1995

The Winter's Tale at the Patricia Corbett Theater

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0858.  Monday, 30 October 1995.
 
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 29 Oct 1995 22:36:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Re: The Winter's Tale at the Patricia Corbett Theater
 
Last night, October 28, at the Corbett Theater in the College-Conservatory of
Music, University of Cincinnati,  I saw an interesting production of *The
Winter's Tale,* directed by Charles Holmond with Dale Doerman as dramaturg The
Sicilian court had a Germanic flavor with all the characters dressed in heavy
black costumes that reminded me of sixteenth century German paintings. Camillo,
however, was costumed as a seventeenth century English cavalier, though still
in black. I suppose his "difference" was thus indicated.
 
Bill Mutimer played a rather prissy Leontes.  He left Hermione (Shannon Lutz)
and Polixenes (Bryan-Hayward Randall) to talk alone in the second scene because
he is silently taken aside by Camillo to consult what appears to be the daily
court schedule.  Leontes' head snaps toward the queen when he overhears her "If
you first sinn'd with us" (1.2.84).  However, his gesture was so rapid that I
was unsure whether this was supposed to be the origin of his jealousy in this
production.
 
Perhaps the most striking addition to the script is the appearance of Time,
dancing in flowing robes before the first scene.  Time in this production is a
young woman (Christine Probst) whose right breast was covered only by a
diaphanous piece of cloth. She also appears in the bear-chasing scene
(protecting Perdita's basket), and one of my former students quipped: Exit
pursued by a bare.  But why time had a partially exposed breast remains a
mystery.
 
But I suppose the director simply wanted to emphasize Time, since at one point
in the play, a chandelier begins to move like the pendulum of a clock, and the
time references seemed to have been italicized.
 
The Bohemians were dressed in rich browns and earth colors, vaguely autumnal.
Polixenes and Camillo were only conventionally disguised at the shepherds'
feast, and the director solved the problem of the length of 4.4 (recently
discussed here) by cutting  the dance of the satyrs, etc., and by declaring a
15 minute intermission at about line 340.  The impression I got was that the
first part of the scene was filled with youthful frivolity, and the second part
of the scene (after the intermission) emphasized the intrusion of dark,
middle-aged jealousy. Autolycus (Jacob Garrett White), unfortunately, was
confined to Bohemia in this production and never gets of Sicily.  The rogue
hardly got a chance to do his stuff.
 
When Florizel (Scott Akerman) and Perdita (Martha Sorrentino) arrive in
Bohemia, they are costumed in scarlet, and by the last scene (5.1), all the
characters are in shades of red.  Paulina (Naomi Bailis) was excellent in each
of her scenes, and Hermione in the final scene was thrust on stage on a small
platform, surrounded with vaguely diaphanous cloth.  I thought the final scene
was  quite well-done; I had my handkerchief out (allergies, you know).
 
Since Autolycus doesn't make it to Sicily in this production, 4.3 was
completely cut.
 
I was very impressed with Paul Shortt's scene design, which was basically two
large, moveable right angles (covered again with diaphanous cloth) that could
be moved easily to give the semi-thrust stage various shapes. Different
patterns (e.g., stones) could be projected onto these structures. Beyond these,
there were a throne, a bench,  and a couple of tables moved on and off as
needed.  Basically this was a minimalist production.
 
The production received mixed reviews in the local papers, but I thought it
well worth the time and money.  Unfortunately it had a very short run (October
25-29).

Qs: 15-Min. Ham.; Directorial Styles; Integrity;

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0857.  Monday, 30 October 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Rod Osiowy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 11:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   [15 Minute *Hamlet*]
 
(2)     From:   Jerry Kraft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 29 Oct 1995 00:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   British/American performance
 
(3)     From:   Alison Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 29 Oct 1995 15:24:35 -0800
        Subj:   [Integrity]
 
(4)     From:   Nautical Bookshelf <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 29 Oct 95 22:27:37 EST
        Subj:   Seeking Reviewers
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rod Osiowy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 11:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        [15 Minute *Hamlet*]
 
One of my students is producing the "Fifteen Minute Hamlet" for a festival, and
neither of us has ever seen it performed.  Stoppard hints at a bouncy treatment
of the script;  any suggestions as to time, place, specific blocking, sets?  Is
there a traditional treatment of this script or is open game for the actors and
director?  The play is Hamlet performed in 13 minutes, with a reprise of the
play again in the last 2 minutes.  I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who has
produced it or has seen a good production of the play.
 
