806 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance I can't resist throwing in another comment in respomse to Paul Crowley's latest post. It seems that on the one hand you are carrying the banner of individual freedom and democracy while on the other you insist on some sort of rigid allignment of your perceived "facts" with a formula of the world. My response to you re: the holocaust and the one person who mattered is a good point of departure. After realizing that your assumption that "one person mattered" may have been misconstrued, you ammended the statement to say this was simply in the "political" sense to which I can only say, when you start making divisions of that sort (one person has political significance, another one doesn't) you run the risk of losing track of the very humanity and individual liberty you set out to defend. In your last post you offered the following: >No one questioning "historical facts" would ever dare to put >theory into practice and say "The Holocaust is not an historical fact". To which I can only respond with a resounding "NOT TRUE". There are lots of so called "revisionists" out there who are trying to do precisely what you say they wouldn't dare to do. I don't think we can lump them all into a "non-questioners" category. You also wrote: >A certain amount of questioning is appropriate. We should often ask "Do we >really know what we claim to know?". But we must never extend it into >"We can >know nothing, and should say nothing, and must never make any judgements". For whom are you speaking? Who goes into your "we" category? Surely if your prime aim is to argue for individual liberty you should try and be more careful about speaking for a body of individuals who may not agree with you. And who should be set in the position of deciding how much questioning is appropriate? And how often is "often"? I think you catch my meaning. Questioningly yours, Shirley Kagan. (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Harrawood Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 14:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Importance, Triumph, etc Paul Crowley's comment that the "individuals" who produce literature "must necessarily live in tolerant open-minded communities" reminds me of an exchange between Norman Mailer and Jorge Luis Borges on the Cavett show many years ago. Mailer walked unannounced, apparently thinking to honor Borges with his presence, and began praising him in terms very much like those Mr. Crowley likes to use. He went on about the inherent links between literature and love of liberty, about how literature cannot flourish in intolerant communities, etc. Borges -- old and frail -- became so indignant he tried to lift himself up out of his chair, and pretty much ruined Mailer's pitch by insisting with some force and clarity that literature thrives on horror, strife, and oppression. My sense at the time was that this is an issue that bears some examination, and that its terms should not be taken for granted. Dante was no great supporter of individual rights; neither was Virgil. Serious scholars have pointed out moments in the work of each that would seem to militate against the notions of liberty and individualism that we perhaps cherish today. Its also a stretch for me to imagine the "open-mindedness" of the court of Henry VIII, or for that matter of the London street community of the 1590's. I keep sensing some confusion of categories that thwarts any real progress on this thread. Joseph M. Green now says that English attitudes towards Italy were complex and that this was really his point all along (although I can't see it from his use of terms like "xenophobia" and "Babylon"). The pathos of over-generalization he imagines in the scenario with the failing undergraduate at the end of his last post seems to undercut the over-breadth of his imagining that all nationalisms are alike. If there will be a Triumph of Chinese, what I bet will be most interesting about it will be all the ways it is _not_ like the Triumph of English -- no competition with Italian for rhyme words, no alteration of the sonnet form, no sense of insularity or smallness, of being "behind" other cultural and linguistic models, no sense of regaining a lost ancient cultural foundation. Chinese will triumph over different things. It isn't clear that other national self-perceptions include the sense of a touring "essence" that can "turn to bloud" the best from other cultures (this, from Jonson's "For William Roe") -- an attitude that might be taken for the little brother of the later "Grand Tour," a particularly English institution for relating to other cultures. My sense is -- to cross over to another thread -- that the best way of really getting at the issue is to look at the texts and at the "facts" and see what they tell us. The "historical facts," which Mr. Crowley invokes, now along with the threat of a new holocaust, and then drops in favor of an emotional pitch for liberty and the individual (one which includes a slam at the academy, which he fled), are likely to tell us that "literature, individualism, liberty, rule of law," and so on, are not bound up together as we might like -- are, in fact, generalizations in need of scholarly inquiry. (Duh!). The terms of the present inquiry, for better or worse, continue to interest me mostly because they are shaped by the very language and history we speak and about which we are speaking. Michael Harrawood ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 14:57:31 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0816 Re: Historical Fact Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0816. Thursday, 19 October 1995. (1) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 14:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0808 Re: Historical Fact (2) From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 10:59:29 +0100 Subj: SHK 6.0808 Re: Historical Fact (3) From: Ben Schneider Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 11:52:46 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0808 Re: Historical Fact (4) From: Michael E. Cohen Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 08:15:22 -0800 Subj: Re: Historical Fact (5) From: Keith Ghormley Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 21:08:19 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0808 Re: Historical Fact (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 14:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0808 Re: Historical Fact Ed Pechter asks whether, if it is true that the social does not "determine" the theatrical, we are not left with formalism, and Northrop Frye. I certainly hope not, and I know of at least two ways of getting beyond the impasse. The first is the concept of "structural determinism" -- Althusser and Jameson. By this definition instead of the social (or the material) being the cause, and the theatrical being the effect, the two spheres operate simultaneously within (sorry, Bruce Young) a larger totality, and each in effect "determines" the other. The second is Greenblatt's concept of negotiation. We can find the social and the theatrical negotiating with one another. In this case what we most want to do (and this is what I find most good culturalist criticism doing) is assess the exchanges being made from one sphere to another, and especially the cultural-political-economic interstices where the exchanges are being made. The merit of the Althusserian approach, I think, is that it forces us to try to come up with a picture of the whole. The merit of Greenblatt's approach (though its apparent lack of a "picture of the whole" has raised a lot hackles) is that it is non-reductive. By saying the *MV* is a fairy tale I was alluding to such ideas as that form, after all, matters, that unconscious intentions (and the Unconscious itself) after all matter, that none of our *grandes histoires* are yet capable of explaining (or explaining away) theatrical experience, that after all our rigorous historicizing and psychologizing moves there always seems nevertheless to be a remainder, a surplus of energies, and that it is dogmatic, whatever one's ideological affiliation, to pretend that there isn't. By saying that *MV* is a fairy tale I am also, however, saying the opposite of what Ed Pechter fears I am saying, i.e. that *MV* is harmless. Fairy tales can be dangerous things; certainly they are usually efforts to contain rather dangerous things. While I think it is wrong to suggest that *MV* is in part a response to a "rising tide" of Puritanism (taking my thesis, alas, from what I am taking to be a "historical fact," i.e. that there is no evidence that something like "Puritanism" was "rising" during the 1590s) I do accept the obvious idea that *MV* has a number of anxieties built into it, and that one of those anxieties has to do with the possibility of something like Puritanism. Old historicism in its positivist forms wanted Shakespeare's plays to "express" underlying historical realities. Both dialectical materialism and new historicism, however, provide ways of seeing that plays *as* historical realities, operating in complex ways in relation to other historical realities. Unfortunately, as soon as you move away from the fact/expression or sub-structure/super-structure ontology you lose your ontological grip on "the real," on the incontrovertible "fact" or "historical condition," out of which the play has sprung. But it is the work of critics, I think, to work (read, interpret, assess) the sphere of indeterminacy that results from de-ontologization, the interstices of cultural production where everything is in fact (!) a "construction." Puritanism aside, one of the things that *MV* seems to tell us is that although there were no Jews in England to speak of in the 1590s (there's our "fact"), nevertheless there were "Jews." Another is that although there was little in the way of a merchant marine in England yet, nevertheless there was an "Argosy." These are the things of fairy tales ... Laslett would't have anything to do with things like these, but Laslett was a positivist. Robert Appelbaum (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 10:59:29 +0100 Subject: SHK 6.0808 Re: Historical Fact Nick Ranson asks about my (I think accurate) quotation from F.R.Leavis. I think it is an interesting response to the assertion that there are such things as neutral facts which merely lie there to be discovered. The act of discovery itself is imbued with value judgements, and this is something that even a stridently anti-theoretical critic such as F.R.Leavis was prepared to concede. I don't have the full context of the quotation to hand, but if my memory serves me correctly Leavis was talking about the impact of poetic imagery. My concern is not to collapse "history" into just another narrative, a la Hayden White, but to try to recognize that there is no "fact" without value, and that this is crucial in the study of any form of representation. To this extent I'm sympathetic to Gabriel Egan's position. This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with eating your breakfast. That is, if I may coin a phrase, a red herring. It has to do with how we construct knowledges, and reconstruct the past, and under what conditions Cheers, John Drakakis (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 11:52:46 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0808 Re: Historical Fact Nietzsche, whose name I can't spell said something like "truth is whatever hasn't been disproved." This dialog is working backward, wasting time discussing whether there is such a thing as fact. Of course not. What we do is chop away at error. This is absolute incontrovertible non fact and has a tendency to stay that way. Fact is what's left at the end of the day, and some of it has been left for a great many days. But we have a great backlog of nonfact to whittle away at. Yours ever, BEN SCHNEIDER (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael E. Cohen Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 08:15:22 -0800 Subject: Re: Historical Fact Gabriel Egan wrote in SHK 6.0808: >Let's get this straight: there are no facts. Is that a fact or an opinion? Michael Cohen (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith Ghormley Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 21:08:19 -0500 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0808 Re: Historical Fact BECAUSE what we call facts keep being overturned we need to abandon the term. Nothing is incontrovertible. Let's get this straight: there are no facts. Gabriel Egan ----------- Gabriel Egan said facts are everywhere. Gabriel Egan said there are no facts. Both of these statements are true. Therefore Gabriel Egan believes in facts, the concept of fact, and endorses all forms of factual knowledge. There being no possibility of any fact to the contrary, we may place any meaning we wish on his statements. Keith Ghormley ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 15:03:23 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0817 Re: *Edmond Ironside* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0817. Thursday, 19 October 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 21:39:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0810 Edmund Ironside (2) From: Donald Foster Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 11:32:40 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0810 Edmund Ironside (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 18 Oct 1995 21:39:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0810 Edmund Ironside In the footnotes to his recent *The Real Shakespeare* (New Haven: Yale UP, 1995), Sams recurrently points out the relevance of his biography to *Edmund Ironsides.* I've reread the play twice recently (and many years ago I saw it performed at the Univ. of Toledo, OH) and it doesn't SEEM like Shakespeare's to me. I say this without consulting Don Foster's SHAXICON. But is it possible that Shakespeare could write plays that are (and were) real dogs, and that some if not all of the plays in the Shakespeare Apocrypha were really written by him? I think I recall someone suggesting that we might think in terms of the Shakespeare atelier and scripts written by playwrights under Shakespeare's influence and direction, and possibly with some of his writing. I'm thinking of *Sir John Oldcastle,* which seems to have direct references to *1H4* and *H5.* Perhaps *EI* is also from the Shakespeare atelier! Yours, Bill Godshalk (who dreams on) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Foster Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 11:32:40 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0810 Edmund Ironside Robert Hatch inquires about *Edmond Ironside*, one of countless irresponsible attributions made by Eric Sams. (According to Sams, Sh. is indisputably the author of more anonymous plays than you can count on your twenty fingers and toes.) No one would pay attention to Sams if it weren't for his flamboyance and dogged persistence in popping off in the letters column of *TLS.* Anyway, you might begin with the review of Sams's *Shakespeare's Lost Play* (*SQ* 39.1 [1988]: 118-123). Shakespeare certainly knew *Ironside*--he used it as a non-narrative source for *Titus Andronicus* and may have acted in it; but Shakespeare's hand is nowhere apparent in the play, even as a collaborator or reviser. It was probably by Robert Greene. (An aside to Robert Hatch: I'll put in the mail to you a few notes on Greene's hand in *Ironside.*) D. Foster ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 15:01:10 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0818 Re: What is this list for? Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0818. Thursday, 19 October 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 16:27:05 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0812 What is this list for? (2) From: Janet MacLellan Winship Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 17:24:48 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Much Ado Moment (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 16:27:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0812 What is this list for? Tom Clayton writes: >This is getting better than bear-baiting! How true! And how funny! This quip gave me the only laugh of the day. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Janet MacLellan Winship Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 17:24:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Much Ado Moment SHAKSPEReans, To the question, "What is this list for, exactly?" I would like to reply that one of the things I find most useful and enjoyable about SHAKSPER is the way in which it facilitates the sharing of noteworthy playgoing experiences amongst a geographically farflung community of informed and appreciative auditors. I imagine that each of us has had "epiphanies" of sorts when watching or staging Shakespearean productions. A friend of mine refers to it as the "Aha!" experience. It can be provoked by directorial or acting or design decisions that we feel are inspired *or* by those that we feel are completely wrong and off-base. In either case, the decision made prompts us to examine, clarify, and perhaps rethink our own established interpretations of lines, scenes, or even whole plays. This experience is not limited to the kinds of productions that make it into the reviews in _Shakespeare Quarterly_. It happens just as often when watching small-scale professional, community, and student productions. There are far more productions out there than one person can see, and I greatly appreciate it when a SHAKSPERean shares his or her reaction to a thought-provoking casting, design, or staging decision in a play I personally cannot attend. In this spirit, I would like to offer a brief observation on _Much Ado About Nothing_, performed this week by the Trinity College Dramatic Society at the University of Toronto (outdoors, in the college quadrangle). In 4.1 (the rejection scene), most of the _Much Ado_s I have seen have had their Heros break down very quickly after she is accused and have isolated her on stage with Beatrice as her only champion. This production featured a surprisingly strong Hero who, though weeping, stayed on her feet and even advanced towards Claudio, reaching out for his cheek (trying to bring him to look at her?) as he delivered, "Oh Hero, what a Hero hadst thou been..." Since she had moved forward out of reach of her family to do this, and since Claudio's rejection left her standing almost alone on stage, her swoon was highly dramatic: her friends had to run to try to catch her. Note the plural: this Hero was supported not only by Beatrice, who held her hand; but also by Ursula, who held Hero's head in her lap while entwining her shoulders in a fiercely protective maternal embrace (illuminating in a moment for me just *who* this Ursula was, in terms of her relationship to Hero); and by Margaret, who guiltily reached out for her shoulder. For me, this staging made for a striking moment of female bonding in response to the cruelty arising from the male bonding of Don Pedro and Claudio (once they believe their honours have been compromised). In addition, this Hero received a great deal of silent support from the various members of Leonato's household, who remained on stage after the exits of Claudio et al and were all privy to the faking-Hero's-death ruse. Balthasar in particular made for a very strong choric presence during this scene as he stood with his guitar directly upstage of Hero and her friends; the tension between him and Claudio as he sang later at Hero's "tomb" was palpable. (I should mention that Balthasar was a very strong presence throughout this play: the first Balthasar I've seen who actually stole the "Sigh no more" scene from Benedick.) Cordially, Janet MacLellan University of Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 15:10:05 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0820 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0820. Thursday, 19 October 1995. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 15:54:50 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0815 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance (2) From: Al Cacicedo Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 21:18:39 -0400 (EDT) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0815 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 15:54:50 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0815 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance Michael Harrowood is right in seeing pathos in overgeneralization. I don't, for example, think that all nationalisms are alike -- interesting differences and complexities and so on. In fact, it was my distaste for overgeneralization that led to the introduction of "xenophobia" and "Babylon" -- two words, I would think, that one would invite to the party whenever one wished to discuss early modern English attitudes towards Italy. The original instance of wonderment was the attitude expressed by Ascham who opined that abetter education/experience (I forget) could be had by spending a year seriously studying "The Book of the Courtier" than by spending three years in Italy. (Did someone already mention "The Unfortunate Traveller?") This was tied in with the importance of getting at an English essence that could travel Europe and take away the best without becoming ...what? soiled? polluted?... without, anyway, losing its doughty Englishness. And this, in turn, was tied in (perhaps only by happy juxtaposition) with remarks by Carlyle on Shakespeare and the colonies and Arnold on Shakespeare and keeping him while giving up coal mines -- and, as interpreted, I assume, keeping that English feeling. I am guessing that Mr. Harrowood sees this (these) as particularly English expressions of nationalism and of a piece with the particularly English linguistic nationalism that issues forth in such books as "The Triumph of English." My point throughout has been that the gassy part of the gaseous vetebrate we are discussing isn't particularly English and that a bit more context and generalization is needed. If the gunboat Shipspeare is sent sailing to foreign ports, similar deployments have been made by others. There is nothing exclusively English about the putative activties of the putative essence. The details might be particularly English -- it is Shipspeare who is sent out rather than the anti-submarine cruiser Pushkin and, when "The Triumph of Chinese" is published it might be full of interesting claims as to the universal fitness of Chinese characters but it will have been published because, for all the weighty reasons why Chinese had to triumph, the "real" reason will have mostly to do with people needing to know Chinese to make their way in a material world. This sort of generalization is needed lest, because we require a particular sort of service, the English "essence" is considered the only essence bearing this sort of significance. And, I will admit, I don't find the particulars of this sort of nationalism very interesting -- chiefly because these particulars are usually deployed to draw the fascinated gaze to horrors and stupidities in the service of the usual ritual cleansing and sacrifice. In other contexts, as I said in my first few sentences, I do find the particulars interesting -- as long as the generalization that takes them out of the usual narrative (at least momentarily) is there. Otherwise I find that I am again reading the usual stuff by the usual suspects. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Al Cacicedo Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 21:18:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0815 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance With profound hesitation, two points. First, at the beginning of the _Poetics_ Aristotle reminds us that Greek had no word for literature--so Aristotle takes great care to define the thing(s) he wants to discuss by mode of representation, etc. Second, with a trembling nod to Foucault: could not one consider the Holocaust (or _any_ event or object) not only as a thing in itself but also as a discursive phenomenon? So yes, there's the "fact" of the event/object; but in a human context, perhaps, its facticity becomes marginal to the prac- tices inscribed in it and that it inscribes. I realize, of course, that I've just inscribed myself in a practice, so that maybe for some of you I'll become merely an object of pity or loathing or . . .. Trust me: I have eyes and do weep from time to time. Al Cacicedo (alc@joe.alb.edu) Albright College ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 15:15:32 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0821 Re: *MV*; African Mac.; Tempest Costumes Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0821. Thursday, 19 October 1995. (1) From: John Boni Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 12:24:42 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0812 MV and "Hath not a Jew eyes" speech: (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 20:58:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0812 Re: African Mac. (3) From: Clark Bowlen Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 14:12:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Tempest costumes (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 12:24:42 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0812 MV and "Hath not a Jew eyes" speech: I agree with Bill Godshalk. It seems to me that the majority of critical commentators regard the speech as a plea for sympathy by Shylock (and for Shylock by Shakespeare?). Only rarely does one see reference to the closing lines, "The villainy you teach me I will execute, and...I will better the instruction." Certainly, most productions emphasize the attractive plaint of the first few lines, sometimes even cutting the last. And commentators eager to trash the Christians (an easy enough task) also ignore, or develop an apology for) the closing lines. In an earlier post, I mentioned that Shakespeare seems to have painted himself into a corner, becoming interested in the complexities in Shylock. Many of us simplify him in the framework of our responses. But, as a statistician friend warns me, whenever we aggregate we lose something. John M. Boni (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 20:58:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0812 Re: African Mac. The Haworth Shakespeare Festival's *Mac* play in Louisville at the Kentucky Center on March 10, 1995. Although some Shakespeare directors in the audience felt that Stephen Rayne had missed some golden opportunities, I thought the acting was generally first-rate, though the doubling was rather arduous. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Bowlen Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 14:12:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Tempest costumes I found Michael Saengers post on the sea-creature costumes interesting. I wonder if drawings of them are extant? Many of Inigo Jones' sketches have survived--he seems the likely designer--though I understand there are not many from c. 1610, at least in the Devonshire Collection. Regardless of when they impinged on Shakespeare's creative process, seeing the drawings could tell us much. Clark Bowlen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 15:17:55 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0822 Q: *MND* Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0822. Thursday, 19 October 1995. From: Scott Crozier Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 11:02:40 +1000 Subject: Re: MND productions I am currently working on productions of MND; specifically 20th century productions in England but not exclusively. I would be interested to hear from anyone who saw Robert Lepage's National Theatre production in 1991; any of Yukio Ninagawa's productions; the recent Noble RSC production, now at the Barbican; or the Daniels or Burton RSC productions in the early 80's. I'm specifically looking at the"quotations" between productions and the hermeneutic differences. Do the productions have anything new to "say" about the play? You could contact me directly by e-mail if you didn't want to block up Shaksper: crozisss@stmichaels.vic.edu.au Thanks in anticipation, Scott Crozier ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 15:27:44 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0823 Re: Historical Fact Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0823. Thursday, 19 October 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 21:42:36 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0816 Re: Historical Fact (2) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 12:48:18 GMT Subj: Re: Historical Fact (3) From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 10:48:46 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0816 Re: Historical Fact (4) From: Barbara Correll Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 11:57:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0816 Re: Historical Fact (5) From: David Skeele Date: Friday, 20 Oct 95 11:27:45 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0816 Re: Historical Fact (6) From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 19:03:42 +0100 Subj: Re: Historical Fact (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 21:42:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0816 Re: Historical Fact John Drakakis says "that there is no 'fact' without value, and that this is crucial in the study of any form of representation." What does he mean precisely? That any argument is constructed from selected facts (or data)? That unvalued pieces of data are not selected for an argument and are therefore not elevated to "fact"? So anything we value enough to make into a "fact" is not valueless? Of course, the value of certain "facts" may not be political. Or is all value political? And, no, the quip about breakfast was a kippered herring. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 12:48:18 GMT Subject: Re: Historical Fact Dear David Lindley, Be fair: you started going on about concrete 'historical facts', not me. The first one you produce is ' Elizabeth died in 1603 and was succeeded by a Scottish monarch, James I.' But that's an 'English' fact, matey. Any Scot will tell you that the only person who was both a Scottish monarch and James 1 died in 1437 (he also wrote "The Kingis Quair", but nobody's perfect). Elizabeth's successor was quite a different bloke and the significance of his 'double' standing crucially informs both Macbeth and King Lear. Mightn't your students might find that interesting? Now, what was your second 'fact'? T. Hawkes P.S. At least you didn't call her 'Elizabeth 1". (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 10:48:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0816 Re: Historical Fact So it seems that after the New Historicism we will arise, numberless infinities, husbands and wives to ourselves -- just like the angels. Nothing, in fact, will have changed except that(what shall we call it) the New De-Ontology will, perhaps, no longer love a lord. And, as always, we will be able to write and write -- because we will still be free to write about what is not in the text. The world again all before us. This seems to me to be just the Old Dogberryism. Like Dogberry's watch, this method is dedicated to avoiding all contact with what it is supposed to apprehend. I suggest that the surpulus, the remainder, that Robert Appelbaum detects in spite of rigorous historicizing etc. is Shakespeare -- a plus, an overplus. We might think about what that might mean "in terms of what is absent." (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Correll Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 11:57:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0816 Re: Historical Fact I think some wisdom on historical fact might be found in the following: Facts are simple and facts are straight. Facts are lazy and facts are late. Facts all come with points of view. Facts don't do what I want them to. Facts just twist the truth around. Facts are living turned inside out. Facts are getting the best of them. Facts are nothing on the face of things. Facts don't stain the furniture. Facts go out and slam the door. Facts are written all over your face. Facts continue to change their shape. ---"Crosseyed and Painless," by David Byrne and Brian Eno If that's not sufficient, the chorus repeats the line, "I'm still waiting..." 'Nuf said. Barbara Correll, Cornell Univ. (bc21@cornell.edu) (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Friday, 20 Oct 95 11:27:45 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0816 Re: Historical Fact I believe the questions Dr. Green raises regarding critical standards of student papers are worth discussing. Certainly current critical methodologies (can they still be called "current?"), with the creative latitude they allow and the unapologetic subjectivity they necessitate, can make critical standards seem less concrete and definable than in the past. However, critical standards have never been entirely concrete. The question of what constitutes valid Shakespeare criticism has always been in flux, has always been in negotiation--it is just that that fact is more clearly apparent now than ever before. This does not, however, mean that anyone is advocating the abolition of standards. I certainly was not arguing that by admitting one's biases, one can blissfully cast off any obligation to construct tight arguments, provide adequate documentation, write clear and elegant prose, etc. My response was to your implication that Taylor's arguments were coming from the same sense of righteous moral certainty from which some of your thinking seems to emanate. Now for my own righteous moral certainty: I was rather taken aback by your assertion that "not everybody reinvents Shakespeare." Perhaps I have misunderstood you here, but it would seem that by now it is the truest of truisms for even the most reactionary of reactionaries that _absolutely_ everybody reinvents Shakespeare all the time. If this is not true, then what is the alternative? Is there some sacrosanct original meaning of the playtexts to which only old historicists are privy? Respectfully, David Skeele Slippery Rock University (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcello Cappuzzo Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 19:03:42 +0100 Subject: Re: Historical Fact I'll try to answer Professor Godshalk's most recent question. As regards, for instance, the relation between our earth and the sun -- writes Professor Godshalk -- there was a time when it was "intersubjectively" true that the latter "circled" [being Italian, I'd prefer "courted"] the former; today it is "intersubjectively" true that it is the earth [feminism!] that does all the work. What does this mean -- asks our colleague; it means, he adds, that perhaps there is "a truth that transcends intersubjective agreement. The problem is, since we all apprehend reality subjectively, how can we verify 'objective,' 'real' truth." Now, I'd start saying that Copernicus did not delete [apple-D] Ptolemy, he simply (so to say) established new logical relationships among certain terms of the scientific tradition. Ptolemy's truth is *still* a scientific truth: certainly, it has been superseded by other, more recent truths, but though no longer credible [but who knows?], it is indelibly written in the book of mankind's scientific search and findings -- a register that, presumably, will never be brought to an end [just like these papers on my desk!]. What I mean is that the problem of scientific truth and objectivity has NOTHING to do with what things are "in themselves" (whatever this may mean). That problem implies primarily, on the one hand, a precise individuation of the different, concrete ways in which human knowledge has historically developed, and on the other hand an equally precise recognition of the characteristics typical of each of these ways. In other words, and to get straight to the point: science is nothing but one of the ways in which we human beings intellectualize/rationalize ourselves, what we do, and what is around us; a given scientific "truth" (e.g., a "fact," an event in its technical-historical description) is NOT "more objective" than -- say -- a poetical "truth", the relation between "truth" and "reality" (i.e. things, matter) being in both cases of exactly the same, intellectual, *logical* nature; the difference between the two "truths" -- because they *are* different -- lies somewhere else: it lies, I think, in the peculiarity of the (divergent) *semantic* characteristics of the two texts concerned. But this opens other problems, that I can't even attempt to hint at here. However, I think I've somehow answered Professor Godshalk's question: in my opinion, the objectivity (or validity) of a "truth" is to be looked for in the text that expresses it, certainly not in the so-called material "reality". Marcello Cappuzzo University of Palermo ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 15:31:09 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0824 "King Lear" at Williams College Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0824. Thursday, 19 October 1995. From: Gail M. Burn Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 07:44:55 -0700 Subject: Review of "King Lear" at Williams College Fellow SHAKSPER-ians, I thought some of you might be interested, amused, appalled, whatever, by my review of a VERY avant-garde production of "King Lear" that opened last night (10/19) at Williams College, Williamstown, MA. Those of you in the Berkshires, southwestern Vermont, or the Hudson or Connecticut River valleys might consider the trek if this kind of thing intrigues you. By the way, I cover Williamstown for the local daily paper, and, although I have degree in theatre and a special love for Shakespeare, theatre reviews are a very small part of my job and I write them for a very broad but very local readership. I am not affliated with Williams College or the production in any way... Gail gmburns@ix.netcom.com LEAR LARGER THAN LIFE "No performance of a great play...can be ideal; but a performance, if not too defective, can give us an experience we should not get from a reading of the text...at home." Kenneth Muir, Introduction to the Arden Shakespeare edition of "King Lear" I found this phrase as I was preparing to attend the opening last night of Shakespeare's "King Lear" on the MainStage of the Adams Memorial Theatre. It struck me as interesting, since I assumed I would have to be evaluating a non-traditional production of the play, and I decided to use it as my measuring stick. I am glad that I did because, when I read it over at intermission, and again after the final curtain, it helped me to see that director David Herskovits and his large cast had given me a look at Lear that I never would have received from a mere reading of the script. Love it or hate it, this is a huge Lear, that assaults the senses of sight and sound repeatedly and leaves one dizzy, angry, appalled, and horrified in turn. It should first be noted that Shakespeare did not provide a pretty play, or even a good play, to start with. I have never been so struck with the weakness of the plot before. As most high school graduates know, Shakespeare, the great plagiarizer, took as a basis for Lear an old folk-tale of a King and his three daughters, which had been adapted, successfully, for the stage only a few decades earlier. The only difference is that Shakespeare's play is a tragedy, where the original had a happy ending. If you only enjoy "traditional" productions of Shakespeare, with lots of velvet pantaloons and Elizabethan neck ruffs, where blank verse is declaimed by assorted Dukes, Earls and Lords who all blur into one, do not go to this production. But if you enjoy the chance to look at old things in new ways - and note that I am not saying they are better ways or worse ways - then this production is well worth the $3.00 ($2.00 with Williams ID) and the three hours (this is uncut Shakespeare, after all.) The word that comes to mind to describe the production visually is - transparent. Many actors wear transparent garments (made of clear plastic) and the one set piece on stage is a large, moveable Plexiglas wall, with various doorways cut in it, some of which are simply openings in the wall and some of which have Plexiglas doors. I looked up transparent in the thesaurus and came up with the following: "Transparent - clear, unclouded, distinct, evident, obvious, plain, unmistakable; antonyms: inaudible, confused, obstructed, obscure" I find these words both apt descriptions of Lear and of this particular production. There would be no tragedy if Lear only saw through his elder daughters' deceit from the beginning. It is evident, obvious, plain, and unmistakable - transparent - like the blouses and jackets Goneril and Regan wear over their soiled costumes throughout the play. Yet Lear, who begins the play "sane" and ends "mad", is confused, his vision is obstructed, clouded. His eyes are opened and begins to see through what was clear to us from the beginning as the play progresses. The backdrop displays many medical and artistic renderings of eyes and eyeballs. And the text is riddled with references to eyes and ears, sight and blindness. Herskovits assails the senses of sight and sound repeatedly. The costumes by Barbara A. Bell and David Morris are brightly colored and garish, but all are soiled with make-up, sweat and feces. The lights by Juliet Chia are bright, sometimes aimed directly into the eyes of the audience, or bouncing off the Plexiglas wall, turning it momentarily opaque. Loud, angry rock music blares periodically - but nothing is small and quiet in Mimi Epstein's sound design, except Cordelia (Narcisse Demeksa) - trumpets blast, thunder booms, shots ring out. During the storm scene - in which there is a shower unit and four huge fans on the stage, as well as amplified sound effects - lines are shrieked above the din. Other times lines must be bellowed over the music, sometimes through a megaphone. This is Shakespeare staged by Brecht. I thought of Brecht's teachings on "Epic Theatre" repeatedly during the show. At various times characters wear signs around their necks. Lear's Fool (Annie Thoms) wears a dunce cap proclaiming her "Stupid". Edgar, disguised as Poor Tom (Rachel Hoover) wears a sign proclaiming her "Crazy", and in Act IV Lear (Sean Tarrant) wears one that marks him as "Old", although it is in that act that he is finally permitted to walk upright instead of bent over his cane. The filth and blatant theatricality of the production made me think more of Brecht's "Threepenny Opera" than of Shakespeare and "King Lear". In a show where so little is realistic - most roles are cast against gender, for instance - the blinding of the elderly Earl of Gloucester (Purva Bedi) is a shock. For those of you who have forgotten lines such as the Duke of Cornwall's "Out, vile jelly!" while gouging out Gloucester's eyeballs, let this be a reminder that by the end of Lear blood and bodies litter the stage. This is Shakespeare's doing, but the production at Williams offers little escape or relief from the horrific behavior and grisly deaths of most of the main characters. This is not a play for small children or the faint hearted. But it is spectacular and unique. I dare say that I shall find it as unforgettable visually as Peter Brook's famous production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream". And the performances are uniformly good, and memorable. I confess I re-read the play mostly so I wouldn't confuse the Duke of Albany with the Duke of Cornwall with the Earl of Gloucester with the King of France with... But how can you forget the King of France when he wears a clear blue plastic coat over a spangled jock-strap, carries a baguette for a scepter and speaks with an outrageous French accent that is doubled by a microphone effect reminiscent of Lou Gehrig's final words in "Pride of the Yankees"?? And it is easy to tell Goneril from Regan when Regan is played by a man, even if they do both wear tutus on their heads. "King Lear" runs October 19-21 and 25-28 at 8:00 PM on the MainStage of the Adams Memorial Theatre at Williams College, Williamstown, MA. Tickets are $3 ($2 with Williams ID) and are available at the box office from 1:00-5:00 PM (Eastern), Monday through Friday. For reservations call (413) 597-2425. Tickets must be picked up a half-hour before curtain. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 15:05:07 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0819 Re: *Edmund Ironside* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0819. Thursday, 19 October 1995. (1) From: David Kathman Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 22:51:46 +0100 Subj: Edmund Ironside (2) From: Nick Ranson Date: Friday, 20 Oct 95 01:46:01 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0817 Re: *Edmond Ironside* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Kathman Date: Thursday, 19 Oct 1995 22:51:46 +0100 Subject: Edmund Ironside Regarding Robert Hatch's query on the *Edmund Ironside* controversy: Eric Sams and M.W.A. Smith have been revisiting this subject in *Notes and Queries* lately; Mr. Hatch's query makes me think he may not have seen this exchange. Smith wrote an article two years ago (N&Q 238 (1993), p.202-5) providing new stylometric evidence against the attribution of the play to Shakespeare. Sams responded (N&Q 239 (1994), p. 469-72) with an attack on Smith and stylometry, written in his typical inflammatory and exaggerated style, to which Smith has replied in the most recent issue of *N&Q* (September 1995) with a calm but forceful dissection of the misrepresentations and distortions in Sams' article. Sorry if this is too late for the presentation on Friday, but hopefully it will be useful anyway. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Ranson Date: Friday, 20 Oct 95 01:46:01 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0817 Re: *Edmond Ironside* Don: I'm intrigued by your suggestion that EI might be by Greene--a suggestion I have never seen before: I'd love a copy of whatever you send to Robert Hatch. My own study of the work suggested it was within limits of Shakespeare's vocabulary as it might have been constituted in 1589--I'll have to check my paper on this tomorrow--using Brainerd's dating method for Shakespeare's plays. But that was ten years ago . . . . Cheers. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 09:43:34 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0825 What is this list for?: Italy and Importance Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0825. Monday, 23 October 1995. (1) From: Joe Nathan Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 19:23:24 -0700 Subj: what is this list for? (2) From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 11:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0818 Re: What is this list for? (3) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 22 Oct 1995 10:29:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: What is this list for? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Nathan Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 19:23:24 -0700 Subject: what is this list for? Poor Mr. Sawday. I have a picture of the universe he inhabits made up of minutae and relatively unimportant dry, dusty, facts which have little to do with the universal appeal of Shakespeare and the beauty of his poetry. Has academia become so esoteric and inbred? I do pity his students. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 11:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0818 Re: What is this list for? Dear Colleagues, I'm replying on the agenda that's discussing the need for this list because I can't remember who wrote in the other day to inquire about Shakespeare in Italy. I thought the list (thanks to Hardy Cook and others) was here to encourage discussion and answer questions. As to Shakespeare in Italy, it's an ancient chestnut that was studied ad infinitum by German scholars decades ago. I remember ploughing through a blizzard of essays that, so far as I can tell, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Shakespeare may or may not have visited Italy. A convincing point was made by, I think, Mario Praz, in a ShS article (I haven't bothered to reconfirm this) that Shakespeare may have hung out with Italian travelers at the Elephant Tavern on Bankside. It gave me a thrill the first time in London I passed through the Elephant and Castle underground station. To think that I was within yards of the very place where these eloquent Italians had demonstrated their sprezzatura. If this theory has any validity, it's also worthwhile to think about the French Connection (cf. Henry V). London was full of Protestant refugees from the Catholic terror in France. SoHo square still has a Hugeneot church, as I recollect from this distance. In short London may have been sufficiently cosmopolitan to meet Shakespeare's need for foreign flavors. He didn't need the grand tour. I hasten to add that nothing I've said should be construed as a fact. Overwhelmed by the recent discussions of "factuality," I'm no longer prepared to say what I think a fact is. Ken Rothwell (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 22 Oct 1995 10:29:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: What is this list for? Janet Winship; Although your post was listed under "What is This List For", to my mind it belongs under the Importance of Shakespeare, for to me you have explained better than I was able to what I deeply believe to be the true importance of Shakespeare, and the thing that sets his work a quantum leap apart from all other writers and even from most of the great movers and shakers of the world, which is the fact that his works are continually brought to life season after season, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, not only by important repertory companies or even not so important local repertory companies, but by theater groups in small towns and classes of children all across America, and I would imagine, in England as well, and to some extent, in translation, in many other nations of the world. Is there any other writer for whom we can claim the same? The experience you describe as an "aha" is liable to occur at any time to any member of any one of these groups, and to any member of their audience as well. I know that a recent performance of Merry Wives at a local college performed mostly by women, with Ann Page played by a small handicapped girl in a wheelchair (what a wonderful solution to the problem of how to use this member of the theater class), had absolutely the best Mistress Page I've ever seen, while the young woman who played Dr. Caius gave me insights into Shakespeare's version of a French accent (she was fluent in French). There is an intense version of the "aha" that can occur as well, usually to a weary director or costumer at the final curtain of the first production, when, as a gift from the gods, comes a true epiphany, no different from that experienced occasionally in church or at the opera, when for a fraction of an instant life is seen in its true spiritual colors. It is for this that Shakespeare is produced over and over, and this is why I believe he is important. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 09:58:22 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0826 Re: Historical Fact Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0826. Monday, 23 October 1995. (1) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 11:45:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: historical fact (2) From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 12:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: James VI & I (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 16:50:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0823 Re: Historical Fact (4) From: William Proctor Williams Date: Saturday, 21 Oct 95 18:12 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0823 Re: Historical Fact (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 11:45:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: historical fact David Skeele quotes Joseph Green as saying, "Not everybody reinvents Shakespeare" and then proceeds with the usual blather about how everybody reinvents Shakespeare all the time, and that surely everyone except the old historicists recognizes it. Now I don't still have Joseph Green's post, but as I've followed this thread with interest, I'm fairly sure he actually wrote something like, "Not everybody reinvents Shakespeare *to the extent that Taylor does*" by shading facts. This is after all the main point that Dr. Green was making, and I think it's a good one. Similarly, Taylor probably doesn't reinvent Shakespeare as much as some of our students do when they misread or misremember things in the plays or state a view for which there isn't textual justification. And not everyone will reinvent what Dr. Green wrote to the extent that I believe David Skeele does. Of course, *what* Dr. Green actually wrote is one of those troublesome "facts" that any of us can easily verify. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 12:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: James VI & I Two fairly plain facts, in fact pure & simple ones: The English called James James I The Scots called him James VI. When home decorations were being erected for the coronation celebrations of 1952, in many parts of Scotland the shields, flags and so on read Elizabeth First of Scotland & Second of England or E I & II R Cumberland, but interpreted fact. Harry Hill (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 16:50:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0823 Re: Historical Fact I think I agree with Marcello Cappuzzo. I took my example from astronomy, not because I believe science to be "objective," but because the example seems to me incontestable. I was trying to make several points: (1) Intersubjective truth changes from time to time. (2) I intuit that there is real data in the physical world. This is a vaguely realist position. (3) But even if there is real data in the physical world, we humans can only apprehend that data subjectively. (4) There is no way to transcend our subjectivity. Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Saturday, 21 Oct 95 18:12 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0823 Re: Historical Fact Well of course there is no fact without value. The "facts" I provided in my last posting were not without values. The value was that of a working- class Ph.D. who thinks he is not appreciated by his English Department and who believes, if he could get a good run at it, he could fly. William Proctor Williams ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:06:31 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0828 Re: *MND* Productions; CD ROMs Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0827. Monday, 23 October 1995. (1) From: Fran Teague Date: Friday, 20 Oct 95 15:33:50 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0822 Q: *MND* Productions (2) From: Joanne Walen Date: Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 18:09:34 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0719 Qs: CD ROMs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Friday, 20 Oct 95 15:33:50 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0822 Q: *MND* Productions Scott Crozier asked about productions of MND; I have the program for the Ron Daniels RSC production: Mike Gwilym as Theseus/Oberon and Juliet Stevenson as Hippolyta/Titania. I'd be happy to send along a copy if Scott hasn't already found one. My principal memory is of the fairies, which were puppets and alternately horrifying and entrancing. By the way, is the production Liviu Ciulei designed and directed at the Arena in Washington in 1989 of any interest? Or does the British focus rule it out? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 18:09:34 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0719 Qs: CD ROMs I'm reading my mail a little late, but in response to Peter Herman's inquiry about CD ROMs, there is an excellent article by Michael LoMonico (also of this list) in the October issue of *English Journal* (NCTE). His audience is high school teachers, but I think the tips he gives are useful to anyone looking for CD ROMs for Shakespeare study. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:13:27 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0828 Qs: Wittenberg; Ashlands' Artistic Director Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0828. Monday, 23 October 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 17:13:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg (2) From: Carol Marshall Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 20:48:08 -0400 Subj: Who's Ashlands' Artistic Director? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 17:13:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg More than two years ago, if I recall correctly, we SHAKSPERians had a delightfully frivolous conversation about Hamlet, Faustus, and Martin Luther at Wittenberg together. As I remember it, someone said that there is an article that links Hamlet, Martin Luther, and Wittenberg. The author was, I think, Robert Rentoul Reed, Jr. I've searched the SHAKSPER DATABASE for that conversation: no luck. That means the conversation is more than two years old. I also search the MLA Bibliography online, and came up with nothing, and I consulted the Garland bibliographies by Julia Dietrich and Randall Robinson. Nothing. If anyone remembers the article that links Hamlet and Luther, please let me know. I'll keep thumbing through the print bibliographies, but your good memories could save me hours. Thanks. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Marshall Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 20:48:08 -0400 Subject: Who's Ashlands' Artistic Director? Has anyone heard anything about who the new Artistic Director will be at the Oregon Shakespeare festival,( rumor or official info?) It seems to be getting to the time where a decision should be made, or at least some serious candidates be picked out. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:17:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0829 Re: Tempest Costumes; *Tempest* on Broadway Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0829. Monday, 23 October 1995. (1) From: Michael Saenger Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 19:06:57 -0400 Subj: Tempest Costumes (2) From: Joe Nathan Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 19:23:27 -0700 Subj: *Tempest* on Broadway (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 19:06:57 -0400 Subject: Tempest Costumes Clark Bowlen bring up the questions of Inigo Jones' sketches. I am not aware of any for this pageant, which was a celebration of the formal "creation" of Henry as Prince of Wales. This is essentially new research territory, so if anyone would like to search for more evidence, I hope they do so. There is, however, an intriguing pamphlet (Entitled "London's Love to the Royal Prince Henrie"), written by Anthony Munday, who seems to have been responsible for directing the pageant. His main actors were two of the King's men, Richard Burbage and John Rice. This pamphlet contains much description of the costumes, but since it is written quite poetically, it is not as detailed as a sketch would be. Nonetheless the descriptions match those of the costumes in the Tempest. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Nathan Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 19:23:27 -0700 Subject: *Tempest* on Broadway The Public Theater production of *The Tempest*. Not a weak member in the cast -- real ensemble acting with Patrick Stewart most persuasive as Prospero, and an absolutely adorable Carrie Preston as Miranda. Beautiful portrayals of Ariel and Caliban. Not a weak member in the cast -- nor a slow moment. The direction, the sets, the lighting -- wonderful. Don't miss this one. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:22:20 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0830 Re: Shylock and *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0830. Monday, 23 October 1995. (1) From: Stanley Holberg Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 22:27:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: *MV* (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 22 Oct 1995 10:46:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0821 Re: *MV* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stanley Holberg Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 22:27:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: *MV* Although in a recent post I advanced the view Shylock's desire for revenge in the "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech undercuts the strongly affective lines in which he seems to be working toward a plea that Christians recognize the humanity that Jews share with them. I think that Bill Godshalk, in his reply to my posting, was right in saying, "We auditors...forget that the plea is imbedded in a justification for revenge," and with John Boni, who agrees with him. We are all right: they on emotional grounds, I on grounds of simple reasoning. But they are more right than I, for they are concerned with how things work in e theatre -- and have worked, even for the Nazis, while I have been taken up with more limited intellectual analysis. Still, it is diffcult to let the whole speech go as a botch. If I were to direct the play, I'd have my Shylock somehow convey, just after "If you poison us, do we not die?" an annoyance with himself because he realizes that he has allowed his emotions to run away with him and has headed toward a plea for human consideration, while his intentions have been quite different. He would pull himself together and get back on track: "And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?" The botch would become Shylock's, not Shakespeare's. Come to think of it, perhaps that's just the way it was --Stanley Holberg (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Sunday, 22 Oct 1995 10:46:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0821 Re: *MV* Re: Complexity of Shylock As has been noted on this list recently, Shakespeare no doubt wrote for individual actors. Has anyone an idea of which of the Lord Chamberlain's Men would have played Shylock? Would it have been Richard Burbage? The complexity of the role would certainly say something about the abilities of the actor for whom the role was intended. Stephanie Hughes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:25:54 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0831 Q: Toothache/Headache in *Oth,* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0831. Monday, 23 October 1995. From: Susan Mather (smather) Date: Friday, 20 Oct 1995 21:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Q: Toothache/Headache in *Oth,* Dear Fellow Shakespearians-- My dear friend, Melanie, a Wrothian, is interested in finding out about the significance of the toothache and the headache in Othello. Those feigned illnesses in other words. If anyone knows of ways she could get her hands on the material, let me know! Thank you! Susan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:28:18 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0832 Re: Facts, Purpose of List, Italy, Jews Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0832. Monday, 23 October 1995. From: Martin Green Date: Sunday, 22 Oct 1995 10:57:32 -0400 Subject: Re: Facts, Purpose of List, Italy, Jews I long for the good old days - - the days of Charles W. Wallace and E. K. Chambers - - when, in the field of Shakespeare studies, there were *facts* which could be ascertained, and reasonable inferences which could be drawn from those facts. If there are questions about the purpose of this list, it is because so many posters deny to Shakespeare an existence outside of their own minds, and construct theories which, positing the irrelevance or unknowability of facts about the time and place inhabited by Shakespeare, justify their writing about themselves. Most people who have subscribed to this list, I would suppose, already had an appreciation of the literary worth and psychological profundity of Shakespeare's writings - - the sort of things one talks about when one shoots the breeze - - and hoped, by joining this list, to consider and perhaps to learn something about Shakespeare's life, or the sources of his stories and knowledge, or the history of the times in which he lived, or the meaning, in light of the language, literature and learning of the times, of difficult passages: in short, some *facts,* or failing those (for there are, I concede, so few for sure *facts* known about Shakespeare) then some informed surmise - - but NOT an abandonment of all attempt to relate Shakespeare to a specific time and place. Which brings me to a *fact* that seems to me to be of pivotal importance in any discussion of Shakespeare's knowledge and associations, this *fact* being Shakespeare's dedications of two of his works (Venus and Adonis in 1593, Lucrece in 1594) to Henry Wriothesley, third Earl of Southampton. The first dedication may be, as some have suggested, merely a bid for patronage, but if that is so, the language of the second dedication warrants the conclusion that the bid was successful. This permits the not unreasonable surmise that Shakespeare, by virtue of Wriothesley's patronage, had access to others dependent upon Wriothesley (e.g., John Florio) as well as to persons dependent upon Wriothesley's closest friend, the Earl of Essex. And the Earl of Essex assembled and administered, at Essex House, his London residence, a host of remarkable persons who constituted his own intelligence service and diplomatic corps. The premise that Shakespeare had access to Essex House provides, in my opinion, a reasonable answer to almost every question relating to Shakespeare's knowledge of classical and contemporary literature, and people and places throughout Europe. SHAKSPERIAN Lee Buchanan asks, did Shakespeare travel to Italy? We have no record of his ever having done so: but quite a few of Essex' servants at Essex House had been there (and some were native-born Italians), and any one of them could have given Shakespeare the knowledge of that country which some seem to find in Shakespeare's plays. Another SHAKSPERIAN notes, in the continuing and largely lamentable discussion on The Merchant of Venice, that there were no Jews in England to speak of in the 1590's. True, but two in England that we know of were a part of the Essex entourage: Dr. Lopez, who had been physician to Essex' step-father, the Earl of Leicester, had apparently treated the young Essex for some socially unacceptable ailment, and Antonio Perez, who was a guest at Essex House in the early 1590's. To be sure, both Lopez and Perez were conversos - - but they were thought of in England as being, as they undoubtedly were, at least ethnically, Jews. The treatment of these two men by Essex is a mixed bag (one was hounded to his death; the other lionized), and perhaps Shakespeare's treatment of Shylock mirrors this equivocal treatment, based, it seems, not so much on race as on personal traits, rendering futile any attempt to categorize that treatment as pro or anti-Semitic. Just a few thoughts, for whatever they're worth. But there ARE facts, and this list would be perceived as being more rewarding to its subscribers, I think, if contributors were to attempt to anchor their observations and speculations on things which we all accept as facts . ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:29:08 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0833 Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0833. Tuesday, 24 October 1995. (1) From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:08:25 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Lutheran Hamlet (2) From: C. David Frankel Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0828 Qs: Wittenberg (3) From: James L. Harner Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:23:57 -0500 (CDT) Subj: RE: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:08:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Lutheran Hamlet Although this may not be the piece that Bill G. is looking for, it may be of some interest to him and others on the list: Raymond B. Waddington's "Lutheran Hamlet," ELN 27 (1989): 27-42. Incidentally, while extant copies are few, English translations of Luther's *Methodical Preface prefixed before the Epistle of S. Paule to the Romanes* (n.d.--BM gives 1590, though Peter Blayney has indicated to me that it is more likely a pre-1590 publication, perhaps even as early as 1580) and *A Commentarie of M. Doctor Martin Lvther vpon the Epistle of S. Paule to the Galatians* (1588) may be worth perusal in this connection. The Folger Shakespeare Library has both of these unique copies. Nick Clary St. Michael's College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0828 Qs: Wittenberg; Ashlands' Artistic Director I'm not sure about linking Hamlet and Luther, but I believe Jan Kott wrote and essay that discusses, in part, the coincident attendance at Wittenburg of Faust and Hamlet. C. David Frankel frankel@arts.usf.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James L. Harner Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:23:57 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg See: Hassel, R. Chris, Jr. "Hamlet's 'Too, too solid flesh.'" _Sixteenth Century Journal_ 25 (1994): 609-22. Waddington, Raymond. "Lutheran Hamlet." _English Language Notes_ 27, no. 2 (1989): 27.42. Hoff, Linda Kay. _Hamlet's Choice: Hamlet: A Reformation Allegory. Studies in Renaissance Literature 2. Lewiston: Mellen, 1988. James L. Harner ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:58:42 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0834 Re: Historical Fact Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0834. Tuesday, 24 October 1995. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 11:11:46 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0826 Re: Historical Fact (2) From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 23 Oct 95 12:17:28 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0826 Re: Historical Fact (3) From: Joseph M Green Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:38:52 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0832 Re: Facts, Purpose of List, Italy, Jews (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 11:11:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0826 Re: Historical Fact It is easy to believe that everyone reinvents Shakespeare if you believe, as Gary Taylor seems to, that interpretation equals reinvention, that, anyway, Shakespeare is beyond the event horizon, a black hole who admits no light and warps "literary space time," and that, because the authorized version is not available, no interpretation can possibly tell anything like the truth about Shakespeare. This is an odd point of view, I think. Change the title of Taylor's book to "Shakespeare Reinventing" and leave everything else the same and we could talk about how Shakespeare writes Taylor -- how, for example, his drama here and there shows how persons reinvent the self to avoid an encounter with something outside the self that might force the self to change in ways feared, not wanted, not comfortable. The belief that, because the absolute truth is not available, only fictions are available is familar enough -- it demonstates nostalgia for a theology, a nostalgia that must have God or nothing. There is no place for partial truths, partial insights --all are condemned as simply versions of the self. With God dead there is no truth. In the spirit of Taylor another version of Shakespeare criticism might be given: Stage 1: Shakespeare is God. Stage 2: Shakespeare is God but is away paring his nails somewhere (a deist version -- Wimsatt removes intentions, the New Criticism struggles on). Stage 3: God/Shakespeare is Dead/ We are gods(nervous or self-delighting). These versions only partial, of course. The history of Shakespeare criticism is actually much more complex. There always have been a fair field of folk who did not believe that Shakespeare was God, who, even though they lived through a period now called modernism did not believe in a modernist Shakespeare, who, don't believe that either Alan Bloom or Terry Eagleton bestride the world, who, even if they believe every "fact" is also a value are careful not to take a degree away and assume that all there are are arbitrary and ideological values and the materiality of a complex work of art necessarily has to disappear into the will of the interpreter. Who, for example, allow "facts" (whatever they are after the fact/value dichotomy collapses) to resist their wills. (God, I am proud that, so far I have not punned on Will). In fact, the attempt to interpret Shakespeare without reinventing him -- possible if one believes that a truth need not always comprehend the whole because the whole is a work of art whose complexity eludes reduction -- has continued even after Terry Eagleton threw Matthew Arnold off the cliff at Dover and the Blatant Beast that was Leavis has been slain by the doughty Knights of Ghosts and Shadows. After all, the facts/value question has not, at last, been conclusively settled and the heavens have not opened up to endorse the placing of Will beyond the event horizon -- not that they would have to, of course. Reinventing is the Pickwickian sense of interpretation -- all one has to do is simply not join the club. One misses, of course, the jolly rides in comfortable coaches, the sweetmeats, the cozy conversation, the sense that everything means something when it happens to you but one can, while resting one's cheek against one's garret window, watch the snow, note that snow is general all over, and not swoon. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 23 Oct 95 12:17:28 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0826 Re: Historical Fact My apologies to Dr. Green if I have misinterpreted him or misread his posting. The "historical fact" argument has been well-covered by now, so I see no need to reopen it (other than to say if I have oversimplified Dr. Green's viewpoint then surely Dr. Hawkins oversimplifies the New Historicist/Cultural Materialist viewpoint by dismissing it as "blather"). Perhaps if I hear a better example of how Taylor has so grossly misrepresented "facts" I'll be more convinced. The original example concerning Dryden will not do. Whether or not Dryden would have approved of Beaumont and Fletcher being more popular than Shakespeare is absolutely irrelevant to the argument that they were. The idea that Dryden's opinion has more historical relevance than the theatre-going public's is a bias--decidedly not a "fact"--and provides a prime example of the way in which the most supposedly "objective" critics shade facts in order to make them fit their view of the world. I guess one man's fact is another man's blather. At any rate, if Drs. Green or Hawkins has a better example, I will certainly be willing to listen to it. I am curious--is there anybody out there who likes Taylor? David Skeele Slippery Rock University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:38:52 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0832 Re: Facts, Purpose of List, Italy, Jews I agree with Martin Greene but can't help noticing that the fact of the abolition of fact is a guide to manners and not to conduct. After all, even Schopenhauer, whose world was will and representation, slept with a pistol under his pillow and even Sinfield who, in his essay on Macbeth wants to prove that all kings are equally evil and Duncan was probably just as bad as Macbeth attempts, at least in the beginning of the essay, to establsih this from the text before conceding that the whole play can't be made to support this -- giving away something just there. And one notices that, in spite of the odd "alas" prefacing a reference to fact that, in many postings here, facts are wanted, are seen as good things if only one is polite and calls them something else. New Historicists often begin their essays with a mannerly exposition of just how impossible it is to ever do anything but interpret from within the current paradigm and provide quite scary descriptions of the inevitable gulf between the Now and the rest of history. Once this bow is made, however, they go right ahead with marching their facts up the hill, pulling their factual swords the scabbard from, and laying about enthusiastically -- and when one inquires whether they, in fact, believe their own theory they will not, as Stephen Daedelus does, simply say "No" but point to the facts of the case. An odd position. One imagines that this position is somewhat like that of the Duke of York in "The good old Duke of York. He had ten thousand men. He marched them up the hill. Then marched them down again. And when you're up, your're up. And when you're down, your down. But when you're only halfway up. You're neither up nor down." Another fact. Posters have called me "Dr. Green." I am not -- but may be -- right now I am neither up nor down. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 21:41:32 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0835 Re: Shylock and *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0835. Tuesday, 24 October 1995. (1) From: John Owen Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 10:50:32 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0830 Re: Shylock and *MV* (2) From: David Schalkwyk Date: Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 10:11:18 SAST-2 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0830 Re: Shylock and *MV* (3) From: Kay Pilzer Date: Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 08:14:09 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Shk 6.0830 Shylock and *MV* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 10:50:32 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0830 Re: Shylock and *MV* Regarding the first Shylock: Baldwin guesses Thomas Pope as the first Shylock. In his scheme of things, Pope was the actor who portrayed the Henry IV Falstaff and was the company's primary light comedian. Very provocative, that. J.O. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 10:11:18 SAST-2 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0830 Re: Shylock and *MV* I'm not sure that one should dismiss the plea from humanity in Shylock's speak simply because part of that condition is a desire for revenge. The speech has an intriguing counterpart in _Othello_, and it would be interesting to read the two speeches against each other, not as indications of "character" but rather as points of political and moral perspective and possibility: Emilia: But I do think it is their husband's faults If wives do fall. Say that they slack their duties, And pour our treasures into foreign laps; Or else break out in peeviush jealousies, Throwing retsraint upon us; or say they strike us, Or scant our former having in despite: Why, we have galls; and though we have some grace, Yet have we some revenge. Let husbands know Their wives have sense like them; they see, and smell, And have their palates both for sweet and sour, As husbands have. What is it that they do When they change us for others? Is is sport? I think it is. And doth affection breed it? I think it doth. Is't frailty that thus errs? It is so too. And have we not affections, Desires for sport, and frailty, as men have? Then let them use us well; else let them know, The ills we do, their ills instruct us so. (IV.iii.86) David Schalkwyk English Department University of Cape Town (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kay Pilzer Date: Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 08:14:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Shk 6.0830 Shylock and *MV* In light of Prof. Applebaum's persuasive argument that *MV* does not address anxiety about Puritans, how does one read Paul Siegel's 1953 "Shylock and the Puritan Usurers" (in *Studies in Shakespeare* Ed. Arthur D. Matthews and Clark M. Emery)? Siegel traces ways that (he says) Elizabethans linked Puritan and Jewish views of the Old Testament, of their relationship to law, and their views of usury. We know that the presence or absence of a feared/reviled minority often has nothing to do with anxiety/prejudice about the minority. I found the whole notion of Antonio and Shylock as mirror or even twin characters to be a fairly useful interpretative stance. But I'm new at this. What do ya'll think? (From Kay Pilzer pilzerkl@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 21:56:39 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0836 Productions: African *Mac.*; *Mac.*; *TN*; *MND*; *Tmp.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0836. Tuesday, 24 October 1995. (1) From: Stephen Buhler Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 09:30:58 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: "African *Macbeth*" (2) From: Albert Misseldine Date: Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 13:26:14 -0400 Subj: Macbeth Production (3) From: Michael A. Norman Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 14:46:24 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Twelfth Night film (4) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:54:20 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0828 Re: *MND* Productions (5) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 19:10:00 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0802 *Tmp* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Buhler Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 09:30:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: "African *Macbeth*" Cynthia Dessen can rightly refer to her Prophetic Soul: I've just learned that the Haworth Shakespeare Festival has cancelled its scheduled performances of *Macbeth* and *Romeo and Juliet* here in Lincoln. The director of our performing arts center received word that the entire tour is off. Can anyone on SHAKSPER confirm this? Regretfully, Stephen Buhler (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Albert Misseldine Date: Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 13:26:14 -0400 Subject: Macbeth Production Our theater department is planning an April 'Macbeth' production. I'm the advisor to the producer, and I need this network's help. Specifically, I want to hear what works best for the scene with Banquo's ghost. I presently favor an imaginary ghost, with Macbeth 'seeing' what all others on stage do not. From the stage directions, however, it seems Shakespeare meant it to be done the other way, with a visible ghost which everyone else on stage has to pretend to not see. I've seen productions like that cause laughter in the audience. That I fear. But recently there was some little discussion of this very point and I seem to recollect the idea being floated that laughter here (of the right kind, and under control) is not necessarily bad. I will appreciate no end a discussion of this, and not only this. Generally, are there pitfalls to avoid, things to clarify in the text, etc? Thanks. A Misseldine (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael A. Norman Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 14:46:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Twelfth Night film I just came across an announcement in Playbill Online about the filming of Twelfth Night, directed by Trevor Nunn. Filming began in October on the project with stars Nigel Hawthrone, Ben Kingsley and Helena Bonham Carter. The announcement did not indicate who is playing what roles. This should be an interesting production. I thought that others might be interested. It seems like several film productions of the works of Shakespeare will be coming out in the near future. **Also, I just wanted to say that I find the discussions educational and entertaining, and I find much value in the list. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:54:20 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0828 Re: *MND* Productions What I remember about the use of puppets in the Ron Daniels production was that they represented most but no all of the fairies, and were manipulated by actors palying the Victorian under-class - street sweepers and so on, whose dark greasy clothing seemedto make them invisible - in the Japanese mode- disappeared when they held the brightly costumed fairies.It was an interesting solution to the 'problem' of two kindss of Fairies in the play - FAERIE and 'fairies at the bottom of the garden'. Oberon was a powerful and brutal figure who broke the head of one of Titania's fairies as he tried to defend her. It flew across the stage as only a puppet could - and later reappeared with a bandage around its head. In this version, as I remember it, the doubling was justified by the fact that Oberon learned a little about human compassion from the lovers and Theseus somehow had learned both compassion and something about the powers of imagination from his alter-ego Oberon. Mary Jane Miller, Dept. of Film Studies, Dramatic and Visual Arts, Brock University, (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 19:10:00 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0802 *Tmp* Michael Baird Saenger wrote >In the most recent issue of Notes and Queries (September 1995), I >point out that two costumes, originally made for a royal pageant, were given to >Shakespeare's acting troupe in 1610. I'm happy with Corinea -> Ariel-qua-sea-nymph, but not Amphion -> Caliban, since the pamphlet describes Amphion as "a graue and iudicious Prophet-like personage, attyred in his apte habits, euery way answerable to his state and profession, with his wreathe of Sea-shelles on his head, and his harpe hanging in fayre twine before him" Both costumes are more suited to Ariel-qua-sea-nymph. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 22:02:21 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0837 De-Canonization (was "Importance) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0837. Tuesday, 24 October 1995. From: Ronald Dwelle Date: Monday, 23 Oct 95 12:30:40 EST Subject: de-canonization (was "Importance of Shaxspr") Related to "The Importance of Shakespeare"-- My English department is currently undergoing a frenzy of curriculum reform (undergraduate English major), largely because our curriculum has become somewhat incoherent during the last 25 years, what with additions, de-canonizations, multi-culturalizations, derridaizations, etc. The only stable element for those 25 years has been the requirement of two courses: one we call Greek Lit (Homer, a bunch of plays, a few lyrics) and the other Intro to Shakespeare (standard introductory course, 5 to 7 plays, maybe a few sonnets). The two courses are now on the chopping block, almost certain to go (as requirements) unless I can do a better job of persuasion than I've done up til now. Of course, it may be that my status as old-fart in the department is not merely due to age--perhaps I am out of touch and all the de-canonizing arguments are valid with regard to that old white male patriarchic reactionary, The Bard. (I had to admit in public that my support for Homer and Shakespeare was based on a conviction that they were "better" than, say, James Kirke Paulding, Frederick Douglass, or Alice Walker.) I wonder what the thinking is among this group. Should I say "Uncle"and let the courses go? If not, I'll need some strong arguments to push forward. Any suggestions? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 14:19:32 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0838 Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0838. Wednesday, 25 October 1995. (1) From: Chris Strofilno Date: Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 21:50:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0833 Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg (2) From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 13:15 ET Subj: SHK 6.0833 Re: Hamlet, Luther, (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Strofilno Date: Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 21:50:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0833 Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg There's a book by John o'Meara called OTHERWORLDLY HAMLET that deals with Luther as a possible influence on S..... cs. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 13:15 ET Subject: SHK 6.0833 Re: Hamlet, Luther, In the mid-70s the Stratford Shakespeare Festival set _Hamlet_ in a Calvinistic rather than Lutheran northern Europe, with everybody very firmly buttoned up in black clothes with little tight ruffs and caps all round. I don't know what the dramaturgical basis was; certainly it was very much opposite the Tony Richardson approach of a few years earlier, which had a licentious court given to booze, lechery, even incest. The most famous feature of that production is the strait-jacket worn by Marti Maraden as Ophelia mad--the familiar canvas and straps, but also a wooden bar through the sleeves on which she was in effect crucified; she has somewhere written about her discontent as an actor at having to wear so restricting and physically uncomfortable a costume. At any rate, what I remember best about the production (apart from the late Nicholas Pennell as an unusually sweet and tender prince, whose death moved me more than most I've seen) was the treatment of Polonius, no fool but a version of Lord Burghley, erect and severe, very much the King's First Secretary (during the public part of 1.2 he took notes at a stand-up desk, and had the ambassadors' papers all drawn up and sealed and ready to go). His valediction to Laertes and his handling of the Ophelia-Hamlet affair were shot through with prurience, but only as it were peeking around the edges of an austere moralism. His death, therefore, was more consequential than had he been a mere "prating fool." All this carries some suggestion that the Hamletii occupy a position that is theologically distict from that of the Claudii, variously more genial and relaxed. Severely, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 14:42:22 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0840 Re: Ghost of Banquo Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0840. Wednesday, 25 October 1995. (1) From: Tom Clayton Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 10:32:30 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0836 Productions: *Mac.* (2) From: Kurt Daw Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 95 13:54:07 EDT Subj: Re: Ghost of Banquo (3) From: Clark Bowlen Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 14:27:07 -0400 (EDT) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0836 Productions: *Mac.* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 10:32:30 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0836 Productions: *Mac.* Banquo's Ghost. Not to do an-audience visible ghost is a copout and has never been effective in my experience of such productions. I know of no formula for preventing laughter--sometimes little more than a release of tension--when a visible Banquo is used, other than to treble efforts to avoid silliness of any kind. One of the better ghosts I have seen materialized into his place at the table through the trapdoor under it, an expedient often used, I imagine; he was also suitably grizzly and horrifying, and Mac suitably horrified while the rest at table looked up at Mac in shock, the easy means by which it is made obvious that they don't see Banquo's ghost. Happy haunting, Tom (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kurt Daw Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 95 13:54:07 EDT Subject: Re: Ghost of Banquo In response to Albert Messeldine's request for thoughts about the Banquo scene I have a few observations coming out of my own experience and some recent conversation with members of "Shakespeare Examined Through Performance" Institute currently meeting monthly at the Folger Library. There are no easy answers to the question of how to stage this scene. Certainly, Banquos sneaking on undecorously under tablecloths is the most common, and laughable, solution. Unfortunately, "invisible" Banquos don't always alleviate this problem. The challenge of making this scene dramatically convincing with no Banquo present requires an actor of great skill and intensity. There is a recently available video version with Ian McKellen playing Macbeth where you can see the "invisible" option handled with great intelligence. He holds out for a very long time in the scene, almost underplaying it, until he suddenly erupts into a completely terrifying, over-the-top, slobbering fit. His insanity is more frightening than the ghost, but it works. The BBC version used the same option, but it doesn't work because the performance is much less skillfully controlled. As has been alluded to in recent posting to this list, Stacy Keach is currently playing the scene in a production at the Shakespeare Theater in Washington, D.C. against Edward Gero's very visible ghost. When I saw it last week it did seem to me that he was deliberately courting the laughter in the scene in certain moments, which gave him quite marvelous control over the audience response in other moments. Still, it didn't solve the problem of his ghost slipping on not quite unnoticed. How this scene is perceived has a great deal to do with the way the supernatural elements are handled *throughout* the play. Urge your director into thinking through the problems of the witches, the floating dagger, the visions, and this scene all at once. Look for common denominators. What seems very odd to most audiences, and causes the laughter, is stage solutions for which they have not been adequately prepared and have no "context." As a result what they "see" is not the ghost, but some middle-aged guy crawling around on the floor covered in ketchup, or worse, some middle-aged guy pretending that he sees some middle-aged guy crawling around on the floor... You get the idea. As a sign-off, let me say the most interesting solution of which I have heard, is leaving the corpse of Banquo on-stage from the previous scene and letting him simply stand-up and begin to "haunt" the play at the point his entrance is marked in the Folio. The theatricality of this can be thrilling, and it avoids some of the "hokiness" of the usual solutions. Best wishes with your production. Please keep us posted about the progress of the show. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Bowlen Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 14:27:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0836 Productions: *Mac.* Re: Albert Misseldine's posting on Macbeth. While I haven't yet tried it in a full production, we discovered in advanced acting class scene work that a Scottish accent brought resonance and depth to the language. Try it on "Tomorrow...." I'm half convinced that Shakespeare wrote it to be done in a Scottish accent--half convinced because I have no idea what a Scottish accent sounded like at that time. We use David Alan Stern's accent tapes from Dialect Accent Specialists, which are terrific for student actors. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 14:56:14 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0841 Re: Facts and Gary Taylor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0841. Wednesday, 25 October 1995. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 12:00:04 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0834 Re: Historical Fact (2) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 10:56:06 -0700 (PDT) Subj: facts (3) From: Valerie Gager Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 95 12:13:00 PDT Subj: `Now what I want is, Facts . . .'4 (4) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 95 09:27:18 -0500 Subj: SHK 6.0826 Gary Taylor (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 12:00:04 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0834 Re: Historical Fact I think that David Skeele is reinventing me. I never argued that Dryden's opinion has more historical relevance than the theatre-going public's opinion. I argued that Taylor, since he cites Dryden's opinions at length in the chapter we are discussing, should have included Dryden's opinion that the popularity of B&F was not exactly how he would order things if he could. Taylor finds more than one occasion to cite Dryden's opinions as "typical of the period." He doesn't cite this opinion -- because it doesn't fit what he sees as typical. Throughout the chapter Dryden's opinions are given the utmost relevance by Taylor -- who is not, by his own admission, merely giving an objective account of Shakespeare's reception in the theatre, the Restoration repertoire, or Shakespeare's reception by critics and artists. Taylor is very explicit. He is showing how, in every age, Shakespeare is restored, reinvented, with nothing beside remaining. He is showing that the history of Shakespeare is a history of appropriations which are utterly limited by episteme, period, the gestalt of the age in which he is restored. So there is a Restoration Shakespeare, a Neo-Classic Shakespeare, A Romantic Shakespeare, a Modernist Shakespeare and so on. Each of these Shakespeares is a kind of floating signifier signifying nothing other than the spirit of the age. Taylor also wants to demonstrate that Shakespeare's was not a singular excellence. To this end he cites instance after instance of negative criticism that he finds worthy but ignored by those whose business it is to set up Shakespeare as a god. So he is not simply providing a stage history. He deploys Dryden for his own ends and silences him when it is not in the interest of his argument to let Dryden speak. Taylor himself establishes Dryden's relevance through extensive quotation. My bias had nothing to do with it. Dryden is simply deployed whenever he can be made to support Taylor's argument: sometimes he is silenced, sometimes he is permitted to speak with Taylor interpreting. Taylor claims that when Dryden claims that he "loves Shakespeare," he actually hates him. A dubious argument but, at least, in this instance, Dryden's opinions are made known. But, on the whole, Taylor deploys Shakespeare's cultured despisers for whatever effect can be gained. As I pointed out, he makes much of Tolstoy's negative opinions in one chapter while, in a subsequent chapter indicting Shakespeare for not possessing exactly those qualities that Tolstoy valued above all. Taylor's is a star-chamber judgment. He prosecutes -- the defense is, mostly, silenced. Witness after witness is called to show that each is utterly caught up in whatever the prevailing paradigm was -- as established by Taylor. No-one escapes his period as all opinions are reduced to reflections of the age. The argument that artists -- and even some critics -- can escape the prevailing regime, think beyond it and even might be influenced by a reality that they recognize as standing apart from them is never confronted. Taylor simply takes his simple reflection theory as truth. The subject/object problem, it seems, has, at last, been solved and all that one can do is present criticism that is simply a version of one's self -- a self completely bounded by one's episteme: "We find in Shakepeare only what we bring to him or what others have left behind; he gives us back our own values." True for Taylor, I think, but not for everyone. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 10:56:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: facts Let's get our facts straight! I did *not* say that *MV* does not address anxiety about Puritans. I said that there is no demonstrable "rising tide" of Puritanism to which such an anxiety might be correlated. In the 1950s in America there was no "rising tide" of communism, but many people feared that there was one. In the same way, although Puritanism in the 1590s seems to have been actually on the wane, WS may well have been articulating (as I wrote) an anxiety "about the possibility of something like Puritanism." The point, again, is that plays do not respond to facts like billiard balls to a stick. This, however, is just how Martin Green seems to want to understand the diference between a fact and an artifact. For Martin Green, longing for the scholarship of the 1930s, the fact is a stick, pushing the ball of cultural production around. And as a consequence, only the stick seems really to matter. We *appreciate* the play, whose "literary worth" and "psychological profundity" already goes without saying; but if we want to *understand* it we have to go the stick from which, as it were, the play takes its cue. This is positivism. And I'm sure that many SHAKSPERians noted that under the mantle of positivism -- with its faith in hard pushy value-free facts -- Green has gone so far as to dismiss 9/10 of the contributions to this list on matters interpretive, our "largely lamentable" discussions on such apparently unfactual things as the problem of understanding anti-semitism. But look at what has been put in the place of our "lamentable" discussions of the ethics of interpretation and performance: speculation! A hypothetical discussion of a household where WS *might* have been welcome, where he *might* have palled around with some Italians, and where he *might* have met a pair, not of Jews, but of conversos, becomes the "fact" out of which one of the most puzzling challenging characters in English literature is once and for all to be explained. These conversos, who *might* have been regarded "ethnically" (as Green puts it, although there is room to question whether ethnicity as a category is not something of an anachronism when applied to the Elizabethan period) as Jews, and treated equivocally by Englanders as a result, *might* therefore have been "mirrored" (Green's expression) in WS's treatment of Shylock, which *might* finally mean that Shakespeare's Shylock is "based, it seems, not so much on race as on personal traits, rendering futile any attempt to categorize that treatment as pro or anti-Semitic." Make your facts hypothetical enough, apparently, add enough "mights" in other words, and you come up "it seems" with a complete repudiation of the interpretive crux. There is no anti-semitism in the play, since WS *might* have known a pair of men who were conversos, and who *might* have been regarded as "ethnics" but not practitioners of Judaism, who *might* have had off personalities, etc. etc. Among other things this speculation, which purports not only to repudiate other interpretations but to render all ("lamentable") interpretation pointless, leaves us with a William Shakespeare, playwright, who was basically pretty stupid, who didn't know anything about the long tradition of anti-semitism in English thought, or about *The Jew of Malta*, or about the Vice and scapegoat conventions of English theater, and who was blandly indifferent to the relation between psychological and socio-political motivation. He had seen a pair of Spanish Roman Catholics whose ancestors had been Jews and voila -- the "mirror" of art came up with "Hath not a Jew eyes..." Actually, I find the information Martin Green provides to be extremely interesting; I would like to know more about it. And I am grateful that he has called it to my attention. I'm sure that his facts have a lot to tell us. Perhaps somewhere lurking in the anecdote we have a key to the character not only of Shylock but of Malvolio. But let's get serious. Historical anecdotes, like historical grand narratives and historical statistics, are only keys. We are the ones who have to figure out what locks they might fit -- and there are a lot of locks out there. To grant an ontological priority to the historical fact, such that the artifact is thus merely its mirror, is to make the job of the scholar pretty easy, and the plays themselves, with all their inner tensions, inconsistencies, and dramatic dilemmas, something less than what they *really* are. Robert Appelbaum (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Valerie Gager Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 95 12:13:00 PDT Subject: `Now what I want is, Facts . . .' David Skeele asks for examples of how Gary Taylor `has so grossly misrepresented facts.' In his chapter on `Victorian Values,' Taylor illustrates Frederick James Furnivall's analytical approach to metrical analysis of Shakespeare's plays with a quotation: `"Now what I want is, Facts . . . Facts alone are wanted in life"' (166). Presented as Furnivall's ideas, the words have a startling effect upon a Dickensian SHAKSPERean. While a reader familiar with Dickens may be irritated by Taylor's verbal `reinvention' or literary shock tactic, Taylor soon draws attention to his own cleverness be revealing that he has indeed been quoting the famous opening sentence of *Hard Times*. However, Taylor never confesses his similar sleight-of-hand in his subsequent use of another quotation, also from Dickens. Discussing the nineteenth-century obsession with quantification, Taylor states parenthetically that `some enthusiasts wanted to dig up Shakespeare's skull and display it "in the phrenological shop-windows"' (194). The full text of Dickens's letter as it relates to Shakespeare reveals the opposite sentiment: `It is a great comfort, to my thinking, that so little is known concerning the poet. It is a fine mystery; and I tremble every day lest something should come out. If he had had a Boswell, society wouldn't have respected his grave, but would calmly have had his skull in the phrenological shop-windows.' Further, the earlier quotation from *Hard Times* demonstrates Taylor's knowledge of Dickens's position as one who deplored the very obsession he uses Dickens to support. Were Dickens participating in this conference, he would likely attribute Taylor's distortion to the American habit, satirized in *Martin Chuzzlewit*, of `taking liberties' with great liberty. Taylor surely ignores Thomas Gradgrind's exhortation to the educator: `Stick to Facts, sir!' By the way, as a public figure, Dickens was accustomed to being misquoted. During a speech to the Birmingham and Midland Institute on 6 January 1870, he humorously invoked Shakespeare after exposing a false representation (or `reinvention,' if you Will) of his `shortly and elliptically stated' political views: `perhaps in these respects I do not sufficiently bear in mind Hamlet's caution to speak by the card lest equivocation should undo me.' Valerie Gager (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 95 09:27:18 -0500 Subject: SHK 6.0826 Gary Taylor When I discovered Gary Taylor's book, I was delighted. He was obviously knowledgeable, witty, and well-versed in the history of Shakespearean production. His writing was pleasantly free of jargon. As someone who spent the late 70s in graduate school, I was introduced to the joys of post-modern theory, and found most of it unbearably tedious and less-than-useful. I was then, and still am, interested in literature, in story-telling, in the reasons why we read fiction, see plays, recite poems. Taylor made all that come alive in interesting ways and invited me as a reader to play along with him. His work does not have the deadly serious tone of far too many contemporary academics, who believe that their truth (or perception or [horrors] fact) is more true than all other truths that have every been spoken. I have been recommending his book to friends and colleagues ever since. Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 14:59:11 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0842 Re: African Macbeth Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0842. Wednesday, 25 October 1995. From: Charles Whitney Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 11:27:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Productions: African Macbeth Last spring I attended the single Las Vegas performance of the RSC's African >Macbeth.< I emphatically agree with the Shakspere-an who said she felt that the African setting was not coherently related to the play's themes. But the attempt had dividends. First of all, the performance convened a racially mixed audience that situated the Bard's high culture emphatically in the contemporary urban U.S. Simply being a part of such an unusual audience stimulated one's sense both of the possibilities of theatrically bridging a cultural and racial divide, and of the tremendous distance that revival would have to traverse. And the production's depiction of contemporary guerilla warfare and its dispersal of whites among the supporters of Macbeth and of his opponents did seem to gesture vaguely towards problems of neo-colonialism (military support and intrigue, economic and technical dependence), although I and my Shakespearean companion couldn't detect any significant point being made. Two or three years ago there was an Off- Off-Broadway attempt to adapt >Macbeth< to African-American middle-class ambitions, >Metropolitan Macbeth.< Faithful to Shakespeare's text, the production depicted a promising black employee murdering his benevolent white boss so he could step into his place. With an exhortative Lady Macbeth ingeniously drawing on the rhythms and energies of gospel, that production raised some interesting possibilities of cultural fusion, though its quality was uneven and its crossing of cultures usually either incongrous or (again) incoherent. For those who do not dismiss such re-imaginings, these productions raise the question not why is such re-situating possible, but why is it so difficult? It may not just be the intransigence of the text, but also a measure of the distance between races and cultures in the U. S. today and the limited contexts in which Africa is perceived by the public. Much of course has been done with The Tempest but, I wonder, with what else? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:07:13 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0843 Announcements: Virtual Seminar on Utopia; Shakespeare Job Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0843. Wednesday, 25 October 1995. (1) From: Joanne Woolway Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 11:31:43 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Interactive EMLS: Utopia Seminar (2) From: Natalie Maynor Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 13:28:26 -0500 Subj: Job Announcement (Shakespeare) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Woolway Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 11:31:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Interactive EMLS: Utopia Seminar Virtual Seminar on Thomas More's Utopia This virtual seminar, sponsored by Interactive Early Modern Literary Studies, will concentrate on Thomas More's Utopia as political literature, foremostly on the politics and poetics of the utopian form; it is integrated with a 'liveware' or 'classware' seminar (to use a phrase coined by the Augustinian scholar and pioneer in electronic teaching, James O'Donnell) run concurrently by Luc Borot (Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches sur la Renaissance Anglaise, Universite Paul-Valery, Montpellier, France). The seminar's purpose is to enable students and scholars the world over to read and discuss the text slowly -- an approach which is intended to discourage the practice of jumping to conclusions. As a group, we shall have to agree that we understand one passage, as it stands alone or in the context of the whole work, before we move on to the next. This may involve acknowledging the difficulties of a particular section or sections, or exploring a number of hypotheses. We shall refer to the Latin text and to available translations, the Latin text being the ultimate authority. More's Utopia is the eponymous text of a genre that had begun long before, perhaps even before Plato. The astounding genesis of the Utopia attests to the vitality of projects which are both aesthetic and philosophical, and may lead us to reflect on the modes of expression of a political philosophy. What is the relationship between the text's political content and its literary form? Are there utopias or fictionalised presentations of theories in other philosophical fields? Questions such as these will inevitably appeal to the broadest range of academic disciplines. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Early Modern Literary Studies would like to thank the Oxford Text Archive for providing the text of the Utopia used in this seminar. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Early Modern Literary Studies and Interactive EMLS can be found on the World Wide Web at http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/e-sources/emls/emlshome.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- Registering for the Utopia Virtual Seminar: The seminar will begin on October 25, 1995. Any inquiries should be directed to Luc Borot at lb@alor.univ-montp3.fr. Applicants to the Utopia seminar must e-mail the following information to lb@alor.univ-montp3.fr: * your name and institution, * your e-mail address, * your status: graduate student, faculty, or other (please specify), * your reading and writing level in English, French and Latin (The seminars will be conducted primarily in English, though a reading knowledge of other languages may prove useful for critical analysis of the texts.) You will be notified of your acceptance in the seminar as soon as possible. Ray Siemens Joanne Woolway EMLS (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Natalie Maynor Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 13:28:26 -0500 Subject: Job Announcement (Shakespeare) [Editor's Note: This announcement appeared on ENGLISH --HMC] Please pass along this ad to anybody you think may be interested and qualified. Because the position became available relatively late, we were not able to meet the deadline for the October MLA job list. It will be in the December job list (and in the Chronicle in early November), but we'd like to circulate the ad as widely as possible now. We hope to interview at MLA in Chicago. Our department's web page is http://www.msstate.edu/Dept/English/. Here's the official ad: ENGLISH Anticipated tenure-track position for Assistant Professor. Shakespeare scholar. Teaching competence in other areas desirable (e.g., advanced composition, bibliography and research methods, history of literary criticism, modern drama). Ph.D. required. Letters of application and CV's accepted through Dec. 4 or until position is filled. Matthew Little, Acting Head, Department of English, Drawer E, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762. AA/EOE -- Natalie Maynor (maynor@ra.msstate.edu) Professor of English, Mississippi State University ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 21:44:41 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0844 Re: De-Canonization Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0844. Thursday, 26 October 1995. (1) From: Victor Gallerano Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 15:29:50 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0837 De-Canonization (was "Importance) (2) From: Douglas Flummer Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 95 16:17:57 CST Subj: SHK 6.0837 De-Canonization (was "Importance) (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 26 Oct 1995 00:08:38 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0837 De-Canonization (was "Importance) (4) From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 26 Oct 1995 16:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0837 De-Canonization (was "Importance) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Victor Gallerano Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 15:29:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0837 De-Canonization (was "Importance) Ronald Dwelle, Homer and Shakespeare are not only more "radical" and the source of more "innovation" than the "de-cannonizers"...they are also more radical and more innovative than the "de-cannonizers" imagine anyone but themselves can be. This claim (minus the ad hominem bit) will serve to undermine the argument for de-cannoniztion, provided you recognize the explosive character of Homer and Shakespeare yourself and have the energy and philosophic daring to teach it. An example of someone doing the latter is Bernard Knox: see his Jefferson Lectures, *The Oldest Dead White European Males." What he says about the Greeks - mutatis mutandis - goes for Shakespeare as well. The "importance of Shakespeare" thread has been both a confused and a confusing exchange. I hope I won't confuse things further by saying why Shakespeare is important to me: It is because of what I learn from him about things that last. What Shakespeare came to mean as a token or emblem of power (whether physical or cultural) for this or that particular regime strikes me as little more than a consideration of how he was appropriated by others. If that is what interests you, then you might as well 'fess up and say that what you're really interested in is propaganda, sophistry, the cultural appropriations of the upwardly mobile, or (as we say in the liberal democracies) "personal consumption as a form of self-expression." It's a bit too fishy to stand as a serious pursuit. As Sam Goldwyn used to say, "Include me out." And if you take those kinds of argument to your department, they'll eat you alive (whether its Friday or not.) Shakespeare and Homer may have become talismanic, but when you bother to read them it is clear they alone are, "the lords and owners of their faces, others but stewards of their excellence." (That sonnet may be a allegory about the risks of cannonizing.) In the best sense being a "steward" of Shakepeare's or Homer's excellence means getting others to read him not because of the larger social, economic and political forces that claim him (and therefore claim to be his true stewards) but because of the deeper level at which he reveals the limits of all those very forces. Homer and Shakepeare lead us to think better and more fully about the most obvious things in our world; things like the differences between men and women; things largely obscured these days (but not only these days) by noises left and right. Perhaps that's why Shakepeare is important to anyone not interested in noise: SHAKESPEARE IS NOT NOISE. You can establish that by reading him and thereby distinguish him from almost everything else you are liable to encounter on any given day of your life. Having determined what Shakespeare is "not," you are in a position to go on and try to say what he is, but only at the risk of becoming a different person than you started out, one asking questions for which theory and method are little help. Hence, the philosophic daring of reading certain books. Be bold, Ronald, ask your "de-cannonizers" if they've got the nerve to read Shakepeare "raw" without the smoke and mirrors of the modern apparatus. My best freshmen repond well to this "in your face" attitude: except for the truly lazy (those bound for grad-school, alas) young students have an aboriginal disdain for theory. In the end, asking real questions of Shakespeare's plays makes us all (students included) better and braver and more like human beings. To see how and why, I refer you to Plato. Vic Gallerano (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Flummer Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 95 16:17:57 CST Subject: SHK 6.0837 De-Canonization (was "Importance) While I might not be able to provide any constructive ideas on how you can save your courses, I both hope and pray that you are able to retain them. It has been my opinion that a good education should include at least an introduction to some of the finer forms of classical literature, and the courses that you mention would fall at the top of my list. I speak here of general coursework for people who are not English majors (I was in Music Education myself). For a person who is an English major, the importance of such specific coursework should be doubled. I cannot personally imagine a person undertaking such a major without coursework such as this. The only suggestion that I could make would be that if they insist on cutting these courses, then maybe suggest a two part course in classical literature. Part one could cover the beginnings of writing as art, covering the Greek classics as well as Dante, Chaucer, etc.Part two could cover the more recent classical period, discussing Shakespeare, Milton, and other writers as you see fit (my view of classical writers may not be as informed as others would.) Such a set-up would be similar to some of the History coursework I took when I was briefly minoring in History, where they divided American, European and Asian history into 2 parts each so as to allow a better focus on various details of different periods. I hope this helps. In any case, I pray for your success. Douglas Flummer Civil Servant (I operate a computer system for a living) Southern Illinois University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 26 Oct 1995 00:08:38 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0837 De-Canonization (was "Importance) Ronald Dwelle wants to keep his Greek Lit and Intro-to-Shakespeare courses going but >I had to admit in public that my support for Homer and Shakespeare >was based on a conviction that they were "better" than, say, James Kirke >Paulding, Frederick Douglass, or Alice Walker. Better in what sense? Literature Studies has traditionally peddled its texts on some quite vague grounds of self-improvement. The 'best' texts are somehow supposed to be good for the reader. Cultural Studies makes no such claims for its objects of study, and justifies the choices on the grounds of the objects' prominence within 'culture' (whatever that means). This at least gives solid ground for keeping the Shakespeare course since nobody could claim that the works of this dramatist are disappearing from 'culture' no matter how you define it. At the very least the history of Shakespeare criticism and the position Shakespeare occupies at the apex of the Eng. Lit. hierarchy make the plays worth considering. For the Greek Lit. course the case is much harder to make. Isn't this a re-run of the 'relevance' debate of the 1960s? (There's a question to make me sound older than I am). Gabriel Egan (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 26 Oct 1995 16:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0837 De-Canonization (was "Importance) To Ronald Dwelle: From one old fart to another, don't let them drop the classics without a fight. Against the charge that these works, and particularly Shakespeare, are not relevant, I heard a piece on All Things Considered some time in the past few years (maybe someone out there will remember it too) by a black woman writer whose name I do not remember (maybe _you_ are out there?) about her experience of falling in love with Shakespeare as a young student. Her justification for her love was startling, at first, to this white male: it was perfectly clear to her that Shakespeare was a black woman! She must have been, to speak so clearly to her (this then-young writer's) experience. This was a real, not an apocryphal, story. If anyone knows who that writer was, perhaps this could be added to your evidence. Jim Schaefer ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 21:52:18 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0845 Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0845. Thursday, 26 October 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 15:46:40 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0833 Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg (2) From: Antoine Goulem Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 16:07:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0838 Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 15:46:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0833 Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg Thanks to all those who responded to my request for the article on Hamlet and Luther. An hour ago, I found the place where Robert Rentoul Reed, Jr. refers to Hamlet and Luther. Although Luther does not appear in the Index, Reed's *Crime and God's Judgment in Shakespeare* (Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1984), contains the following: "Hamlet and Horatio . . . are students in Luther's Wittenberg" (131). Reed does not tell us the lectures that the two students attended -- worst luck! Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Antoine Goulem Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 16:07:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0838 Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg The recent thread reminds of a whim I entertained while going through a preproduction series of close readings of Hamlet. I thought that it might be interesting to play Hamlet as a completely unsympahtetic character. To show up his selfishness, and his narcissism in all the many opportunities that the text allows for. To have him be the object of scorn and pity by all the members of the court. For instance, in the opening bit in which he has been called to the ramparts by the sentinels, the scene could be played as though the guards were openly taunting the self-indulgent, weak ex-heir to the throne. The relation between Gertrude and the King to be a very supportive one, and to show her former husband to have been his son's father, i.e. self-involved and selfish. I didn't work out any details, as, for among other reasons, none of the actors were remotely interested in a _Hamlet_ in which Hamlet was a knob. Has anyone ever seen or know of a produciton in which any of this was attempted? Antoine Goulem ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 22:06:22 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0847 Re: Literature, Facts. and Gary Taylor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0847. Thursday, 26 October 1995. (1) From: Dan Vitkus Date: Wedbesday, 25 Oct 1995 10:51:33 +0000 (GMT) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0801 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance (2) From: Norman J. Myers Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 16:19:52 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0841 Re: Historical Facts (3) From: Joseph M Green Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 16:04:58 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0841 Re: Facts and Gary Taylor (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Vitkus Date: Wedbesday, 25 Oct 1995 10:51:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0801 Re: Shakespeare, Literature, and Importance On "literature" and its definition, see the entry in Raymond Williams' Keywords_ and the beginning of Terry Eagleton's _Literary Theory: An Introduction_. This will set the conservative curmudgeons straight. Dan Vitkus The American University in Cairo (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 16:19:52 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0841 Re: Historical Facts No, I don't want to jump into the "historical facts" discussion. So much insight from so many minds so much more perceptive than mine makes me humble (and not a little dizzy). I just thought perhaps (or perhaps not) I could lighten up things with some quotes. First from Thucydides: "The way most men deal with traditions, even traditions of their own country, is to receive them all alike as they are delivered, without applying any critical test whatever. . . ." [Gee, I wonder if by "traditions" he might mean academic habits of thought?] Or Bernard Shaw in "The Devil's Disciple" when Burgoyne tells Swindon that the British army will soon be facing 16,000 rebels at Saratoga because of a bureaucratic blunder: Swindon: I cant believe it! What will History say? Burgoyne: History, sir, will tell lies, as usual. Or Finley Peter Dunne's Mr. Dooley on history: (get your Irish accents out) "Historyans is like doctors. They are always lookin' f'r symtoms. Those iv them that writes ab out their own times examines th' tongue an' feels th' pulse an' makes the wrong dygnosis. Th' other kind iv histhry is a post-mortem examination. It tells ye what a counthry died iv. But I'd like to know what it lived iv." Or, finally, from that greatest of all critiques of contemporary academia, "Calvin and Hobbes": Calvin: We don't understand what really causes events to happen. History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices. Hobbes: So what are you writing? Calvin: A revisionist autobiography. Naturally, no SHAKSPERian need see herself or himself here. Norman Myers Theatre Department Bowling Green State University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 16:04:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0841 Re: Facts and Gary Taylor Christine Mack Gordon notes that Gary Taylor asks us to "play along with him" and is grateful that his book is free of jargon --unlike postmodern theory, which is "less than useful" and mostly tedious -- and is also grateful that Taylor is not deadly serious, unlike so many. Claiming that there is nothing of Shakespeare in any Shakespeare criticism, as Taylor does, and that interpretation is always reinvention for the reasons he gives is as "postmodern" as one might wish. Claiming that all critics do is offer various versions of themselves, that they should desist at once, and that Shakespeare's "apologists" are corrupted "courtier critics" who "licke absurd pompe/ and crook the pregnant hinges of the knee" seems pretty serious to me. Not many believe the fellow a hanging them is just playing. But it is wonderful what a breezy style and the affectation of witty unseriousness can do: the tedium and dread of the postmodern disappears as it is dumbed down, the nudge in the ribs, the easy bon mot distracts... It is possible here to get a doctorate in English literature without ever having had a course in Shakespeare, Milton, or Chaucer. And why not since what is wanted is the ability to produce just that version of oneself that the age demands while producing a version of... whoever... and, this is (especially with Shakespeare that naughty vortex removed) just what witty fellows would wish. