1994

Q: Sources for Videotapes

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0233.  Tuesday, 15 March 1994.
 
From:           Thomas L. Berger <TBER@SLUMUS>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 94 11:52:56 EST
Subject:        videotapes
 
I need to get a videotape of JOE MACBETH.  Where do I go, whom do I do I phone
to make this happen.  I wouldn't mind getting a copy of STRANGE BREW.  Nor
would I mind a copy of LOVE BREWED IN AN AFRICAN POT, an African version of
ROMEO AND JULIET.
 
HELP!!!
 
Thanks,
Tom Berger

Re: Transmission of the Quartos

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0232.  Tuesday, 15 March 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Rick Jones <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 94 10:13:19 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0225  Re: Transmission of the Quartos
 
(2)     From:   Thomas Clayton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 1994 08:25:50 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Q1 _Hamlet_
 
(3)     From:   William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 1994 19:55:55 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0225  Re: Transmission of the Quartos
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rick Jones <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 94 10:13:19 EST
Subject: 5.0225  Re: Transmission of the Quartos
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0225  Re: Transmission of the Quartos
 
I am anything but an expert on issues of transmission of text, but if a humble
theatre geek might interpose a comment...
 
James McKenna mentions that "our idea of the fixed text was barely formed in
Jacobean London".  True enough.  But it may be worth noting that modern
playwrights don't necessarily believe in a fixed text, either.  A few examples
off the top of my head:
 
Yeats's _The Countess Cathleen_ was published in 1892, *radically* revised and
re-published in 1897, first performed in 1899, re-published with significant
changes in 1900 (whether the performance text was the 1897 or 1900 version --
or neither -- is a matter of some debate), re-published again with even more
changes several years later.
 
Camus' _Le Malentendu_ was radically revised (and IMHO signficantly improved)
between the mid-'40s original and a 1959 re-write.  The changes are profound
enough that when I directed the show several years ago, I considered it worth
my time to translate the revised version, since the only available English
translation was of the earlier text.
 
Both Peter Nichols's _[A Day in the Death of] Joe Egg_ and Peter Shaffer's
_Lettice and Lovage_ show slight changes between the officially "published"
editions and the "acting editions" available from Samuel French (or DPS, or
whoever it is who holds the rights).  Indeed, what is fascinating about these
texts (and I'm sure many others, as well) is that if everyone follows the
rules, the play-going and play-reading audiences will necessarily, by law, be
confronted with different texts.
 
I realize that this doesn't tell us much about differences between various
editions of Shakespeare, but it does begin to suggest, I think, that ALL of our
assumptions must be re-examined.
 
Rick Jones
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Clayton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 1994 08:25:50 -0600 (CST)
Subject:        Q1 _Hamlet_
 
In SHK 5.0182, "Re: Q1 of _*Hamlet_," Charles Frey wrote that he would
"appreciate a posting from a relatively neutral authority telling us how to
obtain a balanced view of this debate over memorial reconstruction. Is the
volume edited by Thomas Clayton and titled _The "Hamlet" First Published (Q1,
1603): Origins, Form, Intertextualities_ (1992) the latest and best word?" etc.
As the editor, I scarcely qualify as even a "_relatively_ neutral authority,"
but I am prompted by the question to say a few things about the volume, in case
anyone is interested, partly because Q1 is of interest on a number of accounts
not necessarily related directly to the question whether memorial
reconstruction played a part in its coming to be as it is. The contributors'
abbreviated working title was _Q1 Now!_ Here and now I use "_Q1 Then_."
 
_Q1 Then_ was intended to be informative, argumentative, suggestive,
provocative, even imaginative, but _not_ "definitive," in treating Q1 _Hamlet_
from a number of perspectives. Steve Urkowitz wrote of it here about a year ago
(SHK 4.0215 R: "Q1 _Hamlet_ Texts for the Stage," 4 April 1993) that "a dozen
fresh- baked articles about Q1 appear in Tom Clayton, THE HAMLET FIRST
PUBLISHED (Delaware 1992): tasty bits on casting, staging, history, textual
analysis by a variety of critical practitioners all over the map. One by me
[Steve], too."
 
Like _The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare's Two Versions of "King Lear"_
edited by Gary Taylor and Michael Warren (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1983), _Q1 Then_
began with papers written for a seminar held at the annual meeting of the
Shakespeare Association of America: _Division_ (1983) SAA 1980, _Q1 Then_
(1992) SAA 1988. The world of difference between the two is due in part to the
limited lights--if you insist, low wattage--of the editor of _Q1 Then_, no
doubt, but a number of the differences were designed, too; in any case the
essays speak very well for themselves, as the work of a strong group of
contributors. The overall difference was stressed in the first sentence of the
Preface of _Q1 Then_, with the requisite and regulation allusion to "The Love
Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" (who aptly was "not Prince Hamlet"): "This is not
_The Division of the Kingdoms_ nor was meant to be..." (15).
 