RodO
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jerry Kraft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 29 Oct 1995 00:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        British/American performance
 
There seems to be a general conceit that American directors approach
Shakespeare differently than British directors. Would anyone care to posit why
that might be so, and what those differences might be? Is it a question of
academic (ie literary) training, or technical acting differences, or
presumptions about audience familiarity with the plays, or what? Is there such
a difference? Is it different for comedy than for the tragedies, the histories
or the romances? How would you characterize the "American" style, and the
"British"? Any and all comments would be welcome and very useful.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Alison Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 29 Oct 1995 15:24:35 -0800
Subject:        [Integrity]
 
 In  Richard 2 both Bullinbroke ("My heart will sigh when I miscall it so"
(1.3.263) and, interestingly, Aumerle ("My heart disdained that my tongue/
Should so profane the word" (1.4.12-3) are concerned with speaking with
integrity.  Is there a Renaissance Philosophy term for this?  All I can think
of neurolinquistic integrity.
 
Many Thanks
Alison Horton
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
I am trying to find reviewers via the Internet for a book on the English Comedy
of Manners (Benson, Delafield, Thirkle from Austen).  In response to the List
command, the SHAKSPER listserv did not show a Twentieth Century or Victorian
literature discussion group comparable to SHAKSPER or REED.  Do you know of
such a group?  If not, could you recommend a professor I could contact via
e-mail to help me find appropriate reviewers?
 
Thanks.
Lance Cohen

Re: Desdemona's Death

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0855.  Monday, 30 October 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Kenneth S. Rothwell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 15:34:40 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Desdemona's Death;
 
(2)     From:   Stuart Rice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:42:02 EST
        Subj:   RE: SHK 6.0851  Qs: Desdemona's Death;
 
(3)     From:   Scott Crozier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 30 Oct 1995 07:29:33 +1000
        Subj:   Re: Desdemona's Death
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kenneth S. Rothwell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 15:34:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 6.0851 Qs: Desdemona's Death;
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Desdemona's Death;
 
Dear Scott Purdy, For a full account of Desdemona's demise at the hands of
Othello, see Dr. William Hunt's clinical analysis in A NEW VARIORUM EDITION of
OTHELLO, ed. H.H. Furness (1886 rpt.; New York: Dover, 1963) 306. Maybe it's a
little out of date, probably incurably old historicist, but I found it handy
decades ago for satisfying student curiosity about this episode. Ken Rothwell
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stuart Rice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:42:02 EST
Subject: 6.0851  Qs: Desdemona's Death;
Comment:        RE: SHK 6.0851  Qs: Desdemona's Death;
 
In answer to Scott Purdy's question, I guess there are just somethings in
Shakespeare's plays you just have to accept.  I'd be interested in knowing if
your students think Jove has ever been spotted riding on an eagle in the middle
of London.
 
On a more serious note, however, your students seem to be reflecting a
nineteenth century (I think) attitude towards strict realism in Shakespeare.  I
believe I read of some person who actually detailed, using anatomical models
and posters, how the suffocation of Desdemona actually happened.  Be that as it
may, Shakespeare relied on "medical realism" only when it suited.  How else
could the Laertes and the King at the end of Hamlet die so quickly after being
poisoned (actually, after saying their requisite closing lines), yet Hamlet,
poisoned earlier than both of them, can languish through an extended death
scene where he forgives Laertes, says good bye to his mother, admonishes the
court, charges Horatio to report the happenings, grabs a cup from that
self-same gentleman, predicts that Fortinbras will win the election, and
generally gives a smashingly good go at a once in a lifetime experience and
then finally drops dead?
 