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 22:16:14 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0848 Assorted Remarks: *Mac.*; *Tmp.*; *MND*; *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0848. Thursday, 26 October 1995. (1) From: James H. Forse Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 17:12:30 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0842 Re: African Macbeth (2) From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 14:21:14 -0400 Subj: Tempest over costumes (3) From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 26 Oct 1995 08:21:01 +1000 Subj: Re: MND (4) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 26 Oct 1995 12:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0835 Re: Shylock and *MV* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James H. Forse Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 17:12:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0842 Re: African Macbeth I have not seen, but have heard reports of an African setting Macbeth that was stunning, and raised no hackles. It was, however, not a mixed cast. Rather it placed Macbeth within the context of the period of Zulu expansion under Shaka. Perhaps it appealed to viewers because most of the elements of the play remained consistent within that framework--assination, tyranny, witchcraft, dispossed heir receiving aid from a neighboring ruler, all fit with what is known by westerners concerning that period of South African history. Would the Metropolitan Macbeth referred to by Charles Whitney perhaps have worked better if the benevolent boss had been a black businessman? Are the problems of re-imaginings perhaps caused when the world of the play seems inconsistent to the audience, or raises issues which shift an audience's focus away from the world of that play? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995 14:21:14 -0400 Subject: Tempest over costumes In a discussion of the use of two costumes from a royal pageant in *The Tempest*: > I'm happy with Corinea -> Ariel-qua-sea-nymph, but not Amphion -> Caliban, > since the pamphlet describes Amphion as > > "a graue and iudicious Prophet-like personage, attyred in his apte habits, > euery way answerable to his state and profession, with his wreathe of > Sea-shelles on his head, and his harpe hanging in fayre twine before him" > > Both costumes are more suited to Ariel-qua-sea-nymph. > > Gabriel Egan You are quick to raise a very good point. However, Amphion is one of the "deformed sea-shapes." In addition, it is not Burbage who is "attyred in his apte habits" but rather the sea-shape Amphion. There are, in effect, two costumes on Burbage. Once Burbage became a sea-shape, he then put on standard robes of state, quite a common costume, accompanied by the manner of a king. I read the description you quote as referring to the clothes the *sea-shape* wore. True enough, there is a big change in dignity from Amphion to Caliban, but if we simply imagine a green fish-like costume, it is very easy to change the character radically through the actor's body posture, face and voice. Michael Saenger (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 26 Oct 1995 08:21:01 +1000 Subject: Re: MND It is often claimed that Peter Brook was the first to see the psychological and dramatic possibilities of doubling Oberon with Theseus and Titania with Hippolyta. I have recently discovered that a less known English production, some three years earlier and starring Cleo Laine as Titania / Hippolyta, doubled these four roles. The production notes quote Kott as did Brook. Ringler makes a strong claim for the doubling of the named fairies with the mechanicals in the early productions of the play, an expedient which I find to be less dramatically successful than courtly doubling (eg Noble's current production of the Dream by the RSC.) Does anybody know of mentions of doubling in the Dream earlier than 1967 or the conjecturing of Ringler? Regards, Scott Crozier (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 26 Oct 1995 12:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0835 Re: Shylock and *MV* Dear David Schalkwyk---I very much appreciated the Shylock-Emilia connection. It's interesting that the same dynamic is placed more on a gender plane--which increasingly to me seems Shakespeare's forte and mileau moreso than say racism--which is why perhaps Shakespeare never let Shylock become as convinving of a tragic hero as Emilia is (at least at the end). For in MV, it is curiously Gratiano who has another speech that resembles Emilia (the "strumpet wind" can be compared fruitfully both to her "men belch us out" speech and Cressida's "men prize the thing ungained more than it is" (paraphrase). Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 12:15:37 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0849 Re: De-Canonization Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0849. Saturday, 29 October 1995. (1) From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 26 Oct 1995 16:14:48 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0844 Re: De-Canonization (2) From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 11:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0844 Re: De-Canonization (3) From: Greg Maillet <057295@UOTTAWA> Date: Friday, 27 Oct 95 07:08:55 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0837 De-Canonization (was "Importance) (4) From: Michael Yogev Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 17:59:59 +0300 (WET) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0844 Re: De-Canonization (5) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 15:45:23 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0844 Re: De-Canonization (6) From: Scott Crozier Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 09:26:45 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0844 Re: De-Canonization (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shirley Kagan Date: Thursday, 26 Oct 1995 16:14:48 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0844 Re: De-Canonization Dr. Dwelle: De-canonization is important and useful in as far as it helps put our own perception of "historical significance" into a more "universal perspective," whatever that might be. Still, it begins to be ridiculous when culture eats itself. What are your fellow faculty members proposing to substitue the Shakespeare and Homer courses with? Surely that is an issue. As any good anti-cannonist will tell you, there needs to be a cannon to go against, and that may be a good line of reasoning for keeping your very important courses. Let the students know what it is they are "up against"; give those who are on the receiving side of the educational log the chance to judge what it is they should be "fighting against". I also wonder whether you might be able to support your argument for retaining your courses by turning to the student body. I find it hard to believe that the students want these courses disbanded. I wouldn't. With Crossed Fingers, Shirley Kagan. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 11:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0844 Re: De-Canonization I've been following this debate on the Importance of (Being) Shakespeare and De-Canonisation with a mixture of rage and despair, and, to be honest, I don't believe my participation in it is going to make me feel any better. But Vic Gallerano's comments finally drove me to respond. Is Shakespeare important to me? Yes, in cynical terms: if my dept. took away Shakespeare as a requirement I'd no doubt be forced to teach something I wouldn't like. Since I'm always introduced with the suffix of "Shakespeare professor" I'd lose my sense identity perhaps? I like Shakespeare well enough (well enough, apparently, to want a career that probably necessitates my teaching his plays every year), but my sense of identity is NOT dependent on him. No, I don't have a button that reads "Will Power" on the lapel of my jacket. Or a tote bag printed with the Droeshout portrait. Or an overpriced stuffed toy wearing a ruff dubbed "William Shakesbear." Or an "appropriate" coffee-mug. But he has not made me a better "human being" (whatever that might mean -- I defy Vic Gallerano to define such a concept without recourse to his glib "cf. Plato") either, and if I thought, for even one instant, that when I was teaching Shakespeare's plays I was teaching my students to be "better and brave and more like human beings" as Vic Gallerano suggests, I'd quit. I'd like to think my students learn to think for themselves in my classes, to challenge their assumptions about culture, to take responsibility for their own actions and thoughts: in this respects Shakespeare's plays serve my purpose as well as many non-canonical texts. What does Shakespeare teach me about "myself?" Not a whole lot. We were born, after all, over 400 years apart. Why would that surprise anybody? I'd also like to register my deep reservation at Gallerano's snipe that "except for the truly lazy (those bound for grad school, alas) young students have an aboriginal disdain for theory." It's fortunate, isn't it Mr. Gallerano, that the "young students" who followed the thought of Plato turned out to be "slack-arses" -- or the "aboriginal disdain for theory" might have prevented the transmission and development of the ideas that you claim support your argument. Simon. Department of English Bowling Green State University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg Maillet <057295@UOTTAWA> Date: Friday, 27 Oct 95 07:08:55 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0837 De-Canonization (was "Importance) Dear Ronald: Dont say Uncle!! I think there are a few good arguments which even those who have never experienced first hand Shakespeare`s power to convey truth, beauty, and goodness (or who dont believe in such categories) may still take seriously: 1) Shakespeare`s powerful influence on subsequent creative writers (eg, for starters, Milton, Pope, Johnson, Coleridge, Keats, Joyce) whom your colleagues still presumably want to teach. Do your colleagues want their students to have the capacity to understand the Shakespearean influence and allusions in such writers on their own, or only by postmodern fiat? 2) Shakespeare`s profound influence on modern English, which is still explicit today in the numerous quotations made throughout all areas of our culture. Do your colleagues want their students to be able to watch Star Trek and be able to get not only the jokes, but also the ideas that shape the story lines? 3) Shakespeare remains, as even a brief glance at the North American Shakespeare Festivals (cf. summer or spring issues of the Shakespeare Newsletter for listings) will suggest, by far the most oft performed playwright in the world. Do your colleagues want their students to be able to attend such festivals and understand the plays they are hearing in the enriched way that education should allow? To ignore the above three arguments, which are all I can think of at 7:15 on a Friday morning, your colleagues must have a determined ideological agenda, so perhaps you and I are wasting our time. Still, by forcing them to respond to the above arguments, you may at least make that agenda open rather than hid behind some ludicrous babble about the irrelevance of Shakespeare. Good luck, Greg Maillet (Ottawa U Dept of English) (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 17:59:59 +0300 (WET) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0844 Re: De-Canonization Vic Gallerano opens his impassioned defense of the canon with a claim that Shakespeare and Homer before him are themselves "de-cannonizers". While I rather like the slip of an extra "n" there, Blake does a similar misspelling with deliberate intent when he writes of forces "warshipp'd" in one of his prophetic poems. The point is that canons involve cannons--some sort of authoritative decision that Shakespeare and Homer have indeed written about "things that last" like power structures, murderous ambition, or the dehumanization of colonials and women throughout history into our own age of rising European and American zenophobia and the backlash against feminism. The problem with Gallerano's defense is, therefore, its indefensible reliance on the "power" of Shakespeare's works to address the "most obvious things" like "the differences between men and women" without ever himself addressing what that "power" IS, how it is constituted and then presented as "culture" to the world. This is indeed a theoretical question of the first order, a touchy and complex one at that, but Gallerano prefers his students' "aboriginal disdain" for theory over that of the "truly lazy" students (mainly headed for "grad-school, alas"). All one can conclude from this is that Gallerano shares a disdain for the aborigines which is one of the topics of _The Tempest_, and that we ought perhaps to aspire to the status of Bottoms rather than Berownes--things would remain "most obvious" then. Even his reference to the de-canonizer's sonnet, and the "lords and owners of their faces" raises, alas, a theoretical question of who was allowed to be a lord and owner in Shakespeare's time--or for that matter, in our own day. My own experience of teaching Shakespeare in Israel to a very mixed group of native Sabras, immigrant Russians, Palestinians and Israeli Arabs has led me to realize that "the most obvious things" are not so at all. It has also made me a firm believer that Shakespeare does not need to be "required" or officially "cannonized"--the works will appeal and attract attentive, critical readers and viewers on their own. The final point in this response to Gallerano's response is his rather remarkable invocation of Plato as the authority to whom he would refer all who question whether Homer and Shakespeare make us "better and braver and more like human beings." The Plato I read in _The Republic_ was not at all interested in better and braver human beings, but in all human beings staying put in their properly determined place. To that end he of course banished all but the most jingoistic and state-sanctioned poets or poetry. And in _The Phaedrus_ he also writes against the very act of writing itself as potentially subversive. A more telling "authority" to invoke we "theory" buffs could not have requested from Mr. Gallerano. Unabashedly and emphatically theoretically yours, Michael Yogev myogev@research.haifa.ac.il (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 15:45:23 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0844 Re: De-Canonization Jim Schaefer writes: > Against the charge that these works, and particularly Shakespeare, are not >relevant, I heard a piece on All Things Considered some time in the past few >years (maybe someone out there will remember it too) by a black woman writer >whose name I do not remember (maybe _you_ are out there?) about her experience >of falling in love with Shakespeare as a young student. Her justification for >her love was startling, at first, to this white male: it was perfectly clear >to her that Shakespeare was a black woman! She must have been, to speak so >clearly to her (this then-young writer's) experience. This was a real, not an >apocryphal, story. If anyone knows who that writer was, perhaps this could be >added to your evidence. I believe this was Maya Angelou, whom I have heard to express a similar opinion in another forum. Cheers, Tom (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 09:26:45 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0844 Re: De-Canonization Surely the "fact" oops! that there are more productions of Shakespeare on the professional stage in English (and other) speaking countries than any other playwright is reason enough to suggest that the study of Shakespeare's play scripts is no more studying the classics than, say, Stoppard or Churchill! The concept of relevance is irrelevant. If the plays are performed by professional, non-establishment companies; and the occupancy is above 65% which generally makes the production profitable; then the plays must be popular. If they are popular then they should, like Stappard et al (and dare I add The Simpsons), be studied. Don't let them drop the course - they will lose by it! Regards, Scott Crozier ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 12:39:53 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0850 Re: Banquo; Hamlet; Horatio; *Tmp.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0850. Saturday, 29 October 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursdy, 26 Oct 1995 22:49:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0840 Re: Ghost of Banquo (2) From: Terry Ross Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 09:39:35 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Unsympathetic Hamlet (3) From: Steve Sohmer Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 17:57:10 -0400 Subj: Horatio's Education (4) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 00:01:10 +0100 Subj: Re: _Londons Love_ and costumes for _The Tempest_ (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursdy, 26 Oct 1995 22:49:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0840 Re: Ghost of Banquo Since the script calls for a Ghost, I like to SEE a ghost. But one part of the ghost scene that I've never seen done to my complete satisfaction is the exchange at 3.4.91-92 (Riverside): Lords. Our duties, and the pledge, Macb. Avaunt, and quit my sight! let the earth hide thee! Since the Lords do not see the ghost, they would have to take Macbeth's "Avaunt, and quit my sight!" as aimed at them, but rarely have I seen the Lords react with enough shock. I'd like to see the Lords take Macbeth's response personally, not look around or appear puzzled. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Ross Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 09:39:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Unsympathetic Hamlet Antione Goulem writes: > I thought that it might be interesting to play Hamlet as a completely > unsympathetic character. To show up his selfishness, and his narcissism > in all the many opportunities that the text allows for. To have him be > the object of scorn and pity by all the members of the court. This is the approach used by W. S. Gilbert (sans Sullivan) in his delightful "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern," written long before Stoppard. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 17:57:10 -0400 Subject: Horatio's Education While RR Reed tells us nothing about the curriculum Hamlet and Horatio followed at Wittenberg, Shakespeare gives us a number of clues. For example, Marcellus says to Horatio, "Thou art a scholar--speak to it [the ghost]." In the Elizabethan period "scholar" signified one who is learned in the classical (i.e. Greek and Latin) languages and their literature [OED]. Horatio will declare himself more antique Roman than Dane. "Scholar" was also "applied to one who had studied at the university, and who, not having entered any of the learned professions or obtained any fixed employment, sought to gain a living by literary work" [OED]. Horatio, as we know, is poor, unemployed, and will undertake a "literary work," i.e. he will place Hamlet on a stage and tell his story. The three "post-graduate" fields of study at Wittenberg were medicine, jurisprudence, and thology. Judging from the meticulous legalistic detail Horatio employs to describe the pre-fight compact between Old Hamlet and Old Fortinbras, Horatio may well have studied law. This sort well with Horatio's "philosophy." Horatio is an Aristotelian whose very name engrosses reason (ratio). Hamlet will chide Horatio for keeping a philosophy which does not give adequate place to revelation: "There are more things.../Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Wittenberg was associated with a rejection of Aristotelian and Scholastic philosophies. Luthere believed philosophy could not compass man's nature or his relationship to God. Finally, the wordplay on "truant" may help us know Horatio, who attributes his presence at Elsinore to his "truant disposition." Horatio uses "truant" in the sense of "one who absents himself from school without leave" [OED]. Hamlet may be playing on another then-common meaning of "truant" when he replies, "I know you are no truant." In Shakespeare's time, mendicant orders of monks were called "truants" because their members were required regularly to beg. Although Horatio is a poor, patient, all-suffering and dispassionate ascetic, Hamlet denies he's a monk. On the other hand, Luther was a mendicant of the Augustinian Hermit. All the best, Steve (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 00:01:10 +0100 Subject: Re: _Londons Love_ and costumes for _The Tempest_ Concerning the suitability of Amphion's costume for the part of Caliban, Michael Saenger wrote > Amphion is one of the >"deformed sea-shapes." In addition, it is not Burbage who is "attyred in his >apte habits" but rather the sea-shape Amphion. There are, in effect, two >costumes on Burbage. Once Burbage became a sea-shape, he then put on standard >robes of state, quite a common costume, accompanied by the manner of a king. I was mistakenly thinking that the transformation of the sea-shape into Amphion was complete, but your argument about layers of costume is a much better reading. The pamphlet's description of the mock sea-batttle with pirates after the investiture gives support to Richard Wilson's thesis that the actions of Robert Dudley, exiled Duke of Northumberland turned Mediterranean pirate, are the primary context for the play's composition and first performance. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 12:45:40 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Italian Merchants; Desdemona's Death; Happy *Lr.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0851. Saturday, 29 October 1995. (1) From: Charles S. Ross Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 09:26:02 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0840 Re: Ghost of Banquo (2) From: Scott Purdy Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 07:11:46 -0400 Subj: SHAKESPEARE Desdemona's Death (3) From: Karen Krebser Date: Friday, 27 Oct 95 14:34:38 -0700 Subj: Lear as a happy play??? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles S. Ross Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 09:26:02 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0840 Re: Ghost of Banquo A colleague has asked me for a reference describing the Italian merchant community in England in Shakespeare time. Was there an expulsion? Can anyone help? Charles Ross (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Purdy Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 07:11:46 -0400 Subject: SHAKESPEARE Desdemona's Death I'm not sure what the list is for, but I do have a question to throw out. In a discussion with my high school seniors, the question of Desdemona's death by suffocation and then her subsequent ability to take the blame of her death upon herself came up. Here's our problem: what medical explanation can be made for suffocating, then being able to speak, and then dying? Although we're not experts on suffocation, we had trouble creating a physical explanation unless Othello again places the pillow over her. What have we missed? How can she speak and then die of suffocation unless she is attacked again? Neither the new or old Folger editions, nor the Riverside edition that we use gave us stage directions that helped. We thought of thematic reasons to let Desdemona forgive Othello, but not any medical ones. Answers? (We are particularly interested in hearing about the ways this scene has been, or could be, staged.) Thanks for your help on what may seem a mundane topic to some, but is the object of a hot debate among my students, Scott Purdy (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Friday, 27 Oct 95 14:34:38 -0700 Subject: Lear as a happy play??? Hello, everyone. In class last night I heard that, sometime after the restoration, "Lear" was rewritten with a happy ending and played that way until the early twentieth century. During this time, the play was still passed off as Shakespeare's. Now, what exactly my professor meant by "happy ending" is unclear (i.e., Cordelia/Virtue lives?), but the whole concept of what appears to be a *major* rewrite of one of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies just blows my mind... does anybody else have any further info. on this, or favorite sources? Thanks, Karen krebser@erg.sri.com http://www.erg.sri.com/people/krebser/krebser.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 12:47:16 EDT Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0852 ACTER's Spring 1996 Tour Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0852. Saturday, 29 October 1995. From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 07:03:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ACTER's Spring 1996 Tour The Spring 1996 Tour of *Macbeth*, sponsored by ACTER, will offer week-long teaching and performing residencies at the following locations: Feb. 10-18, UNC-Chapel Hill, NC; Feb. 19-25, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN;Feb. 26-Mar. 3, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM;Mar 4-10, Orlando FL, The Disney Institute and several local colleges;Mar. 11-17, Clemson University, Clemson, SC;Mar. 18-24, The Folger Institute, Washington, DC;Mar. 25-31, Mount St. Mary's College, Los Angeles, CA; April 1-7, Santa Monica College, Santa Monica CA. If money permits, ACTER may perform at the International Shakespeare Association meeting, April 7-14 in LA. For more information on these residencies or our 1996-97 season, contact Cynthia Dessen, General Manager, 919-967-4265(phone/fax) or at csdessen@email.unc.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 16:09:09 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0853 Re: De-Canonization Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0853. Monday, 30 October 1995. (1) From: Maggi Kramm Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 12:43:15 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0849 Re: De-Canonization (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 15:36:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0849 Re: De-Canonization (3) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 14:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0837 De-Canonization (was "Importance) (4) From: Stuart Rice Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:14:03 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0849 Re: De-Canonization (5) From: Joseph M Green Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 11:00:54 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0849 Re: De-Canonization (6) From: Bruce Young Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 16:57:43 -0700 (MST) Subj: De-Canonization (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maggi Kramm Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 12:43:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0849 Re: De-Canonization If people maintain that Shakespeare's plays haven't made them better human beings, I'm willing to take them at their word. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 15:36:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0849 Re: De-Canonization I merely have another question. Forgive me. Isn't getting Shakespeare's plays and poems out of the English curriculum something like getting the New Testament out of Christianity? If you get rid of your chief culture hero, what do you have left? Cultures, even dominant cultures, surely have a right to exist, no? Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 14:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0837 De-Canonization (was "Importance) This note is for Ronald Dwelle, Wars used to be fought with canons, now they are about canons, no? There's one pragmatic argument for keeping Shakespeare as a requirement for English majors which can avoid the always irresolvable question about quality (Alice Walker vs. William Shakespeare, now duking it out in the center ring): Shakespeare has been (and is currently) a foundation of Western letters for about 300 years. There is no other early modern author whose works are currently being made into SEVEN motion pictures (I count two Hamlets, one Othello, two Romeo and Juliets, a Richard III and a Twelfth Night, have I missed any?). I doubt that there is another author of any period whose works are so pervasive. To state, though, that Shakespeare is and has been part of the foundation is not to say that this is a good state of affairs or a bad one: it just is the state of affairs. Many a good course can be taught that has as its central question "why do people still bother with this stuff?" rather than the statement "this stuff is great, let me convince you that it's great." I prefer an "is-ness" of Shakespeare to a greatness of Shakespeare argument every time, even though I understand that to talk about the is-ness of Shakespeare is to implicate oneself with the continuation of the is-ness anyway. But, since there's no outside position available, why not just go for it? Perhaps this is overly simplistic. Shakespeare is still a living cultural phenomenon and therefore deserves one semester's worth of attention by someone who wants a bachelor's degree in English literature. Is it a bad thing to venerate statutes of dead white men and ignore literature by other people? Yeah, sure. But I think that veneration is never a good pedagogical strategy anyway. Prof. Dwelle, I want to be clear and pre-emptively apologize in case I have been less than clear: I am NOT accusing you of using such a pedagogical strategy. The status of your argument with your colleagues seems to me to have derailed if you are bothering with questions of quality. Nobody can have effective discussions about what to teach if taste is a central issue. I don't even think that the best texts always make for the best lessons, anyway. I think that John Montague is a better poet that Seamus Heaney, but I could probably teach Heaney more easily. I think that The Winter's Tale is a better play than The Tempest, but boy is it easier to teach The Tempest. Has anyone ever taught BELOVED effectively? It just seems too perfect. On the other hand, Toni Morrison's short story "Recitatif" has blown my last few years' worth of students away. I'm getting side-tracked. Here is my central question: what is your department's self-perception of its mission? What does the department think that a bachelor's degree in English is for? If there is consideration of what has constituted English and American culture(s) in such a mission-statement, then you might be able to win over your colleagues using a "know your enemy" argument. If the mission of the department is purely methodological (how to think about literary things without it being important what literary things one is thinking about), then there's no hope. Of course, asking for consensus about a departmental mission is like asking chestnuts to grow on plum trees, but it might at least be a more profitable discussion than one about quality. My best wishes to you, and I dearly hope that you are successful in convincing your colleagues to retain the course. Sincerely yours, Bradley Berens Dept. of English U.C. Berkeley (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Rice Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:14:03 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0849 Re: De-Canonization As much as I would like to defend Shakespeare against his *absolute* disappearance from the canon, I must admit that it is time that Shakespeare was reevaluated, for he has sufficiently choked our sensibilities. What other playwright could invoke such inordinately passionate responses -- that Shakespeare teaches us "how to live better" and "he is the most widely read and enacted playwright" -- that have as little grounding in empirical reality or originality than some of Shakespeare's plots? It is at this critical juncture in time -- where the canon is, in general, most at question -- that we should abandon our old justifications and begin a rational evaluation of "Shakespeare." First, we must abandon this concept that Shakespeare somehow is the only playwright that adequately expresses the "eternal" themes of power, love, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Instead, let us turn an eye to his sources and source persons -- what of Kyd who probably wrote the first modern revenge play, the first play-within-a-play, and gave Shakespeare a strong model for how to produce his "opus magnus:" Hamlet? And what of Marlowe, who wrote the Jew of Malta? If we say that Shakespeare was the source of inspiration for many playwrights and poets after him, must we not also say that Kyd and Marlowe were inspirations for their worthy successor? Second, we must admit that some Shakespeare is bad. Of course, one could argue that in some way -- via a kind of T.S. Eliot-like paradox -- that the very ways in which these plays are bad makes them good. Be that as it may, Romeo and Juliet is still a piece of fluff (sorry, had to say it). In all seriousness, however, we cannot say, in candid honesty, that all of Shakespeare's plays are perfectly crafted (and by this I mean at the source text level, not with the mending of modern editors). There are unbelievable plot contrivances, vagueness of time/place specificity, and other such imperfections. One could argue, of course, that Shakespeare was merely using the devices of the day (and even farther, one could say he used them more brilliantly then anyone else). But that admission makes him some how mediocre -- you mean he DIDN'T transcend his time? At that, of course, is a critical admission. Yes, he was bound by his time, and as such, though he deals with universals, he nevertheless deals with them in the context of his socio-historical perspective. Finally, it is important to say that Shakespeare has a place within the English or undergraduate program. But he must be, like everything, relative -- we cannot study Shakespeare without studying Fletcher, Marlowe, and Kyd (for example). If we are so interested in letting our students learn for themselves, let THEM decide who is better. How are we to know, having served them only Shakespeare for so long, that they will not like Fletcher, Marlowe or Kyd more than our beloved bard. In the final analysis, I think a course including Shakespeare with his contemporaries is essential to a core English curriculum, but that a course on him should be left to the realm of the elective or seminar. To be sure, I would be in that seminar, but I would also be in that core course as well. Yours, Stuart Rice Kenyon College (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 11:00:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0849 Re: De-Canonization Dr. Dwelle will, no doubt, find some of the responses here very useful. More or less he can expect the reaction to his presentation to be something along the line of: I do not like thee Doctor Dwelle. The reason why I cannot tell. But this I know and know full well. I do not like thee Doctor Dwelle. Anticipating this will, perhaps, prevent swooning when, of a sudden, a fellow in a "rage" announces that HE owns no Shakespeare coffee mugs, no Swan of Avon wind socks and that Shakespeare can't teach HIM anything about himself and why should he since they were born 400 years apart? Dr. Dwelle will, no doubt, keep his Shakespeare worry beads in his pocket and clear his office and home of any forbidden Shakespeare paraphernalia before making his pitch. He can also expect, if he dares to mention that reading Shakespeare a certain way can help teacher and student to be "better and brave and more like human beings," to be understood as advocating mass atrocity and intending to create legions of Rupert Brookes who leap into cleanness in this or that war remembering St. Crispin's day. He will not be understood as someone who might think that the plays could have anything to do with assumptions about culture, taking responsibility for actions and thoughts (a very Catholic longing there) and learning to think for oneself: this is the program advocated by the annointed who are certain that because Shakespeare is long dead (as are Buddha, Socrates, Mohammed) he can have nothing to teach about the "myself" which seems so important. Eliot's reply that, in fact, these dead fellows are that which we know might come to mind but, perhaps, should not be mentioned. Maybe Dr. Dwelle could cut out Philip Levine's piece in yesterday's NY Times, "Keats in Detroit" and slip it into the right mailbox. Levine writes of attending Wayne State ( of all places it is implied) and encountering Keats' poetry for the first time and reflecting that: "It is curious and wonderful to realize that the man who has served as my mentor and model all these years was one-third my present age when he passed from poetry. Wonderful, too, it seems to me that I found him at Wayne State University, a campus of old homes and temporary buildings bursting with the new students the postwar years deposited. Rereading Keats's poems, his letters, now, I'm not sure what I regret the most. I think it is the denial of his simple daily life, for who else have I encountered through life or books who lived with such intensity or fulness? Remarkable to consider the power and grace his presence conferred." But Levine is a poet. What else can be expected? Keats is dead, after all. Perhaps, if it wasn't for the impossibility that Keats could affect the living in the way mentioned or be affected himself in the way mentioned, we might speculate that the kind of bravery the deluded seems to think might be learned from reading Shakespeare was the sort that allowed Keats to worry about the effect his dying might have on the friend who was in the room with him as he was dying. One can read this -- but, of course, this can have no possible effect on who one is. Keats is dead and we are all honorable and modern fellows. Dr. Dwelle can also expect that his assertions will be taken as the assertions of a rather simple fellow. If he mentions that, perhaps, Homer and Shakespeare were "lords and owners of their faces," he can expect to be told that many were and are not -- as if this thought could never have possibly been thought by him and as if this were not part of his point. Even though it is obvious that he (if he takes the line of another poster) locates the power of Shakespeare's plays in a concept of the literary, of excellence, of surpassing and penetrating thought that exposes a reality beyond reductive theory, he can expect to be told that he has never wondered about the source of that power. What is meant, of course, is that he has never accepted the conclusion that the sources of that power are elsewhere and that he must subscribe to this and that theory to be able to talk sensibly about it. In other words, no matter what one says, one will be understood as crying up roast beef and Old England and, by the way, if anyone has one of those Lear cigarette lighters (I mean the ones inscribed with the Wheel of Fire), I will be glad to receive it in the mail. (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young Date: Friday, 27 Oct 1995 16:57:43 -0700 (MST) Subject: De-Canonization To Ronald Dwelle and other interested parties: A course in Shakespeare is no longer required of majors in my department. But many students still (we're only a year into the change) seem inclined to choose the course. I didn't put up a big fuss, but I do see value in having English majors know older English literature (including Shakespeare) and something about the traditions (including the classical tradition) that lie behind it. Not only that: I see value in having majors read widely, so that they know something about the "literature" (or whatever we're calling it) of most periods, including the twentieth century. (My wife is a contemporary novelist and short story writer--which is to say she's still living, thank goodness--and has introduced me to a great deal of contemporary literature, a portion of which I think is really worth reading.) My own interest in Shakespeare is fueled by what I have found and continue to find in the plays. I'm glad I haven't been condemned to read or view nothing but Shakespeare. But even with my need for occasional breaks, his plays seem to me to offer great riches (capable of nourishing, stimulating, challenging, upsetting) and to do so with greater power and in greater abundance than most of the other texts I'm aware of. But arguments like that don't seem to work very well in persuading colleagues. The most persuasive arguments seem to be pragmatic. I'd like to offer two (the first is maybe more pragmatic than the second, but both work reasonably well): (1) Students who read contemporary writers--or any writers from the eighteenth century onward using English as their medium--need to know something of what those writers knew. Almost all of the writers in question (this includes the most avant-garde among them) knew, and many were strongly influenced by, a certain body of older texts, including the Bible, Shakespeare, and some of the Greek and Roman classics. An example is Hilda Doolittle (H.D.). Several of her works (e.g., *Helen in Egypt*) are strongly influenced by the classical tradition. *HERmione*, an experimental work that has been lately receiving increased attention, has obvious connections with *The Winter's Tale*. (H.D. named her own daughter "Perdita," by the way.) I've met an "expert" on *HERmione* who didn't know *The Winter's Tale*, a fact that I think diminishes her understanding of the book and of H.D. (2) Another argument that might encourage the reading of older literature (Shakespeare or other) comes from C. S. Lewis--a writer who, by the way, has never made it into the *Norton Anthology* but whose fiction, IMHO, is at least as good as that of the canonized writers. Near the end of *An Experiment in Criticism* Lewis says: "My own eyes are not enough for me, I will see through those of others. Reality, even seen through the eyes of many, is not enough. I will see what others have invented. Even the eyes of all humanity are not enough. I regret that the brutes cannot write books. Very gladly would I learn what face things present to a mouse or a bee; more gladly still would I perceive the olfactory world charged with all the information and emotion it carries for a dog. Literary experience heals the wound, without undermining the privilege, of individuality. ... Like the night sky in the Greek poem, I see with a myriad eyes, but it is still I who see. Here, as in worship, in love, in moral action, and in knowing, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do." Actually this is a good argument for reading anything at all, and it is as good a rationale as any I know for opening the canon and increasing our attention to texts from various cultures as well as from various periods. Here is Lewis's more specific argument in favor of old texts (from "On the Reading of Old Books"): "Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. ... Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the *same* mistakes. [I would amend this to say: "Not *all* of the same mistakes."] They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them." Both of these arguments, of course, depend on Shakespeare's plays not simply being whatever we make of them. But I guess I take being able to see more than one's reflection to be one of the premises of mental health and one of the main aims of an education: I must become aware, in some degree, of my biases and limitations and at the same time I must--at least if I want to end up doing more than talking to myself--become increasingly attentive to, and willing to learn from, the otherness of others. Bruce Young ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 16:16:47 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0854 Re: Happy *Lear* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0854. Monday, 30 October 1995. (1) From: Stuart Rice Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:46:17 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Happy *Lr.* (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 15:46:57 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Happy *Lr.* (3) From: Sam Schimek Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 18:46:24 -0700 Subj: Re: Happy *Lr.* (4) From: Gail Garloch Date: Suday, 29 Oct 1995 14:00:30 +0200 (IST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Happy *Lr.* (5) From: Helen Vella Bonavita Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 10:17:39 +0800 (WST) Subj: re: Happy Lear (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Rice Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:46:17 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Happy *Lr.* Ah, yes, _Happy Lear_. There was a period where Shakespeare was republished in a family version as well, where are the invectives and violence was taken out and replaced with more mundane material. If I remember correctly, every one lives at the end of _Happy Lear_, as you put it: I think Edgar and Cordelia get married and rule the Kingdom together, as well. I can't remember if I've ever seen the actually update versions of these plays. Happy, happy, joy, joy, Stuart Rice Kenyon College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 15:46:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Happy *Lr.* Nahum Tate (1652-1715) is responsible for the adaptation of *Lear* in which Cordelia survives and marries Edgar. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Schimek Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 18:46:24 -0700 Subject: Re: Happy *Lr.* This version was written by Nathum Tate (1652-1715) in 1681. In it Cordelia does not die but lives and marries Edgar. Samuel Johnson in his "General Observation on King Lear" expresses a preference for it. I admire Johnson but... Sam (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gail Garloch Date: Suday, 29 Oct 1995 14:00:30 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Happy *Lr.* The "happy" version of King Lear that Karen Krebs seeks is Nahum Tate's 1681 adaptation which held the stage for nearly two centuries. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Vella Bonavita Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 10:17:39 +0800 (WST) Subject: re: Happy Lear The version referred to is probably Nahum Tate's 1680 *King Lear*, in which Cordelia does indeed survive - what's more, she lives happily ever after, reunited with her one true love, Edgar. I find the play interesting - in an odd sort of way - because it seems to me to strip one of Shakespeare's strongest female figures of integrity and independance in one move. Best wishes Helen Vella Bonavita ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 16:22:45 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0855 Re: Desdemona's Death Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0855. Monday, 30 October 1995. (1) From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 15:34:40 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Desdemona's Death; (2) From: Stuart Rice Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:42:02 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Desdemona's Death; (3) From: Scott Crozier Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 07:29:33 +1000 Subj: Re: Desdemona's Death (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 15:34:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Desdemona's Death; Dear Scott Purdy, For a full account of Desdemona's demise at the hands of Othello, see Dr. William Hunt's clinical analysis in A NEW VARIORUM EDITION of OTHELLO, ed. H.H. Furness (1886 rpt.; New York: Dover, 1963) 306. Maybe it's a little out of date, probably incurably old historicist, but I found it handy decades ago for satisfying student curiosity about this episode. Ken Rothwell (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Rice Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:42:02 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Desdemona's Death; In answer to Scott Purdy's question, I guess there are just somethings in Shakespeare's plays you just have to accept. I'd be interested in knowing if your students think Jove has ever been spotted riding on an eagle in the middle of London. On a more serious note, however, your students seem to be reflecting a nineteenth century (I think) attitude towards strict realism in Shakespeare. I believe I read of some person who actually detailed, using anatomical models and posters, how the suffocation of Desdemona actually happened. Be that as it may, Shakespeare relied on "medical realism" only when it suited. How else could the Laertes and the King at the end of Hamlet die so quickly after being poisoned (actually, after saying their requisite closing lines), yet Hamlet, poisoned earlier than both of them, can languish through an extended death scene where he forgives Laertes, says good bye to his mother, admonishes the court, charges Horatio to report the happenings, grabs a cup from that self-same gentleman, predicts that Fortinbras will win the election, and generally gives a smashingly good go at a once in a lifetime experience and then finally drops dead? Also, remember than Othello stabs her as well, because the suffocation doesn't work completely. Just so you can appreciate the effort she made to say those last lines. Jovially yours, Stuart Rice Kenyon College (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 07:29:33 +1000 Subject: Re: Desdemona's Death Scott Purdy asks about the medical explanation for Desdemona's death. I expect there is none. My suggestion would be it is a theatrical device for the "last laugh" so to speak. Webster also used it for his Duchess with equally powerful effect. Regards Scott Crozier ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 16:38:19 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0856 Re: Horatio; Banquo; Luther; Jews Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0856. Monday, 30 October 1995. (1) From: Stuart Rice Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:30:55 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0850 Re: Horatio; (2) From: Stuart Rice Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:22:08 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0850 Re: Banquo; (3) From: Gady Amit Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 19:45:17 +0300 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0845 Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg (4) From: Martin Green Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 1995 11:25:35 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0841 Re: Shakespeare, Italian and Jews (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Rice Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:30:55 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0850 Re: Horatio; I like quite a few of Steve's arguments, especially the one about "ratio" within the name. I, however, would like to submit some other, perhaps interesting, points about Horatio (complete conjecture, you understand): 1) I think Shakespeare might have directly taken the name Horatio from a Spanish Tragedy by T. Kyd. If anyone is knowledgeable on Elizabethan pronounciation it would be interesting to see if the theory holds. 2) "An antique Roman than a Dane." I always wondered, and an expert on the Elizabethan stage history of _Julius Caesar_ might be able to bear this theory out (since I have not seen proof nor refutation of it), if this was meant to be some sort of last minute joke. Does anyone know if the actor that played Mark Antony also played Horatio? It seems with in the realm of possibility. Since there are many references to Julius Caesar in the play, and we know that Julius Caesar was acted by the same actor who played Polonius, and Brutus Hamlet. Yours, Stuart Rice Kenyon College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Rice Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:22:08 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0850 Re: Banquo; I have a mixed opinion about the Ghost of Banquo. In Hamlet, for example, we most definitely see the Ghost of Hamlet's father. However, in Macbeth, Macbeth has a vision of a dagger, and I think we can be pretty sure that Shakespeare did not have a dagger drop from the rafters, suspended by a line of fishing wire. I think it is less clear who he is talking to if Banquo does not somehow appear on the stage in this scene. Even though Macbeth toasts him in absence, we also know that Macbeth has murdered Duncan, and so it may be him that Macbeth sees in the chair. An interesting twist might be having Banquo's Ghost seat Duncan in Macbeth's chair. I guess you might also want to have the Ghost of Banquo appear on stage because of the later procession, which MUST (I suppose) involve having people enact those roles. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gady Amit Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 19:45:17 +0300 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0845 Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg Dear Mr. Godshalk, I wrote a paper for Prof. Normand Berlin on the Luthern - Jesus transfigurations of Hamlet some 25 years ago. Calvin, of course, is only episodal. Since Mr. Goulem speaks of costuming my researches cause me to suggest at least 4 changes. No.1 the mourning, puritanical garb. No. 2 the disorientation combinations. No. 3 After the pirates have dressed Hamlet as a pagan king; which corresponds with the period of Luther's elaborate disguise while in hiding. And it contrasts again with the court people. No. 4 during the duel when Hamlet appears all in white to suggest a purified spirit who has taken on the attributes of the savior. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Green Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 1995 11:25:35 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0841 Re: Shakespeare, Italian and Jews I apologize for being so inept a writer that Robert Appelbaum, in his posting of 25 October, misconstrues almost in its entirety my posting of October 22. What I thought I wrote, boiled down to a few words, was this: that this list would be more useful to its subscribers, and serve a well defined purpose, if we who post to it were to focus on facts, and the reasonable inferences which could be drawn from those facts. I then presented, as an example of the utility of such an approach, three facts which give rise to a reasonable, and in my view illuminating, inference. The facts are (a) that the Earl of Southampton was a patron of Shakespeare, (b) that the Earl of Southampton was a very close friend to the Earl of Essex, and (c) that the Earl of Essex maintained at Essex House, his home on the Strand, a staff of remarkable men who were in effect his own intelligence and diplomatic service. The inference, or surmise, which I drew from these facts was that Shakespeare, as a protege of or "servant" to the Earl of Southampton, may have had access to those who were proteges or servants of the Earl of Essex, and from his associations with these people may have acquired much of the knowledge or attitudes that inform his plays. I gave as examples of this Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy, and his acquaintance with Jews. Mr. Appelbaum makes fun of the idea that Shakespeare might have "palled around." as he puts it, with members of the Essex group who had been to Italy or were Italians- - people such as Anthony Standen, Anthony Munday, James Guicciardini or Alberico Gentili (to say nothing of Southampton's former tutor, John Florio); he stresses the "might have" quality of these associations. But it is, I submit, one of the more reasonable "might haves" around in Shakespearean scholarship. Those people did exist; they lived and worked at Essex House in the 1590's; Shakespeare's patron Southampton not only was Essex' bosom buddy, but also often lodged at Essex House (Southampton House having been rented out because it was too expensive to maintain): so what is more plausible than that Shakespeare had some contact with these eminently knowledg[e]able sources of information about Italy, its topography, literature and politics? I did not write that there was no anti-Semitism in the Merchant of Venice; but everybody knows that (beginning, I think I read somewhere, with Garrick) it's possible to represent Shylock (because the text of the play in places so permits) as an admirable, much put-upon person, rather than as a despicable usorious "bloodsucker" (to use some modern terminology), and I suggested that Shakespeare's attitude toward Jews might have been affected - - even, perhaps, tempered somewhat - - by his personal acquaintance with two Jews in the Essex circle, Dr. Lopez and Antonio Perez, the latter of whom, at least, was much feted by the Essex group and indeed, lived for two years at Essex House. (Perez was a rather foppish person, and is thought by many to have been the model for Don Armado in Love's Labour's Lost.) Now, I pointed out that these two persons were conversos, "but they were thought of in England as being, as they undoubtedly were, at least ethnically, Jews." For this, Mr Appelbaum jumps on me for two reasons. First, he says, since they were conversos, they were not Jews, but Roman Catholics whose ancestors had been Jewish. Such, alas, was not the easy lot of the conversos. True, Perez's father was a Roman Catholic cleric (well, those things happen) whose parent (or perhaps parents) had been Jewish: but when the Inquisition zeroed in on Perez in 1592, one of the charges against him (what it was, I don't know; it may have been apostacy) was based upon his being a Jew - - a fact which certainly must have been known to the Essex group (but may have been overbalanced, in his favour, by the fact that he was also - - again as charged by the Inquisition - - a sodomite). As for Lopez, I think (but don't know) that he himself had been Jewish, and then converted: but when he was tried for treason, he was described by Coke as a Jew - - a traiterous Jew, I think - - and when he was executed (in his 70's) the cheering crowd yelled, Jew! He is a Jew! So these people, exactly as I wrote, "were thought of in England as being . . . Jews." Mr. Appelbaum then makes much of that portion of the preceding sentence represented by the ellipses: "as they undoubtedly were, at least ethnically," for ethnicity, Mr. Appelbaum says, is a modern concept, and to apply it to the Elizabethans in anachronistic. Well, that may well be: but in any event, the words "as they undoubtedly were, at least ethnically" represent MY thought, not that of the Essex house group. If that was not clear, I apologize. Three final comments: (1) yes, I do, as Mr. Appelbaum asserts, long for the scholarship of the 30's; can anyone think of any major contribution to Shakespearian scholarship since, say, 1950? (2) yes, I think "The problem of understanding anti-semitism" (advocated for discussion by Mr. Appelbaum), is not, in and of itself, an appropriate topic for this list, because I find that problem easy enough to understand, but will forbear, in the interest of political correctness, from getting into that (not that my views would offend Jews, but that they would offend Christians), and (3) absolutely yes, I do dismiss a large portion (but maybe not, as Mr. Appelbaum suggests, 9/10) of the contributions to this list on "matters interpretive" as pure hot air: sometimes interesting, to be sure, but all too often creating ill-will and "flaming" on unimportant points and unprovable propositions. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 16:46:22 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0857 Qs: 15-Min. Ham.; Directorial Styles; Integrity; Reviewers Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0857. Monday, 30 October 1995. (1) From: Rod Osiowy Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 11:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Subj: [15 Minute *Hamlet*] (2) From: Jerry Kraft Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 1995 00:22:21 -0700 (PDT) Subj: British/American performance (3) From: Alison Horton Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 1995 15:24:35 -0800 Subj: [Integrity] (4) From: Nautical Bookshelf Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 95 22:27:37 EST Subj: Seeking Reviewers (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rod Osiowy Date: Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 11:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [15 Minute *Hamlet*] One of my students is producing the "Fifteen Minute Hamlet" for a festival, and neither of us has ever seen it performed. Stoppard hints at a bouncy treatment of the script; any suggestions as to time, place, specific blocking, sets? Is there a traditional treatment of this script or is open game for the actors and director? The play is Hamlet performed in 13 minutes, with a reprise of the play again in the last 2 minutes. I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who has produced it or has seen a good production of the play. RodO rosiowy@cln.etc.bc.ca (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Kraft Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 1995 00:22:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: British/American performance There seems to be a general conceit that American directors approach Shakespeare differently than British directors. Would anyone care to posit why that might be so, and what those differences might be? Is it a question of academic (ie literary) training, or technical acting differences, or presumptions about audience familiarity with the plays, or what? Is there such a difference? Is it different for comedy than for the tragedies, the histories or the romances? How would you characterize the "American" style, and the "British"? Any and all comments would be welcome and very useful. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alison Horton Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 1995 15:24:35 -0800 Subject: [Integrity] In Richard 2 both Bullinbroke ("My heart will sigh when I miscall it so" (1.3.263) and, interestingly, Aumerle ("My heart disdained that my tongue/ Should so profane the word" (1.4.12-3) are concerned with speaking with integrity. Is there a Renaissance Philosophy term for this? All I can think of neurolinquistic integrity. Many Thanks Alison Horton (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am trying to find reviewers via the Internet for a book on the English Comedy of Manners (Benson, Delafield, Thirkle from Austen). In response to the List command, the SHAKSPER listserv did not show a Twentieth Century or Victorian literature discussion group comparable to SHAKSPER or REED. Do you know of such a group? If not, could you recommend a professor I could contact via e-mail to help me find appropriate reviewers? Thanks. Lance Cohen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 16:49:30 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0858 The Winter's Tale at the Patricia Corbett Theater Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0858. Monday, 30 October 1995. