1997

Re: Richard III,

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0083.  Saturday, 18 January 1997.

(1)     From:   Jimmy Jung <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 13:39
        Subj:   SHK 8.0039 Richard III, Lover

(2)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 21:39:39 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0078  Re: Doubling

(3)     From:   Jeff Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 20:15:18 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0077  Re: Star Trek Allusions

(4)     From:   Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 15:14:09 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0064 Re: The Mousetrap


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jimmy Jung <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 13:39
Subject: Richard III, Lover
Comment:        SHK 8.0039 Richard III, Lover

I wanted to thank yall for your responses to my Richard III question.  I found
particularly interesting the comments regarding the political reality of Anne's
situation and postings that point out how surprised Richard is after the
wooing, "I do mistake myself."  Taken together, they suggest that Anne is
conning Richard, for political reasons; instead of Richard conning Anne.  I
guess this is the irony Christine was talking about.

jimmy

PS  I think that Richard really feels lonely because of his hump and Anne
really believes that marry Richard will help her and she hopes that she can
keep some of her power that way.  So she pretends to like him, but in the end
he doesn't really love her so he kills her and that makes her feel really sad.
And could Terence Hawkes please explain the fainting thing, so I can laugh with
him?

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 21:39:39 -0500
Subject: 8.0078  Re: Doubling
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0078  Re: Doubling

I want to thank Gabriel Egan (and others offline) for answering my question
about doubling.  I knew about the objection to the Fool and Cordelia doubling;
it's been made recurrently.  Of course, it's good to remain skeptical. How can
anyone now be sure that Armin played the Fool? Perhaps Armin played Gloucester
in <italic>Lear</italic>, and perhaps the Fool was played by a bright, young
actor who quite easily doubled as Cordelia.  Eh?

Yours, Bill Godshalk

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jeff Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 20:15:18 GMT
Subject: 8.0077  Re: Star Trek Allusions
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0077  Re: Star Trek Allusions

Shakespeare's easy.  Star Trek even refers to Milton (or, as Ricardo Montalban
says, Meel-ton).  Kirk even identifies the specific line in Milton to which
Montalban refers.

Jeff Myers

(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 15:14:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0064 Re: The Mousetrap
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0064 Re: The Mousetrap

I'm slow in responding, since I'm now in Arlington, VA, and have only now set
up the computer -- this is a long-distance logging in, too!  So here's my (at
long distance fees) more than two cents' worth:

At the Shakespeare Rep this past fall/winter, Claudius is upstage, watching the
dumb show.  I believe the lights focused on his face, and his eyes visibly
widened at the sight of the poisoning.  He didn't move, as I recall, he merely
widened his eyes, and this was enough evidence to convict him in the eyes of
the whole audience.  (Oh yeah, and they kept in the line before the Nunnery
Scene in which he confesses, too).

This, in answer to 'how could Andy White, a man of the theatre, say such
things?'

In addition, without any physical evidence, or hope of evidence, Hamlet is not
in a position to ask that Claudius be deposed a la Bill Clinton in the Paula
Jones case.  The only evidence he has is a ghost, and a flinch.  Let the
lawyers scream and pull their hair, the dumb show is designed to reveal
Claudius' guilt for the audience's benefit, so that they know the titular hero
isn't just a raving maniac on a paranoid tear.

Andy White
Arlington, VA
(whew, check out the stack of book boxes, here!)

Productions: 12th Night; Winter's Tale

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0082.  Saturday, 18 January 1997.

(1)     From:   Dale Lyles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 15:43:28 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Productions: 12th Night

(2)     From:   Porter Jamison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 06:20:22 -0800
        Subj:   Re: 12th Night Intermission

(3)     From:   Eric Armstrong <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 09:58:33 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0063  Re: Winter's Tale Productions


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dale Lyles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 15:43:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Productions: 12th Night

Without digging my promptbook out, and only checking my notes, I think we broke
after Act II, and after looking at the text, I remember thinking how not
natural it was.  But I also I think I remember there was no natural break.

We too set the show in a seaside resort, albeit a contemporary, Ocean Pacific
one.  Everyone carried swords, nonetheless.  I think I've mentioned on this
list before how Malvolio went from white shirt and gray slacks to yellow
shorts, tank top, knee socks [laced all the way up the calf], with 'M, O, A, I"
stencilled on the back of his tank top.  It was truly ludicrous.

Have fun in Illyria!  We certainly did.

