1995

Re: London Theatre; Burial Customs; Don John

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0289.  Wednesday, 12 April 1995.
 
(1)     From:   David Meyer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 16:36:45 +0059 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Shows
 
(2)     From:   Jerry Bangham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 15:16:24
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0275   Burial Customs
 
(3)     From:   Lonnie Durham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Apr 95 02:28:36 CST
        Subj:   Don John and other Cacodemons
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Meyer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 16:36:45 +0059 (EDT)
Subject: 6.0285 Qs: Shows
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0285 Qs: Shows
 
Re: London Theatre
 
My theatre friends say, always see whatever the National and the Royal
Shakespeare are doing.  Even if they are failures, they will fail in an
interesting and fashionable way, using the best actors, directors, and
designers. I can endorse that: I saw MERRY WIVES, at the National, a
traditional rendering suffused with beauty and charm, and low comedy that was
truly funny; THE TROJAN WOMEN, in a visually awe-inspiring production stuffed
with the latest in post-modern reference, including Menelaus as an admiral from
the American South, and Helen costumed as Marilyn Monroe. The press I saw was
quite hostile to this production, and there were many empty seats, but it is
well worth seeing -- a far better integration of the latest "ideas" about the
classics than the very similar staging of The Orestia at the Am. Rep here in
Boston. The RSC's Barbicon was dark while I was in London, but I caught their
Romeo and Juliet in Stratford. R&J are very young in it, and Romeo, though a
good actor, somewhat lacking in the charisma that makes
deathless-love-at-first-sight plausible, but the whole company is so good that
one is left with a renewed conviction of the validity of this play. When the
smallest-parted character is acted fully, the structure emerges so clearly.The
RSC's costuming is 1860's Italian, and the grown-ups seem firmly of their
particular distant time and place -- but the young people are painfully like
the ones who burst into tears in my office, or clown around in the quad. Beyond
these, I delighted in Stoppard's ARCADIA -- it is as good people have said it
is, and much less "difficult".  INDIAN INK is, I think, less accessible to
Americans, but still worth seeing. Also, the drama schools seem to be doing
their semester-end projects, demonstrating why the main companies are able to
cast so impressively.  I saw A CHASTE MAID IN CHEAPSIDE at the Guildhall, and
DR. FAUSTUS. RADA was doing MIDSUMMER. Cheap, and very well-done. The Irish
play at the Tricycle, AN EVENING IN NOVEMBER< AN AFTERNOON... may not be a
piece for the ages, but it deals with the political situation current in
Northern Ireland in a way that is brave and funny and moving and hopeful.  The
solo actor is brilliant.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jerry Bangham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 15:16:24
Subject: 6.0275   Burial Customs
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0275   Burial Customs
 
>Can anyone clarify the practice of digging up old graves to make new ones as
>evidenced in the preparation of Ophelia's grave in Hamlet? I have done no
>research on the subject, but have read somewhere that it was customary to do
>this in London in Shakespeare's time due to the lack of Christian burial space
>in churchyards.  My students questioned the apparent lack of respect for one's
>ancestors, etc.
 
I'm sure that it is still done all over the world.  By Dickens' time, the need
for new graves in churchyards was so great that bodies were disinterred after a
few months!  This lead to the development of private for-profit cemetaries.
Kesnel Green was the first, Higate, perhaps the most famous.
 
I'm  not sure how widespread the practice is in the United States, but
certainly the famous New Orleans cemetaries recycle burial space.  I remember
visiting the cemetary island in Venice and seeing one section being prepared
for now occupants with a backhoe.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Lonnie Durham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Apr 95 02:28:36 CST
Subject:        Don John and other Cacodemons
 
I think Lawrence Spivack had it right in *Shakespeare and the Allegory of
Evil*.  We ought to stop looking for novelistic interiority for these
characters.  They are all, to one extent or another, variations upon the Vice
figure.  As such, they are ratios of the unacknowledged envies, grudges, lusts,
etc. of the other members of the community. (I almost wrote "repressed
motives," but I've been following Fred Cruise in the NYRB.) Their (the Vice
figures') function is to tickle those motives to the surface so that they might
be expressed and exorcised.  Richard, Duke of Gloster, runs out of energy
simply because he exhausts the supply of rancor that has been so rife in the
earlier part of the play. It is his JOB to purge the kingdom of its baser
passions so that the new (Tudor) era may begin without the buden of those old
enmities. One of the best examples of the type that I know of is Diccon in
*Gammer Gurton*. If you want to know what Don J. is up to, look for signs of
sexual envy and suspicion in the other characters.  If it weren't there, the
Vice could not practice upon it.  Notice the immunity of Cassio to Iago's
attempts to suggest the riggishness of Desdemona to him.  Unfortunately, he
does turn out to have that little problem with liquor.
 
