Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: June ::
Kingsley; Matamorphoses; Rutland; Catholic Ch; Sh
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0492.  Monday, 19 June 1995.
 
(1)     From:   M.S. Burton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 16 Jun 1995 09:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0486  Qs: Kingsley's *Hamlet*
 
(2)     From:   Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 16 Jun 1995 13:19:48 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: Which Metamorphoses
 
(3)     From:   Gavin H Witt <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 16 Jun 95 12:05:21 CDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0491 Re: Rutland in *3H6*
 
(4)     From:   Brendan P Murphy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 18 Jun 95 03:44:56 EDT
        Subj:   The Catholic Church
 
(5)     From:   Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 18 Jun 1995 19:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0489  Qs: Shakespeare's Library
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           M.S. Burton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 16 Jun 1995 09:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 6.0486  Qs: Kingsley's *Hamlet*
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0486  Qs: Kingsley's *Hamlet*
 
> From:           Lindsay Bell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
 
> So, my query is this...does anyone know the
> date of Ben Kingsley's Hamlet, (the year will suffice) and the name of the
> actress who played Ophelia?
 
4-75 at The Other Place (Stratford), 1-76 at The Roundhouse. Ophelia was played
by Yvonne Nicholson. I don't know any other credits for her, aside from playing
several other roles for the RSC that season.
 
In retrospect, Buzz Goodbody's "little" Hamlet looks quite the star-studded
occasion: George Baker as Claudius, Mikel Lambert as Gertrude, Griffith Jones
as the Ghost, Stuart Wilson as Laertes, Bob Peck doubling the Gravedigger and
First Player, and Charles Dance doubling Reynaldo and Fortinbras (and garnering
one of the only Hamlet reviews I can recall, where the Reynaldo got a
mention....)
 
 m.s. burton
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 16 Jun 1995 13:19:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Re: Which Metamorphoses
 
Yes, it is the Golding translation. The first four books of the eight book
translation, the first translation of The Metamorphoses into English, was
published in 1565 (if memory serves), the second installment about two years
later. It was attributed to Arthur Golding, but his authorship is questionable
since Ovid is a work of rollicking pagan sensuality and the rest of Golding's
life would be devoted to translating Calvin. It was immensely popular and went
into edition after edition. Many years passed before another translation was
attempted (by Sandys, I believe, in the mid-1700s). But in any case, Golding's
Metamorphoses is still far and away the best of all English translations, an
absolute delight. Ezra Pound called it the "most beautiful book in the
language." It is absolutely the best source for ancient Greek myths in English,
free from the Victorian obfuscations of most available versions. If you are
lucky enough to find it in your school library, read and enjoy.
 
Stephanie Hughes
 
P.S. The authorship of The Metamorphoses touches on the authorship question
itself, that is, the authorship of the works of Shakespeare. As I have promised
to keep that issue out of this arena, if you'd like to know more, write me at

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 .
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gavin H Witt <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 16 Jun 95 12:05:21 CDT
Subject: 6.0491 Re: Rutland in *3H6*
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0491 Re: Rutland in *3H6*
 
To David Maier regarding the discrepancy between the theatrical age of Rutland
as Shakespeare portrays him and the actual age of the child in the historial
record.  I'm sure you'll hear much on this subject, but suffice it to say
you're not reading in more than you should, you're simply finding another
instance of Shakespeare's constant--and effective--dramatic license. In the
same way that he chooses to make Hostspur and Hal both of an age in _1 Henry
IV_, though historically they were decades apart in age, he obviously felt he
gained in dramatic impact and, I'd guess, audience sympathy for the piteous
victim if he reduced Rutland to a mere stripling.  Of course, it could have
just been careless, too.  At any rate, aside from knowing the truth, I wouldn't
guess that it need alter your production decisions at all to be aware of the
historical inaccuracy.  The histories are as full of these as they are full of
direct borrowings from the chronicle sources.  Whatever suits.
 
It sounds like a fascinating and difficult project.  On what basis have you all
chosen to cut material--trying to reduce the whole to a distillation of the
original narrative, or focusing on particular elements at the expense of
others?  And with what size cast will it be presented?
 
Gavin Witt

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brendan P Murphy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 18 Jun 95 03:44:56 EDT
Subject:        The Catholic Church
 
I understand that this list is a place for comments and debate on matters
directly concerning Shakespeare, but Mack Carter's ignorant and baseless
comments regarding the Catholic Church deserve to be challenged in the same
forum in which they were propagated.
 
Mr. Carter avers that "[t]o the Catholic Church Jews have been vermin bring
(sic) diseases for the past 1900 years."
 
Such a sweeping statement calls for some clarification.  Are you prepared to
name names, Mr. Carter, or is the whole Church so rotten to the core with
anti-Semitism that such a list would be redundant?  Are you prepared to present
quotes from Church documents -- papal encyclicals and the like -- from the past
1,900 years that refer to Jews as "vermin"?  What about the writings of the
Doctors of the Church? You have plenty of material to quote from, given your
wide time frame, so please, Mr. Carter, dazzle us with your knowledge of the
Church's irrational hatred of the Jews.
 
Like many ignorant prejudices, it is simply accepted as a matter of fact by
many people that the Catholic Church bears ill will towards the Jewish people.
Granted, individual Catholics -- including priests and bishops -- have in the
past made known their personal (and reprehensible) feelings towards the Jews,
but the Church has NEVER endorsed these sinful prejudices, and has, in fact,
never ceased to condemn them for what they are.
 
For the record, The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
 
        "The Jewish faith...is already a response to God's revelation
         in the Old Covenant.  To the Jews belong the sonship, the
         glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and
         the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race,
         according to the flesh, is the Christ; for the gifts and the call
         of God are irrevocable."  (839)
 
I'm all for free speech and discussion, but I would hope that we would all
attempt to keep our ugly prejudices under wraps.  I agree with Mr. Carter "that
if you label a person you make them less than they might really be," and I
would hate to label anyone a bigot.
 
Brendan Patrick Murphy
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 18 Jun 1995 19:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 6.0489  Qs: Shakespeare's Library
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0489  Qs: Shakespeare's Library
 
In four hundred years of intense investigation, no one has ever turned up a
single piece of evidence that William Shakespeare of Stratford owned a book. It
is questionable whether or not he knew how to read or write.The only writing
extant by him is six signatures on legal documents that look as though they
were scrawled by someone who had only the vaguest idea of how to sign his own
name. In that time when books were expensive, particularly the ones Shakespeare
used as reference, he named no books in his will. Of even the least important
writers there is evidence of their attendance at grammar schools, university or
inns of court; there is no evidence of Shakespeare ever attending any school.
It seems apparent that no members of his family, father, mother, wife, or
daughters, knew how to read or write. This among many other oddities has driven
a number of those interested in the greatest of all writers in English to
consider the possibility that in that day and age of subterfuge and
obfuscation, someone else did the writing.
 
Nudge nudge wink wink, say no more, say no more.
 
Stephanie Hughes
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.