1994

Re: Teaching *Ant.*; Iachimo

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0480.  Tuesday, 31 May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   David Evett <R0870%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 May 1994 11:22 ET
        Subj:   Teaching A & C
 
(2)     From:   Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 May 1994 10:20:44 -0500
        Subj:   teaching A&C; Iachimo in a box
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <R0870%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 May 1994 11:22 ET
Subject:        Teaching A & C
 
Elise Earthman wonders about teaching <Antony and Cleopatra>.  It's always a
problem, certainly with conventional 20-year old undergraduates, and often,
indeed, with returning students readier than Hamlet to believe in the
possibility of middle-aged grand passions.  Karen Walter's proposal to pair
the play with <Romeo and Juliet>, asking what might become of people like them
who survive into middle age works well if you use Susan Snyder's
comic/tragic//evitable/inevitable//improvise it/play the script ideas to get
at the nature of the conflicts, both internal and external.  Here's a question
(not that largely explored in the criticism): Why (really) does Cleopatra fly
from the battle at Actium? And why (really) does Antony follow her?  Thing to
consider: What would it actually mean for them to win?  That gets you into
some other issues, like Antony's agreeing to marry Octavia and his botched
suicide.On the production thing, there's a stimulating essay by Steven Booth,
8 or 10 years back?, arguing that no satisfactory production of the play is
possible because no satisfactory performance of Antony is possible.  I'm not
sure I agree with him but it's the case that I've seen several Cleopatras I
liked (most especially Goldie Semple at Stratford, Ont.) and not one Antony.
 
                                                        David Evett
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 May 1994 10:20:44 -0500
Subject:        teaching A&C; Iachimo in a box
 
Thanks to Rick Jones for reminding us about the multiple ways and places that
Shakespeare is taught. My own teaching of *A and C* has been similar to that of
Karla Walters. But I also try to incorporate a theater-friendly perspective
while teaching in a literature department, so I find it valuable to ask the
students to attempt to visualize a production, and to suggest ways in which
set, props, and costumes might cue the audience about the differences between
the two worlds of the play (much like Rich does in his Intro to Theater
course). Such a discussions often leads into a more careful discussion of the
myriad riches of the play's other aspects.
 
To Bill Godshalk: without looking back at the play, or even thinking about it
too hard (it was a holiday weekend, after all), I love the idea of "Iachimo in
a box" and its multiple possibilities. I can see some wonderful production
opportunities here.
 
Chris Gordon

Authorship

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0479.  Tuesday, 31 May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Robert O'Connor <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 May 1994 10:12:12 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0472  Authorship
 
(2)     From:   David Joseph Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 30 May 94 22:43:07 CDT
        Subj:   authorship
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robert O'Connor <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 May 1994 10:12:12 +1000
Subject: 5.0472  Authorship
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0472  Authorship
 
Dear SHAKSPEReans,
 
I have to say that, up till now, I have had no opinion on authorship question
at all - though I have enjoyed the (sometimes heated) debate. Now, though, I
would like to contibute something. I saw a report in *New Scientist* a few
months ago on a recent computer analysis os some Shakespearean and other
Elizabethan texts which - according to the authors - announced the development
of a method which produced results that agreed almost entirely with the
conclusions of more traditional means of textual analysis.  For myself, I found
the article quite convincing.  It was the stated intent of the researchers to
apply the method they had developed to some unattributed or doubtful works, to
see if anything surprising came to light.
 
I read in the paper this morning that the same researchers will reveal in a
forthcoming issue of *Literary and Linguistic Computing* that they are now
prepared to attribute *The Contention*  and *The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke
of York* to Marlowe, to confirm the dependence of *2* and *3HenryVI* on these
two plays, and to suggest, therefore, that Marlowe was _not_ killed in Deptford
in 1593 (Sydney Morning Herald, May 31). The kind of analysis used by these
researchers is controversial enough, but the results ...  Well, I will wait and
read the article. I also heard, over the weekend, that a recently-discovered
copy of one of Donne's sermons has been confirmed to have annotations in
Donne's hand which largely contradict the tone of the published version.  It
seems there is still a lot to be discovered . . .
 
Robert O'Connor
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Joseph Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 30 May 94 22:43:07 CDT
Subject:        authorship
 
Just a quick note: on rereading my last message on the net, I see that I may
have given the mistaken impression that I'm trying to close off discussion of
the authorship question, which is not the case.  What I was trying to say was
that I can see the point of those who have objected to the space this has taken
up on SHAKSPER, and that some other forum might be more appropriate for this
sort of thing.  Where I said, "Don't clutter up the list with this stuff," I
probably should have said, "*Let's not* clutter up the list with this stuff."
 
One other thing: When I said the Oxfordians call the man from Stratford
"Skakspere", I assume everyone realized that was a typo for "Shakspere".
 
