1995

Productions: African *Mac.*; *Mac.*; *TN*; *MND*;

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0836.  Tuesday, 24 October 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Stephen Buhler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Oct 1995 09:30:58 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Re: "African *Macbeth*"
 
(2)     From:   Albert Misseldine <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 13:26:14 -0400
        Subj:   Macbeth Production
 
(3)     From:   Michael A. Norman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Oct 1995 14:46:24 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Twelfth Night film
 
(4)     From:   Mary Jane Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:54:20 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0828  Re: *MND* Productions
 
(5)     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 19:10:00 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0802 *Tmp*
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen Buhler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Oct 1995 09:30:58 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        Re: "African *Macbeth*"
 
Cynthia Dessen can rightly refer to her Prophetic Soul: I've just learned that
the Haworth Shakespeare Festival has cancelled its scheduled performances of
*Macbeth* and *Romeo and Juliet* here in Lincoln.  The director of our
performing arts center received word that the entire tour is off.  Can anyone
on SHAKSPER confirm this?
 
Regretfully,
Stephen Buhler
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Albert Misseldine <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 13:26:14 -0400
Subject:        Macbeth Production
 
Our theater department is planning an April 'Macbeth' production. I'm the
advisor to the producer, and I need this network's help. Specifically, I want
to hear what works best for the scene with Banquo's ghost. I presently favor an
imaginary ghost, with Macbeth 'seeing' what all others on stage do not. From
the stage directions, however, it seems Shakespeare meant it to be done the
other way, with a visible ghost which everyone else on stage has to pretend to
not see. I've seen productions like that cause laughter in the audience. That I
fear. But recently there was some little discussion of this very point and I
seem to recollect the idea being floated that laughter here (of the right kind,
and under control) is not necessarily bad. I will appreciate no end a
discussion of this, and not only this. Generally, are there pitfalls to avoid,
things to clarify in the text, etc? Thanks. A Misseldine
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael A. Norman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Oct 1995 14:46:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Twelfth Night film
 
I just came across an announcement in Playbill Online about the filming of
Twelfth Night, directed by Trevor Nunn. Filming began in October on the project
with stars Nigel Hawthrone, Ben Kingsley and Helena Bonham Carter. The
announcement did not indicate who is playing what roles. This should be an
interesting production. I thought that others might be interested. It seems
like several film productions of the works of Shakespeare will be coming out in
the near future.
 
**Also, I just wanted to say that I find the discussions educational and
entertaining, and I find much value in the list.
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mary Jane Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:54:20 -0400
Subject: 6.0828  Re: *MND* Productions
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0828  Re: *MND* Productions
 
What I remember about the use of puppets in the Ron Daniels  production was
that they represented most but no all of the fairies, and were manipulated by
actors palying the Victorian under-class - street sweepers and so on, whose
dark greasy clothing seemedto make them invisible - in the Japanese mode-
disappeared when they held the brightly costumed fairies.It was an interesting
solution to the 'problem' of two kindss of Fairies in the play - FAERIE and
'fairies at the bottom of the garden'.
 
Oberon was a powerful and brutal figure who broke the head of one of Titania's
fairies as he tried to defend her. It  flew across the stage as only a puppet
could - and later reappeared with a bandage around its head. In this version,
as I remember it,  the doubling was justified by the fact that Oberon learned a
little about  human compassion from the lovers and Theseus somehow had learned
both compassion and something about the powers of imagination from his
alter-ego Oberon.
 
Mary Jane Miller,
Dept. of Film Studies, Dramatic and Visual Arts,
Brock University,
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 19:10:00 +0100
Subject: 6.0802 *Tmp*
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0802 *Tmp*
 
Michael Baird Saenger wrote
 
>In the most recent issue of Notes and Queries (September 1995), I
>point out that two costumes, originally made for a royal pageant, were given to
>Shakespeare's acting troupe in 1610.
 