Also, remember than Othello stabs her as well, because the suffocation doesn't
work completely.  Just so you can appreciate the effort she made to say those
last lines.
 
Jovially yours,
Stuart Rice
Kenyon College
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Crozier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 30 Oct 1995 07:29:33 +1000
Subject:        Re: Desdemona's Death
 
Scott Purdy asks about the medical explanation for Desdemona's death. I expect
there is none. My suggestion would be it is a theatrical device for the "last
laugh" so to speak. Webster also used it for his Duchess with equally powerful
effect.
 
Regards
Scott Crozier

Re: Horatio; Banquo; Luther; Jews

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0856.  Monday, 30 October 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Stuart Rice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:30:55 EST
        Subj:   RE: SHK 6.0850  Re: Horatio;
 
(2)     From:   Stuart Rice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:22:08 EST
        Subj:   RE: SHK 6.0850  Re: Banquo;
 
(3)     From:   Gady Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 19:45:17 +0300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0845  Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg
 
(4)     From:   Martin Green <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 29 Oct 1995 11:25:35 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0841  Re: Shakespeare, Italian and Jews
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stuart Rice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:30:55 EST
Subject: 6.0850  Re: Horatio;
Comment:        RE: SHK 6.0850  Re: Horatio;
 
I like quite a few of Steve's arguments, especially the one about "ratio"
within the name.  I, however, would like to submit some other, perhaps
interesting, points about Horatio (complete conjecture, you understand):
 
        1)  I think Shakespeare might have directly taken the name Horatio
            from a Spanish Tragedy by T. Kyd.  If anyone is knowledgeable
            on Elizabethan pronounciation it would be interesting to see if
            the theory holds.
 
        2)  "An antique Roman than a Dane."  I always wondered, and an expert
            on the Elizabethan stage history of _Julius Caesar_ might be able
            to bear this theory out (since I have not seen proof nor refutation
            of it), if this was meant to be some sort of last minute joke.
            Does anyone know if the actor that played Mark Antony also played
            Horatio?  It seems with in the realm of possibility.  Since there
            are many references to Julius Caesar in the play, and we know that
            Julius Caesar was acted by the same actor who played Polonius, and
            Brutus Hamlet.
 
Yours,
Stuart Rice
Kenyon College
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stuart Rice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:22:08 EST
Subject: 6.0850  Re: Banquo;
Comment:        RE: SHK 6.0850  Re: Banquo;
 
I have a mixed opinion about the Ghost of Banquo.  In Hamlet, for example, we
most definitely see the Ghost of Hamlet's father.  However, in Macbeth, Macbeth
has a vision of a dagger, and I think we can be pretty sure that Shakespeare
did not have a dagger drop from the rafters, suspended by a line of fishing
wire.
 
I think it is less clear who he is talking to if Banquo does not somehow appear
on the stage in this scene.  Even though Macbeth toasts him in absence, we also
know that Macbeth has murdered Duncan, and so it may be him that Macbeth sees
in the chair.  An interesting twist might be having Banquo's Ghost seat Duncan
in Macbeth's chair.
 
I guess you might also want to have the Ghost of Banquo appear on stage because
of the later procession, which MUST (I suppose) involve having people enact
those roles.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gady Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 19:45:17 +0300
Subject: 6.0845  Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0845  Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg
 
Dear Mr. Godshalk,
 
I wrote a paper for Prof. Normand Berlin on the Luthern - Jesus
transfigurations of Hamlet some 25 years ago. Calvin, of course, is only
episodal. Since  Mr. Goulem speaks of costuming my researches cause me to
suggest at least 4 changes. No.1 the mourning, puritanical garb. No. 2 the
disorientation combinations. No. 3 After the pirates have dressed Hamlet as a
pagan king; which corresponds with the period of Luther's elaborate disguise
while in hiding. And it contrasts again with the court people. No. 4 during the
duel when Hamlet appears all in white to suggest a purified spirit who has
taken on the attributes of the savior.
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Green <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 29 Oct 1995 11:25:35 -0500
Subject: 6.0841  Re: Shakespeare, Italian and Jews
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0841  Re: Shakespeare, Italian and Jews
 