Dale Lyles
Newnan Community Theatre Company

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Porter Jamison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 06:20:22 -0800
Subject:        Re: 12th Night Intermission

When I did the show two years ago, we placed the interval after III, 1. The
cross-garter plot and the ill-will of Sir Andrew towards Cesario are both
established just before the break, and the audience is left with Viola and
Olivia's mutual frustration/despair.  The second half has an energetic comic
beginning with Sir Andrew threatening to leave (with the set-up of the
swordfight), followed by the reminder to the audience that Viola has a twin
brother in town and the cross-garter payoff scene with Malvolio and Olivia.
Hope this is of help.

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Eric Armstrong <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 09:58:33 -0500
Subject: 8.0063  Re: Winter's Tale Productions
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0063  Re: Winter's Tale Productions

This past summer I had the great good fortune to play in the Winters Tale
outdoors in Toronto with Shakespeare in the Rough.  I played Antigonus and was
chased offstage by a bear: our bear was more of a monster created by the entire
company, much like a Chinese dragon. Time, who was represented by a woman with
a large cape with an image of a goddess on it (sort of Polynesian or maybe
African?), was the head of the bear, riding on the shoulders of our tallest
actor (6'8"). A formidable thing to run from. Time started the play and the
second half of the play, and stood in the back, with the ghosts of Antigonus
and Mamillius, watching over the magical ending. As Antigonus, I particularly
liked reaching out to Paulina just before she gets set up with Camillo, and
then magically "flourishing" the idea of putting the two together in Leontes
mind. I'm not sure that Leontes realized that I was doing this, but the
audience seemed to like it. It was also a great way of getting the entire
company onstage for the final scene so we could immediately take bows.

But back to Time: I am not too sure how well the audience "got" who Time was,
as our costuming was so simple and the double casting, with Time immediately
turning into Archidamus, and in the second half playing Mopsa (or maybe Dorcas,
I don't remember), it was a real challenge for the actor to be really clear.
Playing outdoors we couldn't do any ooga-booga lighting effects for the
supernatural stuff, so we tended to use sound effects made with found items.

Eric Armstrong

Re: Shakespearean and Non-Shakespearean Videos

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0080.  Saturday, 18 January 1997.

(1)     From:   Miles Edward Taylor <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 09:29:57 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response

(2)     From:   Kenneth Adelman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 11:07:52 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response

(3)     From:   Richard A. Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 14:15:59 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0075  Videos: Question and Response

(4)     From:   Mason West <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 16:07:54 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0075  Videos: Question and Response

(5)     From:   Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 14:39:07 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Non-Shakespearian Videos


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Miles Edward Taylor <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 09:29:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response

Here at UO, all the BBC productions, including Jacobi's R2, are available at
our library.  If your library does not have them, a hundred others probably do
and you may find some willing to do an interlibrary loan.

Jacobi is wonderful as Richard, and this is one worth seeing.  For the most
part, though, these BBC productions are painfully dull.  The comedies
especially suffer from the reverential treatment.  The Jacobi Hamlet is also
very good, however.

A few notes on the version of "The Changeling" which recently aired on the
Bravo network: besides Hoskins and Grant, the other star--and a real
eye-opener--was Elizabeth McGovern as Beatrice-Joanna.  For me, she was the
best part of the production.  Also, the whole sub-plot from which the play
takes its name, wherein Antonio plays mad to gain access to the madhouse
keeper's wife, was stricken.

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kenneth Adelman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 11:07:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response

Yes. Jacobi's RII is available on the BBC version of Shakespeare. Some five or
so years ago, BBC did the complete canon and this was a highlight in that
(Jacobi was also Hamlet in that series).

A good library will have the complete set, at least mine does in Arlington, VA.
Time-Life somehow joined with BBC to market the series, I believe, so it may be
listed that way as well.

Enjoy it! It's wonderful!

Ken Adelman

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard A. Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 14:15:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0075  Videos: Question and Response
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0075  Videos: Question and Response

There are lots and lots of videos available. One place to look for availability
is Ken Rotthwell's Shakespeare on Screen.  Also consult Walking Shadows.  Video
rental stores will often order videos for you.  I just got the Cukor
RomeoandJuliet for 17.00.  Newly relased videos are initially expensive, but
eventually drop to less than 20.00.

(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mason West <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 16:07:54 -0000
Subject: 8.0075  Videos: Question and Response
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0075  Videos: Question and Response

Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer wrote:

    *The Tempest* is available in a variety of
    treatments. . . . John Cassavetes directed the
    lovely *Tempest* which is a 1982 updating of
    the story, set on a Greek island.  I don't
    think it's available any more, but many video
    rental places still stock it.