I'm happy with Corinea -> Ariel-qua-sea-nymph, but not Amphion -> Caliban,
since the pamphlet describes Amphion as
 
"a graue and iudicious Prophet-like personage, attyred in his apte habits,
euery way answerable to his state and profession, with his wreathe of
Sea-shelles on his head, and his harpe hanging in fayre twine before him"
 
Both costumes are more suited to Ariel-qua-sea-nymph.
 
Gabriel Egan

Re: Shylock and *MV*

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0835.  Tuesday, 24 October 1995.
 
(1)     From:   John Owen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Oct 1995 10:50:32 -0700
        Subj:   RE: SHK 6.0830  Re: Shylock and *MV*
 
(2)     From:   David Schalkwyk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 10:11:18 SAST-2
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0830  Re: Shylock and *MV*
 
(3)     From:   Kay Pilzer <PILZERKL@VUCTRVAX>
        Date:   Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 08:14:09 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Shk 6.0830 Shylock and *MV*
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Owen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Oct 1995 10:50:32 -0700
Subject: 6.0830  Re: Shylock and *MV*
Comment:        RE: SHK 6.0830  Re: Shylock and *MV*
 
Regarding the first Shylock:
Baldwin guesses Thomas Pope as the first Shylock. In his scheme of things, Pope
was the actor who portrayed the Henry IV Falstaff and was the company's primary
light comedian. Very provocative, that.
 
J.O.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Schalkwyk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 10:11:18 SAST-2
Subject: 6.0830  Re: Shylock and *MV*
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0830  Re: Shylock and *MV*
 
I'm not sure that one should dismiss the plea from humanity in Shylock's speak
simply because part of that condition is a desire for revenge.  The speech has
an intriguing counterpart in _Othello_, and it would be interesting to read the
two speeches against each other, not as indications of "character" but rather
as points of political and moral perspective and possibility:
 
    Emilia:  But I do think it is their husband's faults
    If wives do fall.  Say that they slack their duties,
    And pour our treasures into foreign laps;
    Or else break out in peeviush jealousies,
    Throwing retsraint upon us; or say they strike us,
    Or scant our former having in despite:
    Why, we have galls; and though we have some grace,
    Yet have we some revenge.  Let husbands know
    Their wives have sense like them; they see, and smell,
    And have their palates both for sweet and sour,
    As husbands have.  What is it that they do
    When they change us for others?  Is is sport?
    I think it is.  And doth affection breed it?
    I think it doth.  Is't frailty that thus errs?
    It is so too.  And have we not affections,
    Desires for sport, and frailty, as men have?
    Then let them use us well; else let them know,
    The ills we do, their ills instruct us so.   (IV.iii.86)
 
David Schalkwyk
English Department
University of Cape Town
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kay Pilzer <PILZERKL@VUCTRVAX>
Date:           Tuesday, 24 Oct 1995 08:14:09 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        Shk 6.0830 Shylock and *MV*
 
In light of Prof. Applebaum's persuasive argument that *MV* does not address
anxiety about Puritans, how does one read Paul Siegel's 1953 "Shylock and the
Puritan Usurers" (in *Studies in Shakespeare* Ed. Arthur D. Matthews and Clark
M. Emery)?  Siegel traces ways that (he says) Elizabethans linked Puritan and
Jewish views of the Old Testament, of their relationship to law, and their
views of usury.
 
We know that the presence or absence of a feared/reviled minority often has
nothing to do with anxiety/prejudice about the minority.  I found the whole
notion of Antonio and Shylock as mirror or even twin characters to be a fairly
useful interpretative stance.  But I'm new at this.  What do ya'll think?
 