_Q1 Then_ contains strong scholarly disagreements, even 180- degree opposition,
quite deliberately not resolved. While coming into being, _Division_ became
more or less homogeneous, not in editing out idiosyncrasies but in
contributors' being encouraged to write in, in some degree, the means and
markers of a synoptic complementarity, each of the essays arguing from its
(author's) own perspective for the conclusion that F _King Lear_ (1623)
represented a revision of the play as presented in Q1 _King Lear_ (1608). As a
contributor to _Division_ ("'Is this the promis'd end?' Revision in the Role of
the King"), I think it is fair to say that all contributors held approximately
the same hypothesis, that _King Lear_ did indeed show signs of revision
(wherever one went from that very general position), but not necessarily in the
same way or to the same degree--_partly_ because not all con- tributors
characteristically _see_ anything in exactly the same way. For my part, I moved
from some skepticism to becoming convinced in the course of my research that
there was more telling  evidence of revision than I had previously recognized;
but by the end whatever remained of my doubts was vestigial in expression,
because _Division_ was finally not _about_ doubts or circumspection but about
demonstrated and argued-for revision.
 
With _Q1 Then_ I decided early on that a collection of essays expressing very
different, even opposing, views would have value, whether in a postmodern
climate where it should be quite at home with _The Protean Self_ (see Robert
Jay Lifton's book on _Human Resilience in an Age of Fragmentation_), or a
pre-postmodern, where settled orthodoxies almost always need some shaking up
and discontinuities help unsettle.
 
How to arrange this "diversity" of essays? Categories of some kind are always
within reach, but they don't always facilitate grasp. Experimenting with
various arrangements, I noticed that alphabetical-by-author produced some
striking and illuminating juxtapositions of more than one kind. George Hibbard
vs. Kathleen Irace on the descent and relative chronology, Sidney Thomas vs.
Steve Urkowitz on the literary qualities and inferable provenance, would
obviously link in almost any scheme; but a sequence that would not is the
alphabetically determined one of Scott McMillin on the pragmatics of casting,
followed by Giorgio Melchiori on Q2 _Hamlet_ as literary drama, Marga Munkelt
on the vagaries of editors' use of Q1, and Marvin Rosenberg on Victorian
attempts at staging Q1. Likewise with the three--not in isolation but as a
set--of Bryan Loughrey's interview with persons of the theatre associated with
two recent Q1 productions (as noted here in SEC, Loughrey has been defending in
the _TLS_ his and Graham Holderness's edition of Q1), Janis Lull's
consideration of Q1 in its sociocultural context, and Philip MGuire's critical
comparison of three textual "Fortinbrases"--not all the same or spelt so.
Leaving Alan C. Dessen standing at the head with "Weighing the Options in Q1
_Hamlet_."
 
It seemed to me that by the relationship and contrast between these essays, the
life as well as the range and complexity of the enterprise of scholarly enquiry
on an apparently finite bibliographical subject emerged both instructively and
interestingly, and that Q1 was the livelier and more familiar for it --
admittedly still in need of "definitive" identification (hence last year's
discussion of Q1 and the current one here). And I hoped that readers would
notice not only the limitations most perspectives, and selections of evidence
and method, have alone and as such (and how we also find what we wish to find),
but the value individually and collectively of their differences, all tending
toward the completion of a larger picture but _not_ in every case of the same
design or even valence.
 
Or, you may say, since a better arrangement didn't suggest itself, the
alphabetical one would do as well and, all things considered, better.
 
Because each author was to have his or her own say in his or her own way,
substantially, I had to decide what to do about major disagreements and
differences of conclusion, whether to say nothing and let them emerge in the
reading or call attention to them in some way. I rejected a system of cross
references as gratuitously imposing a grid upon the essays, and provided,
instead, not abstracts but a one-paragraph "condensed representation" of each
of "The Twelve Essays in Brief" that "stresses major points of theme, argument,
conclusion, assertion, and, in general, position, quoting extensively and
trying to maintain a ratio of resemblance to the whole, while leaving
comparison of argument and conclusion--which must be seen in full to be fairly
assessed--to the reader" (53).
 
