1994

Re: Signed Shakespeare

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0505.  Tuesday, 7 June 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Charlie Mitchell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Mondat, 6 Jun 1994 15:35:48 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: Deaf Shakespeare
 
(2)     From:   Stanley D. McKenzie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 06 Jun 1994 18:21:00 +0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 5.0500 Re: Signed Shakespeare
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charlie Mitchell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Mondat, 6 Jun 1994 15:35:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Re: Deaf Shakespeare
 
For the graduate student looking for deaf Shakespeare references...
 
I recall an all-deaf production of *Macbeth* produced a few years back, I
believe, by Gallaudet.  It was presented at Ithaca College for the American
College Theatre Festival somewhere between 1985-89.  It was done entirely in
sign with musical accompaniment.  Most notable was Lady Macbeth whose visual
interpretation for pulling the child from her breast is an eerie image I have
never been able to shake.  There was an elaborate battle scene as well with the
only sounds being the grunts of soldiers and the crashing of swords on shields.
Quite jarring.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stanley D. McKenzie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 06 Jun 1994 18:21:00 +0000
Subject: 5.0500 Re: Signed Shakespeare
Comment:        RE: SHK 5.0500 Re: Signed Shakespeare
 
Although the National Theatre of the Deaf has not done a Shakespeare play, they
have done "Volpone" and other Elizabethan dramas.  The NTID Theatre (National
Technical Institute for the Deaf) here at the Rochester Institute of Technology
has done "Taming of the Shrew" (1974), "Romeo and Juliet" (1981), "Tempest"
(forget year, but a stuninng production), and "MacBeth" (1987), usually with
actors signing with simultaneous voice-over (sometimes by the same actor).
Gallaudet's Drama Department has done "Tempest," Othello," and "Hamlet."
 
My colleague Bonnie Meath-Lang at NTID was honestly surprised at the question
because there are so many deaf performances of Shakespeare among 200 deaf
acting companies around the world, the first in America possibly being a deaf
production of "Merchant of Venice" in Philadelphia in 1894 by the All Souls'
Working Club. Dr. Meath-Lang recommended consulting the "Gallaudet Encyclopedia
of Deafness and Deaf People," ed. J. Van Cleave, McGraw-Hill, 1987, under the
entries: Theatre, University; Theatre, Community; Performing Arts; and National
Theatres of the Deaf.  Also, Steve Baldwin's  "Pictures in the Air" (1994) has
just been published and is highly recommended.
 
          Stan McKenzie
          RIT

Re: Character

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0504.  Monday, 6 June 1994.
 
(1)     From:   John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 06 Jun 94 13:00:00 BST
        Subj:   SHK 5.0489 Re: Character and Cordelia
 
(2)     From:   Piers Lewis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 06 Jun 1994 06:56:01 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   character
 
(3)     From:   Harry Hill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 06 Jun 1994 09:28:05 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0498  Re: Character and Cordelia
 
(4)     From:   Martin Mueller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 Jun 1994 09:32:53 -0500
        Subj:   NO psychology in the role of Richard
 
(5)     From:   Rick Jones <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 06 Jun 94 15:07:40 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0498  Re: Character and Cordelia
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 06 Jun 94 13:00:00 BST
Subject: Re: Character and Cordelia
Comment:        SHK 5.0489 Re: Character and Cordelia
 
The fuss which Terry Hawkes' comments on character has provoked is, of course,
entirely predictable so long as Bill Godshalk et al persist in not being able
to tell the difference between life and art.
 
Perhaps the way forward is to think of "character effects" in these texts, that
is to say certain rhetorical devices from which we can make certain meanings.
The real question that arises from this concerns the connection between these
"effects" and an extra-dramatic social formation.  Hawkes' point is that our
perceptions of "character" are anachronistic; universalists such as Godshalk
see them presumably as facets of an unchanging human nature. In this Hawkes is
the more historical. I suppose the additional question might be: what did
Elizabethan auditors think they were seeing when they saw actors on the stage
speaking lines of blank verse? Did they suspend their disbelief? Did they say,
Ah, yes, a "character"? or what?
 
I still think that Terry Hawkes is right to insist that Pamela Bunns asks for
her money back! She's the victim of an educational conspiracy that's too
incompetent to recognize clearly its own politics.
 
