Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1996 :: April ::
Re: Dating Sonnets; Clothing; Induction
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0278.  Friday, 12 April 1996.

(1)     From:   Leo Daugherty <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 22:34:34 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0270  Qs: Dating Sonnets

(2)     From:   Dale Lyles <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 17:51:16 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0271 Re: Clothing

(3)     From:   John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
  >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 22:44:25 +0200
        Subj:   Shrew Inductions


(1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Leo Daugherty <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 22:34:34 GMT
Subject: 7.0270  Qs: Dating Sonnets
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0270  Qs: Dating Sonnets

Peter Herman writes:

>I've just read Prescott, Hiatt, and Hiatt's 1991 article on the dating of the
>Sonnets. Using all sorts of computer databases, they suggest that Shakespeare
>wrote most of the sonnets during the early 1590s and then revised them
>considerably towards the end of his career. They also  argue that Q is in fact
>an authorized edition, and that the "Lover's Complaint" ought to finish out
>the cycle. Do people accept these theses?

The article Mr. Herman refers to is "When Did Shakespeare Write SONNETS 1609?"
by A. Kent Heiatt, Charles W. Heiatt, and Anne Lake Prescott (STUDIES IN
PHILOLOGY 88:1 [1991]: 68-109).

I think it is fair to say that most of this terrific article's conclusions are
more confirmatory than "original" -- that they help confirm what most serious
researchers had previously concluded from looking long and hard at the evidence
-- and thus that the question "Do people accept these theses?" would get a Yes,
but with three qualifiers:  (a.) by "people," you'd mean, as I just said,
"people who'd looked long and hard at the evidence"; (b.) by "these theses,"
you'd mean theses put forth earlier, by others, and then heftily confirmed by
the article; (c.) but you'd understand, too, that the question of original
composition versus revision is, in the case of SHAKESPEARE'S SONNETS, different
from the others, in that it is relatively new and unexplored (although it has
already elicited work of high distinction, including this very article, which
is in fact very "original" on the point), and thus that its "answer" is not yet
so clear, not yet so broadly accepted as the others.

But I also think it fair to say that the question "Do people accept these
theses?" (if taken as pertaining solely, or even mostly, to the article) has to
be answered with the (sad and strange) observation that most people, in my
experience of the past five years anyway, don't seem to know the article
exists, much less to have read it.  (Some people interested in statistical
methods as applied to authorship have of course read it -- but have not much
commented on it in print.)  I'm glad that Mr. Herman has read it -- and that he
alerts SHAKSPEReans to it here.

                                             Leo Daugherty

(2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dale Lyles <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 17:51:16 -0400
Subject: 7.0271 Re: ClothingFrom:                Dale Lyles <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0271 Re: ClothingFrom:                Dale Lyles <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 17:51:16 -0400
Subject: 7.0271 Re: Clothing
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0271 Re: Clothing

I always tell students that nothing's new in fashion, not the pierced ears, not
the slashing, nothing.  It fascinates them as well as makes them uneasy.

Recently, I did a workshop with a class of students who had failed the 9th
grade once and were repeating R&J.  Their teacher decided to go the active
learning route and had made much headway.  I was there to share our costumes
from Winter's Tale [http://shenandoah.peachnet.edu/~dlyles/wt.html] and teach
them the pavane.

After it was over, I was debriefing them, so to speak, and asked a couple of
the young men (who had elected not to dress up) what they thought they would
look like to Elizabethans.  Their answers were all deeply thought out: we would
look undressed and not at *all* fashionable.  They, without realizing it, had
taken that metacognitive step outside themselves to see the validity of another
viewpoint.

Another small victory for theatre therapy!

Dale Lyles
Newnan Community Theatre Company
Newnan, GA

(3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
  >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 22:44:25 +0200
Subject:        Shrew Inductions

The most wonderful Induction for me was in the *Shrew* of 1978 at RSC in which
the audience filed in and took their seats in front of an uncurtained and
unlighted raked stage representing a rococo Italian street scene complete with
ornate fountain at stage center.  When most were seated and looking at their
programs or idly staring at the set, an argument broke out in the aisle at row
two of the orchestra.  A working class man with a thick provincial accent,
disheveled and obviously drunk, was insisting that he get the seat someone else
was legitimately in.  When the usherette tried to calm him he got abusive and
shouted for help to some person in the balcony. Ushers came running from all
directions, and seeing himself cornered the drunk clambered over the footlights
and started to smash the set.  The fountain came unseated and one or two flats
started to fall leaving scaffolding exposed.  The actors in the company came
out of the wings and chased the drunk all over the set while flat after flat
fell. It was pandemonium on stage and the audience was appalled watching the
carefully arranged set fall apart.  Finally David Suchet who played Grumio
tackled the drunk, rugger fashion, right at stage center and the drunk passed
out. Grumio got up and hurried off into the wings and then Enter the Lord and
his Huntsman.

Some other faculty members and I had students from a French University with us
at the Shakespeare Institute, and David Suchet agreed to talk to them about
productions they had seen that week.  The first question was about whether it
was difficult to choreograph the wild scene of running about the stage and
destroying the rococo set.  "Oh, yes," he replied.  "We had to get the timing
perfect or it would not work."  "Did you ever miss tackling him?"  "Yes, it was
terrible one night when a man in the front row climbed over the footlights and
tried to save the set by tackling Sly.  I had to tackle this man and I did and
I said in his ear when I had him down on the stage 'IT'S PART OF THE SHOW!!!'
As soon as he understood he went scurrying back over the footlights and all
through the show he sat there in row 1 with both hands over his face in shame."

The production violated all the traditional Italianate fluff one sometimes sees
in Shakespearian comedies; Petruchio entered on a motorcycle, a brass band
marched over the stage and Baptista Minola rang up the escalating offers of
Bianca's suitors on an addingmachine that blew up when they got too big for it.
 This was a wild farce for which demolishing the traditional set was an apt
prologue.

As I recall we were urged in the Programme not to talk to those who had not yet
seen the production about the way it all began.

I hope I have all the details right.  It has been 18 years.

J.W.V.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.