1994

Shakespeare in the MOOS

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0273.  Sunday, 27 March 1994.
 
From:           Hilve A. Firek <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 26 Mar 94 11:46:08 EST
Subject:        Shakespeare in the MOOS
 
On April 9 at 2:45 p.m., Shakespeare in the MOOS presents a scene from _The
Tempest_.  This virtual theater experience will be presented by high school
students, from the learning disabled to the physically challenged to the
gifted.  To join the audience, meet us in the Crystal Caverns Theater in
Diversity University (telnet thru rdz.stjohns.edu to esau.esau.edu).
 
See you there!
--
Hilve Firek, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Richard III

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0272.  Sunday, 27 March 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Patricia Gallagher <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 26 Mar 1994 15:22:23 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Richard III
 
(2)     From:   William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Saturday, 26 Mar 1994 21:02:56 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0270  Qs:  Richard III; Study Leave
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Patricia Gallagher <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 26 Mar 1994 15:22:23 -0600 (CST)
Subject:        Richard III
 
Shakespeare's Richard III must be a villain, given the time at which it was
written. The histories that Shakspeare had at his disposal - Hall, Holinshed,
Polidore Vergil, Thomas More -- all painted Richard as the hunchbacked villain.
These are his sources, and the apologists would not appear for some years to
come (Buck's History was not released until 1619).
 
Given that the reigning monarch at the time when "Richard III" was first
performed would have achieved her throne through usurpation and murder, I
doubt, even if Shakespeare had any concept of Richard as a "good king", it
would have been politically correct to portray him as such.
 
But, I think, by Shakespeare's time, Richard's memory had been sufficiently
tarnished that this was the view held by most of the English population (the
north of England excepted. Richard was always popular in the north).
 
Patricia Gallagher
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Saturday, 26 Mar 1994 21:02:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0270  Qs:  Richard III; Study Leave
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0270  Qs:  Richard III; Study Leave
 
Chantal,
 
You ask a very big question. The debate over Richard III has been going on
since the 18th century when Horace Walpole expressed his "historic doubts." Of
course, Sir/St. Thomas More's HISTORY OF RICHARD III (ca. 1513) is doubtless
one of Shakespeare's chief sources -- in one way or another. Shakespeare may
have considered More's account historically accurate. On the other hand, he may
have been rather cynical about More's account. You can trace this background in
James A. Moore's bibliography, RICHARD III: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY, items
857-1154, or in Paul Murray Kendall's RICHARD THE THIRD, Appendix II. As the
Latins might say, I mention Kendall to honor him.
 
The interesting question is, of course: what is the relationship of the play to
the written history?
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk

Qs: Richard III; Study Leave

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0270.  Saturday, 26 March 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Chantal Payette <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 25 Mar 1994 14:43:22 EST
        Subj:   Richard III
 
(2)     From:   Rex Bunn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 26 Mar 1994 15:05:39 +1000
        Subj:   Study Leave
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chantal Payette <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 25 Mar 1994 14:43:22 EST
Subject:        Richard III
 
I'm curious to what people think about Richard III as a character in
Shakespeare and Richard III as a character of fact.  Why did Shakespeare
make him out to be such a monster?  Was he not one of England's better
kings?  How has history affected his character in Shakespeare?
 
I was recently talking to someone who said that the ruler at the time
that Shakespeare wrote it, (was it Elizabeth?) greatly influenced his
writing and politically it was more beneficial to slander Richard's
name.  Comparisons in the monarchy I guess.
 
Please, anyone, share your ideas.  What do you think about the whole
thing?
 
Chantal
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rex Bunn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 26 Mar 1994 15:05:39 +1000
Subject:        Study Leave
 
I am a lecturer in Theatre Studies planning a study leave for the first half of
1995 (January to July). My plan is to visit the U.K., Canada and U.S.A.. My
twin objectives are to discuss pre-production analysis of text with
professional or university-based directors, and where possible to observe
related rehearsals. This is in association with a research project I am
conducting into current practice and trends in  the production process.
 
I would be grateful for any assistance or co-operation in developing an
itinerary for this project. In return, I would be happy to exchange
lectures/seminars etc. on Australian Theatre in general, and the plays of
Patrick White in particular (my Ph.D. on WhiteUs plays is due to be submitted
this year)
 
My interest is not confined to Shakespeare, but includes all theatre which is
substantially text-based.
 
Please reply direct to me.
 
Rex Bunn
Department of Theatre Studies,
University of New England,
Armidale, N.S.W. 2351
AUSTRALIA
 
Phone: 067-732047 (work), 067-753729 (home)
Fax: 067-733757
Email: <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Re: Macbeth's Death

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0271.  Sunday, 27 March 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Ron Macdonald <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 26 Mar 1994 14:31:44 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0267  Q: Macbeth's Death
 
(2)     From:   William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Saturday, 26 Mar 1994 20:45:24 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0268  Re: Macbeth's Death
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ron Macdonald <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 26 Mar 1994 14:31:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0267  Q: Macbeth's Death
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0267  Q: Macbeth's Death
 