Right on El Tel
 
John Drakakis
University of Stirling
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Piers Lewis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 06 Jun 1994 06:56:01 -0600 (CST)
Subject:        character
 
Jean Peterson writes (June 3):
 
"But if one accepts new historicist arguments that 'subjectivity' in the early
modern period was radically different from what it is now, the picture becomes
vastly more complicated, and the incongruity of using Stanislavskian concepts
of character, motive, interiority, etc., to speak of early-modern characters
becomes apparent.  For many actors, directors, and theater people, this
incongruity seems an insurmountable obstacle--because these ways of thinking
about character are the only ones they know.  Actors are USED TO thinking about
the motives, impulses, disconcerting to be told that these things didn't exist,
not in the forms and ways that they do now."
 
Bernard Williams, in _Shame and Necessity_, shows that Homer's assumptions
about motives impulses, desires, intentions, action and responsibility are a
lot closer to ours than has been commonly supposed by scholars who have been
reading him with their heads full of christian-cartesian dualism and kantian
morality.  To have motives, desires, intentions etc. is to have or be a
character, right?  If expectations about character in the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_
are not radically different from ours, perhaps we should take another look at
new historicist claims about early modern subjectivity.  Maybe actors who make
common-sense assumptions about the meaning of 'character' are not completely
misguided after all?
 
On another matter.  John Seabrook reports in the last_New Yorker_ (June 6:  "My
First Flame"):  "Everywhere I went in the newsgroups, I found flames, and the
fear of flames.  In the absence of rules, there is a natural tendency toward
anarchy on the net anyway, and in some stretches I'd come upon sites that were
in complete chaos, where people had been flaming each other non-stop,
absolutely scorching everything around them, and driving all civilized people
away.  Sometimes I'd arrive at a dead site long after a flame war broke out; it
was like walking through what was once a forest after a wildfire. Sometimes I
came upon voices that were just howling at the world . . . "  What a remarkably
civilized bunch we are on this list.
 
So cheers, all round.
Piers Lewis
Metropolitan State University
St. Paul, Mn.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Harry Hill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 06 Jun 1994 09:28:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0498  Re: Character and Cordelia
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0498  Re: Character and Cordelia
 
Pamela Bunn's query certainly shows what we do with our vacations: correct each
other's misapprehensions and methods. I have no doubt that Terence Hawkes is
fully aware that actors are made of flesh and blood and also that the plays
were written for performance to be acted out [or perhaps recited mimetically,
which really boils down to the same thing -- the offering of a near illusion in
"current language heightened"] by actors some of whom were aware of the
thematic and emblematic structure.
 
Luc Borot's reply a few days ago was temperate and understanding, as is Gregory
McSweeney's of today, but what surprises me is an almost complete absence of
mention of what CONVEYS the emblems, the characters and feelings associated
with them: dramatic poetry. I do feel that we are making hillocks out of
molehills as we talk around the topic as we are doing. It is undeniable that
actors who bring extratextual personal histories to their roles COULD be doing
the script a disservice and that it is often a felicitous accident if what they
do also conveys the lines as they are written. I oppose those who find the
plays mere "blueprints for production" as much as I oppose those who
dogmatically insist that "it's all there already" (among whose numbers I
sometimes have to count myself), and continue to hold that actors now have to
be trained specifically in responding to a rhetorical script often unlike the
quasi-naturalism to which they have become accustomed. John Barton's advice to
"see and feel the images" comes very close to the ideal of offering an open
reading which is the result of poetic discipline.
 
In short, it's all there but watch how you do it. Or how you hear it. Very
often we see performances in which there's less here than meets the ear
precisely because the actor felt that there was more here than met the eye.
 
I cannot understand how I can look through my saved files on the
Cordelia/character interchange, so fortuitously started by Pamela Bunn, and
find so little on the petic solution.
 
A final word: Arthur Koestler in "The Act of Creation" makes satisfyingly clear
that a perfect response to such theatrical art is that where the mind is
constantly vacillating between two matrices: believing that the actor is a
character and knowing that he is an actor, surrendering to an illusion and
admiring the skill. Stanislavski's seldom quoted statement that "the chief
secret of our art is in producing the desired emotion at the advertised hour"
hinges on what is meant by "desired". That meaning is what is likely causing
what strikes me as our confusion.
 