I apologize for being so inept a writer that Robert Appelbaum, in his posting
of 25 October, misconstrues   almost in its entirety my posting of October 22.
What I thought I wrote, boiled down to a few words, was this: that this list
would be more useful to its subscribers, and serve a well defined purpose, if
we who post to it were to focus on facts, and the reasonable inferences which
could be drawn from those facts. I then presented, as an example of the utility
of such an approach, three facts which give rise to a reasonable, and in my
view illuminating, inference. The facts are (a) that the Earl of Southampton
was a patron of Shakespeare, (b) that the Earl of Southampton was a very close
friend to the Earl of Essex, and (c) that the Earl of Essex maintained at Essex
House, his home on the Strand, a staff of remarkable men who were in effect his
own intelligence and diplomatic service. The inference, or surmise, which I
drew from these facts was that Shakespeare, as a protege of or "servant" to the
Earl of Southampton, may have had access to those who were proteges or servants
of the Earl of Essex, and from his associations with these people may have
acquired  much of the knowledge or attitudes that inform his plays. I gave as
examples of this Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy, and his acquaintance with
Jews.
 
Mr.  Appelbaum makes fun of the idea that Shakespeare might have "palled
around." as he puts it, with members of the Essex group who had been to Italy
or were Italians- - people such as  Anthony Standen, Anthony Munday, James
Guicciardini or Alberico Gentili (to say nothing of Southampton's former tutor,
John Florio);  he stresses the "might have" quality of these associations. But
it is, I submit, one of the more reasonable "might haves" around in
Shakespearean scholarship. Those people did exist; they lived and worked at
Essex House in the 1590's; Shakespeare's patron Southampton not only was Essex'
bosom buddy, but also often lodged at Essex House (Southampton House having
been rented out because it was too expensive to maintain): so what is more
plausible than that Shakespeare had some contact with these eminently
knowledg[e]able sources of information about Italy, its topography, literature
and politics?
 
I did not write that there was no anti-Semitism in the Merchant of Venice; but
everybody knows that (beginning, I think I read somewhere, with Garrick) it's
possible to represent Shylock (because the text of the play in places so
permits) as an admirable, much put-upon person, rather than as a despicable
usorious "bloodsucker" (to use some modern terminology), and I suggested that
Shakespeare's attitude toward Jews might have been affected - - even, perhaps,
tempered somewhat - -  by his personal acquaintance with two Jews in the Essex
circle, Dr. Lopez and Antonio Perez, the latter of whom, at least, was much
feted by the Essex group and indeed, lived for two years at Essex House. (Perez
was a rather foppish person, and is thought by many to have been the model for
Don Armado in Love's Labour's Lost.) Now, I pointed out that these two persons
were conversos, "but they were thought of in England as being, as they
undoubtedly were, at least ethnically, Jews."  For this, Mr Appelbaum jumps on
me for two reasons.  First, he says, since they were conversos, they were not
Jews, but Roman Catholics whose ancestors had been Jewish. Such, alas, was not
the easy lot of the conversos. True, Perez's father was a Roman Catholic cleric
(well, those things happen) whose parent (or perhaps parents) had been Jewish:
but when the Inquisition zeroed in on Perez in 1592, one of the charges against
him (what it was, I don't know; it may have been apostacy)  was based upon his
being a Jew - - a fact which certainly must have been known to the Essex group
(but may have been overbalanced, in his favour, by the fact that he was also -
- again as charged by the Inquisition - - a sodomite). As for Lopez, I think
(but don't know) that he himself had been Jewish, and then converted: but when
he was tried for treason, he was described by Coke as a Jew - - a traiterous
Jew, I think - - and when he was executed (in his 70's) the cheering  crowd
yelled, Jew!  He is a Jew! So these people, exactly as I wrote,  "were thought
of in England as being . . .  Jews."
 