(From Kay Pilzer This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Re: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0833.  Tuesday, 24 October 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Nick Clary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:08:25 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Lutheran Hamlet
 
(2)     From:   C. David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:22:46 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0828 Qs: Wittenberg
 
(3)     From:   James L. Harner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:23:57 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   RE: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nick Clary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:08:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Lutheran Hamlet
 
Although this may not be the piece that Bill G. is looking for, it may be of
some interest to him and others on the list: Raymond B. Waddington's "Lutheran
Hamlet," ELN 27 (1989): 27-42.  Incidentally, while extant copies are few,
English translations of Luther's *Methodical Preface prefixed before the
Epistle of S. Paule to the Romanes* (n.d.--BM gives 1590, though Peter Blayney
has indicated to me that it is more likely a pre-1590 publication, perhaps even
as early as 1580) and *A Commentarie of M. Doctor Martin Lvther vpon the
Epistle of S. Paule to the Galatians* (1588) may be worth perusal in this
connection.  The Folger Shakespeare Library has both of these unique copies.
 
Nick Clary
St. Michael's College
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           C. David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:22:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 6.0828 Qs: Wittenberg; Ashlands' Artistic Director
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0828 Qs: Wittenberg; Ashlands' Artistic Director
 
I'm not sure about linking Hamlet and Luther, but I believe Jan Kott wrote and
essay that discusses, in part, the coincident attendance at Wittenburg of Faust
and Hamlet.
 
C. David Frankel
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           James L. Harner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:23:57 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        RE: Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus at Wittenberg
 
See:
 
Hassel, R. Chris, Jr. "Hamlet's 'Too, too solid flesh.'" _Sixteenth Century
Journal_ 25 (1994): 609-22.
 
Waddington, Raymond. "Lutheran Hamlet." _English Language Notes_ 27, no. 2
(1989): 27.42.
 
Hoff, Linda Kay. _Hamlet's Choice: Hamlet: A Reformation Allegory. Studies in
Renaissance Literature 2. Lewiston: Mellen, 1988.
 
James L. Harner

Re: Historical Fact

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0834.  Tuesday, 24 October 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Joseph M Green <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Oct 1995 11:11:46 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0826  Re: Historical Fact
 
(2)     From:   David Skeele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Oct 95 12:17:28 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0826  Re: Historical Fact
 
(3)     From:   Joseph M Green <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:38:52 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0832  Re: Facts, Purpose of List, Italy, Jews
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joseph M Green <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Oct 1995 11:11:46 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: 6.0826  Re: Historical Fact
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0826  Re: Historical Fact
 
It is easy to believe that everyone reinvents Shakespeare if you believe, as
Gary Taylor seems to, that interpretation equals reinvention, that, anyway,
Shakespeare is beyond the event horizon, a black hole who admits no light and
warps "literary space time," and that, because the authorized version is not
available, no interpretation can possibly tell anything like the truth about
Shakespeare.  This is an odd point of view, I think.  Change the title of
Taylor's book to "Shakespeare Reinventing" and leave everything else the same
and we could talk about how Shakespeare writes Taylor -- how, for example, his
drama here and there shows how persons reinvent the self to avoid an encounter
with something outside the self that might force the self to change in ways
feared, not wanted, not comfortable.  The belief that, because the absolute
truth is not available, only fictions are available is familar enough -- it
demonstates nostalgia for a theology, a nostalgia that must have God or
nothing.  There is no place for partial truths, partial insights --all are
condemned as simply versions of the self.  With God dead there is no truth. In
the spirit of Taylor another version of Shakespeare criticism might be given:
Stage 1:  Shakespeare is God.  Stage 2: Shakespeare is God but is away paring
his nails somewhere (a deist version -- Wimsatt removes intentions, the New
Criticism struggles on).  Stage 3: God/Shakespeare is Dead/ We are gods(nervous
or self-delighting).
 
These versions only partial, of course. The history of Shakespeare criticism is
actually much more complex.  There always have been a fair field of folk who
did not believe that Shakespeare was God, who, even though they lived through a
period now called modernism did not believe in a modernist Shakespeare, who,
don't believe that either Alan Bloom or Terry Eagleton bestride the world, who,
even if they believe every "fact" is also a value are careful not to take a
degree away and assume that all there are are arbitrary and ideological values
and the materiality of a complex work of art necessarily has to disappear into
the will of the interpreter. Who, for example, allow "facts" (whatever they are
after the fact/value dichotomy collapses) to resist their wills.  (God, I am
proud that, so far I have not punned on Will).
 