PS: And another thing...
 
As a student just remarked to me when he had recovered from his dismay and
amazement on reading the Cordelia/character exchange:
 
"I don't know why people are talking about acting as presenting emotions.
Acting is not about presenting emotions, not even one emotion, let alone two or
three in conflict. Acting is about physical actions, saying lines,looking or
moving here or there for particular reasons. Emotions in acting are the results
of actions. Actors should not concern themselves with the emotions their
characters are experiencing in a given moment or scene. When they do, they
become mannered." (Paul Hawkins)
 
Indeed. And the audience is deprived of THEIR emotions when the actor is
"feeling" away to herself. We have paid to come and cry, not simply witness
tears. The WORDS and their referents are what affect us.
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Mueller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Jun 1994 09:32:53 -0500
Subject:        NO psychology in the role of Richard
 
There is a lot of practical wisdom in cautioning students against assuming that
the psychological conventions of the realistic novel are identical with human
nature and always appropriate to the interpretation of any Shakespearean
character. But the assumption that there is No psychology in the role of
Richard II and that by implication we would be better off kissing psychology
good-bye runs against elementary facts of the texts. The plays include cases of
psychological explanation that require very little translation to fit
twentieth-century clinical diagnoses. Richard III tells you in so many words
that he will be a bully because he has been a victim, and the little son of
Coriolanus is meant to tell you a lot about a family environment that turned
Coriolanus into the kind of man we see on the stage. What these and similar
cases show is that there are substantial areas of overlap in which the
contemporaries of Plutarch, Shakespeare, and we talk about character.
 
If the idea of character development seems inappropriate to Cordelia, it is not
because that idea is never applicable to Shakespearean drama, but because
Cordelia is a character who does not develop. That is, as it were, the point of
her "character," as point that is perfectly intelligible to a reader of the
Antigone, where there is a long history of critical disagreement about her
"character" or "ethos." Hegel thought she ws the embodiment of ancient
undivided ethos as opposed to modern divided character, but Bernard Knox showed
in a wonderful essay about "Second thoughts in Greek tragedy," that the corpus
of Greek tragedy is full of characters who reason and act in ways that are all
too recognizably like ours.
 
Martin Mueller     Professor of English and Classics
Department of English  Northwestern University   Evanston IL 60208
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.   708-467-1065
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rick Jones <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 06 Jun 94 15:07:40 EDT
Subject: 5.0498  Re: Character and Cordelia
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0498  Re: Character and Cordelia
 
I confess myself a little bewildered by Adrian Kiernander's recent remarks. I
certainly grant that my profession (teaching theatre) is considerably more
conservative than it fancies itself, but beyond that, I'm baffled.
 
Is the point that:
 
-- modern conceptions of character, theme, etc. are utterly irrelevant to
appreciating Shakespeare?  So much for his ability to speak to us through the
ages if we're not allowed to approach his work even marginally through our
own experiences!
 
-- or that we should abandon late-19th century modes in favor of late 20th
century modes which are, apparently by definition, correct?
 
-- or that criticism is allowed to adapt with the times but production isn't?
 
-- or that it's OK to say that the greatest playwright ever lived 400 years
ago in England, but not that the greatest acting theorist ever lived 100
years ago in Russia?
 
-- or that because post-Stanislavskian acting theory contains/allows some,
perhaps even many, excesses, that both post-Stanislavskian and indeed
Stanislavskian theory (which is considerably different!) ought to be
discarded in their entirety?
 
-- or that bad productions of Shakespeare are all attributable to a quest for
naturalism?  and good ones are all anti-naturalistic?  A little reductive,
don't you think?
 
-- or is this simply another version of the prevalent motif in certain areas
of academe that the reason some of us act or direct is that we're too stupid
to write articles?
 
Grumpily, defensively, but I hope not paranoidly yours...
 
Rick Jones
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Nudity in Shakespearean Performance

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0502.  Monday, 6 June 1994.
 