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 1995 22:36:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: The Winter's Tale at the Patricia Corbett Theater Last night, October 28, at the Corbett Theater in the College-Conservatory of Music, University of Cincinnati, I saw an interesting production of *The Winter's Tale,* directed by Charles Holmond with Dale Doerman as dramaturg The Sicilian court had a Germanic flavor with all the characters dressed in heavy black costumes that reminded me of sixteenth century German paintings. Camillo, however, was costumed as a seventeenth century English cavalier, though still in black. I suppose his "difference" was thus indicated. Bill Mutimer played a rather prissy Leontes. He left Hermione (Shannon Lutz) and Polixenes (Bryan-Hayward Randall) to talk alone in the second scene because he is silently taken aside by Camillo to consult what appears to be the daily court schedule. Leontes' head snaps toward the queen when he overhears her "If you first sinn'd with us" (1.2.84). However, his gesture was so rapid that I was unsure whether this was supposed to be the origin of his jealousy in this production. Perhaps the most striking addition to the script is the appearance of Time, dancing in flowing robes before the first scene. Time in this production is a young woman (Christine Probst) whose right breast was covered only by a diaphanous piece of cloth. She also appears in the bear-chasing scene (protecting Perdita's basket), and one of my former students quipped: Exit pursued by a bare. But why time had a partially exposed breast remains a mystery. But I suppose the director simply wanted to emphasize Time, since at one point in the play, a chandelier begins to move like the pendulum of a clock, and the time references seemed to have been italicized. The Bohemians were dressed in rich browns and earth colors, vaguely autumnal. Polixenes and Camillo were only conventionally disguised at the shepherds' feast, and the director solved the problem of the length of 4.4 (recently discussed here) by cutting the dance of the satyrs, etc., and by declaring a 15 minute intermission at about line 340. The impression I got was that the first part of the scene was filled with youthful frivolity, and the second part of the scene (after the intermission) emphasized the intrusion of dark, middle-aged jealousy. Autolycus (Jacob Garrett White), unfortunately, was confined to Bohemia in this production and never gets of Sicily. The rogue hardly got a chance to do his stuff. When Florizel (Scott Akerman) and Perdita (Martha Sorrentino) arrive in Bohemia, they are costumed in scarlet, and by the last scene (5.1), all the characters are in shades of red. Paulina (Naomi Bailis) was excellent in each of her scenes, and Hermione in the final scene was thrust on stage on a small platform, surrounded with vaguely diaphanous cloth. I thought the final scene was quite well-done; I had my handkerchief out (allergies, you know). Since Autolycus doesn't make it to Sicily in this production, 4.3 was completely cut. I was very impressed with Paul Shortt's scene design, which was basically two large, moveable right angles (covered again with diaphanous cloth) that could be moved easily to give the semi-thrust stage various shapes. Different patterns (e.g., stones) could be projected onto these structures. Beyond these, there were a throne, a bench, and a couple of tables moved on and off as needed. Basically this was a minimalist production. The production received mixed reviews in the local papers, but I thought it well worth the time and money. Unfortunately it had a very short run (October 25-29). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 09:44:23 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0859 Re: Interpretation; Southampton Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0859. Wednesday, 1 November 1995. (1) From: John Owen Date: Monday, 30 Oct 95 16:41:14 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 6.0856 Re: Horatio; Banquo; Luther; Jews (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 22:02:00 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0856 Re: Horatio; Banquo; Luther; Jews (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Monday, 30 Oct 95 16:41:14 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 6.0856 Re: Horatio; Banquo; Luther; Jews Martin Green writes " absolutely yes, I do dismiss a large portion (but maybe not, as Mr. Appelbaum suggests, 9/10) of the contributions to this list on "matters interpretive" as pure hot air: sometimes interesting, to be sure, but all too often creating ill-will and "flaming" on unimportant points and unprovable propositions." A critical yardstick, by all means Mr. Green. But what makes you think your own post is exempt from this criticism? You provide an unprovable proposition (the association, through Southampton, with prominent Jews), an incitement to ill-will (is "hot-air" not intended to be a flame?) and several points of questionable importance. Joining the balloon race, after all? Airily, John Owen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 22:02:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0856 Re: Horatio; Banquo; Luther; Jews Martin Green, in his long and interesting response to Rober Appelbaum, says that Southampton was Shakespeare's patron. I know Shakespeare dedicated two poems to the Earl, but do we know exactly how the earl responded? I ask this question, not to begin a heated quarrel, but to see what hard facts can be adduced that Shakespeare was indeed patronized by Southampton. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 10:04:40 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0861 Re: De-Canonization Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0861. Wednesday, 1 November 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 20:12:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0853 Re: De-Canonization (2) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 23:32:22 -0800 (PST) Subj: de-canonization (3) From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 1995 11:30:56 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0853 Re: De-Canonization (4) From: Victor Gallerano Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 1995 12:53:21 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0844 Re: De-Canonization (5) From: Douglas Flummer Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 95 18:35:30 CST Subj: SHK 6.0853 Re: De-Canonization (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I WANNA TESTIFY! It is great to see such poets as Levine, HD, John Montague (who teaches at my institution at least halftime) mentioned in this connection of Shakespeare's "importance"--As someone who received a M.A. WITHOUT EVER HAVING TAKEN A CLASS IN SHAKESPEARE and coming to him (or it) "on my own" and deciding to go back to school for a Ph.D. in part because of it, I am VERY interested in the relationship between Shakespeare and poetry (especially 20th century modern and contemporary "avant-garde" poetry). Since I've come to Shakespeare "backward" I find that many things that are generally considered "20th century tendencies" (or pomo, etc) in literature are definitely IN Shakespeare, as well as many things that make him (or it) more similar to say John Ashbery than to Alice Walker. One of the things that Shakespeare allows is an INTERSECTION between the various factions in academia today, a meeting ground between people who find the meaning in the story and those who find it in the poetic complexities. I'm not saying S is the only writer who allows this....But I do wonder to what extent the marginalization of poetry (a title of a forthcoming book by a U-Penn professor scholar who is also one of the LANGUAGE poets, Bob Perelman) is involved with the decision to drop Shakespeare. It seems it does play a part--and though teaching Shakespeare's plays "poetically" is very difficult (whether one digs up the old F.E. Halliday Book or Zukofsky's BOTTOM:ON SHAKESPEARE), but it can be done, and I think allows students a way into POETRY they may not appreciate if one dwells just on Stevens, Stein, Ashbery, O'Hara, etc. (just to throw out some names). I taught a class this summer in which such writers were put into dialogue with Shakespeare-- (oh and Marianne Moore, whose "Marriage" in part is a takeoff on the Shakespeare critical industry!, and Dickinson of course, and Laura Riding--co-author of the controversial essay on the LUST SONNET)-- and I think the dialogue was "fruitful"-----chris stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 23:32:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: de-canonization I believe that we are beginning to hear some interesting responses to the problem of de-canonization, responses that avoid reliance on the platitudes about greatness that were partly responsible for getting us into this trouble in the first place. I think also, as people like Bruce Young have suggested, that we do not in fact have to REQUIRE Shakespeare in order to teach him, or have our students voluntarily study him. But there is a still larger question looming in the background of all this: I doubt that any of us could give cogent reasons for the specialized study of English literature itself, especially as a major. Why the English major and not something else? IF the purpose of majoring in English is simply to become versant in something identified as THE TRADITION OF ENGLISH LITERATURE, then, depending on your definition of this tradition, Shakespeare will be more or less vital to what you are doing. When I decided (not as an undergrad, but as a returning grad student) to major in English it was partly because I was (in principle) a writer, and partly because I was fascinated with the work of people like Melville and Conrad. Now, if you begin as a writer with a certain kind of ambition, then you're going to want to read a lot of Shakespeare; one doesn't want to end up reinventing the wheel. And again, if you begin with Melville and Conrad then you have to go back to the Renaissance and Shakespeare too; otherwise you simply won't understand a lot of what they're trying to do. But what if you're not a writer with the kind of ambition I thought I had? What if you have a different kind of ambition? And what if your starting point is not Melville and Conrad, but [fill in the blanks]? Moreover, even if you have a certain canon-based Oedipal ambition, and you start with writers like Melville, and you need to read Shakespeare, why should that mean that you need to take a COURSE in Shakespeare? I don't believe that Melville ever took one -- so why should we imagine that the wannabe Melvilles of the world should be filling our lecture halls, and providing us with a raison d'etre? Students with a commitment to theater arts present a different kind of case. It does seem unimaginable that a theater arts student would not pay a lot of attention to Shakespeare as interpreted by experts. But theater arts is not the issue; the issue is the English major. What is the purpose of "majoring" in English? Answer that and you'll know whether Shakespeare ought to be required or not. I would like to hear possible answers about this. I don't myself have one. I do know, however, that at Berkeley Shakespeare has been retained (or so they tell me) for two reasons: (1) because the English major is conceived of as being part and parcel to a commitmment to *historical* understanding, and (2) because Shakespeare (more than any other writer) gives us something like a common vocabulary. The commitment to history at my school is (and has been) central to the organization of the department. The idea of a "literature" or a "literary practice" which is not in itself historically situated, and which does not in itself express a certain historical depth, is considered all but absurd. So, if one studies "English [and American] Literature" one has to study its history, and study it intimately. Choices in themselves are always somewhat arbitrary (everyone here reads Spenser and Milton; not everyone reads Donne), but the choice of history is not itself arbitrary. Either we are historical beings or we are not. Either imaginative writing in English has a history or it does not. And as we have decided that we *are* historical beings, and that imaginative writing *does* have a history, then we simply have to study that history; otherwise, we are not studying what we have stipulated that we ourselves and our imaginative writing essentially are. This argument, however, may well lead to a requirement that the 16th and 17th centuries be studied, but not necessarily Shakespeare. And the "common vocabulary" argument is beginning to wear thin. Again, WS is the common vocabulary of Melville and Conrad; but I don't see the relevance of WS to *Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.* And I think it is probably likely that at some point in time Berkeley too will drop not the historical period but the particular author WS from its required list. The original question starting this thread did not indicate whether something like "history" or something like a "common vocabulary" was thought to be part of what it is essential that English majors learn. But it also didn't say what it was proposed that the purpose of majoring in English was supposed to be. Obviously, it cannot be "to make us better persons." There are better people than any of us working the nightshifts at Safeway or McDonald's. There are probably better people than me holed up in Folsom Prison (and I am not so bad). "Treat a man according to his deserts, etc...." I think (I am sorry to have to say this) that it is shameful for a man who has claimed to have learned how to live from Shakespeare to suppose that he is a better person than people who have not -- yet that is what his argument implies. I know for myself that Shakespeare has inculcated certain things in me that I cannot do without, things that have become me -- Lear in the storm, Lady Macbeth and her bloody hands -- but I cannot see any moral value in it. Nor, for that matter, can I see that what it is that Shakespeare has inculcated in me has anything to do with my having taken a course in Shakespeare, or with my having become an "English major." Robert Appelbaum (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 1995 11:30:56 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0853 Re: De-Canonization It is inevitable that Shakespeare now becomes the lily that festers -- after all, isn't it obvious that the extravagant claims made for him can't be true? The claim, for example, that reading him in a certain way can help make us "better and braver"... quite over the top... can't be empirically demonstrated...ridiculous and untrue. Of course, it is exactly this claim that is made by nearly everyone about nearly everyone. It is only when it is applied to Shakespeare that it seems so groundless. Why else is Toni Morrison taught? What else is wanted from reading "The Tempest" as a postcolonial play? What else do those wily fellows, the Cultural Materialists< want to achieve? Why else is it necessary that sweet Felicia Hemans be studied and Wordsworth looked at with suspicion? It seems merely strategic to find this claim groundless when made for Shakespeare and to then make the same claim as a reason -- even the reason -- for admitting others into the curriculum. There is nothing extravagant about this claim when it is made for Shakespeare unless the claim is found equally extravagant and baseless for everyone else -- all those third-world writers, those women writers, those "queer" writers who are admitted into the curriculum precisely so that students can read them with their teachers and so become better human beings. The argument that our sensibilities are corrupted because we insist that Shakespeare is the ONLY writer who can adequately express certain "eternal" themes is equally groundless -- for who in the wide world ever made such a claim? In the words of Brian Vickers: show me their graves. Have there been legions of fellows who deny that Homer, Dante, Cervantes, and so on cannot do this? No. The assertion is absurd. The other arguments contra Shakespeare's pre-eminence are only slightly more interesting. As far as I know there are courses to be taken in drama exclusive of Shakespeare. Webster, Middleton, Marlowe and company and Ben Jonson may be read at universities and there are books and articles about their plays. This assertion will be understood as the equivalent of Scrooge asking whether there are still poorhouses but until I read a convincing argument that these surpass Shakespeare in many of the many qualities that makes for good art and good drama, how can I wonder at Shakepeare's preeminence? So Kyd wrote a revenge drama... fine... how exactly does it compare with Hamlet? Hamlet surpasses it in every quality. I can make a detailed argument and I will win -- as long as what is valued is not the ability to discover stereotypical elements that allow one to feel as if he is the master. There were a lot of good plays written. Students should be given and are given a chance to study them. But an undergraduate who reads Kyd instead of Shakespeare will lose -- there is, after all, only so much time. Why not study the best? The rest of the disapprobations directed against Shakespeare are of a piece. Romeo and Juliet as a "piece of fluff" is an astounding judgment. Production after production has shown that the "unbelievable" plots (what ever happened to considerations of genre by the by?) are believed and no-one is bothered by the seacoast in Bohemia. As for Shakespeare not transcending his time -- well, 400 years have passed and his plays are still doing just that. The historicist claim that he is bound by his "socio-political" perspective is more of a hope than a truth and the assertion is usually made by first begging the question. It is always assumed that this must be the case -- so, naturally this is always the case. Since any sort of universal human nature -- even the claim that all suffer -- is rejected, there is nothing that can be done to refute these fellows. Shakespeare's creation of a kind of drama, the history play, which seems, in his hands, to open up so many questions, introduce so many complications and qualifications, provide so many clashing perspectives that a regime (or whatever you wish -- a paradigm, an age's sensibility) becomes open to interpretation and questioning is not seen -- and I don't mean only the sort of "enlightened" questioning that exposes this or that so-called mystification of power. Shakespeare also questions the de-mystifiers. There's no replacing Shakespeare. His achievement is a fact. Lots of good drama, of course, but often there is neither world enough nor time. His cultured despisers may succeed in what they wish -- but there will be no good reasons for this. Finally, Dr. Dwelle should inform the curriculum reform committee that they are awfully belated. The good old whirligig of Time has come around again and these kinds of "reforms" are coming under intense scrutiny. The "future" is not there -- neither is the contemporary. The lesser gods of the last 25 years are diminished things. In fact, as I was sailing away from Tarsus I heard a voice from an island crying "The great God Pan is dead." (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Victor Gallerano Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 1995 12:53:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0844 Re: De-Canonization Some considerations for the benefit of Simon Morgan-Russell and Michael Yogev: I did not say that "teaching" Shakespeare made students anything. I did say that "asking questions" about Shakespeare's plays made students "better and braver and more like human beings." There is nothing "glib" about my reference to Plato. The formulation: "better and braver and more like human beings" is, in fact, a quotation (a well known quotation, I thought) from Plato's dialogue *Meno*. Versions of the same can be found in his *Theatetus*, *Phaedo* and other dialogues, including *The Republic*. The obstacle to Meno's becoming more philosophic is the intellectual sloth that keeps him from questioning orthodox opinions about things like virtue and, as it turns out, about the possibility of learning anything at all. The most common and most orthodox opinions in the Academy today seem to be strains of an historicism which denies the possibility of learning. It is (as it has ever been) easier professionally if you do not challenge that orthodoxy, hence my jab at lazy, grad-school-bound students. (Both senses of "bound" pertain here.) (Having gotten this far, it occurs to me that the greatest disadvantage of not having a canon in common is that we have to waste time telling each other what is in the books we have read. If we don't, we risk being called "glib" and "defied" to detail things that anyone can and everyone should read for him or her self.) In the dialogues cited above, Socrates says that, "whether knowledge is possible or not," Philosophy (you know, guys; the love of wisdom, the examined life, deliberate inquiry spawned out of wonder?) will make us "better and braver and more like human beings." The "possible or not" makes all the difference here. Rather than the dogmatism which Simon and Michael attribute to it, Socratic philosophy only has a hypothetical or at best a dogmatically-skeptical foundation....And still Socrates says that he believes trying to live that life makes us "better and braver and more like human beings." And like it or not, Simon, we all seem to share that belief even if in the most un-reflective of ways. After all, consider the "purpose" you claim of getting students "to think for themselves, to challenge their assumptions...to take responsibility for their own actions and thoughts?" How is it dissimilar from the Socratic, examined life? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't your "purpose" indicate ways in which you are trying to "improve" your students? (And speaking of improved students, which "slack-arsed" student of Plato did you have in mind...Aristotle? He wasn't too "slack-arsed" to disagree with his teacher in, for example, the *Nichomachian Ethics*. (Damn, another glib reference. Sorry Simon, you'll just have to go read it for yourself.) Michael Yogev reminds me that canon formation is the work of regnant powers. Fair enough (see the end comment on "wonder" and Stephen Greenblatt.) But that was the point of my quoting the sonnet "they that have the power to hurt." I was making the distinction between the "Lords and owners of their faces" on the one hand, and the "Stewards of their excellence" on the other. The fact that one particular set of stewards is in charge doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a canon, only that there are risks involved. But they are the risks inherent in the art of writing as such. Shakespeare seems to be aware of them. It is altogether appropriate that Michael should mention another Platonic dialogue, the *Phaedrus* where the risks and problems of writing are explored. Mention of the *Phaedrus* reminds us to be especially wary of the limitations and weaknesses of writing because of the way Derrida handles that dialogue. But unless Michael is following Derrida's appropriation of the dialogue, I'm not sure how it helps his case. (Derrida seems no more interested in reading Plato than he was in having a conversation with Hans Georg Gadamer.) Michael and I could argue about Derrida's appropriation of the *Phaedrus* for his own ends (again, the inherent weakness of the written word) but I am afraid I would insist that we read Plato's words first. There is enough "old" New Critic in me to want not only to discuss books commonly known, but to know them as well as possible by reading them as closely as possible for myself. As Woody Allen makes one of his characters say, "I've been doing all my own reading since I turned forty." And that's why reading (i.e. questioning) Shakespeare is better for you than learning theory, guys. The mere possibility that a few students will do their own reading; that they will read Shakespeare and not what their teacher says he means as an example of bourgouise-capitalistic-imperial fetishism makes it worth the risk of requiring that the plays be read. No reason to meet a sophist un-armed: "Sic semper Tyrannus." (For an example of the difference between "wonder" as the origin of philosophy and "wonder" as the origin of one of the new-orthodoxies compare Plato or Aristotle's use of the word to Stephen Greenblatt's use of the word in *Learning To Curse*. Greenblatt justifies his personal turn to the "new historicism" because, when he was a grad-student, the regnant, academic orthodoxy had taken the "wonder" out of his study. But what he calls "wonder" is quite different from the older meaning. On the older account, wonder is a desire to know the cause of something (*Metaphysics* 983a13) and in the case of Socrates (*Phaedo*) not simply to know the cause of things, but to know why its is good that things should be that way and no other. In contrast, Greenblatt uses "wonder" to mean some sort of aesthetic bedazzlement.) By the way, Joseph Green, the Lear cigarette lighter sounds pretty neat, but have you seen the Dogberry water-pistol and holster set? I got it signed by Michael Keaton. Vic Gallerano (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Flummer Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 95 18:35:30 CST Subject: SHK 6.0853 Re: De-Canonization Bill Godshalk makes an excellent point in comparing this situation with recent trends in use of the Bible in various churches. I have notice a disturbing trend recently of translating the Bible to the point where it is not only easy to read, but also neutralized to the point where sometimes the translators are unwilling to use a gender to describe God. Might this be part of the problem that underlies this situation here as well? Since they cannot change the wording that Shakespeare used, as there is no translation to concern oneself with, and as there is quite a bit of political incorrectness in the text, might it be that some people are unwilling to deal with such politically incorrect material, no matter how important the source? We have seen such censorship happen in other areas of literature, why not here? I have found the entire situation to be quite disturbing, and the possibility that some would even consider such a thing with the Bard I find appalling. Of course, this is surely not the case, but I as yet cannot see the logic for removing Shakespeare from the standard coursework. Doug Flummer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 10:19:00 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0862 Skinhead & 15 Min. Ham; Julius Caesar; Performance Style Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0862. Wednesday, 1 November 1995. (1) From: Geoffrey Stewart Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 1995 08:58:32 -0800 Subj: Skinhead Hamlet (2) From: C. David Frankel Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 23:24:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0857 Qs: 15-Min. Ham. (3) From: Steve Sohmer Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 21:42:43 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0856 Re: Horatio; Banquo; Luther; Jews (4) From: David Akin Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 1995 19:46:57 -0500 Subj: British/American performance (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Geoffrey Stewart Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 1995 08:58:32 -0800 Subject: Skinhead Hamlet Fellow Shakespeareans, Rod Osiowy's mention of the 15-Minute Hamlet reminds me of another version of the play called the "Skinhead Hamlet". A professor of mine in college showed this to me once, and I remember it as a *very* short (6-7 pages at most) version of the play, with some extremely spicy language. Does anyone out there have a copy of this parody? I would love to see it again, as it was most amusing (it manages to capture the essence of each scene using three or four speeches of usually five words or less, at least two of them unsuitable for repetition in front of the children.) Please allow modern technology to rescue me from the fact that I never photocopied the play when I last had it in my hands. Thank you, Geoffrey P.S.- Personal e-mail responses would probably be most appropriate in this case. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 23:24:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0857 Qs: 15-Min. Ham. I saw a film loop of the 15-minute Hamlet (The Professor Dogg's Troupe's _Hamlet_ by William Shakespeare, edited by Tom Stoppard) many years ago. The performers were, I think, the BART (British-American Reperatroy Theatre). They performed on the steps of the newly-opened (or about to be opened) National Theatre. As I remember it, there were six performers in Elizabethanish costume wearing signs hanging from there necks identifying their (sometime changing) characters. The performed at a breakneck speed as befits a farce (except for Shakespeare in the prologue; he took a more leisurely pace). It was very funny. As you probably know, Stoppard incorporated this piece into his play, _Dogg's Hamlet and Cahoots Macbeth_. C. David Frankel frankel@arts.usf.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 21:42:43 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0856 Re: Horatio; Banquo; Luther; Jews Replying to Stuart Rice's question about who played whom in Julius Caesar and Hamlet. After spending the last three years working on Julius Caesar, I've come to believe that Shakespeare played Julius Caesar. I base this on two puns. One, when Antony says "When Caesar sayes, Do this; it is perform'd." And, later, when Cassius growls that Caesar "bad the Romans / Marke him, and write his Speeches in their Bookes..." There is, of course, no evidence that Caesar ordered the Romans to write down his speeches in their books in Plutarch. But, of course, the playwright Shakespeare determined which actions would be "perform'd" and caused his "Romans" to memorize his speeches. Burbage, I believe, played Brutus. As to the casting in Hamlet, it has long been thought that Shakespeare played the Ghost of Old Hamlet. Now that I have been working hard on this play, I agree. And I further believe that Shakespeare played Polonius as well. That is, Shakespeare played the father of both children, Hamlet and Ophelia. Shakespeare, of course, had a son Hamnet, christened 2 February 1585. If Burbage played Brutus, there is a wonderful gloss of comedy when Shakespeare-Caesar-Polonius declares "I was killed i'th' Capitol. Brutus killed me." And Burbage-Brutus-Hamlet tells the house, "It was a brute part of him to kill so capital a calf there." The phrase "killing the calf" was, I'm told, the Elizabethan equivalent of "eating the scenery" to describe over-acting. Of course, there is one scene in Hamlet in which Polonius and Old Hamlet are on-stage at the same time: the confrontation in Gertrude's closet. Would anyone care to speculate as to whether the body of the slain Polonius hidden by the arras when Old Hamlet's Ghost appears? All the best, Steve Sohmer (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Akin Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 1995 19:46:57 -0500 Subject: British/American performance >There seems to be a general conceit that American directors approach >Shakespeare differently than British directors. Would anyone care to posit why >that might be so, and what those differences might be? Is it a question of >academic (ie literary) training, or technical acting differences, or >presumptions about audience familiarity with the plays, or what? Is there such >a difference? Is it different for comedy than for the tragedies, the histories >or the romances? How would you characterize the "American" style, and the >"British"? Any and all comments would be welcome and very useful. Audiences and critics at The Stratford Festival and The Shaw Festival (Ontario, Canada) are happily exposed to actors from both backgrounds. While conceding the dangers of broad generalizations, some observations on the extremes of performers performing Shakespeare's or contemporarys' work from both traditions: AMERICAN: Weak with text; physical; brawny; instinctive; loud; innocent BRITISH: Smart, subtle, witty, poetic, cerebral; mysterious I find those trained at Canadian schools and institutions to be able to perform at a happy medium between such extremes. David Akin jdakin@mail.foxnet.net Staff Reporter VOX 807-343-6200 Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal FAX 807-343-9409 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 09:54:29 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0860 Re: Happy *Lear* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0860. Wednesday, 1 November 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 19:53:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0854 Re: Happy *Lear* (2) From: Frank Whigham Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 1995 06:59:46 -0600 Subj: Tate Lear (3) From: David Jackson Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 95 10:06:41 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0854 Re: Happy *Lear* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 30 Oct 1995 19:53:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0854 Re: Happy *Lear* In Susan Snyder's THE COMIC MATRIX OF SHAKESPEARE'S TRAGEDIES (circa 1979) she talks of some (though certainly not all) of the "comic" elements in LEAR, and claims that the play would be less horrific were Lear allowed to die in COrdelia's arms rather than the other way around. Hmmmmm. I wonder what Helen Bonavita would make of THAT ending-- Critics talk of the MEANINGLESS of Cordelia's death, but perhaps it is Shakespeare's final way of making Lear DEAL WITH his mistake in the first scene (if we assume that death is more horrific to the one who survives than it is to the one who dies). cs. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Whigham Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 1995 06:59:46 -0600 Subject: Tate Lear For a rich treatment of Tate's --Lear-- as a serious text see chapter 8 of Richard Strier's new California book --Resistant Structures--. Frank Whigham University of Texas (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 95 10:06:41 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0854 Re: Happy *Lear* There is no truth to the rumor that Demi Moore and Gary Oldman are planning to star in a movie version of Nahum Tate's "Happy" Lear. After all, they wouldn't ever be party to such a mutilation of a literary classic, would they? [Editor's Note: See this week's *Newsweek* with long list of happy endings for these two. --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 14:54:18 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0864 Re: De-Canonization Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0864. Friday, 3 November 1995. (1) From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Wednesday, 1 Nov 1995 11:48:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0861 Re: De-Canonization (2) From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 09:04:21 +1000 Subj: Re: De-Canonization= (3) From: Roger D. Gross Date: Wednesday, 1 Nov 1995 16:48:18 -0600 (CST) Subj: de-canonization (4) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 09:09:30 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0861 Re: De-Canonization (5) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 02 Nov 1995 10:04:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: de-canonization (6) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 3 Nov 1995 12:20:47 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0861 Re: De-Canonization (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Wednesday, 1 Nov 1995 11:48:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0861 Re: De-Canonization In response to Vic Gallerano: Well, yes, I think I understood you correctly initially. I used the term "glib" of your use of Plato, not, as you suspect, because I needed you to explain Plato for me (we certainly share a canon, Vic, I received a good classical English schoolboy's education). I'm more concerned about the glib use of the term "human beings." What Plato understood by the term "human being" and what, therefore, was necessary to better it and make it "more brave" hardly seem relevant in a late twentieth century classroom. My students, products of an American high school system that has, it seems, other priorities than teaching students about Plato have not heard of *Meno* -- probably not even of *Republic*. They may have received a very orthodox conception of what "it means to be human" and few want to question this. You may suggest that Shakespeare represents the "window of opportunity" -- the means by which students question this orthodoxy. BBut I suggest that Shakespeare is commonly employed to sustain this orthodoxy -- we know what it means to be human because we know Lear, or Prospero etc. etc. My suggestion is that whatever Plato understood by the term "human being," or what Shakespeare understood, or you, may not accurately represent what my students understand about their late twentieth century consciousness. I can't understand, Vic, why you think that "Theory" is orthodoxy. Many of the depts. I've had contact with still appear to sacrifice pigs to E. M. W. Tillyard and carry fetish dolls of G. Wilson Knight. I'm off to lazily pick my way through some Epicurus. Indolently, Simon Morgan-Russell (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 09:04:21 +1000 Subject: Re: De-Canonization Why an English Major? If, in 1945 the average size of a working vocabulary was 45,000 words and in 1995 25,000 words, then surely the answer is self evident. If it isn't, then are we happy to allow our ability to frame our lives through language go and hence quicken the pace of cultural entropy. Scott Crozier (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross Date: Wednesday, 1 Nov 1995 16:48:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: de-canonization I'm sure there is nothing we can study which is guaranteed to make us better human beings (some students remain unregenerate despite having heard my lectures). I'm sure it is possible to become a better human being by studying the most despicable examples of human behavior (some students have become better human beings despite having heard my lectures). The real issue for me is the POSSIBILITY that this or that might open my mind a bit, broaden my awareness. Some things offer a greater LIKELIHOOD of provoking that kind of growth. For many of us, Shakespeare offers a greater likelihood than any other writer. But of course it depends on how you approach him and what you're open to. Testimonial: specifically, I think that thirty-five years of directing and acting Shakespeare have made me a more tolerant person, more likely to find people reasonable and honorable, even when I disagree with them. It has helped me escape the destructive error of assuming that all brains work more or less alike, that all people live in more or less the same world. That mistake leads us to judgments of error or ill-will which we'd be better not to make. It encourages conflict where we ought to help each other to common understanding. (Does anyone remember Kenneth Burke's [inimitably esoteric] concept of "consubstantiation"? That is that true persuasion occurs only when we discover our common interests, shucking off the errors which led us to believe that we were necessarily in conflict. I think Shakespeare, more than Kenneth Burke, helped me to understand consubstantiation.) I think I learned these things from Shakespeare because, more than any other writer I've found, he plays without stacking the deck. Most writers write from a very limited point of view and have strong persuasive intentions, or they write about their own inner life as a sort of apologia. Shakespeare's primary interest, it seems to me, is to get into the minds and under the skin of as many different kinds of people as he can with a primary goal of learning what makes them do what they do. His situation made him necessarily a generic writer but this fundamental interest in knowing people seems always to have overwhelmed that imperative. I feel I'm lucky to have studied Shakespeare primarily through performance. Performers, of course, are obliged to "enter" the text rather than "observe" it. I've played Lear twice and to have been obliged (allowed) to see and feel and handle the world through his psyche night after night no doubt changed me. I can't think of anything I've ever done that was as valuable to me. This kind of experience doesn't make me better than any other human being but it made me a better human being than I was. When I introduce students or actors to Shakespeare, what drives me is the desire to make this kind of connection with Shakespeare's people easier for them. I don't want to tell them what's there to learn; just boost them over the obstacles time has put in their way. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 09:09:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0861 Re: De-Canonization I find the responses on this issue better reading than any newspaper or magazine! What a sublime conversation! And evidence, if evidence were needed, of the value of Shakespeare, for bringing together and sparking such thinking. As for the man who felt himself a better person for studying Shakespeare, I took that to mean that he felt himself to be better than HE would have been had HE not read Shakespeare, not that he was necessarily better than some other man who hadn't read Shakespeare. After thinking about the consequences of removing Shakespeare from the required list at colleges, I now feel that it wouldn't be such a bad thing. Requiring students to do anything at that level is often setting up both the teacher and the student for difficulties. Many who might have loved Shakespeare had they come to him in their own time get turned off by such classes. Shakespeare is in no danger of being forgotten, no matter what course is taken by English departments. The appropriate level for teaching Shakespeare is the same level that's most effective for teaching foreign languages, the early grades, and for the same reason, because the mind absorbs like a sponge. What's one more language at that age? And we are obviously a long way from offering Shakespeare at that level. I always thought people who majored in English did so because they want to write (not really a good idea. A budding writer should probably major in anything but English). As an undergraduate I chose History because I had a crush on my advisor, who taught History. My guess is that my experience isn't all that unusual. Most people who are fascinated with life could start anywhere. That's all a major is, isn't it? A start? Stephanie Hughes As for Romeo and Juliet, I heard about a phenomenon called the Juliet letters. It seems hundreds of people each year write to Juliet seeking advice for their love problems, and that this has been going on for a very long time. Some fluff. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 02 Nov 1995 10:04:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: de-canonization "Canon formation is the work of regnant powers." This claim is central to arguments for the breaking up or opening up of the canon (as if anyone is claiming that "the canon" is closed), or the anchoring of the canon in something other than aesthetic value. But who says that the claim is true? And what do those who assume it say to opposed (and persuasive) arguments that canon formation has little to do with regnant powers or "ideology" when narrowly defined, but instead with the influence of earlier poets on later poets, that writers become "great" when their achievement is realized as massive and burdensome and to-be-outdone in the works of later writers, and that Shakespeare is pre-eminent because he alone of all modern and perhaps ancient poets has the largest and most comprehensive achievement and possesses certain qualities so enormously that he has not and probably cannot be outdone? Since it's probably obvious who makes these claims, I guess my question is, what do people say against these kinds of arguments and in defense of the canon-formation-by-regnant-powers argument beyond merely that the first is "unscholarly" and the second so obviously true that any disagreement is absurd? (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 3 Nov 1995 12:20:47 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0861 Re: De-Canonization Joseph M Green does well to invoke Brian Vickers. The Cultural Materialist suggestion that Shakespeare might be used for political ends is clearly ludicrous. Where do they get these silly ideas? Can you imagine, say, some member of the present Royal family openly promoting the Bard? Terence Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 15:00:42 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0865 Re: Happy *Lear* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0865. Friday, 3 November 1995. (1) From: Karen Krebser Date: Wedmesday, 01 Nov 95 09:02:34 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0860 Re: Happy *Lear* (2) From: Helen Vella Bonavita Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 11:36:29 +0800 (WST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0860 Re: Happy *Lear* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Wedmesday, 01 Nov 95 09:02:34 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0860 Re: Happy *Lear* There is no truth to the rumor that Demi Moore and Gary Oldman are planning to star in a movie version of Nahum Tate's "Happy" Lear. After all, they wouldn't ever be party to such a mutilation of a literary classic, would they? [Editor's Note: See this week's *Newsweek* with long list of happy endings for these two. --HMC] I'm holding out for a Moore/Oldman movie version of "Oedipus Tyrannus," myself. The dramatic possibilities are staggering.... Many, many thanks to all who responded to my original query! Best regards, Karen Krebser San Jose State University [Editor's Note: Actually, it was *Time*. --hmc] (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Vella Bonavita Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 11:36:29 +0800 (WST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0860 Re: Happy *Lear* Personally I think that yes, Lear dying in Cordelia's arms would be a much easier ending for the play, but the very neatness of such an ending would obviously rob the play of much of its interest. As far as Cordelia's death goes, I don't necessarily think it meaningless. I am not at all sure, however, that it forces Lear to "deal with" the mistakes he's made, because I don't think he ever does. His urging Cordelia to prison with him is in effect, demanding the same sacrifice of her - that she "love her father all" - that he demanded in Act 1. The only difference here is that she does so. Helen Vella Bonavita ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 15:05:44 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0866 Re: Desdemona's death Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0866. Friday, 3 November 1995. (1) From: Scott Purdy Date: Wednesday, 1 Nov 1995 12:53:23 -0500 Subj: Desdemona' (2) From: Albert Misseldine Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 13:36:05 -0500 Subj: Desdemona's death (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Purdy Date: Wednesday, 1 Nov 1995 12:53:23 -0500 Subject: Desdemona' Thanks to those who replied to my question about Desdemona's death. I am searching out Hunt's analysis (thank you, Ken Rothwell), but I am puzzled by Stuart Rice's comment that "Othello stabs her as well." Are you saying that Othello stabs Desdemona when he says, "Not yet quite dead? / I that am cruel am yet merciful, / I would not have thee linger in thy pain" ? I never read this as a stabbing, for he earlier states that he would "not shed her blood, / Nor scar that whiter skin of hers than snow." I would like to hear some other voices clear this up for me. Thank you in advance. Scott Purdy (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Albert Misseldine Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 13:36:05 -0500 Subject: Desdemona's death Re Scott Purdy's question about Desdemona's death. Harold Goddard discusses this at some length in his The Meaning of Shakespeare. He points to Othello's last words to Desdemona "I would not have thee linger in thy pain/So, so." The "so, so" indicate that Othello stabs her at this point. - A Misseldine ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 15:13:06 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0867 Re: Performance Styles Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0867. Friday, 3 November 1995. (1) From: Suzanne Westfall Date: Wednesday, 01 Nov 1995 13:55:12 -0500 (CDT) Subj: RE: SHK 6.0862 Performance Style (2) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 1 Nov 1995 12:18:00 -0800 (PST) Subj: performance styles (3) From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 08:52:53 +1000 Subj: Re: Performance (4) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 15:29:35 -0500 Subj: Performance Style (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Suzanne Westfall Date: Wednesday, 01 Nov 1995 13:55:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: SHK 6.0862 Performance Style I'll add my agreement to David Akin's comments about American actors being weak with text but brawny, British actors being strong on text (and sometimes mannered). And of course Canadians are a wonderful mix of the two traditions (having trained at the University of Toronto I am, of course, completely unbiased). But I have spent many years acting and directing in all three countries, and would venture to say that the notorious American lack of vocal training severely limits what I can get from American actors when we work with Shakespearean text. Many find that playing with pitch, tone, and volume makes them sound "unnatural" and "mannered," certainly at odds with most American acting traditions, which rely heavily on Stanislavski-derivitive systems that promote naturalistic and realistic theatre. Hence, American actors are more comfortable doing "realistic" Shakespeare. Most of them also lack the basic vocal training that provides a powerful supported voice, capable of reaching the back of a theatre. So we tend to relay on other actor tools (like body, body-mike, and gesture) to get the points across. Brits, on the other hand, spend lots of hours on voice and text analysis, regardless of what acting school they attend. So, I often find that their instincts for the text are keen, but often their approach to text remains fairly traditional. So, Americans can more easily be on the "cutting edge" of postmodern interpretation (tho sometimes we go too far in adaptation of text and mise-en-scene for its own sake). But Brits will more often give a lucid, competent hearing. These are, of course, all generalizations; I won't begin to list performances I have seen on both sides of the Ocean that are exceptions. Regards, Suzanne Westfall westfals@lafayette.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 1 Nov 1995 12:18:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: performance styles How interesting that a Canadian should find Americans "innocent," the British "mysterious," and Canadian actors a perfect mean between the extremes. Perhaps he was referring to the riots in Quebec yesterday. Robert Appelbaum (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 08:52:53 +1000 Subject: Re: Performance Although I do not know about American performances of Shakespeare, I'm not sure whether the list offered by David Akin achieves much except responses like this (I suppose that that is what it is about!) I don't know about "BRITISH: Smart, subtle, witty, poetic, cerebral; mysterious" but their perfromances of Shakepseare (the mainstream companies at least) are certainly laiden with the baggage of "Shakespeare Inc". Ihave been recently amazed when I see plays by Shakespeare (deliberately phrased that way) in English theatre how beautiful they sound but that is it! Recent RSC productions of MND; MM; H5; TN; Cor; and the National Theatre's MW were lumbered by their Englishness. Maybe the future of plays by Shakespeare (beyond Brook) lies further afield; away from the baggage of 400 years of Shakespeare Inc. Scott Crozier (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 15:29:35 -0500 Subject: Performance Style In another incarnation I do research on Canadian television drama. A few years ago I interviewed R.H.Thomson - one of our best actors in both TV and the theatre. He spoke about acting onthe same stage or in the same miniseries with American actors. To paraphrase: - two styles - New York and L.A. . New York - nervous energy , method preparation, lots of subtext; L.A> lots of good, clear bright, primary colours or too often if a tv star 'all hair and teeth' and 'I do it this way". About both he said extroverted and individualistic. Of his style as typically Canadian he pointed to understated, ensemble work and subtle character work rather than work proclaiming 'I am the leading player/character/star'. He does not see this as half wayt between Britain and America but as distincitive rising out of the collectives and teh experiments of the 70s and out of our docudrama tradition.The full interview will be published in a book I am now proofreading to be published in May. . Mary Jane Miller, Dept. of Film Studies, Dramatic and Visual Arts, Brock University, ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 15:25:41 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0869 Qs: *Hamlet*; *MV* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0869. Friday, 3 November 1995. (1) From: C. David Frankel Date: Wednesday, 1 Nov 1995 15:25:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Hamlet Query (2) From: Kelly Lynne Hyatt Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 15:29:20 -0400 (AST) Subj: Re: The Merchant of Venice (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Wednesday, 1 Nov 1995 15:25:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hamlet Query In the speech to the players Hamlet says ". . .to show Virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure. . . ." Two questions: What are the sources for believing that these are traditional abstractions and that these abstractions have the genders which Hamlet applies to them? Does anyone know if Virtue, scorn, and the time have been connected with Ophelia, Gertrude, and Claudius? Thanks. C. David Frankel frankel@arts.usf.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kelly Lynne Hyatt Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 15:29:20 -0400 (AST) Subject: Re: The Merchant of Venice To Whom It May Concern, I am a student at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. During my Shakespeare class yesterday a discussion was brought forward concerning the source of Antonio's depression in The Merchant of Venice. Automatically Antonio's relationship to Bassinio was brought into question. This inquiry led to a highly spirited debate on whether his feelings were of a homosexual nature or purely platonical. This debate was only touched on and hardly resolved. I was just wondering if anyone could give me any further insight into this question. Thank you, Kelly Hyatt ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 15:35:55 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0870 Re: Julius Caesar; Laertes; Southampton; 15-Min. Ham. Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0670. Friday, 3 November 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 01 Nov 1995 16:55:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0862 Julius Caesar (2) From: Edward Friedlander, M.D. Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 14:03:34 CST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0862 Ham (3) From: Martin Green Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 19:01:25 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0859 Re: Interpretation; Southampton (4) From: Nick Ranson Date: Friday, 03 Nov 95 12:07:17 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0857 Qs: 15-Min. Ham.; (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 01 Nov 1995 16:55:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0862 Julius Caesar Just a point regarding Steve Sohmer's suggestion that Shakespeare played Julius Caesar, Don Foster says that Shakespeare's role or roles are "uncertain, due to apparent revision and shortening." But Don says "Most probably, Decius; and, somewhat less probably, Flavius." Steve's suggestion fits with the early rumor that Shakespeare's specialty was "kings" (as Don suggests in *1H4*, *H5*, *AWW,* etc.). Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Friedlander, M.D. Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 14:03:34 CST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0862 Ham I'd always figured that Laertes died faster than Hamlet did because Hamlet stabbed him hard and deep (Hamlet was angry) while Laertes just pricked Hamlet (Laertes was hesitant, afraid, and ashamed of himself, knew he was fouling Hamlet, and so forth.) I guess this is like asking "How many children did Lady Macbeth have? ("I have given suck, and....") Was she a wet-nurse, or children by a previous marriage, or ..." Blame the pathologist in me for being curious about Hamlet's wound. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Green Date: Thursday, 2 Nov 1995 19:01:25 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0859 Re: Interpretation; Southampton I must concede - - more in anger (at myself) than in sorrow (at being caught) - - John Owen's observation that I may be as full of hot air, and as given to flaming, as anybody else on this list. He has certainly pricked my balloon, and I am completely deflated. But having pleaded guilty, may I present (as we permit defendants to do in courts-martial) a couple of items in extenuation and mitigation? John Owen writes that my suggestion that through Southampton, Shakespeare had access to the Essex House circle, is an "unprovable assertion." That it may be, but all I claimed for it was that it was a reasonable surmise, based upon facts certain. I did not present as a "fact" Shakespeare's possible close personal relationship with Southampton, but I did say that that was a reasonable inference from the warmth of Shakespeare's SECOND dedication of a work to Southampton. And second, the charge that there is a lot of hot air on this list is not really a flame, because I don't believe that anyone will step forward and claim that I was defaming him or her; when the preacher denounces greed, lust, gluttony and hypocrisy, who in the congregation rises and says, "I resent this attack on me"? What I was "caught" at was claiming that Shakespeare's dedications to Southampton by themselves warrant inferences which (reasonable though they may be to me) many other reasonable persons find to be, in the absence of other evidence, just too speculative. Bill Godshalk's query as to whether any hard facts can be adduced that Shakespeare was indeed patronized by Southampton is the exactly right question, and one to which I have devoted much research, as a result of which I have assembled a "mountain of evidence" (of all types of mountains, as we have found out, the one most likely to wash away), which I think definitely demonstrates a close personal relationship between Shakespeare and Southampton, and I have published my findings and conclusions on this matter. I did not mention these other reasons (based primarily on puns and allusions in Venus and Adonis, Lucrece, the Sonnets, and the early plays) for positing a Shakespeare-Southampton relationship because I did not wish to appear to be promoting my work, which in any event cannot be easily summarized, but which does treat of Southampton's (positive) response to the dedications - - and of which I will here write no more . . . except, perhaps, to argue, preemptively, that I hope that one who has researched and written on a topic will not be too harshly criticized for posting to this list on a matter relating to that topic. But the bottom line is - - John Owen is right. And - - reverting to another matter - - perhaps one of the most valuable functions of this list is the pricking of hot air balloons. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Ranson Date: Friday, 03 Nov 95 12:07:17 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0857 Qs: 15-Min. Ham.; Fifteen Minute Hamlet: I have an LP and a dubbed tape of three versions of S toppar's Dogg's Troupe Hamlet I'd be glad to share: details privately on my ret urn next Monday if interested: email me direct. Nick. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 14:41:32 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0871 Re: Performance Styles Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0671. Monday, 6 November 1995. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Friday, 03 Nov 1995 16:45:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0864 Re: De-Canonization (2) From: Douglas Abel Date: Friday, 03 Nov 1995 14:04:31 -0700 (MST) Subj: Performance Styles--But seriously, folks . . . (3) From: David Akin Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 10:52:39 -0500 Subj: Performance Styles (4) From: Ed Pechter Date: Friday, 03 Nov 1995 21:06:22 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0867 Re: Performance Styles (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Friday, 03 Nov 1995 16:45:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0864 Re: De-Canonization To Roger Gross: Does _anyone_ [else] remember Kenneth Burke? or R. P. Blackmur? Their related critical techniques -- dramatistic analysis and the examination of "language as gesture" -- were already mouldy when I discovered them as a grad student, but they still seem to me to be the best guides to negotiating the leap from page to stage, to learning how to read the theatrical, human action in dramatic language. Jim Schaefer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Abel Date: Friday, 03 Nov 1995 14:04:31 -0700 (MST) Subject: Performance Styles--But seriously, folks . . . Anyone interested in a further examination of "Canadian" performance style, and its possible mix of British and American elements, might want to look at an interview I conducted with Canadian actor R. H. Thomson. It's in --Canadian Theatre Review-- 62, Spring, 1990. Douglas Abel, Ph.D., Keyano College, Fort McMurray, Alberta (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Akin Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 10:52:39 -0500 Subject: Performance Styles Interestingly enough, the exact same query is sparking the exact same thread on The Theatre Discussion List. From that, I pass on some comments from John Spokes. Spokes wrote on that list: "I have found that American audiences do not come to the theater with the same understanding of Shakespeare's text as British people do. For this reason, directors, actors and dramaturgs working on a Shakespeare production in America are more concerned with bringing clarity to the text than their Brittish counterparts. Specifically, I have witnessed a number of directors in the States focus a great deal of time on the first moments (first 15 minutes of the play), specifically to address the audience's inability to "grasp" the language from the start of the presentation." David Akin (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pechter Date: Friday, 03 Nov 1995 21:06:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0867 Re: Performance Styles I just got home comatose from a department meeting (it was a good meeting, usually I'm catatonic) to read on SHAKSPER that there were "riots in Quebec yesterday." A couple of jerks punched each other out after the referendum on Monday, but there were no riots. I think the last bona fide riot in Quebec was after Maurice (the Rocket) Richard got suspended back in the fifties. The last riot in ROC (the Rest of Canada, as we call it here) was in Vancouver a couple of years ago after the Rangers beat the Canucks in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals. We don't riot about silly things like national unity. Our smug and self-satisfied Canadian performance styles wouldn't permit it. Ici, tout n'est qu'ordre et beaute/Luxe, calme, et volopte. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 15:19:59 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0872 Re: De-Canonization Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0672. Monday, 6 November 1995. (1) From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 3 Nov 1995 15:48:38 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0864 Re: De-Canonization (2) From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 3 Nov 1995 15:48:38 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0864 Re: De-Canonization (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 03 Nov 1995 23:11:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0864 Re: De-Canonization (4) From: Andrea McRobbie Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 10:08:26 +1100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0864 Re: De-Canonization (5) From: Milla Riggio Date: Saturday, 04 Nov 1995 10:59:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0864 Re: De-Canonization (6) From: Tom Clayton Date: Monday, 06 Nov 1995 12:58:22 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0864.6 De-Canonization (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 3 Nov 1995 15:48:38 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0864 Re: De-Canonization Terence Hawkes finds me calling Brian Vickers from the vasty deep and assumes that I am calling him to denounce the cultural materialist claim that Shakespeare can be used for political ends. Of course, I did no such thing. Of course, Shakespeare can and has been used for political ends -- as Terence Hawkes does, as the Bonnie Prince does, as has always been done. I mentioned the dreaded Vickers to acknowledge my debt to him for the phrase "Show me their graves" which Vickers uses as he imagines confronting I forget what type of ideologue making the claim that, ere the clouds parted and Terry Eagleton or his ilk at last enlightened us all, Shakespeare criticism was wholly given over to fellows determined to be as simple-minded and chauvinistic as possible -- a useful myth for fellows who again and again bring Tillyard and Leavis to the smoking altar to make way for youth. In fact, when Vickers was invoked, I wasn't even talking about this but was answering the absurd claim that "we" were and are somehow convinced that only Shakespeare is big enough to be worried in an ample way about "eternal" questions. I merely pointed out that no-one I knew or have read makes this claim for Shakespeare -- casting Dante, Homer etc etc into the pit... All of this was part of an effort to show that no matter how nuanced and how informed a response made here is it will be reduced to a caricature if the reducers sense that it is somehow questioning this or that orthodoxy. Stating that reading Shakespeare in a certain way, questioning Shakespeare, being questioned back could make for persons who are "better and braver and more like human beings" at once triggers the assumption that what is really intended is some sort of right-wing, or essentialist, or elitist brainwashing. I mention Brian Vickers. At once Terence Hawkes is on the line wagging a cultural materialist finger at me satirically implicating me with all those fellows (where are they?) who claim Shakespeare cannot be used for political ends. Robert Appelbaum, seeing the word "better" wags his fingers and reminds us that there are probably better fellows than any of us singing the Folsom Prison Blues. This might be relevant if anyone had claimed that reading Shakespeare in that certain way was a necessary or even sufficient condition for becoming "better, braver etc." but, since no-one has done this, the reminder is completely irrelevant -- no matter how pious. It hardly enforces the view that the argument anent "better" is ridiculous -- it has nothing to say to the argument. There are, I would guess, lots of ways to become "better etc" -- sitting under the Bodhi tree, meekly listening to someone else, riding one's bicycle to work, bathing regularly, taking a course in logic...who knows...but the fact that this is true has no bearing on the point made. And, in fact, "becoming better" ( I need to state this again) is absolutely the justification used by the many many advocates of the New, of de-mystification and so on. Terence Hawke's criticism, for example, is a moral criticism: we will be de-mystified when we learn that "Shakespeare" is merely a site of contending ideologies. We will want to speak strongly to Prince Charles. It is an eminently Victorian criticism carried out by an eminent Shakespearean (I wish he had chosen that title) and its object is to produce better persons and it does so by using Shakespeare, his revenant. The objection is to what it is suspected that "better" might imply: it is always taken to imply the worst. Of course, since "literature" and the "literary" are assumed to be mystifications created by wily ideologues, it is impossible that an attempt to avoid all this by invoking these terms would not be rejected out of hand. But this is what is happening and many a wight sick unto death of the Clash of the Titans in a Parklike Setting is discovering poetry, the drama etc. once again and yearning for a way out of, for example, the myth of the myth of Shakespeare, the simplicities of current theories (one longs for the days when they were complex), and the requirement that the beauty, complexity, strangeness, and essential inexhaustibility of the literary be reduced to slogans. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Friday, 3 Nov 1995 23:02:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0864 Re: De-CanonizationFrom: Joseph M Green Date: Friday, 3 Nov 1995 15:48:38 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0864 Re: De-Canonization At the risk of sounding like a Restoration gossip . . . In response to Terence Hawkes's exclamation about the current Royal family promoting the Bard, I heard an interesting story recently about Sir Robert Stevens performance as Falstaff at the National(?), which, apparently, our very own dear Prince of Wales saw. He approached Sir Robert after the performance to congratulate him and to express the wish that he had been mentored as a budding Prince as Hal had been mentored by Falstaff (!!). It was also suggested that Sir Robert and Charles perform some scenes together as Falstaff and Hal, though whether this would be a public spectacle or simply "up at the Palace" I don't know. (My source for this information is a relative of Sir Robert). All this could be apocryphal, but I guess I'd *like* to believe it. How clever and far-sighted of our monarch-would-be to draw attention to the performance inherent in the continuation of the monarchy . . . Simon. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 03 Nov 1995 23:11:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0864 Re: De-Canonization I'm sure that Terry Hawkes finds it annoying to be a subject of a monarch, and that he would much rather be a citizen of a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, political leaders must never admit to reading and/or enjoying Shakespeare's plays on pain of losing their political positions. In fact, leaders like Jesse Helms and his peers go even further and decry anything that smacks of "art" -- including intelligent conversation. In the U.S., Terry would be able to see the true subversive nature of Shakespeare's words. A mere passing allusion to the Bard can be the end of a powerful politician. Beward the Bard that bites! Yours, Bill the Wise (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrea McRobbie Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 10:08:26 +1100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0864 Re: De-Canonization Hello all, Terence Hawkes responds to Joseph Green's detailed arguments and queries with jocularity, the last joke of which which I assume relates to Prince Charles' recent comments on the teaching of Shakespeare in British schools. Given the propensity of the heir to the throne to say what he thinks on any number of issues without seeming to take much account of political sensitivity and his oft-expressed interest in the theatrical, I wonder, being a naive colonial lass, if Terence Hawkes has any actual evidence that the Prince's views represent more a cynical, politically motivated manipulation of public opinion than the simple beliefs of a fellow who just happens to be a Prince. Andrea McRobbie (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Saturday, 04 Nov 1995 10:59:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0864 Re: De-Canonization Dear Stephanie Hughes: Can you tell us more about the "Juliet letters"? Where do people write to Juliet, and who knows about it? How could one get information on this odd Ms. Lonelyhearts phenomenon? Thanks. Milla Riggio (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Monday, 06 Nov 1995 12:58:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0864.6 De-Canonization Terence Hawkes's perfunctory dismissal of Joseph M Green's detailed and thoughtful comments was gratuitous, but it refutes nothing in condemning Green by association with Hawkes's canonical demons Brian Vickers and the Royal Family; or by stating the obvious, that Shakespeare "might be used for political [or other extraneous] ends." There needs no cultural materialist come from the grave to tell us this; Aristotle says as much in the Rhetoric, as if even that reminder were necessary. Shakespeare's works speak well for themselves and about a lot of us, if allowed an unencumbered hearing. All that is needed is more Shakespeare--than is typically allowed even by quotation in programmatic detractions--and an audience intelligent and/or educated well enough to understand the language and free enough of ideologically hostile indoctrination to take it as it comes, whether on page or stage, preferably both, in that order. A good reason for Shakespeare to be required is that in our culture many would *not* come to his works as a matter of course, sometimes on account of sheer unfamiliarity or a name poisoned as "high culture"; and might well be categori- cally deterred by the often persuasive rhetoric or downright power of his detractors. The various benefits of reading, hearing and seeing, and studying his works are worth cur- ricular support. If they are not, what is? Cheers, Tom ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 15:32:06 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0873 Re: Desdemona's Death; Q: Othello and Ethnicity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0873. Monday, 6 November 1995. (1) From: Stuart Rice Date: Friday, 03 Nov 1995 23:17:08 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0866 Re: Desdemona's death (2) From: Carmine Di Biase Date: Sunday, 05 Nov 95 11:22:57 CST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0866 Re: Desdemona's death (3) From: Amy E. Hughes Date: Saturday, 4 Nov 1995 01:35:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Desdemona's Death (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 05 Nov 1995 21:56:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0866 Re: Desdemona's death (5) From: Shaul Bassi Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 18:19:26 +0100 (MET) Subj: Coleridge and Lamb on Othello (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Rice Date: Friday, 03 Nov 1995 23:17:08 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0866 Re: Desdemona's death Perhaps my somewhat flippant response to your query, Mr. Purdy, lacked the kind of evidence I would behoove in others. To produce evidence for my assumption I turn to the Quarto of _Othello_, dated 1622 (per its title page) and to the Folio of 1623. The line you quote is rendered as: Q: I that am cruel,am yet mercifull, I would not haue thee linger in thy paine, --- so, so. F: I that am cruell,am yet mercifull, I would not haue thee linger in thy paine? So,so. Many modern editions of _Othello_ includes a stage direction "(He dispatches her)." This, of course, is not included in the original publication, but represents, I think, a logical inference. Rather than suggesting that he again smothers her -- which would perhaps increase her agony -- I assume this means he stabs her. This conjecture is further supported by the fact that he is apparently disarmed by Montano in this scene, for in the Folio it reads: F: ...take you this weapon Which I have recouer'd from the Moore: Out of these textual clues, I have often deduced that Othello stabs her. Your citing of "Yet I'll not shed her blood,/Nor scar that whiter skin of hers, then Snow," is an astute defense, but I would argue that even the best laid plans often go astray. Such, I think, is the way of the other commonly read tragedies, which I would cite as: _Macbeth_, _Romeo and Juliet_, _Hamlet_, _Othello_, and _King Lear_. In each, plans go astray because of circumstance. I tend to believe this is true with Othello's plan not to "scar" her. Since he is bewildered by the fact that he hears someone after he "smothers" or "stifles" her, I find it not unreasonable to assume that he would have done the very thing he said he wouldn't. Yours, Stuart Rice Kenyon College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carmine Di Biase Date: Sunday, 05 Nov 95 11:22:57 CST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0866 Re: Desdemona's death To me what has always made Desdemona's death moving is the very absence of a stabbing (or at least I've always thought there was no stabbing). The fact that so many other stabbings do tkae place makes Desdemon's death - a suffocation - delicate, grotesquely so. The emphasis is on her last breaths. I believe tht Ovid's story of Cephalus and Procris is behind all of ths, informing the deth scene for those who are familia r with the tale. In Ovid, Cephalus accidentally kills Procris, his wife , while he is hunting (nd while she is spying on him). She then dies in his arms, as she breathes her last breath into his mouth. It's a moving passage, in in Golding's wooden verse. Jonathan Bate believes this is so as well (see his new book Shakespeare and Ovid). And I belie ve the tale forms the mythic foundtion of a Shakespeare play that is parallel in many ways to Othello: Cymbeline. In both plays, there is the threat of a violent death, involving knoves or swords, and that threat, which is never realized, is what gives both plays much of their force. My rticle on Cymbeline is in Cahiers Elisabethains (October, 1994): Pettie, Ovid, and the Mythic Foundation of Cymbeline. Carmine Di Biase (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy E. Hughes Date: Saturday, 4 Nov 1995 01:35:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Desdemona's Death More thoughts about Desdemona's death... 1) I agree with Scott Purdy re: stabbing question. Othello's desire is to keep her looking beautiful even after death, indicated especially by the line "Be thus when thou art dead/And I will kill thee and love thee after." (Necrophillia?) The "I'll not shed her blood" is another indicator. 2) In many editions, the stage direction reads, "Smothers her." I just finished directing the play and decided on having him "strangle her" instead, since that is Iago's instruction in 4.1: "Do it not with poison/Strangle her in her bed." The choice was perhaps uninformed, however; was the "smothers her" one of Shakespeare's stage directions? or an editor's? (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 05 Nov 1995 21:56:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0866 Re: Desdemona's death As far as I can see, there is no evidence in the script that Othello stabs Desdemona (at 5.2.89 or so). He Quarto has Othello stifling her, and the Folio smothering. The "So, so" may simply mean that he finishes the job of killing her "without blemish," the immaculate murder. It is rather interesting that Iago likes to maculate, to make the clean dirty, to poison, etc. But he doesn't want others to do the same: "Do it not with poison; strangle her in her bed" (Riverside 4.1.207), he tells Othello. Iago will do all the blemishing. Yours, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shaul Bassi Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 18:19:26 +0100 (MET) Subject: Coleridge and Lamb on Othello Looking at Romantic criticism on Othello, I've been struck by the mixed reactions to the skin-colour "problem". While critics such as Hugo and Hazlitt put blackness to a symbolical use, both Lamb and Coleridge appear to be very disturbed by this element and try either to explain it away in a variety of ways or to play down its relevance. They also bring it as a self-explanatory example of how Shakespeare is better read than seen on stage. In the copious literature on Shakespeare and ethnicity (including the material recently quoted by SHAKSPEReans in their discussion on black actors), I still haven't found anything specific on this particular Romantic attitude. Can anyone help me with comments and references? My sincere thanks. Shaul Bassi (a Jew of Venice at the University of Pisa, currently in Liverpool) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 15:43:00 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0874 Re: Riots; 15 Min. Ham; Julius Caesar; Southampton Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0874. Monday, 6 November 1995. (1) From: Douglas Abel Date: Friday, 03 Nov 1995 13:43:26 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0867 Re: Performance Styles (2) From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 4 November 1995 0:08am ET Subj: SHK 6.0869 Qs: *Hamlet*; *MV* (3) From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 4 November 1995 0:15am ET Subj: SHK 6.0870 Re: Julius Caesar; L (4) From: Steve Sohmer Date: Friday, 3 Nov 1995 16:22:52 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0870 Re: Julius Caesar (5) From: Susan Mather Date: Sunday, 5 Nov 1995 13:19:17 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0870 Re: Southampton; (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Abel Date Friday, 03 Nov 1995 13:43:26 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0867 Re: Performance Styles Re Robert Applebaum's mention of riots in Quebec (on the wrong day) I wonder how an American scholar would recognize such activity. I thought the U.S. standard was that anything less than 50,000 people involved, with less than ten fatal shootings, was either called recreation or normal street activity . . . Douglas Abel Fort McMurray, Alberta . . . also trained at the U of T, among other places (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 4 November 1995 0:08am ET Subject: SHK 6.0869 Qs: *Hamlet*; *MV* In response to C. David Frankel's query about the genders of virtue, scorn, and time. Time is easy;--consistently and routinely figured as masculine in visual and verbal iconography from early days; who knows not the old guy with the scythe and the hourglass? Virtue is a little more complicated; OED indicates that the personified figure was sometimes masculine (no doubt in recognition of the word's ultimate root, _vir_), sometimes feminine, perhaps by attraction to the individual virtues--Faith, Hope, Charity, etc.--almost always represented as females. Scorn is hardest, perhaps because personified abstractions typically have Latinate rather than Germanic names, and I know no fully satisfactory Latin, French, or Italian translation for the English word. The closest I can come is Disdain (Lat. _dedegnare_), who like Virtue is sometimes masculine (as in Faerie Queene 6.7.40-44) and sometimes feminine--Shakespeare himself, at around the time he wrote Hamlet, was having Benedick address Beatrice as "Lady Disdain" (Ado 1.1.118). Scornlessly, David Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 4 November 1995 0:15am ET Subject: SHK 6.0870 Re: Julius Caesar; L There's another 15-minute _Hamlet_ besides Stoppard's, the one done by the Reduced Shakespeare Company (RSC), very funny, which leads to a 5-minute _Hamlet_, sidesplitting, which leads to a 1-minute _Hamlet_, fall out of your seat wondering why laughing so hard hurts so much. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Friday, 3 Nov 1995 16:22:52 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0870 Re: Julius Caesar Could Don Foster be so kind as to advise why he believes Shakespeare played other than the title role in Julius Caesar? I knew Decius, and Will didn't look a bit like him. Steve Sohmer (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Sunday, 5 Nov 1995 13:19:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0870 Re: Southampton; Martin Green, I would be interested to know what works you have written on the relationship of Shakespeare and Southhampton. Next semester, I plan on doing research on the sonnets--especially those which I have always taken to refer to Southampton. Looking forward to hearing from you! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 15:50:25 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0875 jOB aNNOUNCEMENT Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0875. Monday, 6 November 1995. From: Mihoko Suzuki Date: Sunday, 05 Nov 1995 20:31:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Assistant Professor Opening The University of Miami is searching for an Assistant Professor in Renaissance and early modern literature, with an emphasis in cultural studies, including but not limited to queer theory and/or gender studies. Please send a letter of application, c.v., and dossier to: Mihoko Suzuki, Chair, Renaissance and Early Modern Search Committee, Department of English, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124-4632. The dead line as stated in the MLA Job Information List is Nov. 10, but we will continue to accept applications; to receive full consideration for an MLA interview, however, materials should reach us by Nov. 22. Mihoko Suzuki msuzuki@umiami.ir.miami.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 15:53:33 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0876 Re: Happy *Lear* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0876. Monday, 6 November 1995. (1) From: Susan Mather Date: Sunday, 5 Nov 1995 13:49:36 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0860 Re: Happy *Lear* (2) From: Susan Mather Date: Sunday, 5 Nov 1995 13:34:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0865 Re: Happy *Lear* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Sunday, 5 Nov 1995 13:49:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0860 Re: Happy *Lear* I am giving a presentation on a paper I did on Lear where I used Jung's conception of projection. I said that the reason Cordelia dies is that while living, Lear used her as a target for his projections, a mirror. Notice--even after she dies he asks for a mirror--albeit, to see if she have breath--but even more so because he cannot bear to face himself alone--and yet--he must if he is to ever be a distinct, separate individual. I'm using this paper as a start for my Master's Thesis--so wish me luck--and send materials my way if you find anything on Lear! Take Care- (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Sunday, 5 Nov 1995 13:34:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0865 Re: Happy *Lear* Just as a joke--to keep our minds off the fact that our English dept. may not have funds to support new blood in the Ph.D program. A friend of mine who is in the Women in the Renaissance class with me decided to come up with names of actors who could star in The Tragedy of Mariam, Queen of Jewry. This might not be as funny as it was at lunch on Friday for Nick mimicked how each actor would sound in the role of Mariam, of Herod, Salome. He started out with an all Lewis cast--Richard Lewis, Jerry Lewis, etc. Jerry Lewis as Herod--"Helllooo, Ladeee!" Carol Channing he felt would make a great Salome. I realize that this is a Shakespeare listserv--but my motto is if you love Shakespeare--you might be interested in his contemporaries as well. It's a great play--the notes at the bottom cite references to King Lear but it has similarities with Othello. My professor, Dr. Corthell chose those books in a sort of sequence with pamphlets on women's abuse, etc. Take care- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 13:51:52 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0877 Announcements: CFP; Job; Conference (Post-coloniality) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0877. Wednesday, 8 November 1995. (1) From: T. Scott Clapp Date: Monday, 06 Nov 1995 14:41:09 -0700 (MST) Subj: Call for Papers (2) From: Renee Pigeon Date: Monday, 06 Nov 1995 20:08:47 -0800 Subj: Anticipated Tenure-Track Position (3) From: Martin Orkin <071MRO@muse.arts.wits.ac.za> Date: Wednesday, 8 Nov 1995 10:28:36 GMT + 2:00 Subj: Shakespeare-Post-coloniality-Johannesburg 1996 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: T. Scott Clapp Date: Monday, 06 Nov 1995 14:41:09 -0700 (MST) Subject: Call for Papers DEADLINE EXTENSION December 15, 1995 The Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Arizona State University invites papers for its second annual interdisciplinary conference on February 15-17, 1996. Papers on any topic in Medieval or Early Modern studies are acceptable. Papers related to the conference theme, _The Future of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: Problems, Trends, and Opportunities in Research,_ are automatically considered for publication in the second volume of the new "Arizona Studies in the Middle Ages and Renaissance" series, published by Brepols Publishers of Belgium. Papers dealing with any facet of the Mediterranean region will be automatically considered for publication in the journal _Mediterranean Studies,_ sponsored by the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, the Medieval and Renaissance Colloquium (MARC) at the University of Michigan, and ACMRS at Arizona State University. The setting of the conference is the Radisson Mission Palms Hotel, a five-star luxury resort featuring swimming pool, sauna, and proximity to numerous attractions in the Phoenix-Scottsdale-Tempe area. The hotel is just two blocks from the ASU campus and 15 minutes from the Phoenix airport. The high temperature in the "Valley of the Sun" during February averages 70 degrees. The conference registration fee is just $45 and includes welcoming reception, two days of concurrent sessions, concert, complimentary refreshments between sessions, and keynote address. The conference keynote speaker will be Marcia L. Colish, Frederick B. Artz Professor of History at Oberlin College, former president of The Medieval Academy of America, and author of the highly-acclaimed _The Mirror of Language: A Study in the Medieval Theory of Knowledge._ She will speak on "Re-envisioning the Middle Ages: A View from Intellectual History." The conference will also host _The Medieval Book: A Workshop in Codicological Practice._ This pre-conference half-day workshop led by Richard Clement, University of Kansas, will focus on the making of the medieval codex. Participants will discuss the preparation of parchment and paper, the making of pens and ink, and then will make and prepare several quires in preparation for writing. NOTE: This workshop does not cover scripts and is not calligraphic. By December 15, send two copies of session proposals, one-page abstracts, or complete papers, along with two copies of your current c.v., to the program committee chair: Robert E. Bjork, Director, ACMRS, Arizona State University, Box 872301, Tempe, AZ 85287-2301. Email: robert.bjork@asu.edu. Phone: (602) 965-5900. Fax: (602) 965-1681. T. Scott Clapp, Program Coordinator ACMRS (AZ Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies) Arizona State University PO Box 872301 Tempe, AZ 85287-2301 Phone: (602) 965-5900; FAX: (602) 965-1681 Internet: Scott.Clapp@asu.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Renee Pigeon Date: Monday, 06 Nov 1995 20:08:47 -0800 Subject: Anticipated Tenure-Track Position Anticipated Tenure-Track Faculty Position: September 1996 California State University, San Bernardino Area of Specialization: Renaissance non-dramatic or Shakespeare Position: Assistant Professor Duties and Responsibilities: Teach survey, period, genre, author courses and senior seminars in Renaissance non-dramatic literature or Shakespeare. Possible expertise in critical theory desirable. Regular course load is 3 courses per quarter. Every faculty member teaches composition regularly. It is expected that the successful candidate will have regular advising duties and will serve on departmental and School committees. Qualifications: Ph.D. in hand by Sept. 1996; teaching experience required; teaching experience beyond the teaching assistantship desirable. Promise of scholarly ability. Salary: Starting salaries are nationally competitive and commensurate with qualifications and experience. Applications: Send letter of application and vita to: Loralee MacPike, Chair English Department California State University, San Bernardino San Bernardino, CA 92407-2397 Application Deadline: We hope to do initial interviewing at MLA. Applications will be accepted until the position is filled. We will begin screening applications December 1, 1995. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Orkin <071MRO@muse.arts.wits.ac.za> Date: Wednesday, 8 Nov 1995 10:28:36 GMT + 2:00 Subject: Shakespeare-Post-coloniality-Johannesburg 1996 Shakespeare - Post-coloniality - Johannesburg 1996 Conference to be held at the University of the Witwatersrand June 30 - July 4 1996 Keynote Address, Papers, Seminars, Workshop Keynote Address: Ania Loomba, Jawaharlal Nehru University Other Participants so far: Frances Barker (Essex) Thomas Berger (St Lawrence) Barbara Bowen (City of New York) Beth Brand (Wits) Jerry Brotton (Queen Mary and Westfield) Jonathan Burton (City of New York) Thomas Cartelli (Muhlenberg) Dympna Callaghan (Syracuse) Dipesh Chakrabarty (Chicago) Carli Coetzee (Cape Town) Derek Cohen (York, Canada) Ann Cook (Vanderbilt) Jonathan Dollimore (Sussex) John Drakakis (Stirling) Colin Gardner (Natal) Stephen Gray, Imtiaz Habib (Old Dominion) Kim Hall (Georgetown) Carolyn Hamilton (Wits) Geoffrey Haresnape (Cape Town) Terence Hawkes (Wales) Margo Hendricks (Santa Cruz) Mark Heywood (Wits) Mark Houlahan (Waikato New Zealand) Isabel Hofmeyr (Wits) Jean Howard (Columbia) Peter Hulme (Essex) David Johnson (Natal) Leon de Kock (Unisa) Kyung-Won Lee (Yonsei Korea) Windsor Leroke (Wits) Arthur Little (UCLA) Robert Maclaren (Zimbabwe) Stoffel Mahlabe (University of the North-West) Shelley Malka (Wits) Donald Moerdijk (ENS de Fontenay St Cloud Paris) P W Mwikisa (Botswana) Martin Orkin (Wits) Avraham Oz (Haifa) Jean Peterson (Bucknell) Debbie Posel (Wits) Marcus Ramogale (University of the North) Aimara de Cunha Resende (UFMG Brazil) Denis Salter (McGill) David Schalkwyk (Cape Town) Efraim Sicher (Ben Gurion) Alan Sinfield (Sussex) Mark Singer (Buffalo) Jyotsna Singh (Southern Methodist) Bruce Smith (Georgetown) Kelwyn Sole (Cape Town) C M Thosago (University of the North) Joanne Tompkins (La Trobe) Nic Visser (Cape Town) Gauri Viswanathan (Columbia) Lawrence Wright (Rhodes) Charles Whitney (Nevada) Seminars Seminar 1: `Nation', Travel, Empire Leader: John Drakakis How are we to study `nation', `travel', `empire' in the Shakespeare text, and within our own `post'-colonial/neo-colonial condition? How do we connect notions of `nation', nationalism, travel and empire in theory and in practice to our own conditions of pedagogy and research? Seminar 2: Reading global literatures within `post-coloniality'/neo- colonialism Seminar Leader: Windsor Leroke Does `"post"-coloniality' have any meaning in a South African context? What parts of this theory - if any - are `exportable' and why? How are material conditions including those involving academic work within `post'-colonial environments to be a factor in the study of the metropolitan text? How are we to re-appropriate or re-read metropolitan texts? How has the Shakespeare text been appropriated in Africa? In what ways is the Shakespeare text to be used in the future? What kinds of readings might be appropriate? Can the Shakespeare text survive? Seminar 3: Empire/Difference: `Race', Gender, Sexuality, Religion Seminar Leader: Barbara Bowen How are we to study `race', gender, sexuality, religion within the `post'-colonial/neo/colonial condition? What does `difference' mean outside the North-American and European metropolis? What constitutes `religion' in the Shakespeare text? Against what is it constructed? How does the text construct `other' religions? Seminar 4: Shakespeare in Education Seminar Leaders: Thomas Berger and Colin Gardner What pedagogy and what methodologies are appropriate within the `post'-colonial situation? To what extent will such a pedagogy force a reconsideration of `main-stream' teaching? Workshop on Southern African and South Asian Studies Workshop Leader: Isabel Hofmeyr Several position papers will be presented at this session for discussion. Abstracts of papers should be submitted to the Seminar Leader c/o Martin Orkin (please see address below) by the Conference Registration date 25 February 1996 at the very latest. Papers will be circulated well in advance of the seminar which will itself be devoted to discussion. Conference Registration Date: 25 February 1996 Fees Delegates registering by 25 February 1996 R200 Students registering by 25 February 1996 R100 Delegates registering late, after 25 February R300 Students registering late, after 25 February R150 The main hotel accommodation will be at the Rosebank Hotel situated in Rosebank. The cost of the hotel will be at a discounted price of approximately R378 for a single room per night and R423 for a double room per night. In addition to the Rosebank Hotel, bed and breakfast accommodation will be available in suburbs reasonably close to the University, although not within walking distance. The price for such accommodation averages at around R90 for a single room per night and R180 for a double room per night. Please send all abstracts, registration fees, requests for accommodation and any other enquiries to Martin Orkin Conference Co-ordinator Africa/Shakespeare Committee University of the Witwatersrand Private Bag 3 PO Wits 2050 South Africa Tel: 011 447 2075 Fax: 011 403 7309 e-mail: 071MRO@muse.arts.wits.ac.za ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 13:56:40 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0878 Re: Desdemona's Death Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0878. Wednesday, 8 November 1995. (1) From: Michael Saenger Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 17:15:11 -0500 Tubj: Re: SHK 6.0873 Re: Desdemona's Death (2) From: Susan Mather Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 17:19:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0873 Re: Desdemona's Death (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 17:15:11 -0500 Tubject: Re: SHK 6.0873 Re: Desdemona's Death One interesting resonance of Desdemona's death, if it is bloodless, would be the clean sheets. In the Renaissance, the consummation of a marriage would often be "announced" by hanging the blood-spotted sheets for a village to see (this would prove both the virility of the man and the virginity of the bride). It is then a tragic irony that Othello kills his pure bride, instead of making love with her, on the very bed that should be bloody. If his manner of killing her is with a pillow, it underlines his emasculation, since to envelope with a pillow resembles female sexual attack, rather than masculine stabbing. This is quite a reversal for a warrior such as Othello. So on the night of consummation, things are consumed, inverted, tragically misunderstood. While Othello is aware of none of this, we can, in retrospect, see a web of tragic irony. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 17:19:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0873 Re: Desdemona's Death Today I was talking to someone about this thing about Desdemona--what about--he broke her neck? Could very well be since he didn't want to spill her blood. I recently saw the Miller version with Hopkins/Hoskins. I don't think that this action at the end was clear either way. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 14:26:26 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0879 Re: Othello and Ethnicity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0879. Wednesday, 8 November 1995. (1) From: Jean Peterson Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 16:32:01 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0873 Q: Othello and Ethnicity (2) From: Stephen Buhler Date: Tuesday, 7 Nov 1995 09:24:57 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: Romantics and Race (3) From: Amy E. Hughes Date: Tuesday, 7 Nov 1995 21:57:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Race in *Othello* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 16:32:01 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0873 Q: Othello and Ethnicity Reply to Shaul Bassi: Michael Neill's "Unproper Beds: Race, Adultery and the Hideous" in Shakespeare Quarterly 40 (1989) deals specifically with racist 19th-century views, as does Karen Newman's "Wash the Ethiope White" essay (I've forgotten the exact title, and in what essay collection it appears--can someone help?), which is reproduced as a chapter in her book "Fashioning Femininity." Both terrific essays, in my view. Martin Orkin's "Othello and the Plain Face of Racism" in SQ 38 (1987) might (faulty memory again) also take up some of these issues. Jean Peterson Bucknell University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Buhler Date: Tuesday, 7 Nov 1995 09:24:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Romantics and Race Shaul Bassi might want to take at look at Karen Newman's "'And wash the Ethiop white': femininity and the monstrous in *Othello*," in *Shakespeare Reproduced*, ed. Jean Howard and Marion O'Connor (NY and London: Methuen, 1987), pp. 142-62. The second half of the title deliberately borrows a term from Coleridge, who serves as one of Newman's prime examples of how readers -- as well as characters within the play -- have responded to Othello's and Desdemona's marriage. Stephen M. Buhler (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy E. Hughes Date: Tuesday, 7 Nov 1995 21:57:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Race in *Othello* In hopeful response to Mr. Bassi's questioning regarding Othello's relative blackness, as well as the Elizabethan attitude towards Moors, I can offer some recent research I did in preparation for my production. Eldred Jones in *Othello's Countrymen* writes, "For poets and dramatists the most interesting aspect of Africa was its strangeness. No other part of Pliny was more fascinating to writers than the sections in which he descrives the fantastic specimens of human and sub-human life in Africa." Passages in the play suggest that Othello is not "light-skinned" or half-black, either. Roderigo calls him "the thick-lips;" Iago calls him "an old black ram" and plays the race card in the temptation scene, refering to the differences in complexion between Desdemona and Othello. Othello says "Haply, for I am black" and "black as my own face." These are just a few of them. As for the Elizabethan attitude?---most evidence I found supports the idea that it was a racist one. Eldred Jones writes, "Many dramatists used the terms Moor, Negro or Ethiop in a simile of blackness, cruelty, jealousy, lustfulness or some other quality commonly credited to Africans." "The opportunities for seeing Africans in London grew as the century wore on. W.E. Miller cites two assessments of strangers in the parish of All Hallows, London in 1599 which gives the names of four Negroes, three of whom were female, living in the parish. Indeed there were so many Negroes in London by 1601 that [Queen Elizabeth] had cause to be 'discontented at the great number of "Negars and blackamoors" which are crept into the realm since the troubles between her Highness and the King of Spain,' and for her to appoint a certain Caspar Van Zeuden, merchant of Lubeck, to transport them out of the country." "A comparison between [Shakespeare's] Aaron in *Titus Andronicus* and his noble Moor shows two extremes in his work. In the earlier play, he is the young dramatist exploiting the tastes of his times; in the later [*Othello*] he is the mature dramatist flying in the face of tradition --- a creator rather than a follower of popular taste." This seems to lead to two conclusions: 1) Shakespeare and his audience knew what Moors looked like, and 2) they didn't like them. *Othello*, therefore, becomes more complicated: in the context of its time, it both defied the stereotype (a Moor with status enough to be a general and get away with marrying a white woman) and followed it (a Moor whose "jealous and violent nature" defeats his status). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 14:44:20 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0880 Re: *The Juliet Letters* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0880. Wednesday, 8 November 1995. (1) From: Stephen Buhler Date: Tuesday, 7 Nov 1995 09:51:48 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: The Juliet Letters (2) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, November 8, 1995 Subj: *The Juliet Letters* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Buhler Date: Tuesday, 7 Nov 1995 09:51:48 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: The Juliet Letters For Milla Riggio: *The Juliet Letters* is also the title of a collaborative musical work by Elvis Costello and the Brodsky Quartet. The CD was released in early 1993, I believe, and a video presentation of the song cycle has aired on a number of PBS affiliates. The songs draw their initial inspiration from the mail that continues to be sent to "Juliet Capulet" in Verona; word of the project prompted some journalists to take a closer look at the phenomenon. Newspaper articles appeared in *The Wall Street Journal*, November 10, 1992, and *The New York Times*, March 15, 1993. Mr. Costello is no newcomer to such matters: his first album, *My Aim Is True*, contains the feral (and hilarious) track "Mystery Dance," which begins Romeo was restless, he was ready to kill . . . . As Ricardus Parvus might say: "Pergis pulsare, sed non potes introire." Stephen M. Buhler (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, November 8, 1995 Subject: The Juliet Letters In the notes accompanying my copy of *The Juliet Letters*, Elvis Costello's colloboration with the Brodsky Quartet, Costello (aka Declan MacManus) writes, . . . My wife, Cait, pointed out the tiny newspaper item about a Veronese academic who had taken on the task of replying to letters addressed to "Juliet Capulet." This apparently continued for a number of years, until some gentlemen of the press exposed this secret correspondence. Quite how he can by these letters in the first place remains unclear. We can only make a guess as to their content. . . What was contained in these letters and their replies, the idea of this correspondence provided our initial inspiration. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 15:38:36 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0881 Re: Prince Charles and De-Canonization Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0881. Wednesday, 8 November 1995. (1) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Tuesday, 7 Nov 1995 12:32:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0872 Re: De-Canonization (2) From: James Schaefer Date: Monday, 06 Nov 1995 17:21:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Prince Chuck (3) From: Tom Clayton Date: Monday, 06 Nov 1995 16:36:19 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0872 Re: De-Canonization (4) From: Victor Gallerano Date: Wednesday, 8 Nov 1995 06:16:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: de-canonization (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Tuesday, 7 Nov 1995 12:32:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0872 Re: De-Canonization Re Simon's comment on Prince Charles' desire to play opposite Robert Stephens' Falstaff at the palace: Yes, it really happened. A friend reported to me that she heard it over the radio last Thursday night, or at least heard them reading the extemporary play scene, not the whole of _Henry IV, Part One_ (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Monday, 06 Nov 1995 17:21:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Prince Chuck Being the same age as the Prince of Wales, I've often wondered what he and his siblings thought about being read fairy tales (assuming they WERE read fairy tales) about kings and queens et al., stories that can be nothing but patent fantasy to all but a handful of (mostly related) individuals in the world. How did this affect their developing psyches (per Bettleheim, etc)? And now I'm wondering how Charles et al. reacts to dramas about kings of England. SO.... has anyone seen anything written about this, by a member of the royal family or others? Anything other than ER I getting upset and hanging earls for the possibly subversive subtext of a play? I don't supposed this is directly relevant to this list, but for the question of the relationship between art and life.... Jim Schaefer (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Monday, 06 Nov 1995 16:36:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0872 Re: De-Canonization Hi, Glen, fire away! Cheers, Tom (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Victor Gallerano Date: Wednesday, 8 Nov 1995 06:16:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: de-canonization Simon, Two or three quick thoughts here during a week of interminable student conferences ("You mean you really wanted us to write a first draft, Mr. Gallerano?") It seems to me that you rounded-up all the right suspects and then convicted the prosecution. (Is there a recent precedent for that?) 1st: Plato no more than Shakespeare ever gives a direct exposition of his "understanding" of "human being." What they both give is a cast of characters all of which look and sound enough like the forked creature to remind us of the real ones we see arou nd us. The first ground for student resistance to these "word-things" is the lack of exposure that 20th cent., Mall-Child culture gives them to their own kind. 2nd: They (students) believe the orthodoxy that says they are wholey and merely products of the late 20th century, or more precisely that, rather than being a kind of being, they are a kind of "consciousness." Among other things, this makes their consid erations of anyone "other" than themselves an exercise in channel-surfing. They've nothing at stake because they are convinced (and smugly satisfied with the opinion) that they can't get beyond the cage of their late 20th century-ness anyway. 3rd: Greenblatt isn't Tillyard, but historicism is historicism. Flannery O'Connor might say, "Ain't a who'lotta duff'rence 'tween them kinds." Whether it derives from nostalgia or an institutional dis-ease, they depend upon the same kinds of assumption about history and what can and can't be known. 4th: Historicism is orthodoxy despite all the reformation of late. Moreover, the new generation of historisicts is chillin' at the mall right now. Yours in recusant humanism, vic ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 15:50:04 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0882 Qs: TN; Curse; Queer Theory; P. Lost; Rivals Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0882. Wednesday, 8 November 1995. (1) From: Rod Osiowy Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 15:44:29 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: Twelfth Night (2) From: Rick Robinson Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 22:36:13 -0500 Subj: Origin of the Curse of the "Scottish Play" (3) From: Robert Dennis Date: Tuesday, 7 Nov 1995 08:14:00 -0500 Subj: [Q: Queer Theory] (4) From: Leslie D. Harris Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 22:46:00 -0500 Subj: Critical Reading on Paradise Lost (5) From: Milla Riggio Date: Tuesday, 07 Nov 1995 20:46:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: [Q: *The Rivals*] (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rod Osiowy Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 15:44:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Twelfth Night The discussion of which style of presentation is better, ie American, Canadian, or UK style of Shakespeare is an interesting one. I can't count the number of truly aweful performances done in North America by people trying to emmulate British accents. Then again, the performances of the Bard's work by Canadians and Americans done with local dialects, indigenous to North America have been some of the most refreshing that I've seen. I am currently searching for a video of Twelfth Night done in North America, on stage. Any production that has been innovative, distinct, and possibly contemporized...and is of excellent quality is what I'm looking for. Please e mail me direct if you can. I couldn't get through to Nick, for the Hamlet line. Please write back. Thanks RodO rosiowy@cln.etc.bc.ca (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Robinson Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 22:36:13 -0500 Subject: Origin of the Curse of the "Scottish Play" I realize that this might just be a dumb (or repetitious) question, but the local community theatre group I am involved in is staging the "Scottish Play" in March. I am intending to audition and am curious as to why it is considered unlucky to mention the name of the play? I believe there was a short thread on one of the theatre/stagecraft usenets a while back, but I cannot find anything on it. I would also like to hear about anyone's 'experience' with the 'curse'. I think it would be amusing/interesting to present them to the director and cast at the beginning of the rehearsal period. Please forgive me if this sound frivilous (and also please forgive my abysmal spelling), but I do ask this in all seriousness. Thanks-- rick/kd4gnk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Dennis Date: Tuesday, 7 Nov 1995 08:14:00 -0500 Subject: [Q: Queer Theory] I know that, "If you have to ask, you can't apply for the job," but can anyone explain what 'queer theory' is, as in "queer theory and/or gender studies" in the recent job announcement for the University of Miami? Maybe it is the particular juxtaposition, but there must be a better phrase available. At extreme risk of being picky, I would like to point out to the Chair of an English Department Search Committee that "dead line" is a phone or telegraph line which does not work, while "deadline" is a time at which something is due. And, the final sentence of the job announcement is pretty much what a 10th grade teacher would classify as a run-on sentence. Bob Dennis rdennis@obrit.nesdis.noaa.gov (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leslie D. Harris Date: Monday, 6 Nov 1995 22:46:00 -0500 Subject: Critical Reading on Paradise Lost Hi, Folks. Please forgive the cross-posting of this message, for those of you on both Shaksper and Renais-L. I thought I'd try to reach a wide audience for my question. I have a student doing an independent study on _Paradise Lost_. She was intrigued by the parallelism between heaven and hell in the poem, along with the (alas, very traditional) idea of Satan's world as a perverse parody of heaven. I wanted to suggest some outside reading for her to do in order to explore the topic (and perhaps to add complexity to it as well). Can anyone suggest any excellent critical essays that might be helpful? Thanks for your assistance. Leslie Harris lharris@susqu.edu (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Tuesday, 07 Nov 1995 20:46:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Q: *The Rivals*] Dear Shakespereans: I'm looking for some half dozen of the best essays on Sheriday, specifically on THE RIVALS, for a dramaturgical gig at the Hartford Stage Company. We go into rehearsal on Nov. 28 and are busily re-writing malapropisms at the moment. If you have favoriet authors on Sheridan, can you share them with me? I need program information, study guide essays, and so forth. Thanks as usual. Milla Riggio ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 17:25:20 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0883 Re: Southampton; Performance Styles Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0883. Wednesday, 8 November 1995. (1) From: Charles Boyle Date: Tuesday, 07 Nov 1995 15:00:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: Southampton (2) From: David Jackson Date: Monday, 06 Nov 95 15:20:20 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0871 Re: Performance Styles (3) From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 06 Nov 1995 16:34:19 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0871 Re: Performance Styles (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Boyle Date: Tuesday, 07 Nov 1995 15:00:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Southampton I've been following a number of threads with interest for the past few weeks, particularly the question of Shylock being, in part, a portrait of a London Puritan and Shakespeare's possible involvement in the Southampton circle. Both ideas make sense. I've just finished a book by Donna B. Hamilton called "Shakespeare and the Politics of Protestant England." This is from the jacket blurb: "In her compelling reassessment of Shakespeare's historicity, Donna Hamilton rejects the notion that the official censorship of the day prevented the stage from representing contemporary debates concerning the relations among church, state and individual. She argues instead that throughout his career Shakespeare positioned his writing politically and ideologically in relation to the ongoing and changing church-state controversies and in ways that have much in common with the shifts on these issues identified with the Leicester-Sidney- Essex-Southampton-Pembroke group." She suggests that both Adriana in "Comedy of Errors" and Olivia in "12th Night" represent Queen Elizabeth. Here in Cambridge, in her lectures at Harvard, Marjorie Garber has identified both Portia and Henry IV as further portraits of the Queen (Elizabeth herself, in reference to the Essex/Southampton Rebellion of 1601, confessed she stood for Richard II). When it was suggested Shylock had more than a touch of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, that dour and prosperous English Protestant, Garber readily agreed. The point is, Shakespeare did have a political and religious point of view and, as Hamilton ably demonstrates, he voiced them in his work. In its simplest terms the Tudor/Cecil faction was the right wing of the Court and the Essex/Southampton/Pembroke faction was the liberal left. One way of looking at it would have Burghley as Hoover, Essex as JFK, Ireland as Vietnam and Shakespeare as (along with everything else he is) Saturday Night Live with balls and true wit. Like Sidney, Spenser, Lyly and Jonson, Shakespeare was a skilled court satirist. Like them, both his subject and his primary audience was the Queen. Needless to say, in that real world long ago, the right- wingers creamed the dreamers. It all gets very familiar. Charles Boyle P.S. Bill - We have records of Southampton's payments to other writers but none to Shakespeare. Perhaps they had a special arrangement. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Monday, 06 Nov 95 15:20:20 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0871 Re: Performance Styles As a British actor working in America, I have a few comments about the "national" style issue. Of necessity, this is very personal, and another actor may have substanitally different views. However, it seems to me that there is no place for such a distinction any more. Any teacher or program that purports to be comprehensive must address all aspects of acting (or point the actor in the direction of other resources) to fullt round out the actor's skills. Similarly, a partly or totally self-taught actor should seek out as many resources as possible to become most effective. To say that someone's British and thus focuses on speech and works from the outside in, while another's American and thus -focuses on realism and works from the inside out is really to say that neither of them is doing all the work they should in approaching their roles. Someone "musically" reciting the words of a character in a Shakespeare play while not really trying to convince the audience of the truth of the character is not really acting. In any event, if you asked seven actors -- regardless of their national background and training -- what their process is, I suspect that you'd get seven different answers (albeit including many similar components). As for Shakespeare's language being unfamiliar to American audiences, it's actually no more familiar to British audiences. In my experience, it's always important to make sure that in the first 15 minutes of a production the delivery be geared to accustoming the audience to the cadence and style of the language, but that doesn't mean the actors should switch off any other elements of their characters at the same time. In a nutshell, good acting -- and bad acting -- are the same on either side of the Atlantic. How the actor acheives this depends much more on his or her personal successes and failures than accidents of birth and education. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 06 Nov 1995 16:34:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0871 Re: Performance Styles Before people start scoffing at HH Prince Charles' playing Prince Hal on his CD with Sir Robert Stephens as Falstaff, let me say that the excerpt I heard on the CBC a few days ago was splendid: he sounds like the prig Hal *is* in those tavern scenes. Stephens, incidentally, sounded rather standard...your blustery, rough Sir John with little of the stylishness. Harry Hill Montreal ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 13:50:35 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0884 Announcements Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0884. Thursday, 10 November 1995. (1) From: William Proctor Williams TB0WPW1@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU Date: Wednesday, 08 Nov 95 14:29 CST Subj: Conference (2) From: Robin Headlam Wells Date: Thursday, 9 Nov 1995 10:49:30 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Call for Papers (3) From: David Akin Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 10:29:09 -0500 Subj: 1995 Stratford Festival Season (4) From: David Akin Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 10:29:18 -0500 Subj: Stratford (Ont) Festival Web Page (5) From: David Akin Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 10:29:22 -0500 Subj: STAA conference to be held at Stratford, Ont. (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams TB0WPW1@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU Date: Wednesday, 08 Nov 95 14:29 CST Subject: Conference 1996 Graduate Conference on Language and Literature sponsored by NIU Graduate Coloquium, NIU Department of English, and the English Graduate Student Association Keynote Speaker Leslie Fielder - Samuel Clemens Professor at SUNY, Buffalo - Author of several short stories, essays, and over 25 books, including _Love and Death in the American Novel_, _Fiedler on the Roof_, _Nude Croquet and Other Stories_ - Noted for explosive 1946 article, "Come Back to the Raft Ag'in, Huck Honey" Proposed topics: Twenty Years of _Freaks_ The Mythology of Bioethics Political Correctness in _Huck Finn_ Poetry Reading Friday Night Sybil Dunbar - Professor at North Central College, Naperville, IL - Author of several creative works - Best known for her regional poetry, describing the vivid life of Louisiana Special Session William P. Williams & Carol Scheidenhelm - Technology Meets the English Department: Teaching, Research, and Computers in the 21st Century and.... Special Roundtable Session on Getting Published! ABSTRACTS DEADLINE December 10, 1995 Please submit FOUR copies of a single-spaced, one-page abstract describing your paper. Include one cover sheet with - your name, address, phone number, school, and e-mail - paper title and category of submission (see ideas below) - any request for special equipment If you wish to submit an organized panel, please send an abstract of the panel as well as an abstract for each paper in the panel. Each session: 3 papers; 20 minute presentation time Panel: 3-4 presenters; 1 hour presentation time Send abstracts: Conference Directors NIU GCLL Department of English Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL 60115 Papers invited on any aspect of language and literature, including American and British Literature Comparative Literature Genre Studies (Gothic, mystery, etc.) Ethnic Studies Gay & Lesbian Literature Critical Theory Rhetoric and Composition Film Studies Textual Criticism & Bibliography Any other literature written in English Questions? E-mail niugcll@aol.com jwaite@niu.edu Phone (815) 753-0611 FAX (815) 753-0606 (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robin Headlam Wells Date: Thursday, 9 Nov 1995 10:49:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Call for Papers **CALL FOR PAPERS** The first issue of *Renaissance Forum*, a new electronic journal of early-modern literary and historical studies, will appear in March 1996. It is edited from the University of Hull, UK by Glenn Burgess (History) and Robin Headlam Wells (English). The journal will be available on the World Wide Web. The editors invite contributions of scholarly articles (up to 6,000 words) on any aspect of early modern English literature or history, and considered responses (up to 4,000 words) to articles already published in *Renaissance Forum*. All material submitted to the journal will be read by at least two specialist referees. *Renaissance Forum* will also contain an extensive reviews section. Anyone wishing to review for us should write to the Technical Editor, enclosing a brief c.v. Material submitted for possible publication should be sent to us on disc (in MS Word or WordPerfect for PC or Mac, or as an ASCII file), or as an email attachment. We shall be maintaining an email subscription list, which will be used to announce new issues (including contents, abstracts, and retrieval instructions). Those wishing to be added to the list should send the message "subscribe" to renforum-request@hull.ac.uk . Further information on the journal can be found through our WWW home page, the URL for which is http://www.hull.ac.uk/Hull/EL_Web/renforum/ (this address is case-sensitive). Editors: Glenn Burgess, Department of History, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, U.K. (p.g.burgess@history.hull.ac.uk) Robin Headlam Wells, Department of English, University of Hull Hull HU6 7RX, U.K. (r.d.headlam-wells@english.hull.ac.uk) Technical Editor: Andrew Butler, Technical Editor: Renaissance Forum, Department of English, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. (a.m.butler@english.hull.ac.uk) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Akin Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 10:29:09 -0500 Subject: 1995 Stratford Festival Season Listmembers may be interested to learn of the playbill for the 1996 Stratford Festival at Stratford, Ontario Canada. The season was announced by artistic director Richard Monette October 26, 1995. At the Festival Theatre: Shakespeare: King Lear Directed by Richard Monette. Previews May 6. Opens May 27. Closes Nov. 3. Designed by Patrick Clark. Lights by MIchael J. Whitfield. William Hutt to play Lear. Meredith Willson: The Music Man Previews May 10. Opens May 29. Closes Nov. 3 Directed and choreographed by Brian Macdonald. Musical direction by Berthold Carriere. Designed by Debra Hanson. Lights by Harry Frehner. Peter Shaffer: Amadeus Previews May 7. Opens May 31. Closes Nov 1. A revival of the 1995 Stratford production directed by Richard Monette featuring Brian Bedford (Salieri), and Stephen Ouimette (Mozart). Lillian Hellman: The Little Foxes Previews July 28. Opens Aug. 2. Closes Oct. 13. Directed by Richard Monette. Designed by Guido Tondino. Costumes by Ann Curtis. With Brian Bedford (Horace Giddens), Martha Henry (Regina Giddens), Diana Leblanc (Birdie Hubbard), Tim MacDonald (Leo Hubbard), and William Hutt (Benjamin Hubbard). At the Avon Theatre Georges Feydeau: A Fitting Confusion Previews May 17, Opens May 28. Closes Sept. 14. From a translation by Norman R. Shapiro. Directed by Richard Monette. Sets by Morris Ertman. Costumes by Martha Mann. Music by Berthold Carriere. Lights by Harry Frehner. Sound by Keith Handegord. Cast includes Barbara Bryne (Mme. Aigreville), Wayne Best (M. Dartagnan), Bernard Hopkins (Etienne), barry McGregor (Bassinet), Stephen Ouimette (Dr. Moulineaux), Chick Reid (Mimi). A co-production with The Citadel Theatre of Edmonton, Alberta. Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice Previews May 10. Opens May 30. Closes Nov. 1 Directed by Marti Maraden. Designed by Phillip Silver. Costumes by John Pennoyer. Lights by Louise Guinand. Douglas Rain to play Shylock. Lewis Carroll adapted by James Reaney: Alice Through the Looking Glass. Previews June 14. Opens June 21. Closes Oct. 30 A revival of the 1994 Stratford production. Directed by Marti Maraden. Costumes by John Pennoyer. Sets by Stephen Britton Osler. William Luce: Barrymore Previews Sept. 10. Opens Sept. 13. A new production featuring guest artist Christopher Plummer based on the life of John Barrymore. A co-production with Live Entertainment Corp. Following the Stratford debut, Livent will tour the production to several U.S. cities prior to a Broadway engagement in February, 1997. At the Tom Patterson Theatre Shakespeare: As You Like It Previews June 16. Opens June 20. Closes Sept 14. The Young Company. Directed by Richard Rose. Designed by Charlotte Dean. Lights by Kevin Fraser. Tennessee Williams: Sweet Bird of Youth Previews June 15. Opens June 22. Closes Sept. 15 Directed by Diana Leblanc. Designed by Astrid Janson. With Lewis Gordon (Boss Finley), Martha Henry (Princess Kosmonopolis)., Geordie Johnson (Chance Wayne), Tom McCamus (Tom Junior), and Chick Reid (Miss Lucy). Samuel Beckett: Waiting For Godot Previews July 7. Opens July 13. Closes Sept. 13 Directed by Brian Bedford. Sets by Ming Cho Lee. Lights by Michael J. Whitfield. With James Blendick (Pozzo), Joe Dinicol (The Boy), Tim MacDonald (Lucky), Tom McCamus (Estragon), and Stephen Ouimette (Vladimir). Also: Four authors have confirmed they will be part of the festival's Celebrated Writers Series including Harold Bloom, Jane Urquhart, Judith Thompson, and Jane Smiley. Dates TBA. The Stratford Festival (which boasts North America's largest repertory company) can be reached at (519) 271-4040. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Akin Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 10:29:18 -0500 Subject: Stratford (Ont) Festival Web Page The Stratford Festival at Stratford, Ontario Canada has a web page. The URL is: http://www.ffa.ucalgary.ca/stratford/ The festival's 1996 playbill is posted there. Other material such as plot synopses, casting, a message from Artistic Director Richard Monette, a brief history of the festival, performance schedule, and ticket info is scheduled to be made available at that site in coming months, the festival announced late last month. "In the future, we are lookin at adding an interactive link, contests, and a number of other features and improvements to our site based on suggestions from patrons who use the Internet,'' festival marketing director Janice Price said in a written statement. "This year we will be introducing a ticket and accommodation order form so we can actually make ticket sales on our Web site.'' (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Akin Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 10:29:22 -0500 Subject: STAA conference to be held at Stratford, Ont. The Stratford Festival wil host the sixth annual conference of the Shakespeare Theatre Association of America, the festival announced late last month. The conference, to be held in the Ontario community from Jan. 10 to Jan 13, 1996, provides a forum for the artistic and managerial leadership of theatres whose central activity is the production of Shakespeare's plays. Canadian author Robertson Davies will give the keynote address to the conference on Jan. 13. Registration information is being distributed by Laurel Armstrong at 519-271-0055, ext. 240 or by mail at: P.O. Box 520 Stratford, Ontario CANADA N5A 6V2 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 14:13:36 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0885 Sorry Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0885. Thursday, 10 November 1995. (1) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, 08 Nov 1995 15:11:36 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0881 Re: Prince Charles and De-Canonization (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, 08 Nov 1995 15:11:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0881 Re: Prince Charles and De-Canonization "Hi, Glen, fire away!" was a misfire, and I apologize sincerely for its being posted here. At least I know why Glen didn't receive it. I *am* sorry. Tom ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 14:21:05 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0886 Re: Othello and Ethnicity Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0886. Thursday, 10 November 1995. (1) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 8 Nov 1995 17:38:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0879 Re: Othello and Ethnicity (2) From: Tom Bishop Date: Thursday, 9 Nov 1995 16:02:45 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0879 Re: Othello and Ethnicity (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Wednesday, 8 Nov 1995 17:38:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0879 Re: Othello and Ethnicity I don't agree that Shakespeare necessarily had a black1;2c African in mind when he wrote Othello. The word black was used for everthing darker than ash blonde (just as I ws called a blonde when I lived in Spain, although I have auburn hair). Shakespeare refers to "black eyes" and "itchballs" as eyes, although noones eyes are really black. Black ws another word for brunette. There is no doubt that this was racist. The term for a black African at that time was blackamoor. A moor was what we would call an Arab. To the thin lipped English the lips of the middle-easterners seemed heavy. Thus Shakespeare's use of the terms "black" and "thick-lipped" must be seen in the way they were seen then, not as we see now. It is my personal belief that the author was grafting onto the original tale (by Cinthio?) aa dark vision of Philip of Spain. Although Philip was fair, his features were heavy, and he had the appearance of having African or middle-eastern blood. This was not lost on the English, who called him all sorts of names. The entire Spanish nation was seen as "black" in this same way to the English. TheI see in the plot of Othello references to the rumor that absorbed all Europe, that Philip had murdered his young wife, Elizabeth Valois, out of jealosy for her relationship with his son, Don Carlos, to whom she had been betrothed before his father decided he wanted her for himself. The handkerchif story featured in this scenario, in which the Princess of Eboli played the part of Emilia. , with Iago in somewhat the same position as Antonio Perez. Although historians fiercely deny its truth, it has survived for centuries, most recently rforming the plot of Verdi's Don Carlo. I think it not at all unlikely that the first version of the play was done with Othello dressed in black velvet, with a big lace ruff. The warlike side of his nature was perhaps supplied by Philip's half-brother, the noble Don John of Austria, the era's greatest general. Stephanie Hughes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two essays to add to the pile, both a little out of the mainstream of those cited so far, for interestingly different reasons. In chronological order: G.K. Hunter's British Academy Lecture of back a ways, "Othello and Colour Prejudice"(Proceedings of the British Academy 53 (1967), 139-63) was one of the first to open this ground to academic discussion. More recently, Ben Okri's "Leaping out of Shakespeare's Terror; Five Meditations on Othello" (in Kwesi Owusu, ed., Storms of the Heart, Camden Press, 1988, 9-18) is a fine meditative piece by a wonderful writer. Cheers, Tom Bishop ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 14:56:07 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0887 Qs: Mystery Shakespeare; Jonathan Miller Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0887. Thursday, 10 November 1995. (1) From: Gillian Kendall Date: Wedsday, 08 Nov 1995 19:22:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: Mystery Shakespeare (2) From: Roy Flannagan Date: Thursday, 09 Nov 1995 19:17:47 EST Subj: Jonathan Miller: How to reach him? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gillian Kendall Date: Wedsday, 08 Nov 1995 19:22:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Mystery Shakespeare This is my first contribution. Lately I've been thinking about how often Shakespeare crops up in detective fiction (I did a lot of relaxing post-partum reading this past summer). While my thoughts are scarcely even at the simmering stage, they're simmering enough for me to request help in tracking down the name and author of a mystery I read years ago. Shakespeare was at the center: a playwright produced a biographical play (within the book -- sorry, I don't know how to edit email). Before his play about Shakespeare's life was produced, a glove was found -- a glove that apparently had belonged to Hamnet. At a dramatic moment in the play, the Dark Lady pulls the glove onto her own hand. I also remember that, in the text, the glove is put on display in the foyer of the theater, and that it is suggested that Shakespeare liked women who limped (there was a reference to Cleopatra's hopping). It was a fun read, and I rather like the liberties it took with Shakespeare. But what WAS the book? Thanks for your help, Gillian Kendall Smith College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roy Flannagan Date: Thursday, 09 Nov 1995 19:17:47 EST Subject: Jonathan Miller: How to reach him? I had a very pleasant meeting with Jonathan Miller several years ago, at which time he was a director of the Old Vic, but I have lost touch with his whereabouts. Can anyone on this list tell me if he maintains an email address, or give me a snailmail address? Roy Flannagan {Milton Quarterly} Ellis Hall 378 Ohio University Athens, OH 45701 (614) 592-2450 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:04:25 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0888 Re: Performance Styles and The Prince of Wales Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0888. Thursday, 10 November 1995. (1) From: Fran Teague Date: Wednesday, 08 Nov 95 18:14:16 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0883 Re: Performance Styles (2) From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 09 Nov 1995 07:09:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0883 Re: Performance Styles (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 08 Nov 1995 22:42:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0883 Re: Performance Styles (4) From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 12:37:46 GMT Subj: Re: De-Canonization (5) From: Valerie Gager Date: Friday, 10 Nov 95 12:19:00 PST Subj: The Prince of Wales (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Wednesday, 08 Nov 95 18:14:16 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0883 Re: Performance Styles Hooray for David Jackson and his remarks on acting style. He's absolutely right that a good actor will do a careful job intellectually as well as a daring job emotionally no matter what sort of training or where that actor was born. It's also refreshing to be reminded of the rich variety of interpretations that performers bring into being. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 09 Nov 1995 07:09:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0883 Re: Performance Styles Of course, British actors were pretty suspect in Canada for some years as reminders of an elitist colonial past where English accents, withg all their strange and unfulfilled vowels that were basically an imitation of Buckingham Palace and BBC, were maintained or fabricated north of the US. I remember being told, when auditioning for the flute-voiced Hungarian/Canadian John Hirsch at Stratford, not "to do that rolling rrrr stuff", a particular bete noire with him. Since that brave day, it has been my accent [Aberdeen through Edinburgh and Southwark with the inverted R of the New World] that has made directors hesitate before taking the casting plunge. Yesterday I began dubbing a German television series into the "merkin" we are all in those studios encouraged to talk, it was decided that my regular character, an obese captain of a customs vessel, would be safer in some accent between Poland and Liechtenstein, as my occasional Scotish vowel [the oo is the hardest for me. by the way] would be likely to confuse the viewing public in the U.S. Onstage, however, we have perhaps reached the point that "minority" colours and accents who are part of the fabric of our society belong after all in indigenous and other drama. I recall John Barton telling me some years ago how delighted he was, when in Texas directing and teaching, to be able to produce the plays with such a variety o ways of talking. The one thing lacking, and that he had found at home inn England, was an instinctive ability to respond emotionally to the phonetic values of the characters' lines wherein their souls are to be found. Really no matter what one's melody is, if one *pronounces* it all, one is more than half way there. It's the missing letters caused by sloppy mouths that cause sloppy acting in any accent. Harry Hill Montreal (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 08 Nov 1995 22:42:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0883 Re: Performance Styles Harry Hill says that there is a CD of Prince Chuck and Sir Bob as Hal and Falstaff in the Tavern Scene. Has anyone said if and/or where this CD is available to the general public? This sounds like something I'd like to have for parties. Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 12:37:46 GMT Subject: Re: De-Canonization The Prince of Wales performing Shakespeare? This is some vulgar Cultural Materialist joke, surely. Will they stop at nothing? At least we can be sure that any recordings would have been made for private use and not for commercial purposes. Terence Hawkes (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Valerie Gager Date: Friday, 10 Nov 95 12:19:00 PST Subject: The Prince of Wales James Schaefer asks whether anything has been written by members of the royal family concerning how they react to dramas about kings of England. I was present at the 28th Annual Shakespeare Birthday Lecture at the Swan Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon on 22 April 1991, where His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales was the speaker. His topic was Shakespeare's place in the national curriculum. I remember he began by saying that *Julius Caesar* had not particularly impressed him as a student at Gordonstoun, but he attributed this to being a late developer. He went on to say that Henry V's speech before the battle of Agincourt regarding the burdens of monarchy had grown to have strong resonances for him. I believe the University of Birmingham published the text of this lecture in pamphlet form. The prince's remarks on education, characterized by reporters as being the latest in a series of crusades that began with his attack on modern architects, were also widely covered in the press at the time. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:12:41 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0889 Re: Hamlets Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0889. Thursday, 10 November 1995. (1) From: Peter L Groves Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 12:37:19 GMT+1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0869 Qs: *Hamlet* (2) From: Elizabeth Blye Schmitt Date: Wednesday, 8 Nov 1995 18:50:14 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0857 Qs: 15-Min. Ham. (3) From: Peter L Groves Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 12:28:12 GMT+1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0862 Skinhead Ham (4) From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 09 Nov 1995 07:50:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Robert LePage's One-Man Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L Groves Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 12:37:19 GMT+1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0869 Qs: *Hamlet* > In the speech to the players Hamlet says ". . .to show Virtue her own feature, > scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and > pressure. . . ." > Two questions: What are the sources for believing that these are traditional > abstractions and that these abstractions have the genders which Hamlet applies > to them? I'm afraid the answer is probably less interesting than you suspect. _His_ is just standard Elizabethan English for _its_; the two abstract nouns are probably feminine only because virtually all abstract nouns (like _virtus_ ) are feminine in Latin. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Blye Schmitt Date: Wednesday, 8 Nov 1995 18:50:14 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0857 Qs: 15-Min. Ham. During my Senior year at Vassar, I tackled the 15 minute HAMLET. You have no choice but to be bouncy. We had no set-no time. Simple costumes-white tops, black pants or skirts and tennis shoes if I remember correctly. ^ 6 actors took on the play, plus one on the sidelines as Shakespeare ( he did the prologue) who provided sound effects. The whole thing was rather silly, but very exhilerating. Tell your student to work sloely and only build the pace once they've got their lines and blocking down. Elizabeth Schmitt ebs0001@jove.acs.unt.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L Groves Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 12:28:12 GMT+1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0862 Skinhead Ham The Skinhead _Hamlet_ can be found in _The Faber Book of Parodies_, ed. Simon Brett (London, 1984), ISBN 0-571-13125-5 (or -13254 for the paperback), pp.316-20. My favourite scene is 1.3: LAERTES: I'm f*king off now. Watch Hamlet doesn't slip you one while I'm gone. OPHELIA: I'll be f*ked if he does. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 09 Nov 1995 07:50:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Robert LePage's One-Man Hamlet Last night I sat in the third row of the Monument National's wonderful and refurbished old theatre, excited about seeing Robert Lepage's ELSINEUR [Elsinore], his one-man Hamlet. When the curtain rose to give us several intriguing slabs that began to move, create coffin-shaped holes in them, movies of Lepage playing various characters on them, changing colours projected by laser and other lights up and down them, changing patterns of brick and stone work, flower and cloud. Through, in, above and below all these effects crouched, leapt, sat, dangled, and levitated Robert Lepage. I kept thinking of Edward Gordon Craig and how his steps and panels first affected audiences while the uebermarionnetten of his actors gave the lines round and about, here and there. In other words, there was so much going and creaking and thumping on that I simply couldn't concentrate, even though this Hamlet was in the language of Victor Hugo and therefore called in me for a certain concentrative intensity. Basically, the thing was no good. He's a good enough actor, if careful and elegant gestures and nice vocal modulation count, and I think they do. But he never thrilled, not at all. The evening was, in fact, pretty deadly. Clever but deadly. The audience was lukewarm at most at intermission; how they reacted at the end I shall have to learn from reviews, because I was at home in bed by that time. Harry Hill Montreal ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:17:30 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0890 Re: Curse; Queer Theory Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0890. Thursday, 10 November 1995. (1) From: Stephen J. Gagen Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 17:57:52 +1100 (EST) Subj: Origin of the Curse of the "Scottish Play" (2) From: Stuart Rice Date: Thursday, 09 Nov 1995 01:22:02 EST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0882 Qs: Queer Theory (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen J. Gagen Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 17:57:52 +1100 (EST) Subject: Origin of the Curse of the "Scottish Play" This issue raised by Rick Robinson was dealt with in some detail in February of this year. Because it was a subject that interested me, I kept copies of all the postings at the time. I have mailed these to Rick's personal mailbox. However, if anyone has any new light to shed on this fascinating topic, I for one would be happy to see the subject reopened. Steve Gagen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Rice Date: Thursday, 09 Nov 1995 01:22:02 EST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0882 Qs: Queer Theory I believe "queer theory" is a branch of critical theory dealing with homosexuality and its application as a critical framework. Sort of an outgrowth of the post-structuralist school. S. Rice Kenyon College ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:23:12 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0891 Re: Julius Caesar and SHAXICON Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0891. Thursday, 10 November 1995. (1) From: Don Foster Date: Thursday, 09 Nov 1995 21:13:54 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0874 Re: Julius Caesar (2) From: Don Foster Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 11:21:35 +0100 Subj: Re: SHAXICON (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Thursday, 09 Nov 1995 21:13:54 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0874 Re: Julius Caesar It cannot be proven that William Shakespeare-the-player performed *any* of the parts that the SHAXICON database selects as "designated Shakespeare roles." It can only be shown that these roles, subsequent to production, are ones that Shakespeare-the-writer *remembers* (and recycles in his subsequent writing). For whatever reason, Shakespeare's disproportionate lexical recall of particular roles is indelibly stamped on his writing.(In the late plays--*Tmp.* through *TNK*--and a few earlier ones, no statistically significant pattern emerges). It is now a demonstrable fact that Shakespeare (by a hugely disproportionate margin) remembers the King roles in *AWW*, *1H4*, *2H4*, *LLL*; the Antonio roles in *MV* and *TNt*; the Adam and Corin roles in *AYL*; the Ghost and 1.Player roles in *Ham* (etc.) while "forgetting" other roles in the respective texts; and when those plays were revived, or revised, or both, Sh. "remembers" the corresponding roles all over again. That Shakespeare also *performed* these designated "Shakespeare roles" is not a fact, but a justifiable inference. (See previous postings on SHAXICON.) I'd be quite happy, with Steve Sohmer, to believe that Shakespeare performed the role of Julius Caesar in *JC* (and, for that matter, of Polonius in *Ham.*), which seems eminently plausible. But while Shakespeare remembers the lexicon of Decius in *JC* (and of the Ghost and 1.Player in *Ham*), the character-specific lexicon of Caesar (and of Polonius) registers no lexical influence whatever on Shakespeare's subsequent writing. It bears repeating, however, that inquiry after Shakespeare's most probable stage-roles has only limited usefulness unless such investigation is keyed to other queries. SHAXICON can tell us less about casting than about early stage history, sequence of composition, dating, and textual authority. The identification of Shakespeare's stage roles will never be ascertained beyond doubt. What makes Shakespeare's excessive mnemonic recall of particular roles most useful is that these indelible patterns in the poet's language, when collated with external evidence, can often indicate with considerable precision when Shakespeare's plays were written, staged, or revised. --Don Foster (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 11:21:35 +0100 Subject: Re: SHAXICON Some weeks ago, John Owen posted some incisive queries about SHAXICON which I have no recollection of having answered. The SHAXICON Notebook has a chapter on "Procedures for Verification"; but here are a few brief remarks to address the very thoughtful posting of Prof. Owen: Let's start with a metaphor, by thinking of the Shakespeare canon as a fixed tapestry of language (a combined text comprising the plays that most scholars agree are indeed Shakespearean). Particular threads have been worked into the web in a particular order (at least insofar as its linguistic threads were entered by the same individual--but let's not assume anything, or rule out the possibility that more than one individual may have worked on the canonical texts, either simultaneously or otherwise). Put simply, SHAXICON maps which threads are touching which other threads, and it does so without altering the position of the threads as we move from the study of one text to another. The user of SHAXICON may establish chronological priority by tracing a network of relationships that can be checked against one another for obvious tangles or loose ends. The chronological sequence generated by SHAXICON closely matches the sequence derived from traditional textual scholarship; and the theatrical runs identified by SHAXICON are fully supported by what limited archival evidence we have concerning performances at court, etc. These are happy outcomes, but SHAXICON in no way depends upon these external records. For example, if the canonical plays were written from 1891-1913 instead of from 1591-1613, SHAXICON would still identify *Err* as an earlier play than *1H4*, *1H4* earlier than *AYL*, and so on, simply on the basis of lexical contacts that these texts have with other texts in the same linguistic web (Shakespeare's combined plays and poems). Here, then, is a brief response to John Owens's questions concerning how a user of SHAXICON might follow a line of inquiry for test-text "Q": John Owens: >"1. Clearly, Mr. Foster used external sources after SHAXICON's stats >were >generated in order to supplement or correct the apparent >assignment of roles. >My question is, how much of this was incorporated >during the program's >design. In other words, is this data truly a raw >count of rare words, or are >we somehow getting a synthesis of what we >already expected to find?" First, we can't really *expect* to find ANYTHING. We can begin, however, by measuring general lexical correlation between texts (this has already been done for you, but my work can be tested for accuracy, in multiple internal and external ways, by any informed user). And what we find is in fact in keeping with what Eliot Slater, Alfred Hart, and others have already told us: that Shakespeare's rare-words tend to be clustered chronologically (albeit with anomalies, as when MV rare-words are heavily present in OTH, or MND words in TNK). There is nothing to assume: SHAXICON simply tells us which (other) Shakespearean texts have the highest general lexical overlap with test-text Q, by an electronic count of lexical contacts (quite apart from theatrical performance, speaking character, and the like). There is no a priori guarantee, of course, that lexical contacts will be clustered chronologically in the work of any author--but as it turns out, they most certainly *are* clustered chronologically in Shakespeare's work, to a degree that overshadows all other generic, or topical, or source-related influences (about which, more in a moment). We have not had, until now, any closed and fully objective system whereby to measure internal evidence against traditional scholarship with respect to dating; now we do, and in most cases SHAXICON agrees with traditional scholarship. This chronological clustering is true even of non-Shakespearean texts with which Shakespeare became acquainted. Thus, in 1598, words from Jonson's EMI come pouring into Shakespeare's writing, with EMI forming a very sharp peak of "lexical influence" with Shakespearean texts written in 1598/9. The same thing happens again in 1604, when EMI-words again begin pouring back into Shakespeare's writing. This makes it looks as if Shakespeare for some reason may have read Jonson's EMI in 1598 and 1604. But "influence" here refers to a statistical surplus of lexical contacts between texts, without presupposing which is the source and which is the recipient--e.g., Shakespearean texts of 1598 and 1604 might also, hypothetically, have exerted lexical pressure of Jonson's EMI-F1. Happily, SHAXICON also provides ways to test direction of borrowing (most persuasively when we've got multiple texts by the other author), and Shakespeare is in this case the obvious, or at least principal, debtor. External evidence cannot change SHAXICON's lexical evidence concerning Shakespeare's acquaintance with EMI, but it *can* provide us with an explanation: Jonson himself informs us that EMI was first acted in 1598, with Shakespeare among the cast; and we have record of at least one other performance of EMI in 1604 (with or without Shakespeare). The external records and SHAXICON are thus in full agreement, though neither kind of evidence depends upon the other. But our knowledge that EMI was acted in 1598 and 1604 cannot in any way alter the high frequency of lexical contacts between EMI and Shakespearean texts written ca. 1598/9 and 1603/4. >John Owen: >"2. Does Mr. Foster have any references to provide background for >SHAXICON's assumptions? ... can the validity of this method be >confirmed (has >it been?) by some type of textual experiment outside >the Shakespeare corpus, preferably where we have more external >information >with which to corroborate the results? The applications for this program are up to the user, not up to me, but the resourceful user will have no trouble constructing "textual experiments" of his or her own design, using both Shakespearean and nonShakespearean texts. For instance, we can test EMI to see whether Shakespeare as a writer "rembembers" one role or another (relative to the character-specific lexicons of other characters in the same play); or we may test whether EMI-Q or EMI-F1 exerts a stronger general "influence" on Shakespeare's writing, or first EMI-Q, then EMI-F1; and so on. Cross-checks are only a keyboard away: we may test whether Shakespeare's selective recall of, say, the lexical influence of the Egeon role upon Shakespeare's post-ERR writing endures briefly, or only when he is writing plays, or only when he is writing poems; or whether the Egeon role seems also to influence Ben Jonson or John Fletcher (and in each of these instances, a "yes" would send up a red flag). Many users will spend their early acquaintance with SHAXICON hunting for internal contradictions or other irregularities in the data. Let's suppose, for now, that SHAXICON has already been cross-examined by a host of skeptical Shakespeareans (as indeed it will be), all of whom have conducted rigorous cross-checking, only to conclude that SHAXICON can indeed be trusted when it tells us, for example, that ERR and TIT are early plays, that WT and TMP are late, and so on. We may then check whether Shakespeare indeed "remembers" (uses and re-uses and re-uses) the particular words of particular characters. What we find--always--is that a few hundred rare-words in each play are simply "forgotten," never to be used again by Shakespeare-the-writer. But the rare-word lexicon of one character (or of two or more double-able roles) is in each case remembered. This doesn't prove that Shakespeare studied and played that role: there might be other explanations with with respect to CAUSE. But SHAXICON proves this much, that in a Shakespearean text of, say, 1599, one can expect to find that the text will draw, disproportionately, on the designated "Shakespeare roles" of the pre-1599 plays (i.e., the play written in 1599 will draw chiefly on the character-specific lexicons that "influence" all other Shakespearean texts to 1599); and the text written in 1599 will not so draw on the designated "Shakespeare" roles later than 1599. John Owen: >"3[A]. How does Mr. Foster rate the evidence provided by SHAXICON? >3[B]Should >it be used to correct, confirm, or supplement already >existing scholarship? >Let me put this another way: SHAXICON supports >John Aubrey's statements about >Shakespeare's performances, (Ghost in >Hamlet, Adam in AYL). If they were to >disagree, would Dan [i.e. Don] >be confident enough to submit his version in >place of the >traditional account? Replies (in order): 3[A]. SHAXICON can be used in conjunction with virtually any statistical software, so that you can perform statistical checks (CUMSUM averages and the like) to your heart's content. 3[B]. I might be confident enough to sumit my version in place of the traditional account, but that in no way guarantees that anyone has to believe me. In some instances, the designated "Shakespeare roles" are very small parts. Although Shakespeare registers a highly disproportionate recall of both the Egeon role and Dr. Pinch role in *Err*, the Egeon role is considerably larger and Shakespeare's selective recall of this role has a higher mathematical significance than his selective recall of the much smaller Dr. Pinch role. The most important point to be made is that the "designated Shakespeare roles" are those that Shakespeare certainly *remembers*, not ones that he certainly acted. The inference that the man Shakespeare performed the particular roles that the man Shakespeare remembered--that he remembered just one or two roles after having created *all* of the roles in a given text--is not an unjustifiable inference; and there is at least a family likeness in the roles that Shakespeare remembered (usually, characters who are introduced in the first stage entrance; and these are usually old men and friars, feeble kings and attendant lords). But I wish to underscore, once again, that the principal value of these mnemonic registers lies in their use as a touchstone for testing dates of composition, production, and revival; for evaluating problems of revision and textual authority; for identifying markedly different lexical pools within the same text; for tracking Shakespeare's reading and source material (see earlier posts); and so on. Focusing on the designated "Shakespeare-roles" (as almost everyone has done so far in their queries aboutr SHAXICON) is a little finding a set of keys and saying, "Oh, what interesting keys"--without noticing that the keys can actually be used to unlock various dusty chests in the cellar. Other queries are, of course, welcome. But I've been having a hard time keeping up with the mountain of correspondence generated by SHAXICON queries, so please be patient. Don Foster ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 14:46:41 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0892 Re: Mystery Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0892. Monday, 13 November 1995. (1) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 16:28:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0887 Qs: Mystery Shakespeare (2) From: A. G. Bennett Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 16:45:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0887 Qs: Mystery Shakespeare (3) From: Fran Teague Date: Monday, 13 Nov 95 09:36:01 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0887 Qs: Mystery Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 16:28:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0887 Qs: Mystery Shakespeare Re the Mystery Shakespeare: the book was by Dame Ngaio Marsh, and the title was something like _Murder at the Dolphin_ ... Sorry, I'd have to check my mystery shelves at home to know for sure, but I bet someone will supply the right title before I have a chance to do so. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: A. G. Bennett Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 16:45:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0887 Qs: Mystery Shakespeare To Gillian Rendall: The book you're thinking of is Ngaio Marsh's _Killer Dolphin_. She also wrote a sequel to that mystery (involving some of the same lead characters and the same play about Hamnet's glove), called _Light Thickens_, which centres around a production of _Macbeth_. Her descriptions of the process of creating a performance are brilliant there-- I believe that this was her final novel. Enjoy! Alex Bennett Brandeis University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Monday, 13 Nov 95 09:36:01 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0887 Qs: Mystery Shakespeare The book that Gillian Kendall describes is Ngaio Marsh's _Night at the Vulcan_, as I am sure dozens will rush to tell her. Marsh had a career in the theater as well as a career writing mysteries; she was an important figure in the early Shakespeare productions in New Zealand, I believe. On the subject of Shakespeare in murder mysteries, Susan Baker at the U. of Nevada, Reno, has been working with this topic for some time. You'll find an essay by her about the way Shakespeare is used in mysteries in the anthology _Acting Funny_. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 14:54:45 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0893 Re: Hamlets Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0893. Monday, 13 November 1995. (1) From: Mark Fisher Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 23:46:03 +0000 Subj: Hamlet in Edinburgh (2) From: John Lee Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 11:55:58 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0889 Re: Hamlets (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Fisher Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 23:46:03 +0000 Subject: Hamlet in Edinburgh Here's a review I wrote for The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) to be published 11/11/95, about Hamlet at the Royal Lyceum, Edinburgh, first night 9/11/95. Lots more to be said about it but I have to make do with around 275 words: Hamlet, Royal Lyceum, Edinburgh Mark Fisher MANY will be relieved that Kenny Ireland's production of Shakespeare's tragedy imposes no extraneous interpretation. No Freudian trip into familial sexuality, no weighted political message, and no exotic cultural displacement. Which is far from saying it lacks style, insight or invention, just that the director has worked hard to achieve a faithful simplicity. Technically it is a marvel. Robin Don's bare, steep-sloping floorboards, backed by a bank of blank tenemented windows, topped by a billowing sheet onto which the ghostly apparition of old Hamlet (Brian Cox) is projected, is as clean and efficient as it is ingenious. Marked out by Ace McCarron's appositely ace lighting, the production has a sure sense of place, space and depth, Ireland precisely counterpointing stillness against movement so we never lose the focus. First-night nerves and an audience apparently on day-release from the Royal Infirmary's bronchial ward probably accounts for repeated speed infringements in the first 40 minutes, the verse being drummed out at such velocity that there's no time for interpretation. Even as it settles down, though, it seems more effort has gone into clarity of delivery than depth of character. Tom McGovern's Hamlet is driven by a fiery energy, maddened but not malicious, reasonable as much as irrational. His "get thee to a nunnery" to Louise Ironside's brittle and intriguingly unregal Ophelia is more tender suggestion that fearsome instruction. But Sean Baker's Claudius is a passionless and mechanical adversary, a sly chancer more than a mercenary manipulator, which lessens the justification behind McGovern's rage. The result. having hurtled us headlong through a dynamic, often very funny drama, is a conclusion that seems sad and unnecessary rather than tragic and inevitable. An admirable achievement all the same. Mark Fisher (fisher@easynet.co,uk) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lee Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 11:55:58 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0889 Re: Hamlets There are many versions of _Hamlet in the four volumes of burlesques edited by Wells which I have just come across. I can't comment on their quality or interest, but they have some good titles; one of the best was 'Hamlet! The Ravin' Prince of Denmark!! or, The Baltic Swell!!! and the Diving Belle!!!!' ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 15:51:18 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0894 Re: Grad Conference; Special Session Proposal Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0894. Monday, 13 November 1995. (1) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 12:03:06 -0800 (PST) Subj: Conference (2) From: Peter Herman Date: Sunday, 12 Nov 1995 13:31:46 -0500 Subj: Re: Special Session Proposal (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 12:03:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Conference To Whomever Might Be Able to Answer this question: William Proctor Williams recently posted to SHAKSPER (an internet forum) about a conference, upcoming, with Leslie Fieldler as the keynote speaker. He gave an abstract deadline of 12/10/95, but did NOT give the date of the conference itself. Can you enlighten me? Respectfully, Brad Berens (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Herman Date: Sunday, 12 Nov 1995 13:31:46 -0500 Subject: Re: Special Session Proposal I'm interested in putting together a special session proposal on discussion lists, and so I'd like proposals on any topic relating to these fascinating arenas. I checked the program from the last couple of years and although there have been sessions on all sorts of topics related to computers, nothing so far on this one. If anyone wants to cross-post the query on other lists, I'd be grateful for the help. Thanks. Peter C. Herman Dept. of English Georgia State University peterherma@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:01:46 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0895 Sorry; Queer Theory; Bloom; Marriage; Race; Prince Charles Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0895. Monday, 13 November 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 16:19:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0885 Sorry: No apology Needed (2) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 13:38:18 -0800 (PST) Subj: Queer theory (3) From: Nina Rulon-Miller Date: Friday, 10 Nov 95 21:47:42 EDT Subj: Bloom on Shakespeare at Princeton (4) From: Frank Whigham Date: Saturday, 11 Nov 1995 07:16:40 -0600 Subj: virginity/potency proofs (5) From: Bernie Folan Date: Monday, 13 Nov 95 11:27:41 gmt Subj: Re: Othello and Ethnicity (6) From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 13 Nov 1995 13:36:59 -0400 (EDT) Subj: The Prince's Choice (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 16:19:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0885 Sorry: No apology Needed o need for any apologies from Hardy or Tom about the mistaken posting. At least, you don't have to apologize to me. I take amusement from this kind of mistaken posting. Some years ago, on RENAIS-L, a mistaken invitation to lunch was sent to the entire list. Many of us joined in the fun -- requesting where we should meet, suggesting restaurants all over the world, and so on. Of course, some of the more serious folks objected to this frivolity and quit the list. It's certainly worth a try, he said with a wink. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Friday, 10 Nov 1995 13:38:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Queer theory Waiting for Mihoko Suzuki to defend herself against the bitter *ressentiment* expressed in the query about queer theory and gender studies, I've kept silent. But since Professor Suzuki doesn't respond, and Stuart Rice's response, though accurate, was somewhat thin, I would like to say, somewhat thickly, that you will find the field of "gender studies," and its relation to feminism and queer theory, mapped out in Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, "Gender Criticism," in *Redrawing the Boundaries,* ed. Stephen Greenblatt and Giles Gunn (New York: MLA, 1992). Sedgwick notes that "gender criticism" hovers between feminist studies and queer studies. It is not, in Sedgwick's assessment, a discipline or a school of thought so much as it is a way of interrogating things like disciplines and schools of thought. "'Gender criticism,'" she writes "might ... be taken to mean ... not criticism *through* the categories of gender analysis but criticism *of* them, the mapping of the fractal borderlines between gender and its others." (p. 273) The main theoretician of gender studies today, besides Sedgwick herself, is probably Judith Butler. Among Renaissance scholars, prominent voices include Jonathan Goldberg. In the spirit of its interrogative mission, the main question of gender criticism might well be, as Sedgwick says, "What *isn't* gender?" Robert Appelbaum (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nina Rulon-Miller Date: Friday, 10 Nov 95 21:47:42 EDT Subject: Bloom on Shakespeare at Princeton For those of you who can live near Princeton, NJ: The Tanner Lectures on Human Values at Princeton U. this year are 11/15 "Shakespeare and the Value of Personality," Harold Bloom; Discussants Robert Brustein and Stephen Greenblatt; 11/16 Bloom: Shakespeare and the Value of Love; Discussants, Stanley Cavell and Lisa Jardine. Both are at 4:30 in McCosh 50. Nina Rulon-Miller (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Whigham Date: Saturday, 11 Nov 1995 07:16:40 -0600 Subject: virginity/potency proofs Michael Saenger writes: "In the Renaissance, the consummation of a marriage would often be "announced" by hanging the blood-spotted sheets for a village to see." What do folks know of English non-literary records of this and other such practices? (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernie Folan Date: Monday, 13 Nov 95 11:27:41 gmt Subject: Re: Othello and Ethnicity Another useful source is an essay in the novelist Caryl Philips' "The European Tribe" which is written on his stay in Venice. Very interesting thoughts on Venice and the otherness of Othello in Venice. Bernie Folan (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 13 Nov 1995 13:36:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Prince's Choice The compact disk with Prince Charles' favourite British actors, and his royal self doing a perfectly credible and creditable Prince Hal as well as the late Sir Robert Stephens playing Falstaff was in the U.K.last week, and is entitled *The Prince's Choice*, and was produced specifically to irritate Terence Hawkes. Sir Robert is not even the only theatrical knight on the disk. There'a Dame Judy Dench, I believe, and Sir John Gielgud. Mind you, Terence Hawkes must be annoyed that is there a CD of Shakespeare at all, I should imagine. One wonders when he last heard any of the words. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 11:02:19 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0896 RIP Robert Stephens Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0896. Tuesday, 14 November 1995. From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 14 Nov 95 08:51:02 -0600 Subject: RIP Robert Stephens "Banish plump Jack, and banish all the world." RIP Robert Stephens. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 11:16:35 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0897 Re: Curse; Grad Conference; Ngaio Marsh; Queer Theory Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0897. Tuesday, 14 November 1995. (1) From: Jung Jimmy Date: Monday, 13 Nov 95 16:38:00 PST Subj: Re: Curse (2) From: William Proctor Williams TB0WPW1@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU Date: Monday, 13 Nov 95 18:19 CST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0894 Re: Grad Conference (3) From: C. David Frankel Date: Monday, 13 Nov 1995 18:31:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ngaio Marsh (4) From: Robert Dennis Date: Tuesday, 14 Nov 1995 08:17:56 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0895 Queer Theory (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jung Jimmy Date: Monday, 13 Nov 95 16:38:00 PST Subject: Re: Curse In response to Stephen J. Gagen and Rick Robinson; a Washington Post article 2 or 3 Sundays ago revisited the curse of the Scottish play in the aftermath of a recent production and could report nothing sinister. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams TB0WPW1@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU Date: Monday, 13 Nov 95 18:19 CST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0894 Re: Grad Conference Sorry about that, I was just posting a file sent to me by a grad. student. The conference is 28-30 March 1996. Write to the address in the announcement about further details. WPW (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Monday, 13 Nov 1995 18:31:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ngaio Marsh [This was forwarded by C. David Frankel from the THEATRE list. --HMC] Ngaio Marsh was also a fine theatre director, both in London and in her native New Zealand. She founded the Canterbury University Drama Dept. in Christchurch, NZ, training some good people for the London stage as as locally. She was also a very insightful performance reviewer -- I was on the receiving end a couple of times -- and was much in demand for NZ radio and TV. I've never forgotten her Twelfth Night production which she wrote up in an early issue of Shakespeare Survey. It's nice to do homage to a famous lady who also wrote great detective novels. Margaret Loftus Ranald. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Dennis Date: Tuesday, 14 Nov 1995 08:17:56 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0895 Queer Theory For Robert Applebaum, particularly: I did not submit my question about queer theory with "bitter 'ressentiment'". I am honestly unfamiliar with the term and sought either verification that it was what it sounded like vernacularly, i.e., the theory of queers, or clarification of a possibly specialized terminology. Since only Stuart Rice's clarification has come forth, I assume "queer theory" indeed deals with homosexuality. Just because I consider something like "queer theory" to be a rather crude expression for academic language, why, Mr. Applebaum, attribute bitterness to me? I would feel similarly about an area of study designated "cripple theory", or any of a dozen other slang expressions. Scholars should be able to come up with a term which is both more accurate and more appropriate, since the adjective "queer" is more emotionally tagged than it is precise, and you don't even want to begin worrying with the uncertainties in its use as a noun. I appreciate your several suggestions for following up on gender studies and gender criticism. I might suggest advocates and explorers of gender studies also read _Eve's Rib_ by Robert Poole. BTW, you did achieve the "thickly" which you sought. Sincerely, Bob Dennis rdennis@orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 11:23:09 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0898 Qs: Production Lists Project; *Shr.* Irony Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0898. Tuesday, 14 November 1995. (1) From: Michael Swanson Date: Monday, 13 Nov 1995 21:29:34 -0500 Subj: Production Lists Project (2) From: Bernie Folan Date: Tuesday, 14 Nov 95 16:12:00 gmt Subj: Irony at close of The Taming of the Shrew (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Swanson Date: Monday, 13 Nov 1995 21:29:34 -0500 Subject: Production Lists Project Please excuse cross-posting, as well as the length of this message. Dear Colleagues, I am writing to ask your help with a research project that I believe could be of substantial service to the American educational theatre community, and indeed to the theatre community as a whole. Please take a few minutes to read my request and to respond by mailing back the enclosed card. From the late 1940s through the mid-1970s, various theatre scholars directed a survey of college and university theatre productions known as the Production Lists Project. Under the auspices of the old American Educational Theatre Association and American Theatre Association, lists of plays produced were annually collected, arranged into useful lists (i.e., ranking the most produced plays, musicals, playwrights, and one-acts), and printed in the Educational Theatre Journal (now Theatre Journal ). The project last saw publication in 1976. A paper given by Rick Jones at the 1994 Association for Theatre in Higher Education (ATHE) conference on the subject of theatre production seasons inspired me to consider compiling the titles of college and university plays produced, so as to provide the field with a much better picture of educational theatre production in the United States than is now available. Are colleges and universities producing more recent or original plays than in the past, as some have suggested in recent years? Are there fewer Shakespearean productions? More Moli=E8re or Marivaux? Fewer musicals? More plays by people of color or by women? Only such a survey can truly give us such information, which might also allow us to develop a better overall picture of national educational theatre production trends. My hope is that the production information, which will be compiled with the File Maker Pro software program, might eventually be made available to researchers and to members of the field through journal publication and through Internet access to the database. To begin this project, my home institution, Franklin College, has awarded me a grant to fund the initial setup of and the first year's operating costs for such a project. At its April 1995 meeting, the ATHE Board of Governors stated its support for the concept of such a study, in terms of its potential usefulness to the field. The next step is up to you. Please send me a list of the plays your United States university, college, or conservatory theatre program produced in the 1994 - 95 academic season, including the summer of 1995. Mailing me a season brochure by surface mail, if it's still an accurate record of your season, is a perfectly appropriate way to submit these titles. Please indicate whether any of these plays were musicals, one-acts, original works, or plays by people of color or by women. If you send by e-mail, I will acknowledge receipt of the information. If things go well, you will receive a similar request, by e-mail, next and subsequent summers. Thanks for the time you've taken to read this, and, I hope, to respond to my request. I look forward to hearing from you, and to eventually providing you with a better picture of American educational theatre production than has been available to us since 1976 . Yours truly, Michael Swanson Chair, Fine Arts Department (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernie Folan Date: Tuesday, 14 Nov 95 16:12:00 gmt Subject: Irony at close of The Taming of the Shrew I am working on how to approach the following question - How ironical is Katherine's last speech in relation to the play as a whole? My problem is that I'm not quite sure whether I should read this as 1) Does K mean what she says about the qualities of a good wife or is she being ironic? or 2) How ironical this final speech is in that it marks a complete change in her attitudes from the start of the play. Is Katherine a changed woman or is she a newly aware woman giving tips to the new wives she is speaking to? Is the irony in her change or in her realising what the change *should* be for a wife? When I studied the play the fact that Katherine had changed into a submissive wife was a given - I'm not now sure that she has. Perhaps she's just learned what she needs to do to be a "good" wife (as learned in the sun/moon scene). I don't want any answers - I'm quite happy to do that part. Just ideas on the source of the irony being questioned to help me with my approach. Bernie Folan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 13:16:05 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0926 Ian McKellen's *R3* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0926. Wednesday, 29 Nov. 1995. (1) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 28 Nov 95 15:57:42 -0600 Subj: SHAKSPER 921: McKellen's *Richard* (2) From: David Kathman Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 1995 01:07:03 +0100 Subj: Re: Ian McKellen and Richard III (3) From: David G. Hale Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 95 11:27:18 EST Subj: re: SHAKSPER: SHK 6.0921 Ian McKellens *R3* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Tuesday, 28 Nov 95 15:57:42 -0600 Subject: SHAKSPER 921: McKellen's *Richard* Here's the information compliments of *Movienet* (http://www.movienet.com/index.html); the film is scheduled to open on December 22. This compelling story of power and political intrigue portrays Richard as England's most ruthless monarch, a charismatic malcontent who accedes to the throne through a delicious mix of treachery, seduction and murder. However, this intriguing adaptation is offered with a distinctive twist. Taking the characters and action out of Elizabethan times, the story is set in an imagined London of the 1930s. Richard speaks his famous lines as Shakespeare wrote them, even as he conquers the throne with media sav vy, black-shirted thugs and heavy artillery. Great Britain's foremost contemporary Shakespearean actor, Ian McKellen, tackles one of Shakespeare's richest and most challenging roles in this unique screen version of the Bard's RICHARD III. The illustrious cast also features Academy Award nominee Annette Bening as Queen Elizabeth; Academy Award nominee Robert Downey Jr. as her brother, Earl Rivers; Academy Award winner Maggie Smith as Richard's mother, the Dutchess of York; and academy Award nominee Nigel Hawthorne as his tragically manipulated brother, Clarence. Cast: IAN McKELLEN, ANNETTE BENING, ROBERT DOWNEY, JR., MAGGIE SMITH, NIGEL HAWTHORNE Director: RICHARD LONCRAINE Producer: LISA KATSELAS PARE, STEPHEN BAYLY Screenplay: IAN McKELLEN, RICHARD LONCRAINE Based on a play by: WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE Director of Photography: PETER BIZIOU Editor: PAUL GREEN Costume Designer: SHUNA HARWOOD (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Kathman Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 1995 01:07:03 +0100 Subject: Re: Ian McKellen and Richard III Laura Blanchard wrote: >Has anyone heard much of anything about the forthcoming film version of >*Richard III* with Sir Ian McKellen in the title role? > >I maintain the Richard III Society/American Branch web site and am looking for >some information on the production to post in the appropriate section -- or, >alternatively, for other pages to link to. The movie is being released in the U.S. on December 22, and is directed by Richard Loncraine. In addition to McKellen as Richard, it stars Annette Bening as Queen Elizabeth, Robert Downey Jr. as Earl Rivers, Maggie Smith as the Duchess of York, and Nigel Hawthorne as Clarence. The 'hook' is that this production is set in the England of the 1930s; it sounds potentially interesting. The web site for this movie is at: http://www.cm.cf.ac.uk/M/title-exact?1176DE It has all the information I gave above, plus more. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David G. Hale Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 95 11:27:18 EST Subject: re: SHAKSPER: SHK 6.0921 Ian McKellens *R3* In response to Laura Blanchard's query about the forthcoming film of Richard III with Ian McKellan. The New York Times on 9/17/95 has some material about this (as well as Branagh's Othello and others), (2:1, 18). The film derives from a National Theatre production of 1990, which subsequently toured North America and was well received by reviewers. The Times includes a still of John Wood as Edward IV and Annette Bening as Queen Elizabeth. The film is set in England of the 1930's, against the background of the abdication of Edward VIII and the rise of fascism. The film is supposed to open in the United States on a limited basis in December (for Oscar nominations) and be more widely distributed in January. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 13:51:21 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0927 Re: Soliloquies; Robert Stephens; *Shr.* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0927. Wednesday, 29 Nov. 1995. (1) From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr." Date: Tuesday, 28 Nov 1995 10:52:10 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0922 Re: Soliloquies; (2) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Tuesday, 28 Nov 1995 11:27:12 -0500 Subj: Re: Robert Stephens (3) From: Charles Boyle Date: Tuesday, 28 Nov 1995 17:29:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: shrew (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr." Date: Tuesday, 28 Nov 1995 10:52:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0922 Re: Soliloquies; Regarding "To be or not to be," the real question might be whether it is accurate to call it a soliloquy. Most of Shakespeare's soliloquies occur when a character is alone on-stage. They would not have to (since soliloquy means speaking to oneself), but since most of his are of this type, it might be better simply to call the most famous soliloquy a major speech instead. Then there would be no problem having Ophelia, Claudius or Polonius overhear it. Another point, which I am sure has already been made, is that the textual condition of this scene, and _Hamlet_ in general, is a mess and thus it is difficult to know the relationship between this speech and the ensuing discussion with Ophelia. W. Russell Mayes, Jr. University of North Carolina at Asheville wmayes@unca.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Tuesday, 28 Nov 1995 11:27:12 -0500 Subject: Re: Robert Stephens In re Robert Stephens list of performances, I dont recall seeing it mentioned that he was also Polixenes in the BBC version of WT, nor, and more importantly, that he was in the NT Cottesloe's version of "The Mysteries" back in 1986, which is also available on video. In that deeply wonderful sequence, he first plays Herod, and then outHerods himself as Sir Pilate. I thoroughly recommend them for anyone interested in how the ambience of medieval drama can be fused with modern working-class culture, or indeed for anyone interested in the resources of the modern theater. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Boyle Date: Tuesday, 28 Nov 1995 17:29:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: shrew If it's dangerous to speculate on the author's intentions I'll just have to risk it. One of the ways I work with these scripts is as a director and I've found they are awfully funny if you at least try to hear the line the way the author heard it. In the theater, if you're going to bring the play to life, you can't afford the theory that this can't be done. If the actors don't get the joke, there's no way they can tell it to the audience - and then you have to fall back on a lot of yelling and running around to put the show across. So my issue is not to be right, but to find the truth of a scene. If I'm wrong, I change my mind. So I agree Shakespeare is one of the most ironic writers going, but that ability to stand back and laugh at the things he most cherishes doesn't mean he doesn't believe in those things. If this author doesn't believe in love and truth - truth is one of his words for God - he's got me fooled. I certainly agree Katharina is playing a game with Petruchio in the "sun\moon...budding virgin" exchanges, but I think it's something they are now playing together. I remember at the beginning of their courtship when he covered her protests with the excuse that "Tis bargin'd 'twixt us twain, being alone, That she shall still be curst in company." Good joke. So now, no longer curst in company, what is she like when they're alone? Still the contrary? Another good joke. Find the humor and you've usually found the hurt and humanity in the scene. This "you lie and I'll swear to it" intimacy does have a disturbing echo in some of the closing sonnets, 147 or 152 for example, which could be mined for the dark side of such a union. In these it is clear Shakespeare has been in Katharina's shoes before someone - the Dark Lady one would suppose - but what he objects to is not the submission but the betrayal. But that's the Sonnets. Shrew, for all its Punch and Judy rough-house, is a hopeful romantic comedy about a good match. If Katharina's being sarcastic here and he can't hear it, he's too dumb for her and there goes the hope. To me a sour ending for Shrew falls short of what the show can deliver. At the very worst they deserve each other, even better, they tame each other. Best of all they've discovered the real thing, her final speech showing him the way. Katharina can always put such spine in her offering that he and we can be assured the shrew will return should he break the faith. But say she's mocking him already or truly broken now and this marriage is crap from the get-go and Shakespeare merely a cynic. Charles Boyle ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 13:56:19 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0928 *Ham.* in Hollywood; Bedford Reviews; Job Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0928. Wednesday, 29 Nov. 1995. (1) From: E. Pearlman Date: Tuesday, 28 Nov 1995 11:24:55 -0600 (MDT) Subj: *Ham.* in Hollywood (2) From: Jung Jimmy Date: Tuesday, 28 Nov 95 10:24:00 PST Subj: The Lunatic, The Lover and The Poet (3) From: Kurt Daw Date: Tuesday, 28 Nov 95 09:58:35 EST Subj: Position Announcement (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. Pearlman Date: Tuesday, 28 Nov 1995 11:24:55 -0600 (MDT) Subject: *Ham.