September
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0733. Tuesday, 13 September 1994. From: David Schalkwyk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 13 Sep 94 10:59:43 SAST-2 Subject: Mary Wroth's Urania Can anyone tell me whether the complete edition of Lady Mary Wroth's _Urania_ has been published yet? If so, could you let me have the publication details, including price and ISBN no, if possible? Thanks David Schalkwyk
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0732. Tuesday, 13 September 1994. (1) From: Ben Schneider <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 10:27:02 -0600 (CST) Subj: Ethnocentricity (2) From: Michael Conner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 08:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Natural deaths (3) From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 20:13:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 5.0726 Re: Nude Hamlet and PC (4) From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 20:19:36 -0500 (EST) Subj: Frogs (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 10:27:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: Ethnocentricity Fellow SHAKSPEReans, My humble apologies for raising the old subject of character again, subheading ethnocentricity, but I have just now recovered some responses to my comments that disappeared during an "upgrade" of our computer in late July. I had said that our reading of Henry V is colored by our bias against war, not present in Shakespeare's society, which actually approved of military pursuits. In general, the responses accused me of reductivity both with respect to Shakespeare's plays and to his society. My comments on the just-recovered responses follow: Zachary Lesser says that we will never know what the plays really meant to their original audiences. We will always impose our own prejudices. Why do we on the one hand insist that all prejudices can be and must be overcome, and always on the other insist just as loudly that when it comes to textual interpretation they cannot possibly be overcome? Zachary, you (and most postmodernists) insist on either/or logic: either prejudice colors our readings or it does not. Actually isn't it a matter of prejudice coloring our reading more or less? The way to reduce prejudice, isn't it, is to understand the other fellow's point of view? To do one's best to see the world from the other fellow's side? How do we do that? Zachary also doubts my hypothesis about the prevalence of pro-war thinking in Shakespeare's time, or for that matter, of any kind of thinking at any time. I doubt that any "society" could exist without a consensus on certain main principles. In our society equality might be such a principle. And I doubt very much that you will find many Shakespeare scholars today who approve of war as a character builder. Violence is immoral. So is racism: an overtly racist play or movie is unthinkable today and would be universally condemned by the critics (though W D Griffiths could get away with one ages ago). I argue for the same kind of consensus on basic principles in Shakespeare's time. Ron MacDonald says "_Shakespeare's contemporaries_ comprises a pretty various group. I'd want to know _which_ contemporaries before attributing common attitudes, and even then I'd expect to find many exceptions." All right, let's rule out Quakers and Anabaptists, and puritans in general. Let's rule out the humanist philosophers. I'm talking about the main stream, not the fringes. And the philosophers are not against the virtues of courage, constancy, fortitude, generosity, etc, of which war happens be a good test and which Henry V demonstrates, despite the questionable field of action. See also my comments on consensus, above. Sean Lawrence objects that the preponderance of classical opinions in the conduct books may give a false impression of actual English culture in Shakespeare's time; much as if I were to propose Oral Roberts as a key to our time, or any prescriptive work for any time. How about the Declaration of Independence as a prescriptive key to U.S.? But I don't propose 16th-century Oral Robertses, I propose the non-fiction best sellers of the time. As evidence that this material is main stream I give you the Augustan Age, which comes close on the heels of Shaakespeare. But why don't I just deposit my list of basic books plus annotations on the listserver, and you can see for yourselves? Chris Gordon brings up Williams again as representing an anti-war position in Hen V. But what is more remarkable is that Henry rewards him for his honest doubts, thus demonstrating how a good king responds to criticism, as opposed to Lear, for example. The literature is extensive, and I think we miss the point of the episode from our ethnocentric point of view. Chris says she belongs "to the contingent that finds us not all that different from the Elizabethans . . . and that's why I think multiple readings are inherent in the plays." I continue to wonder what is the point of having an opinion if any other opinion is just as good. (Except maybe not mine.) I sometimes wonder if the point isn't just belonging. Sorry to have been so long in getting back to you. Yours ever BEN SCHNEIDERThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Conner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 08:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Natural deaths I'm new to the mailing list and haven't seen the original post concerning natural deaths, but it seems to me that John of Gaunt died a natural death in Richard II. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 20:13:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: 5.0726 Re: Nude Hamlet and PC Comment: Re: SHK 5.0726 Re: Nude Hamlet and PC I have long ago deleted the report on nude Ham-Let (as I recall, that is the spelling), and Harry Hill and Tom Berger may be misunderstanding Barbara Correll's concerns. But let's not, while defending Barbara Correll, miss the point made by Harry and Tom. A auditor may be moved by the suicide of Ophelia (even if she is in a see-through garment) without glorifying female suicides. Auditors at playshave a freedom of emotion that I might not condone outside off the theatre, especially when that emotion leads to acts of brutality. Am I opening a can of worms? Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 20:19:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Frogs Yes, Luc, I have seen the titlepage, and, yes, on that titlepage, under three rainbows, are three toads or frogs. Yours, Bill Godshalk
