Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0319.  Friday, 8 April 1994.
 
(1)     From:   James Schaefer <SCHAEFEJ@GUVAX.BITNET>
        Date:   Thursday, 07 Apr 1994 11:13:23 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0313  Q: *Mac.* Anecdotes; Re: Macduff and Macbeth
 
(2)     From:   Diana Henderson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 7 Apr 1994 13:49 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0313  Q: *Mac.* Anecdotes; Re: Macduff and Macbeth
 
(3)     From:   Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 8 Apr 94 12:00 BST
        Subj:   RE: SHK 5.0302 Re: Macbeth and Macduff
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           James Schaefer <SCHAEFEJ@GUVAX.BITNET>
Date:           Thursday, 07 Apr 1994 11:13:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 5.0313  Q: *Mac.* Anecdotes; Re: Macduff and Macbeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0313  Q: *Mac.* Anecdotes; Re: Macduff and Macbeth
 
Regarding *Macbeth*:
 
Bernard Grebanier's *Then Came Each Actor* (NY: David McKay, 1975) has a couple
brief paragraphs (pp. 444-445) on actors' superstitions about playing Macbeth.
In *John Gielgud* (NY: Random House, 1971), Ronald Hayman gives details of a
terrible wartime run of Macbeth, with disasters that ran from bad press to the
death of the 3rd witch (pp. 134-38).  I've read interviews with other older
actors that related broken legs, falling scenery, and other bad omens.
Biographies are probably a good place to find them.
 
Jim Schaefer
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Diana Henderson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 7 Apr 1994 13:49 EST
Subject: 5.0313  Q: *Mac.* Anecdotes; Re: Macduff and Macbeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0313  Q: *Mac.* Anecdotes; Re: Macduff and Macbeth
 
In response to the comment that Shakespeare preferred companionate marriage to
those arranged by "patriarchal disposition," citing "Shrew" as evidence: The
marriages of both daughters to Baptista Minola in "Shrew" are precisely the
result of "patriarchal disposition" [in the narrow sense implied, i.e.,
arranged by dad].  Yes, we get the illusion of rebellion in the last act's
secret marriage of Lucentio and Bianca, but in fact "Lucentio" [Tranio] was
promised Bianco's hand earlier, beating out old Gremio on the basis of
Lucentio's better dowry offer -- and requisite upon Vincentio's confirmation
(hence the added farce & identity play with the pedant as false dad).  Kate, of
course, has been promised to Petruchio by Baptista, before these "companions"
even meet.  What a surprise that father knows best; just another one of
"Shrew"'s charms, I guess!  This is not to disagree with the larger claim, and
the other plays cited work much better than this one ...
 
Best, Diana Henderson
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 8 Apr 94 12:00 BST
Subject: 5.0302 Re: Macbeth and Macduff
Comment:        RE: SHK 5.0302 Re: Macbeth and Macduff
 
Since we're turning the play into a third-rate novel, let's not omit the
possibility that the 'companionate' marriage of the Macbeths exists in
the shadow of Lady Macbeth's previous marriage: the one which produced
her children. But all this is overshadowed by the central issue, unanswered
to this day: did Lady Macbeth really faint? Answers by postcard please, to
Bill Godshalk.
 
T. Hawkes