1994

CFP: Graduate Student Conference

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0584.  Wednesday, 29 June 1994.
 
From:           Jason Hoblit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Jun 1994 14:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        Call for Papers
 
This is being cross-posted, please excuse duplicates.
 
 
                      Graduate Student Conference
                            Call for Papers
 
Abstracts are welcome for the annual MEMSOP (Medieval to Early Modern Student
Organizations of the Pacific) conference to be held February 17th-19th, 1995,
at the University of Washington in Seattle.  The subject of the conference will
be medieval to early modern "Communities" in an interdisciplinary forum
(literary, linguistic, historical, religious, archaeological, etc.).  This
conference is being co-organized and co-funded by the University of Washington,
the University of California at Berkeley, and the University of California at
Los Angeles.
 
Please send abstracts by November 1st, 1994 to one of the following:
 
John Eby                Britta Simon            Linda Wright
History, DP-20          Germanics,DH-30         Classics, DH-10
Univ. of Washington     Univ. of Washington     Univ. of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195       Seattle, WA 98195       Seattle, WA 98195
 
Or, by email:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.                           This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
Questions may also be sent to any of the above addresses.

Re: Disney; Feminist Crit.; Adriana's Speech

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0583.  Wednesday, 29 June 1994.
 
(1)     From:   William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 28 Jun 94 13:34 CDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0577  Re: Shakespeare and Disney
 
(2)     From:   Sarah Werner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 28 Jun 1994 22:56:06 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: Feminist Performance Criticism
 
(3)     From:   John Senczuk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Jun 1994 14:32:50 +1100
        Subj:   RE: ADRIANA's speech
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Jun 94 13:34 CDT
Subject: 5.0577  Re: Shakespeare and Disney
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0577  Re: Shakespeare and Disney
 
Well, maybe I'm wrong.  I have been known to be in the past. I didn't mean to
trivialize the list and I apologize to those who may think I have.  On the
various questions, points, positions raised perhaps the only answer is to just
wait and see.  +TLK+ is probably no worse than +Shakespeare Boiled Down+,
issued by the New Home Sewing Machine Co. of Chicago, but it is certainly no
better.
 
I suppose my concern, some would say worry, is whether the item of popular
culture leads, eventually, to a better experience of culture (whatever that may
be, some would say) or whether it acts to lower (I know these are culturally
loaded terms but I can think of no others right now) that experience.
 
Will all those who think that every day and every way we are getting better and
better please raise their hands and or paws?  Thank you very much.  You will be
happy to learn that for a number of days I will be away from my terminal by
which time we may have move on to another subject.
 
William Proctor Williams
Northern Illinois University
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sarah Werner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Jun 1994 22:56:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Re: Feminist Performance Criticism
 
For Mary Ellen Zurko:
 
The best place to start with feminist performance criticism of Shakespeare is
Lorraine Helms' "Playing the Woman's Part: Feminist Criticism and Shakespearean
Performance" _Theatre Journal_ 41 (1989): 190-200; also try looking at work by
Barbara Hodgdon and Ellen O'Brien.  For non-Shakespearean performance
criticism, you can't beat Elin Diamond's "Brechtian Theory / Feminist Theory:
Toward a Gestic Feminist Criticism" _TDR_ 32 (1988): 82-94.
 
Some other things to look at:
Rhonda Blair "Shakespeare and the Feminist Actor" _Women and Performance_
2:2 (1985): 18-26.
Gay Gibson Cima's _Performing Women: Female Characters, Male Playwrights,
and the Modern Stage_ (Cornell 1993) has a good general introduction.
Lizbeth Goodman's _Contemporary Feminist THeatres_ (Routledge 1993) is not
about SHakespeare, but is full of details about British feminist theater.
For other non-Shakespearean fem. perf. criticism, Lynda Hart & Peggy
Phelan's _Acting Out_ (Michigan 1993) is a good recent anthology.
And back to Shakespeare, look at Carol Rutter's _Clamorous Voices_ for
what some RSC actors have to say about playing Shakespeare's female
characters.
 
have fun--
 
Sarah Werner
University of Pennsylvania
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Senczuk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Jun 1994 14:32:50 +1100
Subject:        RE: ADRIANA's speech
 
My thanks to both William Godshak and Harry Hill for their contribution to my
understanding of Adriana's lines (2.1.103-116) and I enclose the following as
my resolutions in performance.
 