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0731. Tuesday, 13 September 1994. (1) From: Ralph Alan Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 15:00:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 8 Sep 1994 to 10 Sep 1994 (2) From: Arthur Pearson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 10:17:50 -0600 Subj: Merchant (3) From: Tom Clayton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 13 Sep 1994 07:32:24 -0500 (CDT) Subj: MV Characters, etc. (4) From: Chip DuFord <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 18:05:00 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 5.0724 Re: MV Characters (5) From: Robert Lloyd Neblett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 13:39:06 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Peter Sellars' MERCHANT (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ralph Alan Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 15:00:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 8 Sep 1994 to 10 Sep 1994 David Collins ranks Bassanio with Gratiano as the play's chief anti-semites. I think he meant Antonio, since it is Antonio (not Bassanio) who spat at Shylock and kicked him. In fact, I am indebted to a former actor in the SSE, Darren Setlow, for his insight into Bassanio. I must have been going on about how all the gentiles in the play were anti-semitic, and Darren, who was playing Bassanio objected. He pointed out that Bassanio's use of "Jew" is always as a descriptive reference to Shylock, never as a substitute for his name, and that he never connects his angry epithets for Shylock to his Jewishness. And he does, afterall, invite Shylock to dinner. Somehow seeing the difference between Bassanio's habit of mind in thinking about Shylock's being Jewish helps make even clearer the differnce between hating someone for what he does and hating him for what he is. Ralph Cohen James Madison University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Arthur Pearson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 10:17:50 -0600 Subject: Merchant Regarding Mr. Godshalk's comments regarding the minor characters Salerio and Salerino: while all characters serve a *function*, Shakespeare also gives them character. An actor cannot (or should not) play function else the play becomes little more than an itellectual exercise. The actor may (must) play character, in which case the play may come alive. Arthur Pearson Great Lakes Protection FundThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 13 Sep 1994 07:32:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: MV Characters, etc. Not for the first time or, I have no doubt, the last, a phrase dropped out of my communication where I intended to refer to the "three major INDIVIDUAL-PLAY editions" of Shakespeare's plays--as Arden, New Cambridge, and Oxford. I certainly did NOT intend to suggest that any particular collected edition such as the Oxford was _not_ major. If the Oxford is not a major edition in our time, whatever its readings or deferrals at any given point, I am an Oxfordian's uncle. Cheers, Tom (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chip DuFord <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 18:05:00 EDT Subject: 5.0724 Re: MV Characters Comment: Re: SHK 5.0724 Re: MV Characters In response (and support) for Godshalk's (and others) references to Salerio and Salerino not being worth sweating over, I can speak from recent experience that the more an actor has to chew on as far as substance of role, the more he'll enjoy portraying the character (and the character will be richer as well.) I just played Salerio (sans Salerino) about 5 years ago, and the character was already thin enough as it was. We (I and the actor playing Solanio) affectionately referred to ourselves as the "scenario" brothers (basically coming on in between bits of interesting action - i.e. the two suitors - and delivering exposition about what happened off-stage.) My advice!! Stick to two characters, Salerio and Solanio. There's a script available from pelican or penguin with cuts and additions to support this. Chip DuFord (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Lloyd Neblett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 13:39:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Peter Sellars' MERCHANT If anyone knows anything about the Goodman production of MERCHANT OF VENICE directed by the avant-garde Peter Sellars which is running in Chicago, please let me know about it. I want to see it, but before I make a trip to Chicago, I want to know what to expect. I love Peter Sellars' work (I watched 2 of the 3 Mozart operas he did on PBS and thoroughly enjoyed them), but am curious to see what he does with the Bard. If you know of any articles or reviews which have been printed regarding this production, please forward that info as well. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Robert NeblettThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0730. Tuesday, 13 September 1994. (1) From: Elizabeth Y. Zeria <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 94 10:02:48 EDT Subj: Re: Is Bianca a shrew? (2) From: Bernice W. Kliman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 10:59 EDT Subj: Bianca (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Y. Zeria <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 94 10:02:48 EDT Subject: Re: Is Bianca a shrew? A shrew in essence, yes. It has seemed to me that Katherine's outward shrewishness is really a defense mechanism (albeit a rather unsuccessful one - and one which she improves upon by the end of the play) against Bianca's cloaked, subversive, and far more heartfelt (in its true heartlessness) shrewishness. Bianca's obvious manipulation of her father's love, in contrast to Kate's ferocious honesty -- a counterpoint perhaps somewhat reminiscent of Cordelia-Regan/Goneril -- seems to motivate and mold Kate's actions and temperament. Kate's shrewishness seems frustration and bitterness, the result of desiring her father's love and attention, but of seeing herself successfully alienated from both by her sister's maneuvers. Just a brief foray into discussion...I now return to the safety of the lurkers' lair... Liz Zeria English Dept. (MA program), VCUThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 12 Sep 1994 10:59 EDT Subject: Bianca Is it worthwhile to remind B.G. that Bianca isn't ANYTHING until actors and directors decide HOW she will be portrayed? Intonation, body language and all the rest do count. I am suggesting merely that the tired idea of Bianca as shrew might be usefully rethought for an interesting production of the play. Bernice W. Kliman
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0729. Monday, 12 September 1994. From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 11 Sep 1994 21:47:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: MND Performance Last night Robin and I saw a truly extraordinary performance of MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM at the Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park. Directed by Martin Platt, it was stylish and perfectly paced. Theseus/Oberon, Hippolyta/Titania, and Philostrate/Puck were all doubled, a decision that led to some interesting theatrical moments. The set was designed by Russell Parkman: "a Belle Epoque mansion in Argentina" with "Greek-inspired columns" and a star-gate that opens onto fairyland. Bottom is a handsome pool player -- beautiful and not too bright. Titania mirrors him precisely. Lysander is a Moor, and the allusion to Othello is subtle, but definitely there. Brabantio or Egeus silently forgives the eloping couple near play's end. (I was moved.) If you live near Cincinnati, this play is worth the trip and the price of the ticket -- I think. Other playgoers seem not to have been quite so ecstatic as I! Yours, Bill Godshalk