I don't deny that the result may have been in many or even all cases
regrettable, but I _did_ give serious thought to as many aspects of _Q1 Then_
as I recognized as requiring it, and accordingly did what I did for one or more
reasons. Thought as well as labor even went into my introductory essay,
"_Hamlet_'s  Ghost." But not enough of the right bibliographical kind of
attention, I admit, went into the proof-reading at two points consequently
requiring an errata insert to clarify. On those sites of contestation idiocy
was victorious, and to all the contributors I owe apologies as necessary and
one more expression of heartfelt thanks for their contributions and their
cooperation as we made our way together through the press.
 
Joanne Merriam mentions "Hamlet's Soliloquy" in _Huckleberry Finn_; in _Q1
Then_ it is one of two epigraphs and headed "Memorial Reconstruction of
'Hamlet's Soliloquy,'" etc. (11-13).
 
Cheers, Tom Clayton
_________________________________________________________________________
 
THE "HAMLET" FIRST PUBLISHED (Q1, 1603): ORIGINS, FORM, INTERTEXTUALITIES
 
                        Table of Contents
 
The _Hamlet_ First Published (Q1, 1603) [title page] ........ [5]
Dedication .................................................. [7]
Table of Contents ........................................... [9]
Epigraphs .................................................. [11]
List of Contributors ....................................... [14]
Preface ...................................................... 15
Acknowledgments .............................................. 19
Introduction: _Hamlet_'s Ghost
    THOMAS CLAYTON ........................................... 21
The Twelve Essays in Brief ................................... 53
 
Weighing the Options in _Hamlet_ Q1
    ALAN C. DESSEN ........................................... 65
The Chronology of the Three Substantive Texts of Shakespeare's
_Hamlet_
    G. R. HIBBARD ............................................ 79
Origins and Agents of Q1 _Hamlet_: Evidence from a New Recons-
truction
    KATHLEEN IRACE ........................................... 90
Q1 in Recent Performance: An Interview
    BRYAN LOUGHREY .......................................... 123
Forgetting _Hamlet_: The First Quarto and the Folio
    JANIS LULL .............................................. 137
Which Fortinbras, Which _Hamlet_?
    PHILIP C. MCGUIRE ....................................... 151
Casting the _Hamlet_ Quartos: Longer is Smaller
    SCOTT MCMILLIN .......................................... 179
_Hamlet_: The Acting Version and the Wiser Sort
    GIORGIO MELCHIORI ....................................... 195
Traditions of Emendation in _Hamlet_: The Handling of the First
Quarto
    MARGA MUNKELT ........................................... 211
The First English Staging of _Hamlet_ Q1
    MARVIN ROSENBERG ........................................ 241
_Hamlet_ Q1: First Version or Bad Quarto?
    SIDNEY THOMAS ........................................... 249
Back to Basics: Thinking about the _Hamlet_ First Quarto
    STEVEN URKOWITZ ......................................... 257
 
Works Cited ................................................. 292
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 1994 19:55:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0225  Re: Transmission of the Quartos
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0225  Re: Transmission of the Quartos
 
To Tom Berger regarding TROILUS AND CRESSIDA:
 
Yes, and what if Roberts did print a quarto of TROILUS in 1603? What if it was
a very limited printing and every copy has been lost? And what if Q1 was set
from this Ur-quarto?
 
And, okay, copy for F TROILUS may have been a scribal transcription that merged
manuscript material and Q1 into a coherent document from which the compositors
might set type. The scribe in many cases faithfully followed Q1. Was the scribe
following a theatrically annotated quarto? Or was he using a quarto to make
sense of a difficult manuscript? I suppose he could have been doing both. In
any case, I think you and I agree that copy for F TROILUS shows signs of BEING
a manuscript and having been influenced by the printed form of Q1. Have I said
that clearly?
 
If I say too much more I won't have a thing to say in Albuquerque. I guess I
can always go motorcycling on the desert. Yeah, that sounds right.
 
Yours, riding to live, living to ride,
 
Bill Godshalk

Re: *The Tempest* and Universals

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0230.  Tuesday, 15 March 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Adrian Kiernander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 1994 19:04:54 +1000 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0222  Tempest & Universals
 
(2)     From:   William Russell Mayes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tueday, 15 Mar 1994 09:45:48 -0500
        Subj:   Re: Tempest & Universals
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Adrian Kiernander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 1994 19:04:54 +1000 (EST)
Subject: 5.0222  Tempest & Universals
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0222  Tempest & Universals
 
Ben Ross Schneider's sensitive ear tells him, and us, that "what really happens
in The Tempest is that Prospero reforms, breaks his magic wand and adopts an
entirely different method of administration. It's clear as anything."
 