(1)     From:   John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 06 Jun 94 12:42:00 BST
        Subj:   SHK 5.0485 Qs: Nudity in Shakespearean P
 
(2)     From:   Kenneth S. Rothwell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 Jun 1994 10:05:41 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0499 re: Nudity in Shakespearean Performance
 
(3)     From:   William Russell Mayes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 Jun 1994 11:06:40 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0499  re: Nudity in Shakespearean Performance
 
(4)     From:   Stephen Orgel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 Jun 1994 10:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0499  re: Nudity in Shakespearean Performance
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 06 Jun 94 12:42:00 BST
Subject: Qs: Nudity in Shakespearean P
Comment:        SHK 5.0485 Qs: Nudity in Shakespearean P
 
Dear Douglas Lanier,
 
I understand that there was a Wilson Knight production of King Lear some years
ago in Exeter, where he stripped off completely: "Off, off you lendings"(!)  He
was, I think, 85 at the time.  One person I know who saw it was Professor Peter
Thompson of the Drama Department at Exeter.
 
Sorry I don't have any more information on that.  Also what about Jody Dench's
topless Puck in Peter Hall's film of MND, and (of course) Francesca Annis's
nude walkabout dream scene in Polanski's Macbeth.
 
Cheers,
John Drakakis
University of Stirling
 
PS. Keith Hack's 1976 production of Measure For Measure had Barnadine bearing
his buttocks to the audience- one of which (Kenneth Muir!) Shook his fist
at the actor!
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kenneth S. Rothwell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Jun 1994 10:05:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 5.0499 re: Nudity in Shakespearean Performance
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0499 re: Nudity in Shakespearean Performance
 
Dear Lonnie, Your message about the Jarman TEMPEST reminded me of the time in
summer school that I booked it on 16mm for campus-wide screening. After I
pre-viewed it, I had to station guards at the door to prevent earnest young
faculty mothers from dumping their children for the afternoon at the
performance. We quietly moved the children into another classroom for a
screening of the BBC MND, while we adults contemplated the TEMPEST "as seen
through the eyes of" Derek Jarman. The latter qualification is important
because you can't view this film as it was meant to be viewed if you have the
mentality of a policeman alert for violations of the "text." It includes what
is surely one of the most revolting scenes ever filmed in depicting Sycorax
nursing her Caliban, who is the famous Jack Birkett. On the other hand, in its
"open" treatment of Shakespeare's text, it recontextualizes the play for the
post-colonial period. I recommend Sam Crowl's Review in SHAKESPEARE ON FILM
NEWSLETTER 5.1. (1980): 5+, available in your better university libraries, or
from the current editors of SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN. The vocalist was not Cleo
Laine but Elizabeth Welch, and Derek Jarman, a committed filmmaker, tragically
died of AIDS. There's a moving tribute to him in SIGHT AND SOUND (April 1994).
His TEMPEST was a box office failure, so much so that I'm not sure that it can
be booked any longer even on 16mm in the United States. Ken Rothwell
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Russell Mayes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Jun 1994 11:06:40 -0400
Subject: 5.0499  re: Nudity in Shakespearean Performance
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0499  re: Nudity in Shakespearean Performance
 
I seem to recall the National Theatre in London doing a WT in 1988 (I think) in
which Perdita wore a virtually transparent blouse during Act IV.  Not exactly
nudity, but close.
 
W. Russell Mayes Jr.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
University of Virginia
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen Orgel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Jun 1994 10:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 5.0499  re: Nudity in Shakespearean Performance
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0499  re: Nudity in Shakespearean Performance
 
Re Lonnie Durham on the Jarman TEMPEST: it featured not only a topless Miranda,
but a topless and bottomless Ferdinand, who has lost every stitch of clothing
in the wreck, and spends his first scene with Miranda entirely naked. The film
was intermittently interesting, though Caliban as a Charles Addams butler
didn't work for me. I saw it on British tv, and I sort of suspect that it will
surface on video shortly, at least in England.
 
S. Orgel

Qs: Excursions; Essay on the SHAKSPER Fileserver

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0503.  Monday, 6 June 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Robert O'Connor <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 Jun 1994 10:43:50 +1000
        Subj:   Excursions . . .
 
(2)     From:   Ben Schneider <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 04 Jun 1994 15:57:51 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   contributions to lists as publication
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robert O'Connor <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Jun 1994 10:43:50 +1000
Subject:        Excursions . . .
 