Mr. Appelbaum then makes much of that portion of  the preceding sentence
represented by the ellipses: "as they undoubtedly were, at least ethnically,"
for ethnicity, Mr. Appelbaum says, is a modern concept, and to apply it to the
Elizabethans in anachronistic.  Well, that may well be: but in any event,  the
words "as they undoubtedly were, at least ethnically" represent MY thought, not
that of the Essex house group. If that was not clear, I apologize.
 
Three final comments: (1)  yes, I do, as Mr. Appelbaum asserts, long for the
scholarship of the 30's; can anyone think of any major contribution to
Shakespearian scholarship since, say, 1950? (2) yes, I think "The problem of
understanding anti-semitism" (advocated for discussion by Mr. Appelbaum), is
not, in and of itself, an appropriate topic for this list, because I find that
problem easy enough to understand, but will forbear, in the interest of
political correctness, from getting into that (not that my views would offend
Jews, but that they would offend Christians), and (3) absolutely yes, I do
dismiss a large portion (but maybe not, as Mr. Appelbaum suggests, 9/10) of the
contributions to this list on "matters interpretive" as pure hot air: sometimes
interesting, to be sure, but all too often creating ill-will and "flaming" on
unimportant points and unprovable propositions.
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Happy *Lear*

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0854.  Monday, 30 October 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Stuart Rice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:46:17 EST
        Subj:   RE: SHK 6.0851  Qs: Happy *Lr.*
 
(2)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 15:46:57 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0851  Qs: Happy *Lr.*
 
(3)     From:   Sam Schimek <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 18:46:24 -0700
        Subj:   Re: Happy *Lr.*
 
(4)     From:   Gail Garloch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Suday, 29 Oct 1995 14:00:30 +0200 (IST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Happy *Lr.*
 
(5)     From:   Helen Vella Bonavita <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 30 Oct 1995 10:17:39 +0800 (WST)
        Subj:   re: Happy Lear
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stuart Rice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 13:46:17 EST
Subject: 6.0851  Qs: Happy *Lr.*
Comment:        RE: SHK 6.0851  Qs: Happy *Lr.*
 
Ah, yes, _Happy Lear_.  There was a period where Shakespeare was republished in
a family version as well, where are the invectives and violence was taken out
and replaced with more mundane material.  If I remember correctly, every one
lives at the end of _Happy Lear_, as you put it: I think Edgar and Cordelia get
married and rule the Kingdom together, as well.  I can't remember if I've ever
seen the actually update versions of these plays.
 
Happy, happy, joy, joy,
Stuart Rice
Kenyon College
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 15:46:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0851  Qs: Happy *Lr.*
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0851  Qs: Happy *Lr.*
 
Nahum Tate (1652-1715) is responsible for the adaptation of *Lear* in which
Cordelia survives and marries Edgar.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sam Schimek <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 28 Oct 1995 18:46:24 -0700
Subject:        Re: Happy *Lr.*
 
This version was written by Nathum Tate (1652-1715) in 1681. In it Cordelia
does not die but lives and marries Edgar. Samuel Johnson in his "General
Observation on King Lear" expresses a preference for it. I admire Johnson
but...
 
Sam
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gail Garloch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Suday, 29 Oct 1995 14:00:30 +0200 (IST)
Subject: 6.0851 Qs: Happy *Lr.*
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0851 Qs: Happy *Lr.*
 
The "happy" version of King Lear that Karen Krebs seeks is Nahum Tate's 1681
adaptation which held the stage for nearly two centuries.
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Helen Vella Bonavita <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 30 Oct 1995 10:17:39 +0800 (WST)
Subject:        re: Happy Lear
 
The version referred to is probably Nahum Tate's 1680 *King Lear*, in which
Cordelia does indeed survive - what's more, she lives happily ever after,
reunited with her one true love, Edgar. I find the play interesting  - in an
odd sort of way - because it seems to me to strip one of Shakespeare's
strongest female figures of integrity and independance in one move.
 
Best wishes
Helen Vella Bonavita

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.