* in Hollywood SHAKSPERians will want to read the very amusing and also sad essay by David Remnick in the NEW YORKER for Nov. 30 called "Hamlet in Hollywood." It features well-known Shakespearians. But I would suggest that for the full joy of the experience, people should read or re-read Raymond F. Waddington's essay "Lutheran Hamlet" in ELN 1989,27-39. E. Pearlman (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jung Jimmy Date: Tuesday, 28 Nov 95 10:24:00 PST Subject: The Lunatic, The Lover and The Poet I was fishing for reviews of Brian Bedford in The Lunatic, The Lover and The Poet. My mom got a flyer and was trying to decide if she would find it interesting. jimmy (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kurt Daw Date: Tuesday, 28 Nov 95 09:58:35 EST Subject: Position Announcement Because of the heavy Shakespearean component of the production aspect of this job it may be of interest to SHAKSPER members: Faculty Position Theater Generalist Kennesaw State College, a progressive metropolitan college in the University System of Georgia, invites applications for a tenure-track position in the theater program in the Department of Music and Performing Arts. Located on an attractive campus northwest of Atlanta, the college enrolls 12,000 students in a broad array of high quality undergraduate and graduate programs. KSC has established a notable record for the inclusion of minorities and women in its educational mission and strongly encourages applications from both groups. Qualifications/Responsibilities: M.F.A. or Doctorate in theater or appropriate related field. Faculty member will teach in small department specializing in contemporary approaches to pre-modern literature in scholarship and production. Primary responsibilities will be 1) to teach an innovative Introduction to Theater course in the general education core, and 2) to teach Contemporary Theater Arts, an introduction to the major and the profession. In addition, undergraduate teaching expertise in theater history, dramaturgy, and play analysis is desirable. Experience or demonstrated potential to direct pre-modern literature (particularly Shakespeare) required. Position requires strong skills in undergraduate liberal arts education, ability to work as a team member and interest in college and community service. Departmental service commitments will include extensive support for Classic TheaterWorks, the campus production company. Involvement with Classic TheaterWorks publications, public relations and educational outreach efforts are an integral part of the job. Computer skills (especially Macintosh) a plus. Rank and salary commensurate with experience and qualifications. Position available September 1996. Application Instructions: Applications will be accepted until position is filled. To guarantee consideration, send a letter of application, vita, official transcripts and three references (names, addresses, telephone numbers) by February 15, 1996 to : Kurt Daw, Chair, Theater Search Committee, Department of Music and Performing Arts, Kennesaw State College, 1000 Chastain Road, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144-5591. FAX (770) 423-6368. The committee also welcomes supporting materials, including examples of teaching materials, demonstrations of computer skills, production photographs, and scholarly and popular dramaturgical articles. Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 09:47:01 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0929 Re: *Shrew* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0929. Thursday, 30 November 1995. (1) From: Jay Johnson Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 1995 15:21:51 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0927 Re: *Shr.* (2) From: Bernie Folan Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 95 11:36:49 gmt Subj: Kate / Griselda (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Johnson Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 1995 15:21:51 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0927 Re: *Shr.* With regard to Kate's final speech in _The Taming of the Shrew_, one very clear and unironic interpretation is that given by Charles Marowitz. In his adaptation, called _The Shrew_, Kate's taming is essentially a Concentration Camp brainwashing. Here is the beginning of the final scene: (Lights up on a surreal tribunal setting. Petruchio sits behind a high tribunal desk. He is looking straight ahead in the background, there is the unmistakeable murmur of women's voices, chatting, gossiping, conniving. After a moment Grumio, dressed in a black gown like an official of the Court, bangs his staff three times. The wispering stops. Kate is ushered in by Baptista. She is wearing a simple, shapeless institutional-like garment. She stares straight ahead and gives the impression of being mesmerized. Her face is white; her hair drawn back, her eyes wide and blank.) Kate: (Weakly) What is your will, sir, that you send for me? Petruchio: Katherine, I charge thee, tell these headstrong women What duty they owe to their lords and husbands. (Kate does not reply. After a moment, Baptista, who is beside her, touches her shoulder comfortingly. Eventually, Kate begins to mouthe words. Obviously, she has learned this speech by rote and is delivering it as if the words were being spoken by another.) and so on... Marowitz also has a very interesting version of _The Merchant of Venice_ set in pre-WW II Palestine. These and other adaptations can be found in _The Marowitz Shakespeare_ (1978). Cheers, Jay Johnson Medicine Hat College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernie Folan Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 95 11:36:49 gmt Subject: Kate / Griselda Lisa Broome wrote: >>I am working on a paper in which I describe Shakespeare's >>Taming of the Shrew as mythic and Dekker's Patient Grissil >>as folkloric in mode. .. I would like to know if anyone >>has suggestions for additional sources. I also welcome >>any comments on the topic! .. There is an article by C E Brown comparing Katherina and Griselda in TEXAS STUDIES IN LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE, Vol 37, No 3 (Fall 1995). Published by University of Texas Press. Bernie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 09:52:25 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0930 Re: Hollywood; Happy *Lr.*; Soliloquies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0930. Thursday, 30 November 1995. (1) From: Leslie Thomson Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 1995 19:31:15 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0928 *Ham.* in Hollywood; Bedford Reviews; Job (2) From: Jesus Cora Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 1995 17:01:28 UTC+0200 Subj: SHK 6.0924 Re: Courts, Merchants, and more (3) From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 1995 14:45:47 -0800 (PST) Subj: Soliloquies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leslie Thomson Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 1995 19:31:15 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0928 *Ham.* in Hollywood; Bedford Reviews; Job A correction: the *Hamlet* piece mentioned by E. Pearlman is in the November 20 issue of the New Yorker. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 1995 17:01:28 UTC+0200 Subject: SHK 6.0924 Re: Courts, Merchants, and more Oops... I know, I know. My memory did not serve me right as to the Restoration *Lear* which is not by Dryden and Davenant, but by Nahum Tate as many of you pointed out. Dryden and Davenant did rewrite a Shakespeare play, though: *The Tempest; or the Happy Island*. Sorry about this mistake. By the way, are these reworkings of Shakespeare's plays ever performed these days? Yours. Jesus Cora fmjca@alcala.es (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 1995 14:45:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Soliloquies A question, maybe an odd question: We know that early modern Englanders generally read aloud rather than to themselves. Is there any evidence that they may have been more inclined to THINK aloud than we do? Chaucer's *The Miller's Tale*, some of you will remember, seems to rely on this possibility when Nicholas exclaims "A berd! A berd!" Incidentally, is it an article of faith that "soliloquy" has to mean talking *to* oneself? Can't it also mean talking *by* oneself? Robert Appelbaum UC Berkeley ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 09:54:08 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0931 Q: Visual Aids Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0931. Thursday, 30 November 1995. From: Michael T. Calvert Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 95 17:13:40 CST Subject: Shakespeare visual aids Fellow SHAKSPEReans: I am currently looking for Shakespeare slides to illustrate lectures. In particular, I'm interested in bibliographic images, i.e., title pages and sample pages of text from both pre- and post-folio publications, plus images of handwritten documents (such as the possibly Shakespearean scenes from _Sir Thomas More_). Does anyone know of a publisher or educational media house that sells such items? Please reply to me directly at u30373@uicvm.uic.edu, and I will gladly digest the responses and post them to the list. TIA Michael Calvert Newberry Library ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 10:03:12 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0932 Re: Ian McKellen's *R3* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0932. Thursday, 30 November 1995. (1) From: Laura Blanchard Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 1995 18:47:05 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0926 Ian McKellen's *R3* (2) From: Bill Day Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 1995 22:48:47 -0500 Subj: Ian McKellen and Richard III (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Blanchard Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 1995 18:47:05 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0926 Ian McKellen's *R3* Many thanks to all who responded. Much of this I have already, but I hope to have more comprehensive materials for our Web site before I link the section to our homepage. Those of you who would be interested in previewing the section are welcome to do so at http://www.webcom.com/blanchrd/mckellen/index.html The usual "under construction" caveats apply, of course -- especially to the Shakespeare links, which I have been gathering over the past week but have not yet included. Thanks again. Regards, Laura Blanchard Richard III Society (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Day Date: Wednesday, 29 Nov 1995 22:48:47 -0500 Subject: Ian McKellen and Richard III I haven't heard anything about plans to film the production, but I'm surprised he'd bother. I saw it at the Kennedy Center in Washington and thought it was a disaster for reasons that, as I recall, others aired on the list when the play was in performance. McKellen's choice to portray Richard as a kind of proto-Hitler, Nazi uniforms and all, both obscured the nature of Richard's personal malevolence and ambition and undermined the credibility of the performance. Far from exercising the kind of hypnotic control over the masses that Hitler displayed over the crowds at Nuremberg, R3's rise to power is largely a matter of the manipulation of personal alliances and the elimination of people who stand before him in the succession. Despite his allegation of the princes' bastardy, Richard does not really achieve the throne by perpetration of the Big Lie, as Hitler did. Although there may be some superficial similarity between Hitler's seizure of power and Richard's, Hitler exercised much greater popular control than Richard does in the play (witness Buckingham's appeal to the citizen's of London.) Richard is a tragedy that turns on one man's ambition far more than on an entire nation's corruption. I think it is a vulgar error, in the worst sense of the word, to conflate the Nazi regime with every coup d'etat and dictatorial regime that springs up. Cavalier allusion undermines, rather than aiding, the cause of "relevance." Unfortunately, the effect at the Kennedy Center when I saw R3 was repeated, though muted, laughter in the audience every time McKellen delivered one of R's more vicious lines. Dressing Richard in robes too big for him did neither the production nor McKellen a service. Sincerely, Bill Day billday@us.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 14:00:51 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0934 Qs: *SQ* Teaching Issue; Abhorson; Slang Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0934. Friday, 1 December 1995. (1) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 95 09:50:23 -0600 Subj: SQ (2) From: Steven Marx Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 08:29:41 -0800 (PST) Subj: Measure for Measure 4.2.44-48 (fwd) (3) From: J.M. Richardson Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 14:00:37 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Elizabethan Slang (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 95 09:50:23 -0600 Subject: SQ A recent issue of *Shakespeare Quarterly* focussed on teaching; I would like to acquire a copy of just this single issue. Could someone tell me the most efficient way to do this; do they have e-mail, perhaps? Thanks in advance. Chris Gordon University of Minnesota (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Marx Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 08:29:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Measure for Measure 4.2.44-48 (fwd) Can anyone help me, and one of my students, to construe the meaning of this "proof" that Abhorson's occupation as hangman is a mystery? Every true man's apparel fits your thief: if it be too little for your thief, your true man thinks it big enough; if it be too big for your thief, your thief thinks it little enough: so every true man's apparel fits your thief. Signet edition footnote says: "interpretation uncertain." (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: J.M. Richardson Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 14:00:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Elizabethan Slang In her article, "Representing Ophelia..." Elaine Showalter argues that in Elizabethan slang, "nothing" was a term for the female gentitalia, but gives no Elizabethan source for this, or indeed any specific reference. I can find nothing in the OED or in Partridge. Does anyone have a reference that can establish the validity of this claim? Thanks J.M. Richardson, Department of English, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ont. Ontario, P7B 5E1. jrichard@cs_acad_lan.lakeheadu.ca ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 14:05:16 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0935 Re: Ian McKellen and Richard III Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0935. Friday, 1 December 1995. (1) From: Laura Blanchard Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 09:27:19 -0500 Subj: Re: Ian McKellen and Richard III (2) From: David Evett Date: Thursday 30 Nov 1995 16:12 ET Subj: SHK 6.0932 Re: Ian McKellen's * (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Blanchard Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 09:27:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Ian McKellen and Richard III I too saw the McKellen production at the Kennedy Center, with a remarkably mystified Mary McGrory as my guest. McGrory, who made her reputation reporting on the McCarthy hearings, had not read the play for decades, was having difficulty following the accents and did not like the production at all (partly because, having recently read The Daughter of Time, she was annoyed with Shakespeare's slanders). We attended with a group of about 20 members of the Richard III Society -- hardly a group likely to be attuned to the portrayal of Richard III as hitleresque. Nevertheless, I found the production eerily compelling. In conceptualizing Richard as he did, McKellen didn't take the easy route of flirting with the audience and engaging their amused sympathies in the earlier acts. This was patently a Richard that not even a mother could love -- one that wouldn't know what to do with a woman even if she fell on the floor and quivered at him. This was also a Richard most dangerous to those who are likely to assume that others share our values, that they think and react like us and are driven by the same motivations. McKellen's Richard is nothing at all like any of us. I thought the whole thing was fascinating, and am actually looking forward to seeing it on film. (Besides, there's supposed to be a magnificent steam engine, originally built in Germany in the 1940s and now in Lancashire, in one of the scenes; it's worth the price of admission right there to see Richard III and a steam locomotive in the same scene.) As a Ricardian and hence a bit of a historical revisionist, I'm perversely pleased at the concept of the new film as well. I like to think that by moving Richard to the 1930s, McKellen is reinforcing the notion that this Richard is a _literary_ figure, not a historical one. I will be interested in seeing the reviews when the film opens on December 22 -- only in New York and Los Angeles, alas. Regards, Laura Blanchard Richard III Society (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday 30 Nov 1995 16:12 ET Subject: SHK 6.0932 Re: Ian McKellen's * Query: Bill Day's comments on the McKellen R3 fall in nicely with a question that occurred to me as I was reading a set of student papers on the Scottish play. Pursuit of power as an end in itself is taken pretty much for granted in this and other plays. Macbeth does not have a philosophy of government, a vision of an ideal or at least desirable Scottish society that he wantsto enact; to the extent that alternative modes of ruling are presented in the play--choice between Macbeth and Malcolm--it's in terms of personal morality, not ideology, and as far as I can find in a few minutes of mental review that's true of the other choices dramatized in this canon--Richard II and Bolingbroke, Henry VI and the Yorks, and so on. There's an implicit difference of something like _style_ visible in Antony and Caesar, but neither of them (nor any of their supporters or subjects) directly talks about what the difference might mean for individual citizens trying to live their lives. Brutus plots to murder Caesar on ideological grounds, of course, but he doesn't seem to want power for himself, and when we get a look at those who do, Antony and Octavius, we again find no explicit ideological discussion. The citizens, here and in _Coriolanus_, are as committed to an essentially personal approach. As I recall Machiavelli, usually supposed the most sophisticated political thinker of the time, he pays little or no attention to this kind of question; Elyot and the other courtesy books construe these things in moral terms. I can't imagine a late C20 pol, however venal, presenting his drive as pure naked ambition even to herself, with no reference however hypocritical to the good of the society. I'm tempted to suppose that the early modern attitude derives from the fact that power was more directly and merely mediated by physical force (Stanley managing not to be a factor at Bosworth). But I'm not sure I know enough to work it out. Can SHAKSPER subscribers recommend histories of political thought that address the problem? Have any of you out there thought about it, maybe even written about it, and about the ways it might touch on our reading, production, etc.? Politically, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 13:53:26 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0933 Re: Soliloquies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0933. Friday, 1 December 1995. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 23:36:05 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0930 Re: Soliloquies (2) From: David Lindley Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 17:02:24 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 6.0930 Re: Soliloquies (3) From: James P. Saeger Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 08:44:10 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Soliloquies (4) From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 09:47:43 -0800 (PST) Subj: Hamlet and soliloquies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 23:36:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0930 Re: Soliloquies Robert Appelbaum writes: > We know that early modern Englanders generally read aloud rather than to > themselves. How do we know this? How can anyone tell when someone is reading silently -- since they are silent? I do know that one of the saints -- was it Jerome? -- was credited with first reading silently, but, of course, this claim has been well contested. How can we establish with a fair degree of certainty that Englanders of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries generally read aloud rather than silently? Just curious. Yours, Curious Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 17:02:24 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 6.0930 Re: Soliloquies I'm sure Robert Applebaum is right - soliloquy on the Renaissance stage is frequently talking by oneself but to the audience. I've always thought that this was the case in 'To be..', so different from the other soliloquies in the play. The fluidity of boundaries between stage and audience in the shared light of an outdoor playhouse makes this possible in a way that the discrimination of the lighted actors from darkened audience even in an imitation Renaissance playouse like The Swan inhibits. David Lindley (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James P. Saeger Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 08:44:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Soliloquies Robert Appelbaum wrote: > Incidentally, is it an article of faith that "soliloquy" has to mean talking > *to* oneself? Can't it also mean talking *by* oneself? I had always understood soliloquies in Shakespeare's plays as the characters speaking *to* the audience rather than *to* themselves -- as in Hal's first soliloquy in 1H4 ("I know you all and will awhile uphold/ The unyoked humor of your idleness") where the "you" refers to the idle audience who have chosen to watch a play rather than work. Didn't the conception of soliloquy-as-internal-dialogue come along well after Shakespeare's time in conjunction with the fourth wall and other later theatrical conventions? James P. Saeger U of Pennsylvania (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 09:47:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hamlet and soliloquies This email is in reply to Peter Groves's reply to MY email about *Hamlet*, soliloquies and the convention that soliloquies are not usually overheard. Mr. Groves opens his final paragraph by writing, "At the risk of appearing pedantic, moreover, I would have to point out to Mr. Berens that there is an important difference between *hearing* voices (as in the case of conversation in a neighbouring room) and *overhearing* what they are saying." You probably shouldn't have taken the risk because your email is such an *exercise* in pedantry, bad argumentation and misrepresentation of what I said that it has put me into a perfect snit. First of all, the Tybalt example was one of THREE I mentioned, the last two of which you don't discuss because you cannot dismiss them easily. OF COURSE conventions, like all rules, are made to be broken. All I am arguing is that in the case of Ophelia and the "to be or not to be" soliloquy there are no signals to restrict the possibility either way, that it could easily come out in performance, and that it SHOULD come out in performance someday because it would be interesting and would allow the actress playing Ophelia to be more with it and intelligent than the character is usually allowed to be. Marv Rosenberg--whose wonderful MASKS OF HAMLET I did finally get around to checking--reports that "Tree's Ophelia was praying for Hamlet in her little arbor off the main stage, when she saw his torment in the soliloquy" (487), so there is some mild precedent for this interpretation, although in a theatrically weaker version than was originally suggested in this list. Second, in the final sentence of that paragraph-- "Had he [Tybalt] heard Romeo's praise of Juliet he would presumably have commented upon it: instead he merely assumes him to be 'fleer[ing] and scorn[ing] at our solemnity'."--you demonstrate just the kind of vague thinking that provoked my mild objection to your original post. You *presume* that a character like Tybalt, who never responds to anything *but* surface appearances, will, out of character, pay enough close attention to anything he sees or hears to comment. Third, why the nonsensical (or perhaps just whimsical?) moment in which you remind me that *Hamlet* is fiction and not history? The only proper response to this is to quote my twelve-year old cousin-- "DUH!" Nowhere in my post was there even the suggestion that I think *Hamlet* a history *play*, let alone somehow an exercise in history. Here you are putting words into my mouth in order to make your objection to my (once again, originally mild) objection seem somehow relevant or perspicacious. Let's try to get this story straight, shall we? Mr. Groves, your original post replied to the interesting question as to whether or not Ophelia might have overheard the "to be or not to be" soliloquy by saying, "By convention soliloquies are not overheard, but there is no compelling evidence either way--his change of tone towards Ophelia is motivated by his suspicion that she is deceiving him--and as far as I can see the question is irrelevant: I can't see that it makes much difference." From the get-go I have *agreed* with you that there is no compelling evidence either way, and was *complementing* your point by noting that, pardner, that there convention you done invoked ain't much of a convention on old Bill's stage to begin' with. (Now that I take another look at the original post, by the way, I note that Groves unnecessarily restricts and clarifies the theatrically open nature of the scene by once again presuming that Hamlet's motivation is clear, that it has to do with his suspicion that Ophelia is deceiving him. This is admittedly possible on stage, but other options are also available.) My original objection was to Mr. Groves's dressing up his perfectly reasonable comment that there is no evidence either way with an assertion of a theatrical convention that actually *weakens* the main point he was making. My current objection, however, is to Mr. Groves's near-sighted inability to understand what he reads, or to reply to what has been said rather than to what he wishes had been said. Bradley Berens Dept. of English U.C. Berkeley ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 14:18:30 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0936 Re: Dryden; Tate *Lr.*; Visual Aids; Griselda Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0936. Friday, 1 December 1995. (1) From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 14:46:51 -0600 (CST) Subj: Dryden (2) From: Thomas Dale Keever Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 20:44:23 -0500 Subj: Re: Happy *Lr.* (3) From: Bill Griffin Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 14:12:28 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0931 Q: Visual Aids (4) From: Catherine Fitzmaurice Kozubei Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 11:08:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Griselda (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 14:46:51 -0600 (CST) Subject: Dryden Don't forget that Dryden also rewrote *Troilus and Cressida* as *Truth Found Too Late*, in which he cut out all that vulgar humor and added a tragic ending in which Cressida (who has only PRETENDED to be unfaithful to Troilus) kills herself. He was extremely proud of it too. Juliet Youngren (Now returning to lurker mode) (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Dale Keever Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 20:44:23 -0500 Subject: Re: Happy *Lr.* Jesus Cora asks, "By the way, are these reworkings of Shakespeare's plays ever performed these days?" The Riverside Shakespeare Company staged Tate's LEAR here in New York a few years back to mixed response. Those who saw NICHOLAS NICKLEBY on stage or TV will remember the hilarious Victorian-style "revised" ROMEO AND JULIET that ends the first half. Does anyone know if this version was based on a text that was actually performed in 19th century Britain? I have long wanted to stage a RICHARD III that incorporated some of Colly Cibber's revisions and added scenes. I think his version is more stage-worthy than most give it credit for being. Has anyone else tried it lately? It was the standard acting version for many years. (See the SHAKSPER archives for an ASCII edition.) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Griffin Date: Thursday, 30 Nov 1995 14:12:28 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0931 Q: Visual Aids I've got a few transparencies of bibliographic materials, including a quarto title page, folio title page, sample pages of folio and quarto texts, a censor's signature, pages illustrating Jonson's revisions, etc. If you are interested, send me your mailing address and I'll send you the transparencies plus the paper they illustrated. Bill Griffin @ Felix.vcu.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Catherine Fitzmaurice Kozubei Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 11:08:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Griselda Griselda is also a character in Caryl Chyrchill's TOP GIRLS - a nice retelling of "patience on a monument" ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 19:11:50 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0938 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0937. Sunday, 3 December 1995. (1) From: Valerie Gager Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 18:48:00 -0700 Subj: Silent reading (2) From: Moray McConnachie Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 22:45:41 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0933 Re: Soliloquies (3) From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Date: Friday, 01 Dec 1995 16:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0933 Re: Soliloquies (4) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 17:15:21 -0500 Subj: Re: Soliloquies (5) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 17:58:40 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0933 Re: Soliloquies (6) From: Lyn Wood Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 20:19:32 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0933 Re: Soliloquies (7) From: John Mills Date: Friday, 01 Dec 1995 16:25:12 -0700 (MST) Subj: Soliloquies: To oneself and By oneself (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Valerie Gager Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 18:48:00 -0700 Subject: Silent reading Bill Godshalk asks whether St. Jerome has been credited with being the first person to read silently. I believe this distinction goes to St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, due to St. Augustine's remarks in *Confessions* VI.3. Valerie Gager Carroll College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 22:45:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0933 Re: Soliloquies On the question of silent reading, I wondered if anyone could help me trace a book which deals with this, in relation primarily to Shakespeare? I rather thought it was by John Berger, and called The Auditory Imagination : [something more specific], but apparently I was mistaken, since catalogue searches haven't helped. To boil it down, it is essentially a rather good argument defending the armchair reading of Shakespeare against the idea that Shakespeare's writing is only "properly" experienced in the theatre. Any help cheerfully welcomed by the defeated. Yours, Moray McConnachie (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. Russell Mayes, Jr. Date: Friday, 01 Dec 1995 16:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0933 Re: Soliloquies I am not sure if Robert Applebaum was replying to my post when he wrote > Incidentally, is it an article of faith that "soliloquy" has to mean talking > *to* oneself? Can't it also mean talking *by* oneself? but since I was at least one of the people who said that soliloquy means speaking to oneself, I thought I'd clarify my post. I only meant it in the sense of its derivation from the latin "solus" (alone) "loqui" (to speak). Given that definition, I simply question whether we should call "to be or not to be" a soliloquy since Hamlet is not alone on stage. Whether it means "speaking to oneself" or "by oneself" seems to me more a performance issue than the admittedly pedantic point I was making. I hope I have not muddied clear waters unnecessarily. W. Russell Mayes, Jr. University of North Carolina at Asheville wmayes@unca.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 17:15:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Soliloquies "Soliloquy" and "monologue", etymologically synonymous, have different meanings according to those who make such distinctions. As I understand it, a soliloquy is addressed by a lone actor to the audience (or, for the more psychologically inclined, himself), while a monologue is what happens when one actor, alone or not, speaks for a long time without interruption. "Speak the speech...", for example, is a monologue not a soliloquy. "O what a rogue..." is both. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 17:58:40 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0933 Re: Soliloquies Dear me, the question of soliloquies is a complex one, which I for one would never want to try to solve by appealing to what early modern people did or didnt do when they read. I'd want to look at what actors are invited to do with characters on stage. And there the answer seems to me to be: they do very complicated things indeed, very rarely simply reducible to "talking to himself" versus "talking to the audience." What Hamlet is doing is immensely different from what Falstaff is doing, from what Hal is doing, from what Autolycus is doing, from what Feste is doing.... (And For Bill Godshalk, the saint was Ambrose, by the testimony of Augustine who says that Ambrose was the first person he saw who read without _moving his lips_ which is very different from reading aloud. For Ambrose, reading was an _entirely_ internal process, for the others _that Augustine had seen_, it may have been silent, but still mimed speech in some way. Augustine was trained as a rhetorician, Ambrose as a theologian, between which kingdoms there is, as they say, some space.). Some examples of how hard this soliloquy stuff gets, real fast: Falstaff says, just before he stabs Hotspur: "Nothing confutes me but eyes and nobody sees me." Obviously this a a broad joke delivered by the actor, but is it by the character? Perhaps, but not more than perhaps, I think. Certainly if he does know we're there, he also knows we're not going to report him, so he knows we're different from other listeners. Richard II says "and for because the world is populous/ And here is not a person but myself/ I cannot do it." This is harder. It makes very little sense for the desperately lonely character Richard to be "talking to the audience" here, though the scene itself makes great and moving play with the sudden peopling of the world with figures from Richard's mind who are "really" there, in the audience. Henry V before Agincourt: "O God of battles, steel my soldiers hearts" Surely to God, this isnt "talking to the audience". Is it then not a soliloquy, but a prayer? But what is the difference between them? Is it so clear? What about the case of Clauduis' "prayer-scene"? Or Lear's prayer for the poor (and he isnt alone on stage then anyway)? Good Old Tricky Dick himself: "Now is the winter of our disconten/ made glorious summer by this sun of York." Now surely this _is_ "talking to the audience". Surely here "Now" and "our" are tropes. Yet even this wont work entirely: they are both tropes and not tropes -- they are complex mixes of trope and anti-trope, dependent upon the simultaneous presence of the actor leading us into the play, and us finding there that ole bad character we love to hate. So it dont work so easy as "talking to the audience" I mean, for Gosh sakes, _of course_ an actor speaking a soliloquy is TALKING TO THE AUDIENCE. Sheesh! He's sure as hell not being SILENT to them. But he may be doing something else too. The real question is (always): what's the relation between the talking this actor is doing, and the talking this character is doing? Hic labor, hic opus est. I'm, as they say, outa here. Tom (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lyn Wood Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 20:19:32 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0933 Re: Soliloquies Bradley S. Berens wrote: >in the case of Ophelia and the "to be or not to be" soliloquy there are no >signals to restrict the possibility either way, that it could easily come out >in performance, and that it SHOULD come out in performance someday because it >would be interesting and would allow the actress playing Ophelia to be more >with it and intelligent than the character is usually allowed to be. During Derek Jacobi's stage performance of Hamlet in 1977-1978, he delivered "To be or not to be" to Ophelia, who sat listening before him. Later, when Jacobi directed Kenneth Branagh in the role for the Renaissance Theatre Company in 1988, they did the same. Jacobi said (during an interview on the "Discovering Hamlet" video) that he felt Hamlet's thoughts on suicide planted the seed in Ophelia's mind and contributed to her own suicide. Unfortunately, I didn't see either of those, so can't say whether Ophelia came across as more intelligent or not. I'd like to know about any other productions with a similar interpretation. Lyn Wood (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mills Date: Friday, 01 Dec 1995 16:25:12 -0700 (MST) Subject: Soliloquies: To oneself and By oneself Judging from the reviews of performance over the past century and more it seems quite clear that treating a soliloquy as "thinking aloud," which is to say, "Talking to oneself", is a distinctly "modern" practice. Late 19th. cent. reviewers repeatedly comment on the practice as an innovation, some with approval, "old stagers" largely with disapproval. It was one of the distinctive features of Booth's celebrated Hamlet performances, and he was soon followed in that by many others. (See my Hamlet on Stage: The Great Tradition). 20th cent. actors choose one approach or the other. Olivier, using a voice over for the most part, talks to himself. Nicol Williamson, in marked contrast, talks directly to the camera/audience. John Mills ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 19:26:30 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0938 Re: *R3*: Film and Politics Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0938. Sunday, 3 December 1995. (1) From: Harry Teplitz Date: Friday, 1 Dec 95 13:49:00 PST Subj: [*R3*] (2) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 17:36:00 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0935 Re: Ian McKellen and Richard III (3) From: Laura Blanchard Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 23:46:00 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0935 Re: Ian McKellen and Richard III (4) From: Piers Lewis Date: Saturday, 2 Dec 1995 12:03:55 -0800 (PST) Subj: Politics (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Teplitz Date: Friday, 1 Dec 95 13:49:00 PST Subject: [*R3*] This is my first posting to this list, so please be patient... I was lucky enough to see an advance screening of the Richard III film this week (one of the perks of living in LA). While there are good points to be made against the interpretation itself, I was extremely impressed with the film, and highly recommend it. I, too, saw the stage version on tour (at UCLA, in a very large theater), and found it a little disappointing. The focus on Richard overwhelemed the other characters, and many of his quirks were difficult to see from the balcony. Both these problems are solved immediately by the transition to film, allowing the production to say what it really wants to. The film is remarkably bold in its interpretion; even more so than the play. Much of the dialogue is rearranged, given to other characters, and outright invented. There are some changes I don't agree with, and there are gratuitous battle scenes, perhaps for market value. I don't want to cover too many details here so as not to spoil it, but I can safely say that there will be a lot of objections of the sort that were recently discussed in speculation about changing Othello. Despite this controvery, the film is brilliant. Performances are strong by most of the principals, the imagery is striking, and the music is wonderful. I don't know if popular opinion (on this list, anyway) will agree, but I preferred this version to the Olivier film. In the traditon of Peter Brook's King Lear, this film proves that it's worth taking risks with Shakepeare when bringing it to film. -- Harry Teplitz UCLA Shakespeare Performance Group (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 17:36:00 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0935 Re: Ian McKellen and Richard III Dave Evett's question about ideology motivating coups d'etat in the plays is an interesting one. I wonder if, even in the most immediate case, Richard III, there isnt a partial exception: Richmond, it seems to me, _is_ intervening for what he thinks is "the good of the country" and he goes on at some length after Richard's death, as well as before it, to describe at least in negative terms what that entails. Among other things, it entails a language of "friends" and, especially, of the "body of the country" hence a sacramental and corporate image of England as a national unity, versus Richard's own stirring but much more aristocrat-based appeal to martial heroism and violence. Likewise in the Tartan tragedy, even if Malcolm doesnt, Macduff _does_ lament for "Scotland." And Gaunt (perhaps even York) certainly has something like a political vision in mind when he warns Richard not to "lease out" the country. It may be significant that in these latter cases, it is those not directly struggling for power that have the political vision of national transformation. But then Lech Walesa is no longer the President of Poland either. Perhaps Rebecca Buchnell has some thoughts here in _Tragedies of Tyrants_ -- the relevant discourse would presumably be that of tyranny and its alternatives. On Machiavelli, I suspect the relevant text is not "The Prince" but "The Discourses" where he discusses at length the processes that generate constitutional change in the Roman Republic. The latter is, at least for my money, his really innovative and important work as historian and political theorist. Cheers, Tom (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Blanchard Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 23:46:00 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0935 Re: Ian McKellen and Richard III In a message dated 95-12-01 16:47:02 EST, David Evett writes: > Can SHAKSPER subscribers recommend histories of political thought that address >the problem? Have any of you out there thought about it, maybe even written >about it, and about the ways it might touch on our reading, production, etc.? There's a new collection of essays just out from St. Martin's Press, _The Wars of the Roses_, edited by A.J. Pollard, which tackles this very problem, attempting to get at the balance between ambition and principle in the major players of the Wars of the Roses. As Pollard asks in his introductory essay, "Were the motives of the participants no more elevated than the pursuit of base self-interest, or were important matters of principle at stake? And were the wars the reflection of a deeper crisis out of which the English monarchy emerged stronger and more autocratic? These are some of the questions explored in the chapters which follow." Taken together with the essays in Rosemary Horrox's _Fifteenth Century Attitudes_, just out from Cambridge University Press this spring or last fall, the essays in _The Wars of the Roses_ paint a much more complex picture of the mental, emotional, and moral landscape of the period than we've witnessed previously. This is a fascinating thread. I look forward to seeing where it goes. Regards, Laura Blanchard (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Piers Lewis Date: Saturday, 2 Dec 1995 12:03:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Politics Dear David Evett: I think you're selling Machiavelli short. There are many references to the welfare of the citizenry in *The Prince.* *The Prince* also concludes with a utopian vision of a united Italy, and what that would mean to the virtue of Italians. *The Discourses,* conversely, are concerned from beginning to end with the value of different kinds of government and governors -- the greatest goal for Machiavelli, as for WS's Brutus, being virtue itself. Brutus, I believe, doesn't want to *change* Rome, but to "reduce" it to its pre-Caesar condition of republican virtue; as a republican -- Plutarchian, Tacitean, or Machiavellian -- he must be committed to returning power to the Senate, not to wresting power for himself. The literature of political theory on the period is for me somewhat disappointing, probably because the British are still fighting about it as a contemporary issue (let's hear it for a written constitution already, and a bill of rights!), and as a result don't quite achieve the clarity my American-mind would prefer, but indispensable reading has to include Quentin Skinner, *Foundations of Modern Political Thought,* P.G.A. Pocock, *The Machiavellian Moment,* Felix Raab, *The English Face of Machiavelli,* and Johann Sommerville, *Politics and Ideology in England 1603-1640.* There are some interesting remarks on *Coriolanus* in Mark Kishlansky, *Parliamentary Selection,* where Kishlansky argues that Coriolanus's problem is *not* personal at all, but rather an expression of the dilemma of public voting in Tudor and Stuart England. Has anyone else out there responded to what Kishlansky says? Obviously, we cannot expect Shakespearean politicians to speak the language of benefits in quite the sense that a 20th century politician would be expected to speak it. But that doesn't mean that benefits are irrelevant, only that they are differently conceived, and frequently subordinated to questions of *right.* I think you're right, David, to call attention to the moralization of political language in people like Elyot. I think we need to be suspicious of that moralization -- obviously it is hiding something -- but we also need to respect the idea that political values and benefits are ultimately moral in character, and cannot simply be advertised as if they were mere commodities. Robert Appelbaum ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 19:44:37 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0939 Re: Abhorson Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0939. Sunday, 3 December 1995. (1) From: Corrie Zoll Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 20:24:33 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0934 Qs: Abhorson (2) From: Michael Saenger Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 22:07:02 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0934 Qs: Abhorson (3) From: Joseph L Lockett Date: Saturday, 2 Dec 1995 14:28:15 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: Abhorson (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Corrie Zoll Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 20:24:33 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0934 Qs: Abhorson I recently performed the role of Abhorson in Frank Theatre's Minneapolis production of Measure for Measure, wearing leather chaps, a big gold codpiece, a muscle shirt and tattoos. To answer Steven Marx's question about Abhorson's proof: Can anyone help me, and one of my students, to construe the meaning of this"proof" that Abhorson's occupation as hangman is a mystery? Every true man's apparel fits your thief: if it be too little for your thief, your true man thinks it big enough; if it be too big for your thief, your thief thinks it little enough: so every true man's apparel fits your thief. The Arden Measure for Measure states that the F version splits the lines of the proof between Abhorson and and Pompey. It goes on to say "The 'proof' that the true man's apparel 'fits' (satisfies) the thief shows the thief to be a fitter of clothes i.e. tailor, whose occupation is a 'mystery' Executioners and Thieves are associated because the clothes of the condemned man were the hangman's perquisite...One stage of the syllogism, relating the executioner to the thief, is missing...little and big in terms of (i) size (ii) value." Not very illuminating, to be sure. We cut the proof entirely. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Saenger Date: Friday, 1 Dec 1995 22:07:02 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0934 Qs: Abhorson How do we explain the passage: > > Every true man's apparel fits your thief: if it be too little for your thief, > your true man thinks it big enough; if it be too big for your thief, your > thief thinks it little enough: so every true man's apparel fits your thief. Well, fools rush in to offer solutions, and let me be among them. True to his assertion that his trade is a mystery, Abhorson presents an enigma. But I do think that, like the porter in Macbeth, his language reflects on the "higher" action of the play. So, take the Duke to be the true man, and Angelo the thief. The Duke dresses Angelo in a brief authority, and how it fits him is very much an issue, particularly as it resonates with a noose, which, of course, becomes smaller at a key moment. That is not to say that direct meaning can be translated onto the larger play, but merely that a resonance exists. Michael Baird Saenger (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph L Lockett Date: Saturday, 2 Dec 1995 14:28:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Abhorson > Every true man's apparel fits your thief: if it be too little for your thief, > your true man thinks it big enough; if it be too big for your thief, your > thief thinks it little enough: so every true man's apparel fits your thief. I'm not sure why a noose would be referred to as "true man's apparel": perhaps that's the crux of your question? (Or perhaps it shows us something of Abhorson's view of the universe?) As to the sentence... If the noose is too tight on the thief, nevertheless the observer of the hanging thinks it's big enough (he'll die anyway). If it's too big, the thief thinks that nevertheless it's small enough (he'll die anyway). So a noose always "fits". This is a "mystery" presumably because it is, as presented, a seemingly contradictory yet true statement. That is, it is not a Agatha-Christie- type "mystery" to be puzzled out, but a "mystery" in the ancient sense (a la the Eleusinian Mysteries of ancient Greece, or other cultic rituals): a strange credo that makes sense once you understand the logic behind it. I believe the Elizabethans were great fans of such logic puzzles and such. If I've only told you what you already know, I apologize. But it is indeed a fascinating line to puzzle out! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 19:50:26 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0940 Qs: *Ham.* Texts; *AYL* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0940. Sunday, 3 December 1995. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Sunday, 3 Dec 1995 18:54:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: AS YOU LIKE IT (Shepherd references) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Sunday, 3 Dec 1995 18:54:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: AS YOU LIKE IT (Shepherd references) I am co-directing AYLI at at HS in Virginia. We are changing the forest of Arden into a more contemporary urban ghetto setting, with a directorial emphasis on the "character building benefits of adversity". One problem we are finding is how to translate the shepherd references in the story. I want to leave them intact; letting them stand as analogies (for ex. if Corin were to become a street preacher, "flock" has applicable Christian references. If you have any ideas or comments I'd love to hear from you. Kila ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 19:55:08 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0941 Re: Nothing; Branagh's *Hamlet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0941. Sunday, 3 December 1995. (1) From: Martin Green Date: Saturday, 2 Dec 1995 14:38:54 -0500 Subj: Re: Nothing (2) From: Chris Gordon Date: Sunday, 3 Dec 95 11:50:41 -0600 Subj: Branagh's *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Green Date: Saturday, 2 Dec 1995 14:38:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Nothing Well, I don't know if the validity of the helpful insight that "nothing" is an Elizabethan term for female genitalia can ever be conclusively established, but a most persuasive argument that this is so was made (for the first time, I believe) by Thomas Pyles, in an article entitled "Ophelia's 'Nothing'" in LXIV Modern Language Notes, p. 322 (1949). The article makes such good sense that Pyles' conclusion is almost universally accepted. Also, when we consider (a point not made by Pyles) that "thing," in many contexts (not exclusively Shakespearean), is easily perceived to be a reference to "penis," then the aptness of no-thing to characterize the female sexual area becomes easily discernible. And I, long ago, suggested that when Shakespeare writes, in Sonnet 20, that . . . Nature as she wrought thee fell a-doting, And by addition me of thee defeated By adding one thing to my purpose nothing, the ever-punning poet, far from negating the thought that the Fair Friend's sex prevented him from being a sexual object, was saying that by addition, Nature defeated (vanquished) me BY thee, by adding one thing (male organ) which to my purpose (i.e., from my point of view) is no-thing (a female sex organ - - i.e., an appropriate focus for sexual fulfillment). My rule in seeing puns in Shakespeare is this: if it makes sense, it's there. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Sunday, 3 Dec 95 11:50:41 -0600 Subject: Branagh's *Hamlet* I just received this information from a friend in another discussion group and thought SHAKSPEReans would be interested: According to Variety, the cast that has been signed so far: Kenneth Branagh - Hamlet Kate Winslet - Ophelia Derek Jacobi - Claudius Julie Christie - Gertrude Jack Lemmon - Marcellus Billy Crystal - Gravedigger #1 Robin Williams - Osric Charlton Heston - Player King Rosemary Harris - Player Queen Signed but role not noted: Gerard Depardieu Sir John Mills Sir John Gielgud Filming is to start January 30/96 in England. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 14:28:21 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0942 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0942. Monday, 4 December 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 03 Dec 1995 19:37:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0938 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies (2) From: An Sonjae Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 09:47:15 +0900 (KST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0938 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies (3) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 03 Dec 1995 20:09:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0938 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies (4) From: Peter C. Herman Date: Sunday, 3 Dec 1995 20:19:58 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0938 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies (5) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 14:03:05 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: Soliloquies and audiences (6) From: Stephen Buhler Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 11:08:52 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0938 *Imaginary Audition* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 03 Dec 1995 19:37:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0938 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies Dear Moray McConnachie----I think the book you're looking for is by Harry rather than John Berger and is called Imaginary Audition rather than Auditory Imagination. I think it, along with Christy Desmet's Reading Shakespeare's Characters, is one of the most recent interesting (or most interesting recent) books on what you would call "silent reading"-----hope this helps, Chris Stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: An Sonjae Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 09:47:15 +0900 (KST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0938 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies If the question is whether or not Ophelia might overhear Hamlet and whether or not Hamlet knows Ophelia is listening, these are surely production-related matters since I do not think anyone can find any clear basis for a single answer in the text. No one seems yet to have pointed out the rather unsubtle nature of the question; given the fame-notoriety of the lines in question, the theatrical experience can never be a naturalistic one (and the lines are hardly natural ones, are they?) since the audience is sitting there like the jury at an elocution contest: right, here he goes, where's he going to put the stresses? How fast will he take it? Anguished Hamlet ponders death! Anguished actor ponders surrender! From my limited experience of productions, the entire speech serves to remind us that we are watching actors reciting lines that say more than anyone would normally say. Hamlet might just as well have Ophelia check his pronunciation, since we all know what happens later in the play anyway and I do not see how we can try to go back to being a "naive audience" again. An Sonjae Sogang University. Seoul anthony@ccs.sogang.ac.kr (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 03 Dec 1995 20:09:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0938 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies Thank you, Tom Bishop, for your insights into the difficulties of "this soliloquy stuff" and the positing of a distinction between the character and the actor (author?). Especially in Falstaff's case. Certainly the idea of soliloquy as an expression of the "real" and/or "more authentic" psyche of the character is something that seems alien to Shakespeare's non-essentialist notions of identity, and perhaps we should consider such speeches as Othello's (over the sleeping body of Desdemona) and Iachimo's (over the sleeping body of Imogen) to be a kind of soliloquy as well. At one point Coleridge speaks of Leontes' "soliloguies in the form of dialogue", but more pertinantly I'd like to address the question of RICHARD II's soliloquy you addressed--- I have been studying how I may compare Richard II's soliloquy to what Keats calls Shakespeare's NEGATIVE CAPABILITY. For this soliloguy does seem to call attention to dramatic artifice on a level similar to say the PYRAMUS AND THISBY scene in MND (both written around the same time and they both occur near the end of their plays). Yet, in Richard's case, the soliloquy works on a double level in the sense that it can be both Richard speaking as well as *possibly* "Shakespeare himself". Though the latter is no doubt a perlious assertion, some of the METADRAMATIC critics like James Calderwood and John Blanpied have addressed this point in detail. Harry Berger, in the book Moray asks about, unfortunately ignores this soliloquy (though his book does center around the play and character of R2). Anyway, I am curious what you mean when you say: "though the scene itself makes great and moving play with the sudden peopling of the world with Richard's mind who are "really" there in the audience." Do you mean that Richard's "peopling" can reflect back on what we've seen in the play? That what happens in the soliloquy can be a comment on what has happened in the play outside of the context of Richard's psyche? If this is what you're saying---and i can't tell--then the soliloquy subordinates character to plot. Joan Hartwig (and others have followed) has an incredible essay which shows how the conscious repetition of some of the phrases in earlier scenes in this play (5.3 and 5.4) in this soliloquy may serve precisely this THEMATIC purpose, and I think if we take such assertions seriously it may enable a way of considering soliloquies in ways subvesive to many of the more "official" readings of the play---whether they side with Richard over Bullingbroke or Bullingbroke over Richard.... Chris Stroffolino (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter C. Herman Date: Sunday, 3 Dec 1995 20:19:58 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0938 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies I think that the book Prof. McConnachie has in mind is _Imaginary Audition_, by Harry Berger, Jr. (University of California Press, 1989). Peter C. Herman Dept. of English Georgia State U (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 14:03:05 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: Soliloquies and audiences Further to Tom Bishop's excellent list of examples of types of soliloquy, I'd like to add Launce's speech at the beginning of 4.4 of _Two Gentlemen of Verona_. In this solitary (except for the dog who is not being addressed here but rather discussed) speech he directly addresses the audience, with "look you", and "You shall judge". In 2.3 he also says (while similarly alone), "I'll show you the manner of it." These are direct addresses to the audience, but perhaps it will be argued that these speeches in this play are more Elizabethan stand-up comedy than Hamlet-like soliloquy. But I certainly know of no other speeches in Shakespeare, always and importantly excluding prologues, epilogues and choral interjections (as in _Henry V), where a character in a play addresses the audience as "you". (I think there are some in Jonson, but can't recall the references.) I'd be interested if anyone can contradict me on this point. Adrian Kiernander (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Florence Amit Date: Monday, 04 Dec 1995 12:30:20 +0200 Subject: Re: re.to Shk 6.0938 >>Richard II says "and for because the world is populous/ And here is not a >>>person but myself/ I cannot do it." This is harder. It makes very little >>>sense for the desperately lonely character Richard to be "talking to the >>>audience" here, though the scene itself makes great and moving play with the >>>sudden peopling of the world with figures from Richard's mind who are >>>"really" there in the audience. I would like to make this observation to Thomas Bishop, whose essay I so much enjoyed: I have long thought and even tried to describe to a few that I believed had influence on productions, that Richard's prison scene might with benefit be orchestrated differently. The prison and Bolingbrooke's audience chamber should be on the stage at the same time. As Aumerle's mother pleads for the life of her son (and the continuance of York) Richard envisions the future of the line in its historic confrontation with Lancaster. Richard's contemplations are fleshed out with a real presence and the Duchess' couplets become nicely dispersed throughout. This way Richard's words do have a more on stage-audience (almost) (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Buhler Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 11:08:52 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0938 *Imaginary Audition* The book to which Moray McConnachie refers is *Imaginary Audition: Shakespeare on Stage and Page* by Harry Berger, Jr. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California P, 1989). While this valuable and provocative book is written -- and presented as -- "Against New Histrionicism," Berger's argument is more specifically with the critical maneuver of appealing to stage practice as "proof" in support of traditional and naive interpretations of the plays. Berger prefers to explore how the idea of theatricality might function within the world-of-the-play, focusing on *Richard II*. Richard "imagines" himself as actor -- notably in the deposition scene -- ever mindful of his audience. On the vexed question of soliloquies as "thinking out loud" or as "addressing the audience directly" (whether in character or not), Berger tends to stay in the "thought" camp, in keeping with his defense of more speculative *textual* approaches to the plays as opposed to the more pragmatic varieties of the *script-based* approach. Stephen M. Buhler, University of Nebraska-Lincoln ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 14:38:13 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0943 Re: Abhorson Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0943. Monday, 4 December 1995. (1) From: Jeff Myers Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 08:10:05 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0939 Re: Abhorson (2) From: James Schafer Date: Monday, 04 Dec 1995 11:13:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0934 Re: Abhorson's occupation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 08:10:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0939 Re: Abhorson > Every true man's apparel fits your thief: if it be too little for your thief > your true man thinks it big enough; if it be too big for your thief, your > thief thinks it little enough: so every true man's apparel fits your thief. Could these lines possibly refer not to the noose, but to the clothing of the hanged that the hangman usually receives? See Falstaff's line in 1HIV about a hangman's obtaining of suits. Jeff Myers (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schafer Date: Monday, 04 Dec 1995 11:13:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0934 Re: Abhorson's occupation G. B. Harrison's note to the lines reads, "i.e., an honest man's clothes suit the thief who steals them." Now, I'm still trying to figure out what that has to do with proving that Abhorson's grisly occupation is a "mystery," a "trade practiced by a skilled craftsman," as GBH also notes. Unless there is something about the one-size- fits-all nature of the hangman's (the "thief's"?) noose. Hmmmm: the Roman crucifiers (sorry for an out-of-liturgical-season reference here!) rolled bones for Christ's robe; did the English hangman get his victim's clothes? James F. Schaefer Jr. Georgetown University schaefej@guvax.georgetown.