Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1994 :: October ::
Re: Ohio Conf.; Boys; Character; Bilingual Sh; *Acres*
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0807. Wednesday, 12 October 1994.
 
(1)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 10 Oct 1994 22:22:45 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0797  Qs: 1995 Ohio Shakespeare Conference
 
(2)     From:   J. Forse <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 10 Oct 1994 16:10:43 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   'Boy' Actors
 
(3)     From:   Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 6 Oct 94 14:03 BST
        Subj:   RE: SHK 5.0770 Re: Character
 
(4)     From:   David Evett <R0870%
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Oct 1994 16:29 ET
        Subj:   Bilingual Shakespeare
 
(5)     From:   Annalisa Castaldo <ANNAL@TEMPLEVM.BITNET>
        Date:   Thursday, 06 Oct 94 10:42:18 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0772  Re: Contemporary Lear
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 10 Oct 1994 22:22:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0797  Qs: 1995 Ohio Shakespeare Conference
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0797  Qs: 1995 Ohio Shakespeare Conference
 
I suppose I should try to answer Norman Myers's question since I posted the
announcement. Unfortunately, I am not on this year's planning committee, and I
must rely on my memory of last year's Holding Committee meeting.
 
I gather that Sam Crowl is looking for papers in a variety of different areas
(psychological studies, historical perspectives, performance studies, teaching
methods) with the idea that each of these areas has provided a real and/or
metaphoric stage for Shakespeare's plays.
 
Dave Evett, who's also on the Holding Committee, may have a better or clearerr
recollection of Sam's proposal.  In any case, hard copy should be in the mail
soon -- or so Sam tells me.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           J. Forse <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 10 Oct 1994 16:10:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        'Boy' Actors
 
I'm not sure why there is this passionate insistance that boys played the
principal female roles in Elizabethan adult acting companies.  In the first
place, calling someone 17 to 22 years of age a *boy* seems to be begging the
point.  Neither Elizabethan society nor law considered them children.  For the
most part 17 seems to have been the typical age at which one was
apprenticed--except for choirboys and school boys who do check in at the
younger ages for obvious reasons.  Most of the evidence about *boys* playing
female roles from pre-Restoration sources discusses talented boys playing
within the children's companies; that doesn't count; and the other sources like
Wright's Historia admit they are talking about a time from which they have
little direct knowledge when we use Restoration recollections to project
backwards to the stage of Shakespeare et al.  As for remarks in wills, etc.
about actors having apprentices, we can't be sure what the apprentices were
used for.  Many of the actors, such as John Heminges, belonged to guilds like
the grocers, and engaged in financial activities outside the theatre.  Henslowe
writes of lending his apprentice to the Admiral's Men, but does not specify for
what purpose he was used.  It is just as logical, I think, to view these young
men apprenticed to prominent people in the theatrical world potentially as
personal man-servants as novice actors.  And frankly, cycling a young boy in
and out of major roles every few years would be bad business sense; we can't
forget the fact that the giants of the Elizabethan stage were careful and
successful business men who made modest fortunes in the theatre business.
 
J. Forse
History: Bowling Green State University
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 6 Oct 94 14:03 BST
Subject: 5.0770 Re: Character
Comment:        RE: SHK 5.0770 Re: Character
 
Is Epstein suggesting that the bored middle-class American is suffering from
Agenbite of Inuit?
 
T. Hawkes
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <R0870%
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Oct 1994 16:29 ET
Subject:        Bilingual Shakespeare
 
A propos David Schalkwyk's English/Afrikaans TN (and I agree that DS ought to
write it up, especially since I must confess that I never saw the two
households as culturally distinct in anything like that degree): a year or two
back word reached these parts from our great neighbor to the north of a
bilingual production of <Romeo and Juliet>, with English speaking actors doing
one family and French the other--apt enough for a legally bilingual country in
which there is still a great deal of cultural and emotional energy tied up in
the language question.  I am sure there are Canadian SHAKESPEReans who (and
should) tell us more.
 
Priez d'accepter mes sentiments the most distinguished.
 
                                                       David Evett
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Annalisa Castaldo <ANNAL@TEMPLEVM.BITNET>
Date:           Thursday, 06 Oct 94 10:42:18 EDT
Subject: 5.0772  Re: Contemporary Lear
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0772  Re: Contemporary Lear
 
To all who responded so promptly to my question about the modern Lear--thank
you! Am I the only one on this list who hasn't read this already? It certainly
seems so.
 
         Annalisa Castaldo
         Temple University
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.