1997

Re: Shall I Die, Canon, SHAXICON, and More

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0412.  Thursday, 3 April 1997.

[1]     From:   David J. Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 23:26:07 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0396  Qs: Shall I;

[2]     From:   Dale Lyles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 06:48:33 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0403 Re: Shall I; Hamilton; Polonius


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David J. Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 23:26:07 +0100
Subject: 8.0396  Qs: Shall I;
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0396  Qs: Shall I;

Gabriel Wasserman wrote:

>>Well, I am interested in the fact that, um, well, y'know, um, a-COUGH, COUGH, the fact that Don Foster's SHAXICON catalogues "Shall I Die?" After all, didn't he write a long article in rebuttal of that?<<

Yes, he did (in SQ in 1987).  But I think you're laboring under a
misconception here.  It's true that "Shall I Die" is one of the
auxiliary texts which Don Foster has indexed in his SHAXICON database,
but that has nothing to do with whether he believes Shakespeare wrote
it-in fact, I believe SHAXICON indicates that "Shall I Die" is most
likely not by Shakespeare.  See, SHAXICON contains an entry for each
word which appears in the canonical Shakespeare plays at least once but
no more than twelve times -- 18,135 different words in all.  Various
auxiliary texts-including Shakespeare's nondramatic poems, a variety of
works that have been attributed to Shakespeare, and two Ben Jonson
plays- are also indexed, but they do not affect the 12-token cutoff,
which is based only on the canonical plays.  Theoretically, an
indefinite number of auxiliary texts could be indexed, but it wouldn't
alter the basic database of 18,135 entries.  These auxiliary texts are
indexed to make it easier to compare their rare-word patterns with that
of the core Shakespeare canon, and thus (in the case of the Apocrypha)
to help determine how likely it is that Shakespeare wrote them.

I'm going to respond to the rest of this post based on my knowledge of
the results Don Foster has obtained using SHAXICON.  This may not in
every case agree entirely with what Don would say now, so take this with
a grain of salt until the full SHAXICON Notebook is available on the
Web.  A few parts of the Notebook are already available on Don Foster's
web site, at http://vassun.vassar.edu/~foster; this includes a detailed
and very interesting discussion of the sources and textual history of
*Romeo and Juliet*.

>>Speaking of "Shall I Die?", what about the "Will"

I believe SHAXICON indicates that the Will is largely in Shakespeare's
own words (though of course this is an entirely separate question from
whether it's in his handwriting-he could have dictated it.)

>>*The Second Mayden's Trag=9Cdy*  (Doesn't anie-one haue reespect for th' dead)

I don't think this is indexed by SHAXICON.  I also don't think too many
people believe Shakespeare wrote it-Middleton's authorship is pretty
generally accepted.

>*Edmund Ironside*

Don Foster believes this was written by Robert Greene, though I haven't
seen his evidence in detail.

> *Leir*

I don't think this is indexed in SHAXICON, but I also don't think very
many people seriously believe Shakespeare wrote it.

> *die Breschafte Brudermond*  (Fratricide Punished)

Well, this is written in German, so word comparisons would be pretty
pointless.

> Q1 *Hamlet*

As I understand it, SHAXICON casts some doubt on Shakespeare's
authorship of Q1 Hamlet.  I don't know enough details to say much more.

>>[Though I know he's done Q1 *Merry Wives*, I include it for sake of completeness]<<

SHAXICON indicates that Shakespeare did not write Q1 *Merry Wives*,
except possibly for some minor revisions; however, he did act in it, in
the role of the Host.

>>[Though I know he's done Q1 *2H6*, I include it for sake of completeness]<<

SHAXICON confirms Shakespeare's authorship of Q1 *2H6*, and indicates
that he acted in it as well (as Suffolk).

>>[Though I know he's done O1 *3H6*, I include it for sake of completeness]<<

SHAXICON confirms Shakespeare's authorship of O1 *3H6*, and indicates
the he acted in it as well (as Clifford).