My ear, perhaps less sensitive and certainly working from Stephen Orgel's
edition, fails to detect any moment at which Prospero actually breaks his
staff, though of course he talks about it, as he talks a great deal about
liberating Ariel. But where is Ben Ross Schneider's sensitive ear when
Prospero, in his last speech of the play before the epilogue, charges Ariel to
organise "calm seas, auspicious gales,/and sail so expeditious that shall
catch/ Your royal fleet far off."? To my ear this is precisely the same
meterological magic, though in a more temperate form, that he practices at the
beginning of the play.
 
Admittedly he ends the speech: "Then to the elements be free, and fare thou
well", but Ariel's heard all this before, including at the very start of Act V
when he points out to Prospero that the time is "[o]n the sixth hour, at which
time, my lord, you said our work should cease."
 
My ear tells me that if Prospero is still giving orders to Ariel in the last
speech of the play he has neither broken his magic wand nor adopted an entirely
different method of administration. So who is ignoring the climax of the play
and rewiting the last act?
 
Adrian Kiernander
Department of Theatre Studies
The University of New England
Armidale, NSW 2351
AUSTRALIA
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Russell Mayes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tueday, 15 Mar 1994 09:45:48 -0500
Subject:        Re: Tempest & Universals
 
I have been uneasy about entering this debate, but as it does interest me, I
thought I'd chime in with a few thoughts about Ben Ross Schneider's recent
post.  In that message, he states that it is "clear as anything" that Prospero
reforms at the end of the play, ceases to be an imperialist, and becomes
another type of administrator (what type is not clear).  I would not deny any
of this, but I think this argument, like many of the others in this debate,
misses some of the (dare I use the phrase?) rich ambiguities in Shakespeare's
texts.
 
Yes, Prospero does say he will give up his magic, but to read the entire play
in light of this late incident is to do violence to the previous acts (this, at
least, is where I hear the text in pain).  In _Lear_ when Edmund says "I mean
to do some good" and sends men to prevent the execution of Lear and Cordelia,
does that mean he is reformed?  Or does the fact that it comes too late mean he
is unreformed?  I don't have an answer, and I think the text intentionally
fails to supply one.
 
Let me put this in the context of _The Tempest_.  No matter what we think about
Prospero's moral standing at the end of the play, the question of Caliban still
looms large in the final scene. What does the phrase "this thing of darkness I
/ Acknowledge mine" mean?  What sort of reward does Prospero have in mind in
his final address to Caliban?  Is Prospero going to take Caliban with him?  If
so, it seems Caliban would at worst be ripe for exploitation by more savvy
Stephanos and Triculos, at best he would be a monstrosity, an outcast in any
society.  Is Prospero going to let Caliban stay on the island?  It would seem
to be rightfully his, but he has been infinitely changed by Prospero and
Miranda (not to mention S & T).  In either case it is difficult for me to
imagine Caliban happy.  And that is how a Romance is supposed to end.
 
My point here is that we must keep the personal histories of the characters in
mind when making a reading of the final act.  I think Cultural Materialists et
al can and do make interesting, useful additions to our understanding of these
plays.  Whether or not Shakespeare and his company knew the works of the
explorers and colonialists seems less interesting to me than the fact that
members of their audience may have.  I think historicists work is at its most
interesting when it reveals meanings that were available to consumers of the
work of art, whether the author intended them or not.
 
Well, I have gone on much longer than I intended.  I look forward to responses.
 
W. Russ Mayes Jr.
University of Virginia
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Imagining Gloriana

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0231.  Tuesday, 15 March 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 1994 07:50:12 -0600
        Subj:   Imagining Gloriana
 
(2)     From:   Douglas M Lanier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 1994 09:46:21 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Imagining Gloriana
 
(3)     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 94 22:59:01 EST
        Subj:   imagining gloriana (5.5.0202)
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 1994 07:50:12 -0600
Subject:        Imagining Gloriana
 
Greetings to Michael Dobson and all and sundry interested in this topic. Faye
Kellerman's novel *The Quality of Mercy* imagines an Elizabeth who has an
erotic interest in young women as well as young men; the central character in
the story, Rebecca Lopez (daughter of the Queen's physician) is presented to
the queen and then expected to bed with her. It's quite a scene. The novel
itself is very nicely done, I think.
 