Dave Kathman This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Iachimo; Concordance; Cordelia

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0477.  Tuesday, 31 May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Diana Henderson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 30 May 1994 15:52 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0476  Q: Iachimo in a Box
 
(2)     From:   William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
        Date:   Monday, 30 May 1994 17:40:59 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0474  Q: Concordance Recommendation
 
(3)     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 May 94 12:56 BST
        Subj:   RE: SHK 5.0471 Qs: Cordelia
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Diana Henderson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 30 May 1994 15:52 EDT
Subject: 5.0476  Q: Iachimo in a Box
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0476  Q: Iachimo in a Box
 
John Pitcher's "Names in Cymbeline," in Essays in Criticism 43.1 (1993) concurs
with Bill Godshalk to the extent that he believes the sound and meanings of
"jack" resonate in the name of Iachimo/Giacomo/Jachimo (the last being his
preference for modern spelling editions).  I don't remember his talking about
the jack-in-the-box specifically, but several other connotations with jack(s).
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date:           Monday, 30 May 1994 17:40:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0474  Q: Concordance Recommendation
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0474  Q: Concordance Recommendation
 
For Matthew Wescott Smith.
 
Until you can get a copy of the Spevack concordance, you can use the on-line
concordance at Penn. At the dollar sign prompt, type: gopher ccat.sas.upenn.edu
 
When you get into Penn's computer, use your instinct! I can't remember exactly
what the menu reads.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 31 May 94 12:56 BST
Subject: 5.0471 Qs: Cordelia
Comment:        RE: SHK 5.0471 Qs: Cordelia
 
>>After reading KING LEAR and observing some in-class interpretaions, I have
decided to focus my paper on Cordelia and the development of her character in
the first scene.  In class, we have discussed the range of emotions she might
be experiencing:  dismayed, hurt, frustrated, angry.  Yet, conveying all of
these at once has been difficult.  How could it be done, while she still
maintains her sincerety? <<
 
Dear Pamela Bunn,
 
Cordelia is not a real, live flesh and blood human being. In consequence, she
has no 'character', and it does not 'develop'. To suppose otherwise, as your
teachers have apparently encouraged you to do, is to impose the modesof 19th
and 20th century art on that of an earlier period which knew nothing of them.
It is, in short, to turn an astonishing and disturbing piece of 17th century
dramatic art, whose mode is emblematic, into a third rate Victorian novel,
whose mode is realistic. Cordelia has no private motives, or emotions, other
than those clearly prsented in the play as part of its thematic structure. The
play uses her to raise matters of large public concern such as duty, deference,
the nature of kingship, the right to speak, the function of silence, the roles
avalable to women in a male-dominated world, and so on. These are not the
newly- minted slogans of wild-eyed Cultural Materialist revolutionaries, but
the fundamental principles on which informed and entirely respectable analysis
of the plays has proceeded for fifty years and more. Read the fine and justly
famous essay by L.C.Knights, "How Many Children Had Lady Macbeth?". It was
first published in 1933. Why have your teachers made no mention of these
important issues? Ask for your money back.
 
Terence Hawkes

Q: Comedy

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0478.  Tuesday, 31 May 1994.
 
From:           Elizabeth Schmitt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 30 May 1994 10:59:57 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        Comedy
 
A friend of mine recently asked if I could recommend a really good essay on
Shakesperian Comedy. She will be using it in an undergraduate level course that
will be discussing COMEDY OF ERRORS, TAMING OF THE SHREW (both on view at
summer Shakespeare fests) and MUCH ADO (the film). Most of my work involves
tragedy, so I thought I'd toss this out to the esteemed audience/participants
of SHAKSPER. Any suggestions?
 
Thank you in advance,
Elizabeth Schmitt
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Q: Iachimo in a Box

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0476.  Monday, 30 May 1994.
 
From:           William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 30 May 1994 02:25:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Iachimo in a Box
 
In CYMBELINE, Iachimo gains entrance to Imogen's room in a truck, and after she
falls asleep Iachimo emerges from the trunk (Folio: Iachimo from the Trunke
[TLN 917]). I would like to claim that this is a visual pun to Jack in a Box, a
pun that's obscured by the Oxford Shakespeare's "Giacomo."
 
The OED, s.v. Jack-in-the-box, Jack-in-a-box, gives the first definition as "A
name for a sharper or cheat; spec. 'a thief who decived tradesmen by
substituting empty boxes for others full of money' (Nares)." One of the
examples is Dekker, CRYER OF LANTHORNE (1612), and the earliest is dated 1570.
Of course, Iachimo is exactly this kind of sharper. He tells Imogen that the
trunk is full of plate and jewels. And he substitutes himself for the valuables
in order to get into her room. He substitutes one kind of jack for another.
 
The OED's sixth definition is "a toy consisting of a box containing a figure
with a spring, which leaps up when the lid is raise." The first example is
dated 1702. J. S. Farmer and W. E. Henley, SLANG AND ITS ANALOGUES, find
references to the toy in 1570 and 1600. And so when Iachimo pops up from the
trunk he approximates the action of the children's toy.
 
Farmer and Henley, s.v. CREAM-STICK, also suggest that Jack-in-a-box is slang
for penis. Given Iachimno's mission -- to seduce Imogen -- that pun may be
available, too. Unfortunately, Farmer and Henley give no date for the "penis"
reference.
 
In a brief search that included Henry Jacobs's bibliography and the most recent
editions that I could find, I have found no reference to these possible puns.
 
A few months ago, I asked Linda Woodbridge what she thought of
Iachimo-in-a-box. She look at me skeptically, and then said that she was
skeptical. Nevertheless, what do you all think?
 
Bill Godshalk

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.