This version, Tempest (without the definite article), is one of my favorite
'little movies.' While it is a relatively modest production, I would not go so
far as to call it a B-movie as someone earlier labeled it. For one thing -- not
to invite the ire of the Marxists -- it has a bit more class than, say, a
Charles Bronson movie.

The excellent cast includes Cassavettes, Susan Sarandon, Gena Rowlands, Raul
Julia (as a lovable "Calibanos"), and Molly Ringwold in her first film. Paul
Mazursky, not Cassavettes, directed, though the film's story of a man in the
thick of a mid-life crisis, a marriage break-up, and a search for his cultural
roots in Greece very much resembles the sort of films Cassavettes directed and
acted in with cohorts Peter Falk and Ben Gazara (sp?) during the '60s and '70s.

A lot of the wit and charm of this movie comes as much from Cassavettes and his
New York theatrical milieu as it does from Shakespeare, and it's none the less
for it. Mazursky, remarkably, manages to capture most of his denouement in a
well choreographed take of about five minutes while a sultry tango plays on the
soundtrack.

Other treatments of the Tempest include Forbidden Planet and Peter Greenaway's
Prospero's Books. Though the 1956 production of Forbidden Planet predated the
watershed of realistic special effects heralded in 1968 by 2001: A Space
Odyssey, it set some excellent standards that science fictions films were
obliged to follow, and it remains a cult classic today. Walter Pidgeon stars
and Kate Francis plays his cloistered daughter.

Greenaway's Prospero's Books by the controversial artistic British director
Peter Greenaway (best known for his The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her
Lover) is as dark as Paul Mazursky's Tempest is light. I'm not prepared to
comment on Greenaway's deviations from Shakespeare, but this is an important
film to see if you are interested in how Shakespeare has been handled in film
adaptations.

-- Mason West
   This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 14:39:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Non-Shakespearian Videos

I have seen a wonderful video of "The Duchess of Malfi", with Nigel Terry as
Bosola, although I can't recall where it came from.  I'll ask my prof about it
and get back to you.

Andy White
Now in Arlington, VA

Re: Lady Macbeth; Portia; Caesar

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0081.  Saturday, 18 January 1997.

(1)     From:   Scott Shepherd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:45:32 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0078  Lady Macbeth fainting

(2)     From:   Thomas Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 11:43:31 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0070  Qs: Portia

(3)     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 97 22:49:01 GMT
        Subj:   Re: A Great Caesar


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Shepherd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:45:32 -0500
Subject: 8.0078  Lady Macbeth fainting
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0078  Lady Macbeth fainting

Fans of the nerves-of-steel Lady Macbeth are advised not to read too
attentively her anxious soliloquy in 2.1: "Hark! Peace, it was the owl that
shrieked, . . . Alack, I am afraid they have awaked . . . Hark!" etc. Those
praising her gumption for putting bloody knives in the hands of drugged
simpletons are better off forgetting how she fumbled her famous ruthlessness in
the main event and fobbed the real work off on somebody else, more daunted by
her own hallucination than her husband was by his ("Had he not resembled my
father as he slept, I had done't").

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 11:43:31 -0500
Subject: 8.0070  Qs: Portia
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0070  Qs: Portia

Louis Swilley raises an interesting point about Brutus and Portia.

I'm not myself so sure that Portia's stabbing herself can be taken as evidence
of an unbalanced mind. It seems to me perfectly compatible with what else we
hear of her as a figure inheriting Stoicism both as a philosophy and a family
tradition (she was Cato's daughter after all). Her stabbing herself to show her
ability to exercize her will and endure suffering with resolve is consistent
with Stoic attitudes, though perhaps rather intense as rhetorical proof of
them. Brutus understands her gesture in that spirit. (One can compare her here
with Lady Percy in 1H4 who offers to break Hotspur's finger. Portia would
presumably have offered to break her own!) Her manner of death is also, while
gruesome, consistent with a kind of maddened Stoicism (we are told she is
"distract" when she dies). But I don't find the latter an invitation to import
"distraction" into the earlier scene. I think we have here part of a set of
questions in the play about the Elizabethan reception of the idea of
"Romanitas".

Brutus' feigning not to have heard of her death is another puzzle. To me it
seems to be connected to the play's concern with what one knows and what one
shows. Brutus' ruse here functions as an opportunity to show his generals how
imperturbable he really is, how resolved, how like his father-in-law (as he
will be in death also). But the play shows us this as a facade mounted for
rhetorical purposes in the midst of a life and death struggle for control of
the Roman state. Brutus is, in a way, "Antonized" into policy here, perhaps by
the urgent desperation of the moment. An actor has many choices at such a
moment. I note that Cassius backs the strategy up here, though there might well
be several kinds of irony playing within his lines.