I'm with Mary Jane Miller, Elise Earthman, and Harry Hill on this one.  For
me, one of the most powerful and uncanny effects of the Scottish tragedy at
its conclusion is not so much the sense of closure as the attempt of those
who remain to achieve closure.  There is something grimly admirable in
Macbeth's refusal to cooperate in this process, a refusal which leaves us
with the uncomfortable feeling that evil is not something confined to a
single individual, something which will simply disappear with his demise,
but an enduring possibility, a temptation to which no one is in principle
immune.  No consequence, as a result, is ever entirely trammeled up.  To
have Macbeth beg for mercy would be in effect the same as having him commit
the suicide he explicitly rejects in refusing to play the Roman fool and die
on his own sword.  In so far as _Macbeth_ contains an edifying moral, it is
one constructed in retrospect by the victors, and in refusing to beg for
mercy and rejecting suicide, Macbeth forecloses an opportunity for the victors
to point the moral and adorn the tale.  As Malcolm proclaims Macbeth a
"dead butcher," he must point at the hero's severed head impaled on a pike,
and in so doing he can only remind us that, whatever butcheries Macbeth may
have committed (and there is no way of mitigating them), he has hardly
cut off his own head.  As the examples of my ancestor Macdonwald and the Thane
of Cawdor suggest, Macbeth has scarcely invented the notion of usurpation, and
as his attempt to seize sovereignty is not the first, so it will not be
the last.  The comforting notion that evil is self-consuming is always
constructed in retrospect: that is why Malcolm must not only proclaim Lady
Macbeth a "fiend-like queen" but a suicide as well, "Who (as 'tis thought)
by self and violent hands / Took off her life."  The play itself is silent
on the question of how Lady Macbeth has met her end.  Meanwhile, is it so
hard to imagine Macduff, on his dutiful way to see Malcolm crowned at
Scone, encountering three strange women who wish to have a word with him?
 
                                       --Ron Macdonwald
                                         <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Saturday, 26 Mar 1994 20:45:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0268  Re: Macbeth's Death
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0268  Re: Macbeth's Death
 
I rather like the "damn'd be him, that first cries . . . . hold, enough" (TLN
2475). I think it a fine irony to have the "merciless" Macbeth finally crying
for mercy -- and thus damning himself. The lack of mercy in Macduff is equally
pleasing. Macduff never satisfactorily explains why he has left his family
behind him in Scotland. Malcolm and Rosse give him the chance, but he doesn't
excuse himself. As I grow older and more cynical, I see the play as completely
cyclical; Macduff replaces Macbeth at play's end, and here we go again.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk

Re: Horatio; Globe Address; Lenotes' Jealousy; Frogs

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0269.  Saturday, 26 March 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 25 Mar 1994 08:04:50 -0600
        Subj:   Horatio as a good man
 
(2)     From:   Harry Powell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 25 Mar 94 11:04 GMT
        Subj:   New Globe Address
 
(3)     From:   William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Friday, 25 Mar 1994 21:25:57 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0264  Leontes' Jealousy
 
(4)     From:   William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Friday, 25 Mar 1994 21:44:27 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0258  Re: Frogs; Hey Nonny Nonny
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 25 Mar 1994 08:04:50 -0600
Subject:        Horatio as a good man
 
In response to Al Cacicedo's questions about Horatio: he is a character I've
been thinking/writing about for a very long time. I don't see the same
ambiguities that Al does, although I admit that they're interesting. I think
he's there because he truly care about Hamlet, but that he remains in the
background until Hamlet (or Shakespeare) needs him. As to his becoming
Claudius's go-fer, I don't see it. I think he's the eyes Hamlet leaves behind
at court when he's sent to England; I've always read his "looking after"
Ophelia as something he does as a result of either an explicit or implicit
request from Hamlet.
 
I disagree with Jim Schaefer about R & G, however; they're not good at all.
Naive, maybe. Impressed by power, certainly. Probably not evil. But certainly
not good.
 
Best wishes to all for a glorious spring!
Chris Gordon
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Harry Powell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 25 Mar 94 11:04 GMT
Subject:        New Globe Address
 
Just so that anyone who wants to contribute can, this is the address that
I used;
 
Maxine Leonard
The Shakespeare Globe Trust
Bear Gardens
Bankside
Liberty of the Clink       (that's what it says on the letterhead...)
Southwark
London
United Kingdom
SE1 9EB
 
The address in the newspaper adverts was a little more concise;
 
Flagstone Appeal
Shakespeare Globe Trust
Bear Gardens
London
SE1 9EB
 
but I guess they are the same place. Just in case you don't know, you can
nominate a name to be inscribed on the flagstone you are funding...
 
Oh! Their telephone number is +44 71 928 7710
and fax........               +44 71 928 6330
 
Harry Powell
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Friday, 25 Mar 1994 21:25:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0264  Leontes' Jealousy
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0264  Leontes' Jealousy
 
I think David Evett's experience and its relationship to Leontes is very
interesting and very informative. First, the experience suggests that we as
humans haven't changed much in the last 400 years. Second, it suggests that
 Leontes' experience of jealousy doesn't need to be "historicized" --
whatever that process may be.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Friday, 25 Mar 1994 21:44:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0258  Re: Frogs; Hey Nonny Nonny
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0258  Re: Frogs; Hey Nonny Nonny
 
I have only skimmed the great FROG controversy, but I did not notice a
reference to Farmer and Henley, SLANG AND ITS ANALOGUES, sv "Frog," 2:
"Formerly a Parisian; the shield of whose city bore three toads, while the
quaggy state of the streets gave point to a jest common at Versailles before
1791: Qu'en disent les grenouilles? i.e., What do the FROGS (the people of
Paris) say?" My apologies if this is old news, and I await Luc Borot's
commentary on this derivation.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.