Adrian's lines are prompted by an insecure, forced marriage:
 
          ADRIANA
          May it please your grace, Antipholus my husband,
          Whom I made lord of me and all I had,
          At your important letters...(5.1.136)
 
cf        ANTIPHOLUS OF EPHESUS
          Justice, sweet prince, against that woman there!
          She whom thou gavest to me to be my wife ... (5.1.190)
 
which is deteriating.  She has just been informed that Antipholus knows
 
          ... no house, no wife, no mistress
 
and at 2.1.86 speculates at to the reason for the breakdown concluding, vainly,
that Antipholus is
 
          ... the ground
          Of my defeatures.  My decayed fair
          A sunny look of his would soon repair...
 
She questions, and is insecure about, her own beauty (how things look, the
images are visual and to do with seeing) which fuels the jealousy.
 
In paranoia, she asks of herself the question
 
          I know his eye doth homage otherwhere,
          Or else, what lets it but he would be here?
 
cf         Some other mistress hath thy sweet aspects
 
She concludes
 
          Since that my beauty cannot please his eye,
          I'll weep (what's left away) and weeping die.
 
cf        I am not Adriana, nor thy wife...
          The time was once when thou unurg'd wouldst vow ...
          That never object pleasing in thine eye,
          That never touch well welcome to thy hand...
          Unless I spake, or look'd, or touch'd, or carv'd to thee.
 
The intervening lines are her arguments for and against her rhetorial question.
 
                      Sister, you know he promis'd me a chain,
                      Would that alone, a toy he would detain,
                      So he would keep fair quarter with his bed:
                      I see the jewel best enamelled
                      Will lose his beauty.
 
Adriana was promised a chain by Antipholus (which we discover has been ordered
but not delivered) and here she decides that she would prefer not to have the
chain/jewel, (a shrewd wife) as even the best will tarnish,if Antipholus would
only, as she says directly too him later,
 
                      Keep then fair league and truce with thy true bed,
                      I live unstained, thou undishonoured.
 
(I can't accept that *the jewel* is or is directly being compared to
Antipholus. It is Antipholus/husband, versus the chain/jewel/gold)
 
1. He can keep the chain if he pays appropriate attention to his marriage.
 
                      Yet the gold bides still
                      That others touch, and often touching will,
 
2. On the other hand, should she take the chain  (as gold will, although
tarnish, endure; it will even endure persistant handling) it at least will,
perhaps, be more lasting token.
 
                      Where gold and no man that hath a name,
                      By falsehood and corruption doth it shame
 
2a. If she takes the chain (where gold has these enduring properties) it
follows that no husband, who has a reputation for being an adulterer, will ever
be able to take it away from her whereas (the very powerful and currently
relevant)
                      I am possess'd with an adulterate blot,
                      My blood is mingled with the crime of lust:
                      For if we two be one, and thou play false,
                      I do digest the poison of they flesh,
                      Being strumpeted by thy contagion (2.2.140)
 
I used the Folio punctuation.
 
This simple decision making process was accessable in performance, contibuting
much to the nature of Adriana's consistantly selfish and vain personality.  It
also allowed the next two scenes (2.2 and 3.1 both typified by each Antipholus
having the first lines which picks up both sides of Adriana's *gold* argument)
to logically build on and explore each other.
 
cf                   ANTIPHOLUS OF SYRACUSE
                     The gold I gave to Dromio is laid up
                     Safe at the Centaur   (2.2)
                     ANTIPHOLUS OF EPHESUS
                     Good Signior Angelo, you must excuse us all,
                     My wife is shrewish when I keep not hours;
                     Say that I linger'd with you at your shop
                     To see the making of her carcanet,
                     And that to-morrow you will bring it home. (3.1)
 
Each scene pursues Adriana's black and white argument
 
cf                   BALTHAZAR
                     Have patience, sir, O let it not be so,
                     Herein you war against your reputation,
                     And draw within the compass of suspect
                     Th'unviolated honour of your wife.  (3.1.85)
 
3.2, of course, abruptly extends and repeats the cycle.
 
The Prince of Morocco's casket choice is much in mind, as is the constant
reference to gold in the early plays and in the Elizabethan period generally.
 
John Senczuk
University of Wollongong

Re: Essentialism

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0582.  Tuesday, 28 June 1994.
 
From:           William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 27 Jun 1994 13:42:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Essentialism
 
Yes, John Drakakis,
 
I am an essentialist, and I'll bet you are too. It would be difficult, if not
impossible, to be a materialist without being an essentialist. And, yes, I
realize that calling someone an essentialist is merely an insult, not an
attempt to define.
 
I read your razzle-dazzle insults with amusement and perplexity. I imagine what
you say has little or no content --- little or no intellectual content, that is
-- and so impossible to answer intelligently. And so let me respond in kind:
 
John, you are a romantic essentialist.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk

Re: "wood"/"woo'd"

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0583.  Wednesday, 29 June 1994.
 