Tom

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 97 22:49:01 GMT
Subject:        Re: A Great Caesar

Louis C Swilley writes

> Speaking to no one but himself in his soliloquy over "this
> bleeding piece of earth," Antony is certainly expressing his
> "true feelings." (What other interpretation is possible
> for a *soliloquy*?).

The word 'soliloquy' had no currency in the drama in the period. Subsequent
interpreters have invented this category of speech, and they might be mistaken
about its conventions.

The actor playing Antony might be addressing the corpse. He might be addressing
the audience. Or, as you say, he might be talking to himself.

Gabriel Egan

Re: Ideology Once Again

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0079.  Saturday, 18 January 1997.

(1)     From:   Jesus Cora <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 17:15:26 UTC+0100
        Subj:   SHK 8.0066  Re: Ideology Once Again

(2)     From:   Ed Bonahue <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 14:13:10 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0076  Re: Ideology Once Again

(3)     From:   Paul Hawkins <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 19:46:34 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0076 Re: Ideology Once Again

(4)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 17 Jan 1997 21:21:38 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0076  Re: Ideology Once Again


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jesus Cora <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 17:15:26 UTC+0100
Subject: Re: Ideology Once Again
Comment:        SHK 8.0066  Re: Ideology Once Again

Dear Tom Bishop,

Ok, your decision on buying a new shirt was ideological, but it was also based
on feelings. You don't like Indonesian textile industry because it exploits
workers in a fearsome way. Therefore, you care about those people, you accept
that there is something common between you and them. You are thinking in
humanitarian and also, why not? Humanist terms. This leads this discussion back
to whether Humanism exists or not or whether is has been superceded. After all,
is not Marxism another kind of Humanism? Hasn't got Humanism a lot to do with
morals and moral improvement?

All the best.
J. Cora.

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Bonahue <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 14:13:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0076  Re: Ideology Once Again
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0076  Re: Ideology Once Again

To Jesus Cora's question:

> Are we not being quite narrow-minded on considering the
> economic base as the Primum Mobile?

Gabriel Egan responded:

> It's Marxism.  Any evidence that economics is not primary would help
> show that Marxism is narrow-minded, if you can find it.

Even if economics is primary (a view I generally agree with), that doesn't mean
the economics-culture equation is a zero-sum game.

We have already critiqued Althusser's definition of ideology, but his
discussion of contradiction and overdetermination is still useful here.  Others
can summarize his argument more clearly than I, but here goes: Althusser
proposes that the economic base ultimately generates social conditions and
cultural circumstances that operate independently of pure economic relations,
with the result that overdetermined intersections of economic political, and
cultural forces may be contradictory and irreducible to pure economic
phenomena.  So, while Althusser maintains that economics provide the primary
base, he provides for cultural formations that are more than simply expressions
of material relations.

Ed Bonahue
University of Florida

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul Hawkins <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 19:46:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0076 Re: Ideology Once Again
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0076 Re: Ideology Once Again

In response to Gabriel Egan:  I don't mean to be difficult, but how does a
requirement that students study decontextualized passages confirm that the idea
guiding the curriculum is that literature improves the moral character of those
who read it?

Paul Hawkins

(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 17 Jan 1997 21:21:38 -0500
Subject: 8.0076  Re: Ideology Once Again
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0076  Re: Ideology Once Again

Jesus Cora asks:

> Are we not being quite narrow-minded on considering the
> economic base as the Primum Mobile?

 Gabriel Egan responds:

>It's Marxism. Any evidence that economics is not primary would help show that
>Marxism is narrow-minded, if you can find it.

Gabriel Egan and I agree that nothing (and we mean "everything," don't we?) is
innately, inherently meaningful.  If nothing is innately meaningful, then the
assertion that "economics is . . . primary" can not be a statement that
something is, or all things are, inherently "economic" because meaning does not
inhere.  To assert that "economics is . . . primary" is to attempt to impose
meaning on an innately meaningless set of phenomena. Nothing is innately
economic, or inherently anything else.

Meaning by Shakespeare or Marx?  Nonsense.  (Where's Terry Hawkes to back me up
on this?)  Marxism is simply another human attempt to impose meaning on a
meaningless universe and/or on a bunch of innately meaningless playscripts by
Shakespeare.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.