Greetings to all,
Lonnie Durham

Re: *Mac.* 3.4; Another *Mac.* Question

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0288.  Wednesday, 12 April 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Roger D. Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 17:08:33 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   MAC. 3.4
 
(2)     From:   Scott Shepherd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 22:50:38 -0400
        Subj:   Macbeth Act3 Sc4
 
(3)     From:   Dave Laing <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 21:22:49 EDT
        Subj:   Macbeth question
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger D. Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 17:08:33 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        MAC. 3.4
 
Re: Anna Cole's question on MAC, 3.4, here's my reading:
 
Lady Mac doesn't know of Macduff's murder, though she would have to be pretty
slow not to make a few guesses based on Mac's strange party behavior.
 
Mac is making a feeble attempt to cover for his strangeness and asks her what
she thinks of Macduff's REFUSAL to come. Oops (an early version of the
detective saying "how did you know he was strangled?  I just said he was
dead?")  She says, in effect, "Refused?  I didn't know that (though I knew he
was absent).  How do you know he refused?  Did you send to him and get that
refusal in return?"  Mac:  "Well, no; I just heard a rumor. But I'll send
someone for his excuse and we'll see if he 'denied' his person."  There might
be many reasons Macduff missed but a refusal to attend would be very serious
business indeed.  It's a pretty clumsy cover-up.
 
Does this make sense to you?
 
Roger Gross
Univ. of Arkansas
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Shepherd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 22:50:38 -0400
Subject:        Macbeth Act3 Sc4
 
> How sayst thou that Macduff denies his person
> At our great bidding?
>
> Did you send to him sir?
>
> I hear it by the way, but I will send.
 
I think "Did you send to him" means did you send to find out why he didn't come
(not did you invite him), and what Macbeth hears by the way is that Macduff has
no excuse but simply refuses to attend the tyrant's feast (ie, "it" = "that
Macduff denies his person").
 
By the way, what about this
 
> Here had we now our country's honor roof'd
> Were the grac'd person of our Banquo present
 
which pretty clearly says Banquo is the only top player missing, when actually
Macduff is absent too?
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dave Laing <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 21:22:49 EDT
Subject:        Macbeth question
 
I have a little textual puzzle that I can't figure out and I'm looking for
help.  Does anyone know where the (mis)-quotation-- "Lead on
Macduff"--originates from?  The original reads "Lay on Macduff" and then
Macbeth and Macduff exit fighting.  I have checked both acting and literary
editions and can find no 'authoritative' source for this error.  Can anyone
help?  Are there others out there who have heard this quote or is it just me?
 
D. Laing.

Re: Burial Customs; Sh. & Co., etc.; Spanish Tragedy

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0286.  Tuesday, 11 April 1995.
 
(1)     From:   John E. Perry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 10 Apr 1995 14:38:07 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Burial customs
 
(2)     From:   Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 95 09:48:11 -0500
        Subj:   Shakespeare & Co, subjectivity, etc.
 
(3)     From:   Ed Gieskes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 09:33:06 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   The Spanish Tragedy
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John E. Perry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 10 Apr 1995 14:38:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Burial customs
 
To Gloria R. Wilson and others:
 
It is still the custom in rural southern Italy that ordinary people are buried
temporarily. There is simply no room for permanent graves for everyone. My
wife's aunt was dug up last year after spending ten years in her grave and
moved to a family vault (her family is quite wealthy for southern Italy). Most
people are moved to a community vault, where hundreds of skeletons can rest in
the same space that would be filled by half a dozen American-style graves. I
suppose this is what was happening to Yorick.
 
Only the very richest or most highly respected leaders can afford permanent
individual burial. My wife's wealthy family has a set of family vaults in which
older family members are pushed further back into the chamber as younger
members die.
 
Fervently hoping that my insensitive American brashness is not violating any
European sensitivity,
 
        john perry
        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 95 09:48:11 -0500
Subject:        Shakespeare & Co, subjectivity, etc.
 
Thanks to Phyllis Rackin and G.L. Horton (via David Meyer) for their
information and comments on Shakespeare and Company. Due to the wonders of the
Internet, I tracked down the book G.L. Horton mentioned about Tina Packer; it's
called *The Companies She Keeps* by Helen Epstein. It was published by Plunkett
Lake Press in Cambridge, Mass. in 1985. ISBN is 0-96146960-9; LC #PN2287.P2E67.
My local public library has a copy which should soon arrive at my local branch.
 