(1)     From:   John Senczuk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Jun 1994 12:36:57 +1100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 5.0581  Qs: "wood"/"woo'd"
 
(2)     From:   Pat Buckridge <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Jun 1994 14:37:46 +1000 (EST)
        Subj:   'Woo'd/Wood'
 
(3)     From:   Ron Macdonald <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Jun 1994 10:37:20 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   RE SHK 5.0581: "woo'd/wood" in MSD
 
(4)     From:   Douglas M Lanier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Jun 1994 11:48:46 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0581 Qs: "wood"/"woo'd"
 
(5)     From:   Greg Grainger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Jun 1994 07:53:00 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 5.0581  Qs: "woo
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Senczuk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Jun 1994 12:36:57 +1100
Subject: 5.0581  Qs: "wood"/"woo'd"
Comment:        RE: SHK 5.0581  Qs: "wood"/"woo'd"
 
It seems to me that Helena picks up on this meaning later in the scene
 
     We should be woo'd, and were not made to woo. (2.1.242)
 
just as she pursues the pun on wood/iron/steel and magnetism (also acceptable
may be the pun on *slay* and *draw ... true as steel*
 
     cf Theseus
      Hippolyta, I woo'd thee with my sword,
      And won thy love doing thee injuries  (1.1.16)
 
but Demetrius, in repeating himself (at 2.1.236), threatens her with
 
      ... and wood(mischief) within this wood
      Because I cannot meet my Hermia.
 
Demetrius cannot intend woo'd.
 
With desperate abandon Helena reductively pursues her end!
 
John Senczuk
University of Wollongong
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pat Buckridge <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Jun 1994 14:37:46 +1000 (EST)
Subject:        'Woo'd/Wood'
 
In response to John Massa's query about the wordplay in Demetrius's speech:
surely the line following,
 
(viz. 'Because I cannot find my Hermia')
 
effectively precludes 'woo'd', since it supplies a reason for Demetrius's
'rage', but has no logical function at all in connection with 'woo'd'.
 
Pat Buckridge.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ron Macdonald <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Jun 1994 10:37:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0581: "woo'd/wood" in MSD
Comment:        RE SHK 5.0581: "woo'd/wood" in MSD
 
I like John Massa's suggestion of a play on "woo'd" and "wood" in MSD 2.1.192,
though it does make causality a bit difficult to construe. Demetrius says he is
wood within the wood "_Because_ I cannot meet my Hermia."  It's easy to see
that he is agitated and beside himself because of his failure to find Hermia,
less easy to see that Helena woos him because of this failure.  Q1 (1600:
ordinarily the copy-text for modern editions) has "wodde, within this wood,"
which might make a pun on "woo'd" less likely, though I don't suppose it would
rule it out.  I confess I like the play with "wood" in the sense of "mad" (in
both modern senses) and "wood" in the sense of "forest," because it conflates
subjective states and objective locale, superimposes inside on outside, and
that sorts nicely with the tricks of strong imagination, the bush-as-bear
psychology which is everywhere so pronounced.  But in a play so pervaded by
metamorphoses, where everyone/thing seems in the process of becoming
someone/thing else, I have no trouble in believing that homely "wood" is
becoming two other separate and distinct words simultaneously.
 
                                         --Ron Macdonald
                                           <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Douglas M Lanier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Jun 1994 11:48:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 5.0581 Qs: "wood"/"woo'd"
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0581 Qs: "wood"/"woo'd"
 
The "wood" / "woo'd" pun is certainly plausible, but equally plausible is a pun
on the archaic meaning of the adjective "wood" (pronounced WODE), meaning
"lunatic, crazy."  The evolution of "wood"'s meaning parallels that of "mad,"
from general lunacy to a more specific form of lunacy, violent anger.  Thus the
Arden edition's gloss, though both the general and the specific meanings of the
word are in general play in the late 16th century.  Certainly that meaning
would resonate with the various "lunacy" themes of the play;  in fact, a triple
pun on "wood" [forest] / "wood" [lunatic] / "woo'd" would rather nicely sum up
the concerns of the play's middle acts.  The "wood" [forest] / "wood" [lunatic]
pun is at least as old as *Beowulf*, by the way.  If it's common currency this
late, it might explain how Shakespeare's audience could hear the triple pun as
it rushed by in performance.
 