In fact, the attempt to interpret Shakespeare without reinventing him --
possible if one believes that a truth need not always comprehend the whole
because the whole is a work of art whose complexity eludes reduction -- has
continued even after Terry Eagleton threw Matthew Arnold off the cliff at Dover
and the Blatant Beast that was Leavis has been slain by the doughty Knights of
Ghosts and Shadows.  After all, the facts/value question has not, at last, been
conclusively settled and the heavens have not opened up to endorse the placing
of Will beyond the event horizon -- not that they would have to, of course.
Reinventing is the Pickwickian sense of interpretation -- all one has to do is
simply not join the club.  One misses, of course, the jolly rides in
comfortable coaches, the sweetmeats, the cozy conversation, the sense that
everything means something when it happens to you but one can, while resting
one's cheek against one's garret window, watch the snow, note that snow is
general all over, and not swoon.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Skeele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Oct 95 12:17:28 EDT
Subject: 6.0826  Re: Historical Fact
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0826  Re: Historical Fact
 
My apologies to Dr. Green if I have misinterpreted him or misread his posting.
The "historical fact" argument has been well-covered by now, so I see no need
to reopen it (other than to say if I have oversimplified Dr. Green's viewpoint
then surely Dr. Hawkins oversimplifies the New Historicist/Cultural Materialist
viewpoint by dismissing it as "blather").  Perhaps if I hear a better example
of how Taylor has so grossly misrepresented "facts" I'll be more convinced.
The original example concerning Dryden will not do.  Whether or not Dryden
would have approved of Beaumont and Fletcher being more popular than
Shakespeare is absolutely irrelevant to the argument that they were.  The idea
that Dryden's opinion has more historical relevance than the theatre-going
public's is a bias--decidedly not a "fact"--and provides a prime example of the
way in which the most supposedly "objective" critics shade facts in order to
make them fit their view of the world.  I guess one man's fact is another man's
blather.  At any rate, if Drs. Green or Hawkins has a better example, I will
certainly be willing to listen to it. I am curious--is there anybody out there
who likes Taylor?
 
David Skeele
Slippery Rock University
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joseph M Green <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 23 Oct 1995 12:38:52 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: 6.0832  Re: Facts, Purpose of List, Italy, Jews
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0832  Re: Facts, Purpose of List, Italy, Jews
 
I agree with Martin Greene but can't help noticing that the fact of the
abolition of fact is a guide to manners and not to conduct.  After all, even
Schopenhauer, whose world was will and representation, slept with a pistol
under his pillow and even Sinfield who, in his essay on Macbeth wants to prove
that all kings are equally evil and Duncan was probably just as bad as Macbeth
attempts, at least in the beginning of the essay, to establsih this from the
text before conceding that the whole play can't be made to support this --
giving away something just there.  And one notices that, in spite of the odd
"alas" prefacing a reference to fact that, in many postings here, facts are
wanted, are seen as good things if only one is polite and calls them something
else.  New Historicists often begin their essays with a mannerly exposition of
just how impossible it is to ever do anything but interpret from within the
current paradigm and provide quite scary descriptions of the inevitable gulf
between the Now and the rest of history.  Once this bow is made, however, they
go right ahead with marching their facts up the hill, pulling their factual
swords the scabbard from, and laying about enthusiastically -- and when one
inquires whether they, in fact, believe their own theory they will not, as
Stephen Daedelus does, simply say "No" but point to the facts of the case.  An
odd position.  One imagines that this position is somewhat like that of the
Duke of York in
 
"The good old Duke of York.
He had ten thousand men.
He marched them up the hill.
Then marched them down again.
 
And when you're up, your're up.
And when you're down, your down.
But when you're only halfway up.
You're neither up nor down."
 