I've been enjoying the "discussion" of early modern subjectivity. This morning
I came across this paragraph about Einstein from a book (*Recovering the Soul*)
by Larry Dossey which may (or may not) be relevant:
 
"Where did the individual begin and end for Einstein? The boundaries of the
person were seemingly far-flung. We get a hint of this view in his attitude
about freedom of the will, in which he reveals his belief that we have
unseverable ties with all the things and events of the world--an affinity which
is so intimate that the entire question of individual freedom is nonsensical.
Our concept of freedom of the will in one sense is very limited, implying an
isolated individual situated in the here-and-now who can exercise it. Einstein
does not share this local concept. For him, freedom of the will is tied to an
endless chain of events extending far into the past in an indefinitely large
expansion."
 
For what it's worth! --Chris Gordon
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Gieskes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 09:33:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        The Spanish Tragedy
 
To all SHAKSPEReans--
 
Willing Suspension Productions, in association with Boston University's
Humanities Foundation, is presenting Thomas Kyd's _The Spanish Tragedy_
directed by Andrew Hartley April 21, 22, and 23.
 
Showtimes are:  April 21-- 7:30pm, April 22-- 7:30pm, April 23-- 2:30 and
7:30pm.  All performances take place on the Boston University campus in the
College of Liberal Arts Building (725 Commonwealth Avenue) Room 522.
 
Ticket prices are $5 for students and $6 general admission.
 
Willing Suspension is an amateur theatre group composed primarily of graduate
students in BU's English Department and is dedicated to producing seldom
performed early modern plays.  In past years, Willing Suspension has produced
Ben Jonson's _The Alchemist_ and Thomas Middleton's _The Revenger's Tragedy_.
 
For further information contact:
        via email: Ed Gieskes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        via regular mail: Andrew Hartley or Lauren Kehoe
                        Department of English
                        236 Bay State Road
                        Boston MA 02215
        via telephone: 617-353-2506

Re: The Fair Youth

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0287.  Wednesday, 12 April 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 95 13:19:45 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 6.0285 the fair youth
 
(2)     From:   Alexander D. Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 13:31:47 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0285  Qs: Youth
 
(3)     From:   Roger D. Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 18:04:20 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Sweet William?
 
(4)     From:   Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 00:17:47 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0285  Qs: Youth
 
(5)     From:   Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, April 12, 1995
        Subj:   Pequigney's *Such Is My Love*
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 95 13:19:45 -0500
Subject: the fair youth
Comment:        SHK 6.0285 the fair youth
 
Richard Kennedy might want to look at Joseph Pequigney's *Such Is My Love: A
Study of Shakespeare's Sonnets* (U of Chicago Press, 1985) and Bruce Smith's
*Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare's England: A Cultural Poetics* (U of Chicago
Press, 1991, 1994). Smith's final chapter focuses on the sonnets. I found both
books interesting, helpful, and extremely well written, though I tend to be
somewhat skeptical of Pequigney's overly Freudian readings. --Chris Gordon
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Alexander D. Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 13:31:47 -0500
Subject: 6.0285  Qs: Youth
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0285  Qs: Youth
 
Richard J. Kennedy asks 'Was Shakespeare Gay?' and I have to say 'maybe, but
the sonnets don't prove a thing.'  We have discussed in class the differences
between writing dramatically and writing autobiographically. Always, there is
an element of autobiography in anything that a writer writes, but we have
tended to read the sonnets not as something proclaimed by Shakespeare, but by
some dramatic character created by him.  Look at the Canterbury Tales by
Geoffrey Chaucer.  He as Chaucer the writer is wondefully creative, but he as a
character (he comes in to tell his own story at some point in the journey) is
as boring as a brick.  He is so boring, in fact, that the other characters
don't even let him finish his tale.  They cut him off because he is too boring.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger D. Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 18:04:20 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        Sweet William?
 
Richard Kennedy asks "Was Shakespeare gay?"
 
This issue is as old as the authorship controversy and has been pursued with
the same rigor, enthusiasm, and futility.
 
We don't know if Shakespeare was gay.
 
Nothing in his work or our knowledge of him justifies our believing one way or
the other.
 
Most of the things in his work (words or behaviors) which provoke the question
are things which have very different meanings in our time from what they did in
Shakespeare's.  No doubt, as Richard says, if we "Pluck a handful out and read
them to someone innocent of Shakespeare" they might seem homoerotic.  But of
course we don't make significant interpretive decisions on the basis of
plucked-out lines.  All meaning is context sensitive.
 