Cheers,
Douglas Lanier
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Greg Grainger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Jun 1994 07:53:00 -0400
Subject: Qs: "woo
Comment:        SHK 5.0581  Qs: "woo
 
On Monday, June 27, John Massa <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
wrote:
 
        DEMETIRUS SPEAKS:
H>          And here am I, and WOOD WITHIN THIS WOOD
 
[ . . . ]
 
H>It seems to me that the first "wood" in "wood within this wood" (Demetrius to
H>Helena in MSD 2.1.191) could mean "woo'd" (i.e., pursued romantically) since
H>Demetrius is definitely being woo'd in a big way by Helena.  I have seen note
H>that the first "wood" means essentially "very angry" (e.g.  Arden edition) bu
H>the pun on "woo'd" seems obvious and not a reach at all, especially on stage
H>for the actor.
 
H>Does anyone else see "woo'd" as a possibile interpretation, or know of any
H>reason to exclude this meaning?
 
H>Any references?
 
This is a good call - I very definitely see 'wood' as 'woo'd', but also as
'would', i.e. 'I intend to stay here until I find the people I seek - to
kill one and love the other'.
 
The OED says that 'wood' used to mean 'in a difficulty, trouble or
perplexity'. (2nd ed., p 2334.) They have quotes from 1658 and 1664.
Apparently this is the origin of our expression 'out of the woods', to mean
'out of difficulty'. In variant forms 'wood' also used to mean 'mad'. There
are quotes from Spenser's 'Faery Queen' (sp?) 1590 and Skene, 1609. Clearly
it could have been understood all these ways by Shakespeare's contemporary
audience.
 
Interestingly, this same passage is quoted in the OED as a reference to
'wood' meaning 'violently angry or irritated, enraged, furious'. (p. 2335)
 
Just my $0.02.
 
Greg, 'semantics is my life'.
 
   Greg Grainger, Toronto, Ontario.  6:58:59 pm, Tue 06-28-1994.
          This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  or  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Qs: "wood"/"woo'd"; RSC Reviews; Feminist Performance

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0581.  Tuesday, 28 June 1994.
 
(1)     From:   John Massa <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 27 Jun 94 09:24 CST
        Subj:   MSD: Demetrius is "wood" by Helena?
 
(2)     From:   Tom Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 27 Jun 94 09:54:55 MDT
        Subj:   Q: Reviews of current RSC H5 and H6 part 3 and hotels
 
(3)     From:   Mary Ellen Zurko <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, June 28, 1994
        Subj:   [Feminist] Performance Criticism - query
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Massa <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 27 Jun 94 09:24 CST
Subject:        MSD: Demetrius is "wood" by Helena?
 
          [Enter Demetrius, Helena following him.
 
       DEMETRIUS
          I love thee not, therefore pursue me not.
          Where is Lysander, and fair Hermia?
          The one I'll slay, the other slayeth me.
          Thou told'st me they were stol'n unto this wood,
          And here am I, and WOOD WITHIN THIS WOOD
          Because I cannot meet my Hermia.
          Hence get thee gone, and follow me no more.
 
 
It seems to me that the first "wood" in "wood within this wood" (Demetrius to
Helena in MSD 2.1.191) could mean "woo'd" (i.e., pursued romantically) since
Demetrius is definitely being woo'd in a big way by Helena.  I have seen notes
that the first "wood" means essentially "very angry" (e.g.  Arden edition) but
the pun on "woo'd" seems obvious and not a reach at all, especially on stage
for the actor.
 
Does anyone else see "woo'd" as a possibile interpretation, or know of any
reason to exclude this meaning?
 
Any references?
 
John Massa This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 27 Jun 94 09:54:55 MDT
Subject:        Q: Reviews of current RSC H5 and H6 part 3 and hotels
 
Has anyone seen the current RSC productions of H5 and H6 part 3 at
Stratford-upon-Avon?  I'd be interested in any reviews and comparisons.
 
Also, I'm looking for a hotel.  On previous visits I've tried the White Swan
(tf-sigh), the Stratford House (acceptable), the Moat House (could be a Holiday
Inn) and a several of the B&Bs.  There must be something better.  I'd be
interested in any suggestions and particularly any information about the Arden
Thistle (the hotel across from the theatre.)
 
Thanks.  (If the news isn't of general interest, feel free to E-Mail me
directly at tjensen.dsd.es.com.
                                          Thomas Jensen
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mary Ellen Zurko <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, June 28, 1994
Subject:        [Feminist] Performance Criticism - query
 
Can anyone point me towards some good performance criticism that might
highlight the kinds of issues that come up in performing Shakespeare? Also, any
pointers to feminist performance criticism would be deeply appreciated. I've
read a fair amount (for a lay person) of Shakespearean [and feminist]
criticism, but I find myself at a loss when people start translating what I
consider to be textually-centered discussions of character to
performance-centered discussions of the same thing (unless they use pragmatic
examples, which I also have some experience with). Thanks.
        Mez

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.