>>[Though I know he's done Q1 *H5*, I include it for sake of completeness]<<

Ditto for Q1 *H5* (with Shakespeare playing Exeter).

>>[Though I know he's done *E3*, I include it for sake of completeness]<<

SHAXICON supports the now widely-accepted view that Shakespeare wrote
the Countess scenes in *Edward III*, though I don't believe it supports
his authorship of the rest of the play.

>>[Though I know he's done *Double Falsehood*, I include it for sake of completeness]

As I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, SHAXICON does index *Double
Falsehood* (Lewis Theobald's alleged adaptation of Shakespeare and
Fletcher's lost *Cardenio*), and the first two acts look a lot like a
Shakespeare work from around 1612.

> *A Yorkshire Tragedy*

Not in SHAXICON, as far as I know.

> *Sir Thomas More*, hand D

SHAXICON confirms the view, now almost universally accepted, that
Shakespeare is the author of this scene.

> *The Famous Victories of Henrie the Fifth*
> *The Troublesome Raigne of Kinge John*  (parts 1 and 2)

Not in SHAXICON, as far as I know.

>>[Though I know he's done it *Taming of A Shrew* I include it for sake of completeness]<<

SHAXICON does not support Shakespeare's authorship of *A Shrew*, but it
indicates that he probably acted in it, as the Lord.

> *The True Tragedy of kinge Richard 3*

If you mean Q1 *R3*, SHAXICON supports Shakespeare's authorship.

>>[Though I obviously know *Funeral Elegy* he's done it, I include it for sake completeness]<<

As many people reading this are probably aware, SHAXICON fully supports
Shakespeare's authorship of the Funeral Elegy.  Details can be found in
Don Foster's article in the October 1996 PMLA.

> *Locrine*

Don't think this is in SHAXICON, but I don't think it's too likely that
Shakespeare wrote it.

Dave Kathman
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dale Lyles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 06:48:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0403 Re: Shall I; Hamilton; Polonius
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0403 Re: Shall I; Hamilton; Polonius

Gabriel Wasserman:

Without hearing your music, I (as a composer) would be inclined to agree
with your first teacher.  Check out any hymnal at your disposal: the
weak bit of the iamb is the upbeat for the strong downbeat.  In fact, I
was thinking about that in the choir loft last Sunday, how the many
intricacies of iambic verse get smushed by metrical hymn settings.  It
was a bad hymn, with many "the"s thrown onto the first beat of the
measure.

As I check the handiest hymnal here, "Finlandia" comes closest to
"Lover's Complaint," with six lines of pentameter.  Hm.  Maybe you could
just chuck out one of those extra lines in each stanza.  I can't imagine
the audience would miss them much, especially towards the end.
(Merciful heavens, can you imagine such a thing as 47 verses of
"Finlandia"???)

As for the paVANNE, it was dactylic, not iambic: PUM, pum pum | PUM, pum
pum...

Now humming "Mille regretz" in his head,
Dale Lyles
Newnan Community Theatre Company

Re: Editing; TN Questions; Antinomies

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0411.  Thursday, 3 April 1997.

[1]     From:   Richard A Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 11:36:14 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0407  Re: Editing

[2]     From:   Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:45:02 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0398 TN Questions

[3]     From:   Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 00:03:12 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0404 Re: Antinomies


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard A Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 11:36:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0407  Re: Editing
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0407  Re: Editing

Since Steve asks us to raise our voices, I'll simply say I think Paul is
being quite responsible as an editor, informing readers as to all the
possible ways of making sense of variants and multiple editions,
including Steve's, rather than pushing a narrow agenda.  If sides are to
be taken, I'll stand with him. Best, Richard

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:45:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0398 TN Questions
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0398 TN Questions

Dear Friends,

I'm going to take a whack at answering Kila Burton's question about how
long the 12th Night twins have been apart.

Twelfth Night has a date for its title (the night of 5 January, the Eve
of Epiphany). Epiphany was an act of recognition, and the action of TN
drives to the act of recognition between Viola and Sebastian at 5.1.209:
"Most wonderful!" The play is rife with references to time, a striking
clock, and changes wrought by time's "whirligig." Just as the church
calendar year recapitulated the story of Christ, so the 12 days of
Christmas were imagined to engross the 12 months of the year. This
accounts for the curious equivalence of 3 days and 3 months.