I am reminded of a strange experience on the campus of Santa Clara University,
a Jesuit school,therefore academically rich and resolutely macho.  Lest we be
thought homosexual(and therefore taboo), we all kept a proper distance from
each other.  Men touch women and vice versa...exclusively.  Then an Italian
priest came to spend a year with us.  He was as heterosexual as may be but he
had the familiar Italian habit of non-discrimination in his touching behavior.
He would embrace men at the least provocation, stroke their hair, walk arm in
arm or hand in hand down the street with them.  Of course all of this was
interpreted as unmistakably homoesexual courting behavior.  How many silent
screams there were from male students who knew his real intent but knew that
their reputations were at stake.  The majority could not be convinced that the
Italian priest's behavior was non-sexual.  They were "normal"; they knew what
was masculine and what wasn't.  They knew what was gay and what wasn't.
 
Plucked-out words are roughly equivalent to Rorschach ink blots: we see in them
whatever our Post-Modern Subjectivities condemn (oops; how about "encourage")
us to see.
 
The profound fact that no Sign "has" meaning, that all meaning derives from the
RELATIONSHIP between the Sign and the perceiver, is a hard fact to sell.
"Sweet" and "love" addressed to a man by a man seems unmistakably sexual to
those in the thrall of Word Magic.  But not to Shakespeare.
 
As I read the first sonnets, they seem to have one persuasive goal which
contradicts the homoerotic interpretation: to get the young man to marry and
beget children.  Doesn't sound gay to me no matter how outrageously he flatters
the young man's vanity.
 
Or, as we so often say to the Oxfordians, who cares? (Lord, I hope my
invocation of that name doesn't conjure them up again.)
 
Roger Gross
Univ. of Arkansas
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Apr 1995 00:17:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 6.0285  Qs: Youth
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0285  Qs: Youth
 
As to Richard Kennedy's post about whether Shakespeare was gay, personally I
find it a question I'm willing to consider in my teaching but I certainly don't
think it "Really matters" whether he was gay or straight (or more likey?
bi)--But there's a book on the sonnets, called SUCH IS MY LOVE by Joseph
Pequiney that does some interesting readings on the sonnets as gay--though at
times he goes too far and gets quite graphic in "pen" means the penis is being
inserted in a male orifice, etc. Pequiney also has, in an ELR (U-Mass-Amherst),
an interesting article on the Antonio from 12N and MV as gay, if you're
interested. Chris Stroffolino
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, April 12, 1995
Subject:        Pequigney's *Such Is My Love*
 
To me, genetic issues of "Was he" or "Wasn't he" have little interest in and of
themselves; therefore, I have absolutely nothing to say in regards to Richard
Kennedy's question.  I passionately believe that Stephen Booth should receive
an award of some sort for his marvelously trenchant -- "William Shakespeare was
almost certainly homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual.  The sonnets provide no
evidence on the matter."
 
Nevertheless, I am interested in the character of the poet in the Sonnets and
find some of Pequigney's points compelling, such as his treatment of the
episode of Sonnets 33-35.
 
However, in a work whose arguments are "(1) that the friendship treated in
Sonnets 1-126 is decidedly amorous -- passionate to a degree and in ways not
dreamed of in the published philology, the interaction between the friends
being sexual in both orientation and practice; (2) that verbal data are clear
and copious in detailing physical intimacies between them; (3) that the
psychological dynamics of the poet's relations with the friend comply in large
measure with those expounded in Freud's authoritative discussions of
homosexuality; and (4) that Shakespeare produced not only extraordinary amatory
verse but the grand masterpiece of homoerotic poetry," I am astounded,
surprised, confused, disconcerted, and so on at Pequigney's appeal to Freudian
authority.
 
One example will suffice: "The poet is not one of these [an "absolute invert"],
for he can be aroused by women and has the passionate affair with the mistress
in Part II."  Instead, we learn that he is an "amphigenic invert" (81).
 
Am I the only reader to find these Freudian terms at the least dated if not
offensive?