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 08:20:38 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0944 Re: Branagh; Nothing; Machiavellian virtu; *SQ* Issues Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0944. Wednesday, 6 December 1995. (1) From: Mike Young Date: Monday, 04 Dec 1995 13:55:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.094 Branagh's *Hamlet* (2) From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 15:18:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0941 Re: Nothing (3) From: Valerie Gager Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 15:09:00 -0700 Subj: Machiavellian virtu (4) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 05 Dec 95 09:03:00 PST Subj: Issues of SQ (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Young Date: Monday, 04 Dec 1995 13:55:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.094 Branagh's *Hamlet* Thanks, as usual, to Chris Gordon for the casting information on _Hamlet_ but I do wonder about the report that the filming is not starting until next month. Unless I had stayed up way too late, I remember seeing Branagh on David Letterman. When asked why his hair was blond, the reply was something like 'I'm filming _Hamlet_ and he is to be Danish_.' Did anyone else see it? Michael Young Robert Morris C. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Hughes Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 15:18:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0941 Re: Nothing I haven't been able to keep up with current posts, so don't know if anyone has mentioned that "nothing" in numbers is a zero or "O", which is shaped like a hole. Stephanie Hughes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Valerie Gager Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 15:09:00 -0700 Subject: Machiavellian virtu I agree with Robert Appelbaum's view that Machiavelli's ultimate goal in *The Prince* is the unification and protection of Italy's separate principalities against the military threat of a united France. I suspect Machiavelli would disagree, however, with the assessment of his desire to introduce a new order to Italy as constituting a "utopian" vision. In Chapter XV he describes his intention to provide advice "of practical use" and "to represent things as they are in real truth, rather than as they are imagined," speaking against those who "have dreamed up republics and principalities which have never in truth been known to exist." Machiavelli then proceeds with a discussion of virtue and the prince. I think Appelbaum's use of the word `virtue' in relation to Machiavelli's politics requires definition because, as George Bull points out in his introduction to the Penguin edition, the Italian `virtu' (how does one indicate a grave accent on e-mail?) is used in *The Prince* in many different senses, which Bull most often translates as `prowess'. This meaning, of course, comes from the root `vir' and encompasses the manly qualities enumerated in Chapter XIX: "grandeur, courage, sobriety, strength." Chapter XV includes two senses: what is probably the more traditional sense of moral goodness and the more practical sense of producing a desired end (or that which is efficacious). My understanding is that, rather than conforming to certain moral standards of behavior (the first sense), Machiavelli's prince determines the virtu of a particular course of action based upon its likelihood to be effective in achieving political ends (the second sense). *The Dictionary of the History of Ideas* has a good overview of `virtu' in the dual sense I mention above and its centrality as a concern in Renaissance humanist debate. Valerie Gager Carroll College (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 05 Dec 95 09:03:00 PST Subject: Issues of SQ In response to Christine Mack Gordon, but also for anyone else who is interested, single issues or subscriptions to SQ can be obtained from Toni Krieger, the Circulation Manager. Try her e-mail : krieger@smtp.folger.edu or by phone at 202-675-0351. Georgianna Ziegler ziegler@smtp.folger.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:04:16 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0946 Re: Abhorson Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0946. Wednesday, 6 December 1995. (1) From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 19:30:51 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0939 Re: Abhorson (2) From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Tuesday, 5 Dec 1995 10:00:23 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0943 Re: Abhorson (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 19:30:51 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0939 Re: Abhorson The mystery, I believe, is death. Being so close to the thing, Abhorson knows it to be a mystery. As to the true man's clothes and the thief, I think Shakespeare lost his line of logic on this, but plowed on anyway, the hangman in his whoreson way a fiddle to play us a puzzling tune on true men, thieves, and death. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Tuesday, 5 Dec 1995 10:00:23 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0943 Re: Abhorson >> Every true man's apparel fits your thief: if it be too little for your thief >> your true man thinks it big enough; if it be too big for your thief, your >> thief thinks it little enough: so every true man's apparel fits your thief. These lines might be understood philosophically, paraphrased as: A thief thinks everything should belong to him: something a true man thinks is fine is less than the thief wants; something that is more than the thief deserves still seems to the thief barely enough: the thief wants it all. The "mystery" is what the hangman understands about crime? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:13:03 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0947 Qs: Typefaces; Personal Quest; The Marcellus Version; Feste Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0947. Wednesday, 6 December 1995. (1) From: John Mucci Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 16:22:18 -0500 Subj: Renaissance typefaces (2) From: David Middleton Date: Tuesday, 05 Dec 95 10:06:03 CST Subj: Personal Quest (3) From: Jennifer C. Worth Date: Tuesday, 05 Dec 1995 13:34:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Q: "The Marcellus Version" (4) From: Cornelius Novelli Date: Tuesday, 05 Dec 1995 21:49:02 EST Subj: FESTE (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mucci Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 16:22:18 -0500 Subject: Renaissance typefaces Does anyone know the availability of fonts for wordprocessing (truetype, postcript or otherwise) which print out in an authentic Elizabethan typeface? This is to say, with a long medial "s", ligatures for "t-c" and others, as well as a functional long tilde for m's and n's? A thorn (the "ye") would be useful as well. I have had no luck finding such a face in traditional sources, and wonder if anyone on line has a more refined availability. Thank you John.C.Mucci@gte.sprint.com (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Middleton Date: Tuesday, 05 Dec 95 10:06:03 CST Subject: Personal Quest To readers of SHAKSPER: this is a shot in the dark, but I'm nearly at the end of my proverbial rope. I'm editing a collection of criticism, and one piece I'd like to use is by Prof. Susan Corey Everson. Her essay on "Toni Morrison's Tar Baby, A Resource For Feminist Theology" appeared in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion. Since the editors do not hold copyright, I need to locate Prof. Everson to request reprint rights. Have so far been unable to find her. Does anybody out there know where I might reach her? For reasons of privacy, you could contact Prof. Everson and ask her to write or call ME. My address is English Dept, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX 78212, phone 210-736-7517. Thanks for any help. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jennifer C. Worth Date: Tuesday, 05 Dec 1995 13:34:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Q: "The Marcellus Version" Hi, SHAKSPERians, I'm looking for a poem, and I hope that you can help me track it down despite my embarrasing lack of hard knowledge about it. It's called "The Marcellus Version," and it's a fanciful dramatic monolog spoken by the actor who played the minor role of Marcellus in _Hamlet_ and who has been posited as one of the sources for the memorial reconstruction that became the "Bad" Q1 of the play. I'm sorry that I don't remember the author, but if anyone has run across it I'd love to find it again. (I foolishly lent my only copy away.) Thanks! Jennifer (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cornelius Novelli Date: Tuesday, 05 Dec 1995 21:49:02 EST Subject: FESTE I am writing an article on Feste in TWELFTH NIGHT for a book on clowns in history and literature. If you have any favorite essays (or perhaps paragraphs about Feste in longer works), I'd appreciate hearing about them in case I have somehow missed them. And if you have seen any notable stage interpretations that open up interesting facets of Feste, I'd also appreciate hearing about them. (I have either seen or done archive studies on all the Festes at the Stratford Ont. Festival.) Please send responses to me at "novelli@maple.lemoyne.edu" . . . Further note: if you happen to live in the Syracuse NY area, Syracuse Stage is doing a lavish production of TN, costumed in Middle Eastern styles; lots of energy and imagination, and plenty of attention to the play's dark side -- the "dark house" scene is like something from Dante's Inferno. --Neil Novelli, Le Moyne College, Syracuse NY 13214 315-445-4429 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 08:39:20 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0945 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0945. Wednesday, 6 December 1995. (1) From: Moray McConnachie Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 19:57:46 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0942 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies (2) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Tuesday, 5 Dec 1995 18:34:43 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0942 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies (3) From: Peter L Groves Date: Tuesday, 5 Dec 1995 16:05:11 GMT+1000 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0933 Re: Soliloquies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Monday, 4 Dec 1995 19:57:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0942 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies Thanks to all those who supplied me with the bibliographical details of the book by Harry Berger I was after. I shall scoot off and re-read it - after which I would love to discuss the issues he raises, through the medium of this list - those, at least, which do not regularly appear in any case... Yours, Moray McConnachie (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Tuesday, 5 Dec 1995 18:34:43 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0942 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies Soliloquizing in public again, I should first apologize to Bill Godshalk for misremembering the passage from Augustine, though it was Ambrose and the point about rhetoric versus theology I think will pass muster. Thanks to all who responded to my first go at an account of the dramaturgy of the soliloquy. Here follow some various thoughts on your thoughts... For Adrian Kiernander: yes, Launce is a wonderful example, though he might force us to reinvent the category of soliloquy just in order to include him out! The only other instance of this I can think of is Launcelot Gobbo (very much the same sort of figure) who says "saving your reverence" at one point in his speech about the Devil tempting him to leave Shylock. The whole speech is "performative" in the same way as Launce's skit with dog Crab, I think. And this brings us to the issue of class as a determinant of what actors can and cant do in talking with audiences (and to Weimann, of course, who has been lurking around all along). A related, and perhaps even more interesting case is that of the Scrivener in Richard III, who is very clearly talking to an audience who cannot betray him to anybody, and who yet seems to regard us as somehow powerful to do something, even if only to witness the nature of the injustice he is privy to. His access to us seems to be an aspect of the intensity of his need to speak, and ours to know. And though class is very relevant, it's not the same deal as with Launce, who is exercising a certain amused detachment from the whole business through his miming it out for us. Yet _this_ kind of access to a crowd of witnesses is often withheld from more aristocratic characters, leaving them the more isolated, like people in private meditation -- or prayer. When Gloster calls to "You mighty gods" who see him on the top of Dover Cliff, it doesnt help me much to see him seeing us seeing him, though it helps enormously that I _am_ in fact seeing him (perhaps an actor could make use of this, especially a Brechtian one). "If I were any god of power..." as Miranda says, I might well intervene (Edgar says I do). But in fact there's nothing I can do, except, perhaps, laugh or weep. Or fake a heart attack and stop the play. And thereby hangs a tale. For Chris Stroffolino and Florence Amit: What I meant by my comments on Richard's Pomfret soliloquy was less something about the whole play, either past or future, and more something about what happens in that scene. When Richard comes forward to propose a meatphor ("prison = world") and declares he has failed in it because there are no people in the prison, I can accept that he does not see me and my fellow playgoers, and this blindness I understand as a mark or trope of his isolation from us all -- that we are here and he, imprisoned, cannot see us. Poor Richard! When he then populates his ragged prison walls with "many people", in a curious way we begin to materialize to him, and hence to each other (?) (cf. the Porter in Macbeth?) in a usually motley Globe array of classes: "the better sort" , the ambitious, ones who flatter themselves as misery loves company, etc. By the time he reaches " thus play I in one person many people" a strange transformation has come over the theater: it is full of people! And yet these people are packed into the thought of a character who remains in prison alone. For a moment then, we are "inside" Richard's head, as it were, and when he speaks of tearing his way out, the prison and his body have become indistinguishable. Hence it is foolish here to speak of a distinction between "talking to himself" anmd "talking to the audience" -- both the unitary and the multiple nature of thought and identity are in play, against one another. One voice speaks the existence of many voices, many ears focus themselves on one voice speaking to itself (and who knows if an actor might not be picturing himself talking to himself here?) Just as this happens, Shakespeare introduces (the idea of) a consort of music, that needs to "keep time." I call that a remarkable piece of poetic thinking. As to whether this is "subversive" of traditional readings or "subordinates character to plot" I'm not sure. I have not really thought these things through, and am not sure I understand the terms they're proposed in. I'd love to be enlightened. Cheers, Tom (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L Groves Date: Tuesday, 5 Dec 1995 16:05:11 GMT+1000 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0933 Re: Soliloquies I'm afraid I seem to have got Bradley S. Berens rather hot under the collar; I think he has to learn, however, that bluster and personal abuse are not much of a substitute for careful reading and considered writing. To clarify: my original posting was in response to a question about whether there is any "textual 'proof'" that Ophelia overhears Hamlet's soliloquy (if--in the light of recent comments--that is what it is) "To be, or not to be"; I took this to be a question about textual semiotics--that is, about what is or is not encoded in the texts of _Hamlet_ as we have them--and (as my later posting surely made clear) I was never talking about the interesting question of what a director might choose to do with the scene, since directors are not (and perhaps cannot be) entirely bound by the semiotics of the text (I admit that I was too hasty in dismissing the theatrical possibilities of such an overhearing: you never know what the effect might be until you see it). My point (and here my initial posting was not sufficiently explicit) is that a convention such as 'soliloquies are not overheard' is "strong" purely in the sense that it functions as a kind of default condition: it will operate unless actively countered, either in the text or in the performance. It's a bit like the presumption of innocence under the law: "no compelling evidence either way" doesn't mean no verdict, it means not guilty. Because nothing in the text works against it, therefore, a reader of _Ham_ who is conversant with Elizabethan theatrical convention will assume that Shakespeare did not intend us to imagine an Ophelia who hears the speech; the same person watching the play will also assume this unless the director actively signals the contrary, as in the case of the Beerbohm Tree production that Mr Berens cites. This point is not, of course, affected by producing instances where overhearing is clearly signposted in the text. This explains, I hope, why I felt it necessary to remind Mr Berens of the obvious fact that _Hamlet_ is a fiction: unless you are discussing a specific production it really doesn't make any sense to say "No one should conclude that Ophelia doesn't overhear Hamlet based only on this weak-kneed convention", as though we were talking about some real person who might in some historical sense have either overheard or not overheard. Peter Groves Department of English Monash University ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 08:53:03 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0948 Re: Abhorson Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0948. Thursday, 7 December 1995. (1) From: David Jackson Date: Wednesday, 06 Dec 95 12:44:18 EST Subj: Re: SHK 6.0946 Re: Abhorson (2) From: Thomas Clayton Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 95 00:03:11 CST Subj: Abhorson's "mystery" (3) From: Porter Jamison Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 1995 16:14:03 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0946 Re: Abhorson (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Wednesday, 06 Dec 95 12:44:18 EST Subject: Re: SHK 6.0946 Re: Abhorson At the risk of appearing to be a literalist, reading the Abhorson-Pompey exchange simply suggests to me the following: Abhorson is using the word "mystery" in the archaic sense of "trade or profession" (based on an etymological foul-up between Latin and Middle English on the word forms that give us "ministry"). Indeed, it seems that Abhorson is proud of his work, and thinks that having a bawd work with him would demean it. I think he uses "mystery" in the same way as many people today use "profession" to elevate what they do above the rank of a mere "trade". Note the contrast between Abhorson's repeated use of "mystery" (read, in Abhorson's mindset, "Profession") and Pompey's use of "occupation" (which Abhorson equates with "trade"). On the other hand, I don't think Pompey gets this distinction, or else he is making fun of it, because he seems to be using "mystery" in a more modern, "mysterious" sense, either alongside or instead of the sense of "profession/trade". His joke about painting and whoring arguably combines the two senses of the word (although it is not clear whether Pompey is doing this wittingly or unwittingly, and thus this is left to the reader/actor/director to decide). But Abhorson doesn't get the joke, or just ignores it, and insists that his work is a "mystery" (Profession). Pompey asks him for proof of this statement (so we know we're being set up for one of those thigh-slapping (in the 17 century) but usually incomprehensible (in the 20th) gems of wit that WS periodically gives us as comic relief). And what is the punchline? Something about apparel and the fit. Now, I know we could look for deep meaning and symbolism, but this is Abhorson we're dealing with here, and while I wouldn't cast aspersions on his philosophical or syllogistic prowess, let's look at what he says (as interpreted by yours truly, albeit): Statement: Every true man's apparel fits your thief. Proof: If it's too small for the thief, the true man deems it satisfactory (for the thief). But if it's too big for the thief (in the true man's estimation), the thief deems it satisfactory. So, regardless of the size, it'll be ok for the thief. either in the eyes of the thief or the true man. I think we're talking about class and fashion sense here. The true man thinks that apparel which he would consider too small (were the thief of his standing) is fine for the thief, because, hell, he's just a thief. On the other hand, the lowlife thief has terrible fashion sense (in the true man's eyes), and likes to wear clothes that the true man would consider too big. But what has this got to do with hanging being a profession (or, indeed any other meaning of "mystery")? Absolutely nothing. (I hasten to add that use the word in its modern, nihilistic (rather than anatomical) sense). It seems pretty clear that somewhere between the original performance script and the posthumous printed text something went awry. There's something missing here, or else some odd cut-and-pasting going on. Or, WS just lost his thread and never went back to correct it. But the Apparel syllogism is self-contained (he states the thing to be proved at the beginning and end), and doesn't appear to have anything to do with Hanging being a Mystery. It's as if Pompey said: "Prove that the Earth is round." and Abhorson replied: "What goes up must come down; now, here's why ...." There's no connection. Just bad editing. Or, maybe I'm wrong. David Jackson (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Clayton Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 95 00:03:11 CST Subject: Abhorson's "mystery" Concerning Abhorson's "mystery," if this communication is redundant, I apologize. I have had time for only fleeting acquantance with the "mystery" thread, but recent postings by Richard J Kennedy (4th) and Sara Jayne Steen (5th) lead me to believe that there has been some barking up the wrong tree that could use a little redirection, as from OED2, which N W. Bawcutt incorporates well in the pertinent note in his Oxford World Classics edition of *MM* (1994: 182a): *mystery* craft, profession (OED *mystery* 2.2). This is etymologically distinct from *mystery* 1.8, a "secret" or skilled practice in a trade, known only to the initiated, but the two usages were often confused and Abhorson may have both in mind [if Abhorson can be said to have anything in mind!]. Pompey however finds it difficult to regard those who hang other people as belonging to a highly skilled profession. The usages may have been often confused, but 2 is almost always concrete, specific, and work related: 2.2.a is "hand- icraft; craft; art; (one's) trade, profession, or calling," the meaning in most of the uses in the passage in MM. In that context (4.2.26-38), "mystery" is used seven times, all but one or two times in the primary sense of *mystery* 2, "craft, trade, profession." The exception is in Pompey's speech(es): (Pompey 36) "what mystery there should be in hanging" probably has the sense of *mystery* 1 (mysterious- ness, the esoteric, etc.); and (Pompey 31) "do you call, sir, your occupation a mystery?" could be thought to draw on *mystery* 1, but it is ambiguous. There may be a secondary joke or two in the exchange between Pompey and Abhorson in 35-38: Pompey's doubt expressed in "what mystery there should be in hanging, if I should be hanged, I cannot imagine" (he could not imagine, and if he were hanged he especially could not imagine-- anything) is virtually confirmed by Abhorson's obstinately insistent reply, "Sir, it is a mystery," which also concedes inadvertently that "it *is* a mystery what mystery there should be in hanging." I wouldn't press that very hard, but Pompey has evidently brought Abhorson down from his high scaffold--unless it is the arrival of the provost--because there is no more talk of "mystery" in Abhorson's "Come on, bawd, I will instruct thee in thy *trade.*" Pursuing the tenor before the vehicle is wholly available can lead to speculation as doubtfully relevant as it often is fascinating, sometimes even apprehending more than cool reason ever comprehends, perhaps. Cheers, Tom PS: I usually reach for the latest responsible edition, hence Bawcutt's 1994 edition of *Measure for Measure*, but Brian Gibbons's earlier note (New Cambridge, 1991) is succinctly instructive in its own way: "*mystery* skilled trade (from Latin *ministerium*) distinct from from the word meaning 'secret rite' (which derives from Greek *mysterion*) which is played on equivocally here" (152). (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Porter Jamison Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 1995 16:14:03 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0946 Re: Abhorson Every true man's apparel fits your thief: if it be too little for your thief, your true man thinks it big enough; if it be too big for your thief, your thief thinks it little enough: so every true man's apparel fits your thief. In the previous lines, Pompey suggests that prostitution constitutes a "mystery" (which means a skilled, rather than an unskilled craft) because it is similar to painting. Abhorson counters by suggesting that being an executioner is a "mystery" because it's like being a thief (which was a skilled craft)-- executioners commonly received the clothes of those they killed. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 10:04:30 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0949 Re: Feste; *AYL*; Branagh; Soliloquies; Nothing Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0949. Thursday, 7 December 1995. (1) From: Valerie Gager Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 1995 16:23:49 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0940 Qs: *Ham.* Texts; *AYL* (3) From: Kila Burton Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 1995 15:16:30 -0500 (EST) Subj: Branagh's Hamlet (4) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 06 Dec 1995 16:35:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0945 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies (5) From: David Glassco Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 1995 10:42:12 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0944 Re: Nothing; (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Valerie Gager Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 1995 08:48:00 -0700 Subject: John Pritt Harley's Feste Neil Novelli asks for sources on stage interpretations of Feste. Charles Kean's opening bill in his 1850 season at the Princess's Theatre is a landmark Victorian production of *Twelfth Night*, in which John Pritt Harley played Feste. George Henry Lewes reviews the production in *The Leader* on 5 October 1850. Charles Dickens comments on the performances of Harley and Robert Keeley (who played Sir Andrew Aguecheek) in an obituary, `Robert Keeley', published in his periodical *All the Year Round* on 10 April 1869. Odell also covers Kean's production in *Shakespeare from Betterton to Irving*. Valerie L. Gager Carroll College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Porter Jamison Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 1995 16:23:49 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0940 Qs: *Ham.* Texts; *AYL* >I am co-directing AYLI at at HS in Virginia. We are changing the >forest of Arden into a more contemporary urban ghetto setting, with a >directorial emphasis on the "character building benefits of >adversity". One problem we are finding is how to translate the >shepherd references in the story. I want to leave them intact; >letting them stand as analogies (for ex. if Corin were to >become a street preacher, "flock" has applicable Christian references. >If you have any ideas or comments I'd love to hear from you. Taking the directoral emphasis as a given-- though it seems to distort a portion of what Shakespeare seemed to be saying-- it sounds intriguing. (The Snake and Lioness of the Oliver redemption scene could be rival gang members, I suppose, and tagging could replace Orlando's carving on trees.) The problem of the sheep is, however, insurmountable as a Christian reference unless you want him to be a Bakker type (sheep, land, and cote being on sale, handling ewes with greasy fells, etc.), which seems to be inconsistent with the "good shepherd" indicated by the text. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kila Burton Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 1995 15:16:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Branagh's Hamlet There was recently a documentary at the Smithsonian(?) on the filming of Branagh's Hamlet. I only saw the article out of the corner of my eye, but I would guess filming has started. Kila (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 06 Dec 1995 16:35:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0945 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies Dear Tom----Thanks for elaborating on your (dramaturgical?) reading of R2's soliloquy. The last time I saw the play, at the EDITH WHARTON MOUNT---they actually started the play with the soliloquy and made the whole play into a flashback, as it were framed by RICHARD in prison. I'm curious what you'd think of such an interpretation. Personally, I thought it located the play TOO MUCH in the "person" or "conscious- ness" of Richard and totally cut the Aumerle conspiracy scenes, etc (just as too many critical readings of the soliloquy do). Yet your point was different. I agree with you about the entrance of MUSIC as a change in tone in the soliloquy, and its connection with "bid time return" (I tend to want to link it with say SONNET 94---to see the soliloquy as structured in a similar octet-sestet split). Yet I am still curious as to what ENDS you are taking your findings about Richard's micorcosm-macrocosm distinction. I would like to foreground the IMPERSONAL aspects of the soliloquy, just as much as you do-- the aspects that to a certain extent break down the theatrical allusion that Richard is a real historical person and in which his peopling of the world only has relevance as an indication of his state of mind. (Just as I see LEAR as to some extent an impersonal force, an anthro- pomorphization of the very storms and tempests he finds and loses his SELF in). And, thus calling attention to the isolation of the speaker, in prison, by the means of soliloquy as a specific rhetorical act---rare in this play--it seems that Shakespeare, or at least a director, can call attention to a different MODE of consciousness and of creative being that had been banished from this play---as if to say to the audience "OKAY, NOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND CONTEMPLATE ON WHAT WE'VE SEEN" and of course Richard's thought processes are not exactly an accurate summary of the play AS SUCH, nor do I believe (as some critics have argued) that he finds HIS TRUE SELF here, but I do believe that as he himself says, the mode of the soliloquy allows him a certain "scope" (and one may think of Pound and Wilde--and other writers who wrote their best stuff in prison) that invites the audience to identify with him by showing, at least rudimentarily, our own ambivalence to the historical personages of the main plots. The soliloguy provides a different perspective, and like the Aumerle conspiracy scenes, constitutes one of the things that OFFICIAL HISTORY does not take into account. This is why I think there is subversive potential in this soliloquy. For just as the Aumerle scenes tend to make it quite clear how DOMESTIC issues have been ignored by "the march of events" so does Pomfret soliloquy call attention to how what's called history partakes in what Neitzsche said is a process that "man forgets he is an artistically creating subject"..... Curious what you think, chris (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Glassco Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 1995 10:42:12 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0944 Re: Nothing; I, like Stephanie Hughes, have not been following the "nothing" thread...so I too ask for indulgence if this is merely repetitious. But nothing is indeed the 'O' which is also the "wooden O" which is the Globe which is what an extraordinary profusion of life comes out of... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 10:06:24 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0950 Q: *LLL*'s Rosaline Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0950. Thursday, 7 December 1995. From: Sarah Cave Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 1995 11:26:46 EST Subject: Rosaline emergency Fellow SHAKESPERians: I need your rapid assistance. In a quirk of the performing world, the Atlanta Shakespeare Tavern has suddenly decided to scrap its January high-budget musical retelling of the ODYSSEY and produce instead LOVE'S LABOURS LOST. I am to play Rosaline, which is delightful, but I am used to researching for months ahead of time, and now I have 6 days until the first rehearsal. Could you please help me answer a few questions as well as direct me to good sources of criticism about the play and Rosaline in particular? 1- Is Rosaline actually black or does she just have black hair and eyes? Obviously, she is representative of the dark lady in the sonnets, but is it more specific than that? 2-Is she an unattractive female? The "face full of O's" seems to suggest scarring. 3-Is she a wanton, or is it her coloring that makes Berowne assume so? Or is that even an issue? These are my most pressing questions. Please respond to me directly, or to the list if you feel that I have raised anything pertinent. And thank you! Sarah Cave Agnes Scott College scave@asc.scottlan.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 09:38:44 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0951 Re: Branagh's *The Bleak Midwinter* and "Discovering Hamlet" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0951. Saturday, 9 December 1995. (1) From: Nick Clary Date: Thursday, 07 Dec 1995 10:09:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Branagh's pre-HAMLET project (2) From: Kate Mazzetti Date: Thursday, 07 Dec 95 10:46:00 PST Subj: RE: SHK 6.0949 Re: Branagh (3) From: Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer Date: Friday, 8 Dec 1995 20:03:33 -0500 Subj: Re: Branagh Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Thursday, 07 Dec 1995 10:09:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Branagh's pre-HAMLET project I have learned from a friend in England that Branagh is not only set to start filming his *Hamlet* in January, but has also just completed a little film entitled *The Bleak Midwinter*. Although neither my friend has not yet seen it, advance word indicates that it might be a nifty introduction to the *Hamlet* that will follow. According to a London *Sunday Times* columnist Iain Johnstone (19 November 1995), it's "a backstage story of Joe Harper (a Ken Branagh kind of guy played by Michael Maloney), a struggling actor who decides to round up some chums and put on a production of Hamlet in a village church. After innumerable troubles, which come not single spies, but in battalions, the performance looks about to happen when the call comes from Hollywood offering Joe a big part in a mindless movie." Branagh says, "Many characters were based on people I knew and who ended up being in it in some instances. The Richard Briers character (who plays Claudius, the Ghost and the Player King) is based on Richard Briers. He's obsessed with Henry Irving and he's a wonderful whinger...." According to Johnstone, *The Bleak Midwinter* is "a very accomplished comedy: witty and waspish, rich in insight into the actorial condition." Branagh considers it "a wee film" compared to his *Hamlet* project. If anyone on the list has seen it, I am sure we would love to hear more about it. Nick Clary (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kate Mazzetti Date: Thursday, 07 Dec 95 10:46:00 PST Subject: RE: SHK 6.0949 Re: Branagh The documentary shown at the Smithsonian recently was of Branagh's Renaissance Theatre Company's stage production of *Hamlet* directed by Derek Jacobi in the 80's. The title is "Discovering Hamlet", and it is available on videotape. It is very good, and I recommend it to anyone who can find it. Kate Mazzetti Mazzetti@mail.folger.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer Date: Friday, 8 Dec 1995 20:03:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Branagh Hamlet If I understand my sources rightly, there are two Branagh-generated films of *Hamlet*, and this might be causing some of the confusion over what he's done and when he did it. One, which has already shown at Toronto and Venice, is called *In the Bleak Midwinter*, is shot in grainy black and white, and has been generally well-received; the one he's working on now -- no info on whether he's shooting or in rehearsal or what -- is in color, with the big-budget cast which we've already read about here. Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer kirkhk@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 09:42:17 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0952 Re: *LLL*'s Rosaline Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0952. Saturday, 9 December 1995. (1) From: Cary Mazer Date: Thursday, 7 Dec 1995 12:09:59 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0950 Q: *LLL*'s Rosaline (2) From: Robert Montgomery Date: Thursday, 7 Dec 95 09:48:37 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 6.0950 Q: *LLL*'s Rosaline (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary Mazer Date: Thursday, 7 Dec 1995 12:09:59 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0950 Q: *LLL*'s Rosaline >1- Is Rosaline actually black or does she just have black hair and eyes? >Obviously, she is representative of the dark lady in the sonnets, but is it >more specific than that? ANSWER: Are YOU actually black, or do you just have black hair and eyes? You're playing her, after all. Cary (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Montgomery Date: Thursday, 7 Dec 95 09:48:37 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 6.0950 Q: *LLL*'s Rosaline In answer to some of your questions, no Rosaline is not black in skin pigment. She is dark haired, and at the time the more popular coloring was blond. Here eyes are dark also. She is not a wanton in behavior. Rather she is adept at word games and uses her wit to fend off and disconcert Berowne, who claims to be in love with her. As for O's I don't have time to hunt it up but you'll undoubtedly find a gloss in any of the major reputable complete editions of Shakespeare: try the Roverside or Harper, Collins editions or the Arden edition of LLL. There seems to me to be little objective reason and even less profit in somehow connecting Rosaline tothe dark lady, who is both black haired and eyed and a wanton, or at least said to be by the speaker. R.L. Montgomery ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 09:48:47 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0952 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies; Renaissance typefaces Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0953. Saturday, 9 December 1995. (1) From: J.H.Sawday Date: Thursday, 7 Dec 1995 18:33:38 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0945 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies (2) From: John Lavagnino Date: Friday, 8 Dec 1995 16:18:19 -0500 Subj: Re: Renaissance typefaces (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: J.H.Sawday Date: Thursday, 7 Dec 1995 18:33:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0945 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies I may have missed something on the soliloquy issue, but the point might still be worth making: isn't it the case that the `fashion' for the soliloquy is, in effect, the discovery and then manipulation (on the part of a number of later 16th cent. dramatists) of a powerful and convincing tool, with which it is possible to persuade an audience / reader that they are in the presence of the generation of thought processes, which offer a convincing *illusion* of similarity to their own sense of what it might be like to think? My comment (which some might think to be no more than a statement of the blindingly obvious) is prompted by Descartes' manipulation of the soliloquy *form* in his _On the Nature of the Mind_ (pub. 1641) where he reflects on his own sense of what it is like to think: `I, who am certain that I am, did not yet know clearly enough what I am... What then did I formerly think I was? I thought I was a man. But what is a man? Shall I say a rational animal? No...what then am I? A thing that thinks. Do others find an echo of Hamlet here? In any case, the construction of this `thinking thing', whether on the stage or encountered in the silence of one's own reading, might be thought of as conforming to that eerie sense which Georges Poulet tries to isolate in his _Phenomenology of Reading_: `I am on loan to another, and this other thinks, feels, suffers, and acts within me'. Poulet is trying to describing the process of (silent) reading to oneself, but I seem to have heard actors trying to describe their craft in similar terms. Kate Belsey, in her _The Subject of Tragedy_ offers another way of thinking through the problem, when she observes that the 16th cent. dramatist is cut free (again in a formal sense) from alliterative verse, to roam around in the `flexible and fluent iambic pentameter' which promises the _illusion_ (again) of `fullness' or a sense of interiority. That expression prompts me to wonder about the relationship between the emergence of Renaissance portraiture, and the deployment of conventions which allow soliloquies to flourish. John Pope- Hennessy, back, I think, in 1963, described the history of the portrait as the `story': ...of how eyes cease to be linear symbols and become instead the...organs we ourselves possess...lips cease to be a segment in the undifferentiated textureof the face, and become instead a sensitized area through [which]...a whole range of responses is expressed....etc etc. In other words, is the emergence of the soliloquy part of an almost Darwinian narrative, which appears to trace the evolution of the representation of `interiority'? Is it, even, the discovery of the soliloquy which actually allows Descartes in the 1620's, 30's, and 40's to pursue his project of fixing the sense of thinking onto a sense of embodiment? And how, I wonder, could one pursue the relationship between shifts in the conventions of portraiture and shifts in the conventions of representing `thinking things' (sometimes called `characters' or some such) without becoming hopelessly lost in abstraction? Forgive me if I have rambled. This problem vexes me. Many thanks, by the way, to all those who responded (publicly or privately) to the `What is this list for' thread. I enjoyed the ensuing discussion hugely, especially those contribtions from the more forthright members of the list. Jonathan Sawday Dept. of English, University of Southampton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lavagnino Date: Friday, 8 Dec 1995 16:18:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Renaissance typefaces John Mucci asks about computer typefaces with long s, ct ligature, thorn, etc. I've no first-hand experience, but word has it that Adobe Caslon and Apple Hoefler Text GX have the long s and some of the now-obsolete ligatures; the former is available from Adobe (). The thorn is actually present in quite a lot of PostScript and TrueType fonts: the problem is (merely) to figure out how you get at it on your machine. John Lavagnino, Women Writers Project, Brown University ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 09:51:43 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0954 Aiutami Italia! Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0954. Saturday, 9 December 1995. From: Bob Leslie <8913241l%arts.gla.ac.uk@ukacrl> Date: Thursday, 7 Dec 1995 21:14:20 +0000 Subject: Aiutami Italia! I wonder if any of our Italian SHAKSPERIANS (or indeed anyone with access to older Italian texts) can help me. I need to enlarge and revise an article of mine for inclusion in a book on the Fool soon to be published by Medieval Institute at Univ. of Western Michigan. It basically traces the ancestry of the Jonsonian foppish 'humor' back through two Italian precedents: the Capitano and the Sienese Fool. The problem is that certain essential texts which I requested some considerable time ago on Inter-Library Loan have failed to materialise and the deadline for submission looms ever closer so can I ask if anyone who has access to *any* of the following poems could possibly be kind enough to directly e-mail me the texts, with full bibliographical references, indicating accents where applicable as follows - (/) or (`) after the letter (ASCII accents don't transmit very well). BURCHIELLO, *Sonetti* 57, 62, 124, 159, 162, 229 CAMMELLI, *Sonetti* LXVII, CCXLI M. Franco, *Sonetti* XIV, LXXXIV Also, could anyone confirm for me that "Corsignan" in Pulci's *Morgante* XIV, 53 translates as "Corsica"? If anyone can help me they are assured of shelter from the rain (and a drop of the hard stuff) if they ever come to Glasgow! Ciao! P.S. To any Sienese SHAKSPERIANS - nothing personal! Bob Leslie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 09:53:44 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0955 Announcement: UVa Graduate Conference Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0955. Saturday, 9 December 1995. From: Chris Brown Date: Friday, 8 Dec 1995 23:47:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: 1996 UVa Graduate Conference The graduate students in the programs of English, American Studies, Creative Writing, Medieval Studies, Modern Studies, and Women's Studies at the University of Virginia invite individual and panel proposals for *Cultural Interventions: Interpreting Texts, Crossing Boundaries*, the fourth annual student-sponsored interdisciplinary conference, 23-25 February 1996. Please submit one-page abstracts to: Graduate Conference, 2nd Floor, Bryan Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903; OR via email (preferred), with the word "conference" in the subject line: ckb7c@darwin.clas.virginia.edu. Abstracts must be postmarked by January 18. Please forward. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 10:49:51 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0956 Book Announcement: Trial Posting Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0956. Saturday, 9 December 1995. [SHAKSPEReans: I am posting the following to determine, in part, how the membership feels about the inclusion of Book Announcement postings. I will consider ALL responses to this request to be personal mail to me; I will reflect upon those responses; and then I will announce whether or not such postings will appear in the future. -- Hardy M. Cook, Editor] From: Martin F Norden Date: Tuesday, 05 Dec 1995 23:43:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Book Announcement I'm very pleased to announce that my library reference book, JOHN BARRYMORE: A BIO-BIBLIOGRAPHY, has just been published by Greenwood Press. Barrymore was perhaps the most influential and idolized actor of his day, and my book thoroughly documents his work in more than 40 stage productions, 60 films, and 100 radio programs (including, of course, his stunning title-role performances in _Richard III_ and _Hamlet_ during the 1920s, his appearance as Romeo in a Shakespearean pastiche produced by Equity, his role as Mercutio in the MGM film, and his so-called "Streamlined Shakespeare" radio series of 1937). The book's annotated bibliography consists of over 1,200 items, and it also includes a discography, a section of plays and films that feature characters modeled after him (e.g., _I Hate Hamlet_, _Ned and Jack_), and discussions of more than 40 repositories of rare Barrymore materials. It contains a considerable amount of information on Barrymore's life and career that has never before been published in book form. "The John Barrymore I Knew," a brief memoir written more than 50 years ago by Margaret Carrington, his Shakespearean vocal coach, receives its *first* publication in this volume. If you would like more information about my book, please feel free to e-mail me privately, post to the list, or follow the "TitleNet" link at Greenwood's web site: http://www.greenwood.com Thanks so much, and I hope to hear from you. Martin F. Norden norden@comm.umass.edu Communication Dept., U. of Massachusetts/Amherst ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:58:28 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0957 SHAKSPER's Move to Bowie State University Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0957. Monday, 11 December 1995. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Monday, December 12, 1995 Subject: SHAKSPER's Move to Bowie State University Dear SHAKSPEAReans, SHAKSPER's long awaited -- at least, long awaited by me; I've had to be patient about budgets, purchases, domain name changes, name servers, and so on and so on -- will occur at the end of this week. I expect that Wednesday will be the last day that you will receive digests from the University of Toronto address. We will then be dark for a few days (perhaps up to a week) before SHAKSPER will be reborn as SHAKSPER@BowieState.edu. You will then receive a message from me when all is functioning properly. After you receive the message from me that announces that the move is complete, you should send positing to SHAKSPER@BowieState.edu or directly to me. Until then, please hold your submissions so that they do not get lost in the move. I'll remain at my e-mail address of many years -- HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu -- for the time being, but that too will be changing in the near future. At the appropriate time, I'll inform you of my new address. Also, please note that the new LISTSERV address for SHAKSPER will be LISTSERV@BowieState.edu. As a result of the move, I'll be mounting in the coming weeks revised copies of the New Member Package Files, some parts of which I will circulate to the membership for your information. SHAKSPER's move to Bowie State is a significant one for me and for my university. We have a technological mandate in our Mission Statement and are currently undergoing a massive technological restructuring. SHAKSPER will be running on a SUN work station under UNIX, something that I do not anticipate will result in any noticeable changes other than perhaps a faster turn around time for requests from LISTSERV. Finally, we owe a great debt of thanks to the University of Toronto for being our hosts since SHAKSPER's birth in July 1990 with especial thanks to Steve Younker, the UofT LISTSERV Manager, who so graciously has put up with me over the past four years. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 08:51:30 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0959 Announcements: Milton Review; Medievalia et Humanistica Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0959. Tuesday, 12 December 1995. (1) From: Kevin J.T. Creamer Date: Saturday, 09 Dec 1995 22:29:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Milton Review (2) From: T. Scott Clapp Date: Monday, 11 Dec 1995 09:08:43 -0700 (MST) Subj: Medievalia et Humanistica (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kevin J.T. Creamer Date: Saturday, 09 Dec 1995 22:29:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Milton Review MILTON REVIEW is to be a home for deep and considered reviews of - Books about the life or work of John Milton, or - Books about anything that Milton might have read, or - Books about any author of interest to Milton scholars. Critical perspectives might include: New historicist Semiotic Formalist New Critical Deconstructionist Postmodern Freudian or other critical schools yet to be thought of ------------------- Authors and artists might include: Euripides DuBartas Puritanism Bunyan Blake Jonson Marvell Sidney Johnson Jean Diodati Galileo Paracelsus Augustine Cowper Iris Murdoch Dylan Thomas Mary Wroth Francis Bacon Defoe Frescobaldi Seneca Michelangelo Handel Origen and you-name-it ---------------------- While MILTON REVIEW is not interactive, readers may make comments on reviews on the sister discussion group, MILTON-L (an electronic discussion devoted to the life, literature and times of John Milton; to subscribe send the message "subscribe Milton-L" to mailserv@urvax.urich.edu). Reviews will be archived on The Milton-L Home Page , which also contains links to Milton e-texts and scholarly articles (as well as the Milton-L archives). To subscribe to MILTON REVIEW, send the following message (the subject line doesn't matter) subscribe Milton-Review (Please be sure to put the dash between Milton and Review!) to mailserv@urvax.urich.edu The first issue will be posted the week of December 11, 1995 MILTON REVIEW is published by Roy Flannagan (Ohio University) and Kevin J.T. Creamer (University of Richmond). Material published in MR remains in the copyright of the authors, who grant to MR right of first publication and the right to reproduce material published here in anthologies of our own. For questions, address M_Review@urvax.urich.edu. MILTON REVIEW (C) 1995 Roy C. Flannagan and Kevin J.T. Creamer. MILTON REVIEW web page: -------------------- Submissions For information about submitting a book for review, contact Kevin J.T. Creamer at M_Review@urvax.urich.edu. Reviewers Wanted If you are interested in reviewing books for MILTON REVIEW, please contact Roy Flannagan at flannagan@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: T. Scott Clapp Date: Monday, 11 Dec 1995 09:08:43 -0700 (MST) Subject: Medievalia et Humanistica ANNOUNCEMENT Please note that a new Managing Editor has been named for _Medievalia et Human- istica_. Robert E. Bjork has assumed the post with volume 23, and all future submissions and queries about submissions should be sent to him at the Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 872301, Tempe, AZ 85287-2301. E-mail: Robert.Bjork@ASU.EDU; Phone: 602-965-5900; Fax: 602-965-1681. T. Scott Clapp, Program Coordinator ACMRS (AZ Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies) Arizona State University PO Box 872301 Tempe, AZ 85287-2301 Phone: (602) 965-5900; FAX: (602) 965-1681 Internet: Scott.Clapp@asu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 08:44:05 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0958 Re: Abhorson; Branagh; Typefaces; Oth. Film; Visual Aids Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0958. Tuesday, 12 December 1995. (1) From: Bill Day Date: Saturday, 9 Dec 1995 11:37:56 -0500 Subj: Re: Abhorson (2) From: Yvette Grimes Date: Saturday, 9 Dec 1995 14:00:57 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0951 Re: Branagh's *The Bleak Midwinter* (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 9 Dec 1995 20:24:20 GMT Subj: RE: Renaissance typefaces (4) From: Jan Stirm Date: Sunday, 10 Dec 1995 14:17:42 PST Subj: Othello--the movie (5) From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 11 Dec 1995 19:30:39 UTC+0200 Subj: SHK 6.0931 Q: Visual Aids (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Day Date: Saturday, 9 Dec 1995 11:37:56 -0500 Subject: Re: Abhorson Since I'm entering the middle of this thread, I apologize if I'm covering old ground. I always simply assumed the "apparel" was the hangman's noose. If it's too small, the thief is hanged, and that's satisfactory to the true man. If it's too big, the thief escapes hanging, and the thief is satisfied. Unless I'm out to lunch on this, I would assume the suggestion appears in an annotation somewhere. Regards, Bill Day (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Yvette Grimes Date: Saturday, 9 Dec 1995 14:00:57 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 6.0951 Re: Branagh's *The Bleak Midwinter* >According to Johnstone, *The Bleak Midwinter* is "a very accomplished comedy: >witty and waspish, rich in insight into the actorial condition." Branagh >considers it "a wee film" compared to his *Hamlet* project. If anyone on the >list has seen it, I am sure we would love to hear more about it. >Nick Clary I saw *In the Bleak Midwinter* last September at the Boston film festival. It is a B&W film and very very funny and well worth seeing. Other cast members include Joan Collins, Julia Sawahla and Jennifer Saunders. It is supposed to be released in a few weeks. --Yvette (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 9 Dec 1995 20:24:20 GMT Subject: RE: Renaissance typefaces >The thorn is actually present in quite a lot of PostScript and TrueType fonts: >the problem is (merely) to figure out how you get at it on your machine. In most, I think. On Windows 3.1 and 3.11 you hold down the ALT key and strike 0254 on the numeric keypad for lowercase thorn and 0222 for the uppercase. If the font you are using has re-assiged these to something else, just change to Arial or Times, or whatever, type the thorn, and then change back. This is the problem: the different fonts don't generally give you different characters, only the same ones in different typefaces. The utility called 'Character Map' (in the 'Accessories' group of the Program Manager) will show all the characters available in each font and the codes needed to get them. I can't see the long 's' anywhere, though. Gabriel Egan (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jan Stirm Date: Sunday, 10 Dec 1995 14:17:42 PST Subject: Othello--the movie Dear Fellow Shaksperians, I just saw a preview of the new Othello and thought I'd give the list a quick review. The film's a mixed bag; I liked some bits--Lawrence Fishburne and Kenneth Branagh both worked well in their parts, mostly (though why Iago died on the bed with Othello, Desdemona and Emilia, I don't know). I reacted less positively to most of the other actors in their roles--the accents were all over the place and sometimes difficult to understand. Overall, the film moves very slowly (I had a feeling that lines were spoken slowly so that we'd understand them through the accents); I found some of the metaphor bits overworked (chessmen drowning, and other water stuff). I went with a friend who also teaches the play and we found ourselves laughing where we weren't supposed to... Our friends from other fields seemed to like it better than we did. For me, the film lost track of the sense of Venetian playworld racism I have when I read/teach the play; the film tried to develop the homosexual/social aspect of Iago, but didn't quite know what to do with the idea. I'll be interested to see what others have to say when they see it (and I do think it's worth seeing). Previewingly yours, Jan Stirm (Stirm@humnet.ucla.edu) (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 11 Dec 1995 19:30:39 UTC+0200 Subject: SHK 6.0931 Q: Visual Aids If you cannot find slides, you can always photocopy book illustrations -once you are given the publisher's authorisation- on trasparencies and use an over-head projector. The result is not as good as the use of slides, but it helps quite a lot. Cheers. J. Cora FMJCA@FILMO.ALCALA.ES ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 09:54:38 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0961 World Shakespeare Bibliography Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0961. Tuesday, 12 December 1995. From: James L. Harner Date: Tuesday, 12 Dec 1995 8:09:24 -0600 (CST) Subject: World Shakespeare Bibliography World Shakespeare Bibliography for 1994 The World Shakespeare Bibliography for 1994 is now at the printer; thus, I shall make my annual plea for SHAKSPERians to send along offprints--or at least citations for--their 1995 publications, as well as information (including programs and reviews) of productions in their geographic areas. The first disk of the _World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM 1900-Present_ has just been released. I hope that those of you attending the upcoming MLA convention will stop by the Cambridge University Press booth, where we will have a running demonstration. 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) jlh5651@acs.tamu.edu http://engserve.tamu.edu/files/WSB/WSB1top.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 08:56:15 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0960 Q: Development of Individualism; "To be . . ." Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0960. Tuesday, 12 December 1995. (1) From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 11 Dec 1995 19:42:25 UTC+0200 Subj: Q: Development of individualism. (2) From: Michael Friedman Date: Monday, 11 Dec 1995 16:57:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0952 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 11 Dec 1995 19:42:25 UTC+0200 Subject: Q: Development of individualism. Dear Shakespeareans, I am very interested in the development of individualism and self-consciousness during the first part of the 17th century and its influence on the drama of the period. Could you kindly recommend bibliography on the subject? I am specially interested on the parallel development of self-conciousness and self-reference in drama (you know, metatheatre and metadrama). I wonder if there is any book or article that establishes a relationship between personal self-consciousness and dramatic self-consciousness. Yours, J. Cora Universidad de Alcala de Henares. FMJCA@FILMO.ALCALA.ES (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Monday, 11 Dec 1995 16:57:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 6.0952 Re: Silent Reading and Soliloquies An idea just struck me, and I'll throw it out just to see what happens. Reading the recent postings about soliloquies, particularly in *Hamlet*, and the extent to which we can say that they represent interior thinking, I started to wonder about *To be or not to be*. If, as it has been asserted, most audiences know it so well by now that they hardly pay attention to the words, does the actor even need to speak the lines? What would happen if he just thought them? Not with a voice-over, but silently, in his own head, accompanied by only those gestures that a person, lost in agitated thought, might make. Perhaps he could throw in an "Ay! There's the rub!" out loud here and there, just to keep the spectators with him along the way. Has anyone ever seen this attempted on stage? Clearly, it would require a skilled actor, and it sounds more like a rehearsal exercise, but given what *has* been tried in the past to deal with this speech, it wouldn't surprise me. Michael Friedman University of Scranton ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 14:01:40 EST Reply-To: Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 6.0962 Last Message from SHAKSPER's Old Home Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0962. Saturday, 16 December 1995. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Saturday, 16, 1995 Subject: Last Message from SHAKSPER's Old Home Dear SHAKSPEReans: We are in the process of making the move from the University of Toronto to Bowie State. This work should be complete by Tuesday, December 19, 1995, when regular mailings should resume. In my last posting on the move, I incorrectly identified the new address. The list itself will be SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu with the LISTSERV address ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ being LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu. Please make note of both. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^