Dear SHAKSPEReans,
 
I am taking the plunge and putting together a proposal for some fieldwork in
the UK later this year.  Most of the information I need to plan and prepare for
the trip is readily available, of course, but I was hoping to get some info off
the net that might facilitate things. So, can anyone help me with some
addresses?  I'm trying to find the e-mail addresses (if they have such) of
people at the Bodleian and British Libraries who might be able to help me find
out about conditions and facilities for visiting researchers.  Likewise, if any
of this info is available off fileservers (especially since the most recent
info I have been able to get otherwise is two years old) I would appreciate
knowing where to get it from.  I have done a little net-surfing but didn't come
up with anything. This will be my first such excursion; I'm hoping to spend at
least six weeks going through pamphlet and manuscript material, trying to put
together some idea of the perceptions of manhood in Elizabethan England other
than those provided by the likes of Elyot, Ascham and the other better-known or
'mainstream' writers.  Any assistance that can be provided would be greatly
apreciated!
 
Robert F. O'Connor
 
PS: Any advance notice about conferences, seminars, or performances of
plays in southern England around September-October would also be great!
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ben Schneider <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 04 Jun 1994 15:57:51 -0600 (CST)
Subject:        contributions to lists as publication
 
Dear Hardy and interested SHAKSPERians,
 
If material submitted to SHAKSPER has been published electronically may one
submit the same material to a journal?  Since journals do not publish already
published material will they not reject any articles that have previously been
sent to an electronic discussion group.  How do journals react to such invasion
of their monopoly on what they publish?
 
Yours ever,
BEN SCHNEIDER
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
[Dear Ben and Interested Others,
 
Although I consider our daily digests scholarly discourse that may with
permission be cited in scholarly writings and documented by volume and
digest number, I do not consider essays available on the SHAKSPER Fileserver
as published.  Here are my reasons.
 
First, the SHAKSPER Fileserver is a service for the members of the conference;
it does not in any way purport to be an electronic journal and can only be
accessed by members of the conference.
 
Second, the SHAKSPER Fileserver makes available essays of three general
categories.
 
        1) Electronic reprints of published essays,
        2) Early drafts of papers that eventually may be published (such as
           SAA Conference papers), and
        3) Papers that will probably never be published but that may still
           be of interest to the members.
 
I'm not sure if the above covers all papers that are retrievable, but I do not
see in category two any conflict with eventual print publication. We do
distribute early drafts of our work at conferences like the MLA and SAA and we
often read them at others institutions.  We do this, of course, for feedback.
It seems to me that papers available to SHAKSPERean on the Fileserver that are
not yet published are placed there in that spirit.
 
I welcome anyone else's response to Ben's question but thought I would go
ahead a state my understanding.
 
Hardy M. Cook
Editor of SHAKSPER]

Hollywood Bard; Light; Concordance; Philosophers;

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0501.  Sunday, 6 June 1994.
 
(1)     From:   David Joseph Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 4 Jun 94 17:46:11 CDT
        Subj:   Hollywood Bard
 
(2)     From:   William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Saturday, 04 Jun 1994 20:48:51 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0493  Re: Light and Heat
 
(3)     From:   David Scott Wilson-Okamura <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 4 Jun 94 20:56:54 CDT
        Subj:   Spevack concordance
 
(4)     From:   Luc Borot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
        Date:   Sunday, 5 Jun 1994 14:14:24 +0100
        Subj:   Re: Philosophers
 
(5)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Sunday, 05 Jun 1994 15:46:23 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   The stately legate of the Persian King, Once More
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Joseph Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 4 Jun 94 17:46:11 CDT
Subject:        Hollywood Bard
 
Dear SHAKSPERians:
 
There's a movie which just opened Friday (at least here in the U.S.) called
*Renaissance Man*, in which Danny DeVito plays a guy who gets a job teaching
Shakespeare to new recruits on an Army base.  He gets them into the Bard by
such techniques as having them do a rap version of *Hamlet* (one of the
recruits is played by rapper Marky Mark), and apparently there's one scene
where one of the recruits recites Henry's St. Crispin's Day speech from *Henry
V* to their incredulous sergeant.  I haven't actually seen the movie --- I
gleaned the above from several reviews I read.  These reviews were negative but
not scathing --- apparently the plot is fairly predictable --- but it sounds
like it could be interesting for the folks on this list, especially those who
teach Shakespeare for a living.  If anybody out there has seen the movie, or
plans to, maybe they could post a review.
 