Another fact.  Posters have called me "Dr. Green."  I am not -- but may be --
right now I am neither up nor down.

Re: Facts, Purpose of List, Italy, Jews

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0832.  Monday, 23 October 1995.
 
From:           Martin Green <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 22 Oct 1995 10:57:32 -0400
Subject:        Re: Facts, Purpose of List, Italy, Jews
 
I long for the good old days - - the days of Charles W. Wallace and  E. K.
Chambers - - when, in the field of Shakespeare studies, there were *facts*
which could be ascertained, and reasonable inferences which could be drawn from
those facts. If there are  questions about the purpose of this list, it is
because  so many posters deny  to  Shakespeare an existence outside of their
own minds, and construct theories which, positing the irrelevance or
unknowability of  facts about the time and place inhabited by Shakespeare,
justify their writing about themselves. Most people who have subscribed to this
list, I would suppose, already had an appreciation of the literary worth and
psychological profundity of Shakespeare's writings - - the sort of things one
talks about when one shoots the breeze - -  and hoped, by joining this list, to
 consider and perhaps to learn something about  Shakespeare's life,  or the
sources of his stories and knowledge, or the history of the times in which he
lived, or the meaning, in light of the language, literature and learning of the
times, of difficult passages:  in short, some *facts,* or failing those (for
there are, I concede, so few for sure *facts* known about Shakespeare) then
some informed surmise - - but NOT an abandonment of all attempt to relate
Shakespeare to a specific time and place.
 
Which brings me to a *fact* that seems to me to be of pivotal importance in any
discussion of Shakespeare's knowledge and associations, this *fact* being
Shakespeare's  dedications of two of his works (Venus and Adonis in 1593,
Lucrece in 1594) to Henry Wriothesley, third Earl of Southampton. The first
dedication may be, as some have suggested, merely a bid for patronage, but if
that is so, the language of the second dedication warrants the conclusion that
the bid was successful. This permits the not unreasonable surmise that
Shakespeare, by virtue of Wriothesley's patronage, had access to others
dependent upon Wriothesley (e.g., John Florio) as well as to persons dependent
upon Wriothesley's closest friend, the Earl of Essex.  And the Earl of Essex
assembled and administered,  at Essex House, his London residence, a host of
remarkable persons who constituted his own intelligence service and diplomatic
corps.
 
The premise that Shakespeare  had access to Essex House provides, in my
opinion, a reasonable answer to almost every question relating to Shakespeare's
knowledge of classical and contemporary literature, and people and places
throughout Europe. SHAKSPERIAN Lee Buchanan asks, did Shakespeare travel to
Italy?  We have no record of his ever having done so: but quite a few of Essex'
servants at Essex House had been there (and some were native-born Italians),
and any one of them could have given Shakespeare the knowledge of that country
which some seem to find in Shakespeare's plays.
 
Another SHAKSPERIAN notes, in the continuing and largely lamentable discussion
on The Merchant of Venice, that there were no Jews in England to speak of in
the 1590's. True, but two in England that we know of were a part of the Essex
entourage: Dr. Lopez, who had been physician to Essex' step-father, the Earl of
Leicester, had apparently treated the young Essex for some socially
unacceptable ailment, and Antonio Perez, who  was a guest at Essex House in the
early 1590's.  To be sure, both Lopez and Perez were conversos - - but they
were thought of in England as being, as they undoubtedly were, at least
ethnically, Jews.  The treatment of these two men by Essex is a mixed bag (one
was hounded to his death; the other lionized), and  perhaps Shakespeare's
treatment of Shylock mirrors this equivocal treatment, based, it seems, not so
much on  race as on  personal traits,  rendering futile any attempt to
categorize that treatment as pro or anti-Semitic.
 
Just a few thoughts, for whatever they're worth.  But there ARE facts, and this
list would be perceived as being more rewarding to its subscribers,  I think,
if contributors were to attempt to anchor their observations and speculations
on things which we all accept as facts .

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.