Qs: Shows; John; R3; Oth; Bear; Line; Youth

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0285.  Tuesday, 11 April 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Roger D. Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 10 Apr 1995 10:39:10 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   London theatre
 
(2)     From:   Alexander D. Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 10 Apr 1995 12:28:19 -0500
        Subj:   Don John has an incy-weency part
 
(3)     From:   John Ammerman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 10 Apr 1995 12:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Richard III's Sexuality
 
(4)     From:   Deanna Gregg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 10 Apr 1995 15:48:12 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 6.0275  Qs: Hypertext and CDs
 
(5)     From:   Colin  Campbell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 01:43:12 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   TN and bear-baiting
 
(6)     From:   Anna Cole <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 10 Apr 1995 12:17:33 GMT
        Subj:   Macbeth Act3 Sc4
 
(7)     From:   Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 07:53:36 -0700
        Subj:   the fair youth
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger D. Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 10 Apr 1995 10:39:10 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        London theatre
 
I'll be in London for the "Within This Wooden O" conference from 4/15 -4/20 and
I'd like to see some good theatre.  Since there is always more good theatre in
London than one can possibly see, I will appreciate any advice SHAKSPEReans can
give me on which shows are not to be missed.
 
Thanks for your help.
 
Roger Gross
Univ. of Arkansas
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Alexander D. Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 10 Apr 1995 12:28:19 -0500
Subject:        Don John has an incy-weency part
 
We are doing Much Aabout Nothing here at Northwestern and I have just
again realized how small Don John's (the bastard brother of Don Pedro) part
is.  He's on for only about three scenes and then flees Messina not to
return for the rest of the play.  Yhe one thing that struck me about reading
this is that it doesn't seem right.  It almost seems like Shakepeare just
wanted to get Don John the hell out of the play so that he could work on all
of the confusion and screwy love that was going on.  All Don John is is a
catalyst to start the confusion and through everything into disorder and
then he falls out of the picture.  Iago was caught and brought back at the
end of Othello to explain why he did what he did.  We hear that Don John is
brought back by armed guards in the next to last line of the play, but he is
never questioned.  Did Shakespeare just give up writing this part?  Did he
worry that this would make the play too dark? And why did Don John make Hero
be seen as a whore?  Just to hurt his brother Don pedro?  What is his
motivation for doing this, are all bastard brothers assumed to want to kill
their natural brother?
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Ammerman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 10 Apr 1995 12:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        Richard III's Sexuality
 
I am working on a thesis on the externalization of Richard's sublimated
sexuality, seen in the landscape (ie, Tower of London as phallic symbol), and
women, (ie, marginalization of women to point of merely embittered observer).
 
Longer replys may be made to me directly This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
Thanks from Phil at The Evergreen State College
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Deanna Gregg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 10 Apr 1995 15:48:12 -0800
Subject: Qs: Hypertext and CDs
Comment:        SHK 6.0275  Qs: Hypertext and CDs
 
Does anyone know about a CD-ROM presentation of "Othello?"  Thanking you.
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Colin  Campbell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 01:43:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        TN and bear-baiting
 
I have a question for you SHAKSPERians. I'm working on a production of Twelfth
Night in which I'm examining the `gulling' of Malvolio through the lense or
metaphor of bear-baiting (Malvolio being the bear, Feste the dog, and Sir Toby,
Sir Andrew and Maria the gamblers). Unfortunately I'm having a hard time
finding leads on the practice of bear-baiting in Elizabethan London. Any ideas?
Wasn't the Swan originally a bear-baiting pit?
 
Thanks so much for any references,
Colin Campbell
 
(6)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Anna Cole <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 10 Apr 1995 12:17:33 GMT
Subject:        Macbeth Act3 Sc4
 
I would be very grateful for help in understanding precisely what is meant by a
particular line of Macbeth's.  It occurs in Act 3.iv, after Macbeth enquires of
Lady Macbeth: "How sayst thou that Macduff denies his person/At our great
bidding?" To which she replies: "Did you send to him, sir?" Then he says: "I
hear it by the way, but I will send." The speech continues but this is a
complete sentence and I am unable to make sense of it.  With such an excellence
of Shakespeareans (surely there is no better collective noun!), I feel
confident enough to give my sincere thanks in advance.
 
Anna Cole
 
(7)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 07:53:36 -0700
Subject:        the fair youth
 
Was Shakespeare gay?  If the first 17 sonnets are written to a man, you'd
certainly think so.  Pluck a handful out and read them to someone innocent of
Shakespeare, and ask, "are these poems written to a man or to a woman?"  If the
first 17 are to a man, then Shakespeare was writing romantic poetry to some
other guy.  If to a woman, they might almost be taken as a proposal of
marriage.
 
The first 17 sonnets are generally taken to be written to Henry Wriothesley,
3rd Earl of Southampton.  It seems to me that if this is the right
identification, there was some homoerotic interest between the two men.  Can
anyone help this out?

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.