Dave Kathman
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Saturday, 04 Jun 1994 20:48:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0493  Re: Light and Heat
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0493  Re: Light and Heat
 
Thank you, Dave Evett and Ron Moyer, for clearing up my confusion. I should
have checked Hibbard.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Scott Wilson-Okamura <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 4 Jun 94 20:56:54 CDT
Subject:        Spevack concordance
 
If anyone is still looking for the Spevack concordance, I've seen two at the
Seminary Coop Bookstore in Chicago.  Phone: 312/752-4381 or 312/752-1959,
5757 South University Ave., Chicago, IL 60610.
 
                                                Yours faithfully,
                                                David Wilson-Okamura
                                                This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Luc Borot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
Date:           Sunday, 5 Jun 1994 14:14:24 +0100
Subject:        Re: Philosophers
 
Matthew Westcott Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> asks if we can find other
references to philosophers other than Aristotle and Machiavelli.
 
Matthew, what do you exactly mean by 'reference'? do you want ONLY the
philosophes *named*, or others just alluded to, or would you also be interested
in the titles of their works or the use of their best-known concepts if we
encounter such information? It would extend the search quite a lot. There is
quite a lot of platonist or neo-platonist allusions, many in the sonnets, and
especially concerning love. In a collaboration with others, Shakespeare was
involved in a play on a philosopher: Sir Thomas More, though More was not
involved as philosopher but rather as statesman.
 
I can't find if the Cicero in *JC* is THE Cicero, and I don't have the time and
annotated editions to check it here at home. I'm interested, so I will try to
find others. If you only want the names mentioned, use a concordance, but
beware of homonymies, which may be the case for the above-mentioned Cicero...
 
If I may venture a very poor joke, you have the rape of Lucrece, which a French
student of mine once thought was an episode of the life of Lucretius, since the
woman and the philosopher have the same name in French: 'Lucr\ece'...
 
Weather's fine down here, but student papers are on my desk; I will take them
to the balcony, where I can face the task with less boredom and greater
equanimity, which is a good thing for the students. I'd rather go to the beach,
but duty calls and deadlines kill my philosophical headonism from time to time.
 
Enough with self-pity. Fare ye well,
                                                Philosophically,
                                                        Luc
 
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Sunday, 05 Jun 1994 15:46:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        The stately legate of the Persian King, Once More
 
A few weeks ago, I asked if anyone could help me find an historical basis for
the following lines in THE TAMING OF A SHREW: "As was the Massie Robe that late
adornd/The stately legate of the Persian King" (Scene vii, 46-47, Bullough,
Vol. I, p. 85). Although I received several suggestions, nothing immediately
surfaced.
 
A few days ago, I read the following in David Bradley's FROM TEXT TO
PERFORMANCE IN THE ELIZABETHAN THEATRE: PREPARING THE PLAY FOR THE STAGE
(Cambridge U.P., 1992): "In ALPHONSUS, KING OF ARAGON, the lords in Act IV are
sent as 'Legats to god Mahomet', and recall a visit from 'the stately legate of
the Persian King'" (p. 256, note 21). I don't own a copy of Greene's aplay, and
rushed to the library to get one. I found the first line quoted (Malone Society
reprint, line 1232), but now that I have read Act IV three times I say with
some confidence that "the stately legate of the Persian King" is NOT there. I
have skimmed the rest of the play several times, just in case: no Persian
legate did I find.
 
Now, the question is: Did Bradley import the reference to the stately Persian
legate from A SHREW? Or is it from another play? If the simile is from another
play, we may have a dating argument for A SHREW.
 
I've tried to find Monash University (Bradley's academic home) on gopher, and
it's not there. Does Bradley have e-mail? Does anyone have his e-mail address?
Or, heaven forfend, must I send him a letter on PAPER? I am, of course, hoping
that Bradely can clear up this little problem.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.