Chris Gordon, English, University of Minnesota
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Douglas M Lanier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 1994 09:46:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Imagining Gloriana
 
To Michael Dobson
 
To add to the list of operas on Elizabeth, I might suggest the operas on
Elizabeth by Donizetti (not only"Maria Stuarda", but also "Elisabetha") and,
believe it or not, Rossini.  Robert Ward, an American composer associated with
Duke University, wrote an opera on Walter Ralegh in the 1980s, which had a
hefty part for Elizabeth (no Shakespeare, though).  In terms of novels,
definitely add Michael Moorcock's *Gloriana* to your list.  Moorcock is a very
daring (and prolific!) fantasy and science fiction writer (his award-winning
time travel novel on Christ, *Behold the Man*, nearly started fights in my
class when I taught it several years ago).   This novel is a comic and sexy
retelling of Spenser's Faerie Queene, with bits of gothic romance and literary
in-jokes tossed in for good measure (no Shakespeare, as I recall).  Doesn't QE
make a cameo appearance in Leon Rooke's very entertaining *Shakespeare's Dog*?
 
Might you make your list of Elizabeth spinoffs available to those on the
SHAKSPER list?  I know my students in the sixteenth century poetry course would
enjoy sampling these.
 
Sincerely,
 
Douglas Lanier
University of New Hampshire
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 94 22:59:01 EST
Subject:        imagining gloriana (5.5.0202)
 
One of the more amusing imaginings of Elizabeth occurs in <No Bed for
Bacon>, by Caryl Brahms and F. J. Simon, which works rather as though the
authors had taken the Elizabethan section of <1066 and All That> as the
inspiration for a short novel.  The book presents Shakespeare as a harassed and
hard-working man of the theater who keeps sitting down to write a new play,
putting "Loves Labours Wonne" at the top of page and then being distracted,
often by Bacon wanting a little editorial help with some essays he's trying to
write.  A plausible explanation for the bed-mystery is offered, among many
other delights.  Bess places a higher value on his advice than she does on that
of most of her grand advisors. One of the more interesting occurs in a recent
fantasy by Mary Gentle, <Rats and Gargoyles>-postmodern work in the sense in
which that term is applied to architecture, which reimagines an early modern
England in which both magic and technology are farther advanced than in the
history we know. In this book, more C17 than C16 in its costumes and
furnishings and specific historical allusions, the figure of Elizabeth is at it
were distributed between two characters, a red-headed (female) scholar/soldier
who has a hard time choosing between acting and contemplating, healing and
wounding, and a beleaguered queen Carola who has dark curly hair like
Gloriana's Stuart successors but personality traits closer to those we
associate with Elizabeth.

Re: Leontes' Disease

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0229.  Tuesday, 15 March 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Jimmy Carrillo <U5496851@NMSUVM1>
        Date:   Monday, 14 Mar 94 23:41:05 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0226  Re: Leontes' Disease
 
(2)     From:   Kenneth S. Rothwell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 1994 09:02:01 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0226 Re: Leontes' Disease
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jimmy Carrillo <U5496851@NMSUVM1>
Date:           Monday, 14 Mar 94 23:41:05 EST
Subject: 5.0226  Re: Leontes' Disease
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0226  Re: Leontes' Disease
 
I found much value in the interview done by Elizabeth Schmitt on Patrick
Stewart.  Being a social worker, I'm quite familiar with many a green-eyed
lunacies that certainly can tear families apart in the ugliest ways.
 
I'd like to expand on my social worker's perspective on Shakespeare, but first,
I must admit that I was rather dumbfounded on the last comment written by Ms.
Schmitt regarding "HIV."  Did you mean to say that Patrick Stewart is an HIV
victim?
 
Don't want to make this sound like an attempt to gossip monger; I'd just like
some clarification, and as a social worker, I'll admit, I'm curious to know.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kenneth S. Rothwell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 1994 09:02:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0226 Re: Leontes' Disease
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0226 Re: Leontes' Disease
 
Elizabeth Schmitt's interesting note on Leontes' "disease" reminds me of an
unpublished paper that I wrote two decades ago. In it I proved beyond a shadow
of a doubt that Leontes may or may not have been suffering from what Robert
Burton labels "choler adust." It's a malady that also afflicts Pandosto in
Robert Greene's THE TRIUMPH OF TIME, characterized by a "hairbrain
disposition." Victims are susceptible to being "apt to quarrel . . . furious,
impatient of discourse, stiff, irrefragable and prodigious in their tenents;
and if they be moved, most violent, outrageous, ready to disgrace, provoke any,
to kill themselves and others." There's more but this is enough for e-mail.
 
Ken Rothwell

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.