The key to establishing the play's internal clock perhaps can be found
in Feste's closing song: "When that I was and-a little tiny boy, etc."
(5.1.366-). This is a light-hearted parody of 1 Corinthians 13, the
Epistle for Quinquagesima Sunday: "When I was a child I spake as a
child, etc." In the minds of the Chamberlain's Men, TN was apparently
associated with Candlemas.  They played it at the Middle Temple on 2
February 1602. The play is variously dated to 1600 or 1601. It happens
that Quinqugesima Sunday fell on Candlemas 2 February in 1600, which
might lend weight to the argument that the play (or an early draft) was
in hand for that date.

>From this assumption, the following calendar may be deduced. According to Antonio, the reunion of Viola and Sebastian takes place three months and one day after the shipwreck (5.1.75-91). If the reunion takes place on Quinqugesima Sunday 2 February (1600), the shipwreck occurred on All Saints' Day 1 November (1599). Oddly enough, this dating sorts well with Curio's question whether Orsino will "go hunt . . . the hart" (1.1.16), a November pastime. November was the Elizabethan month of the dead, and its first two days (All Saints' and the defunct All Souls') were strongly associated with mourning, which accords with Viola's grief for her lost brother, and the talk of Olivia's losses of father and brother (1.2.3-33).

Viola-Cesario enters Orsino's service on the following day (2 November),
and on her third day of service (4 November) she/he is dispatched to
court Olivia. This is the day on which Olivia chides Feste for his
absence (1.5.35-). Malvolio joins in the chiding of his fellowservant
(1.5.71-85). In 1599, 4 November was the 22nd Sunday after Trinity, and
the Gospel reading was Matthew 18:21-end. This is the famous Parable of
the Unforgiving Servant who wishes to be himself forgiven but will not
forgive his fellowservant.

When Viola-Cesario attempts to court Olivia with a prepared text, she
declines: "'Tis not that time of moon with me to make one in so skipping
a dialogue" (1.5.192-3). Olivia is suggesting the moon is not full and
she is not subject to romantic "lunacy." On 4 November 1599 only a
sliver of the moon was visible; the new moon was on 6 November Julian.
This may be coincidental, but I think not.

Then there is Sir Toby's curiously truncated lyric: "O, the twelfth day
of December-" (2.63.73). This comes on the play's long night of song and
drink.  Because England was living under the antiquated Julian calendar,
12 December Julian = 22 December Gregorian. So, the 12 December in
Shakespeare's England was the longest night of the year. Almanacs were
popular, and lettered Elizabethans would have known this.

There are a number of other intriguing (and, I think, compelling)
calendrical allusions in TN (the name "Sir Topas," for example, after
the birthstone of November). But one of the more curious allusions is
embodied in the letter which Malvolio discovers on a day which the
play's internal clock nominates 5 November. Maria characterizes it as an
"obscure epistle(s) of love" (2.3.131). Now, on 5 November the Book of
Common prayer called for English Christians to begin reading Saint
Paul's First Epistle to the Thessalonians.  Thessaly was the region of
northern Greece which abutted Illyricum. The Geneva gloss characterizes
Paul's letter: "He commendeth them for three special gifts . . .
effectual faith, continuall love, and patient hope." Maria's epistle
urges Malvolio to cast his present skin, hope to be raised, keep
smiling, to wear crosses, and adopt "the trick of singularity"
(2.5.125). This strikes me as an impious parody of Paul's letter, and
his appeal to the Thessalonians to hold their fellows in "singular
love." Some might think otherwise.

Hope this helps.

All the best,
Steve Sohmer

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 00:03:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0404 Re: Antinomies
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0404 Re: Antinomies

Reply To David Frankel----

Yes. I agree, they (differences) are "transcended" or they "collapse" at
least at SOME point (though it doesn't necessarily get the last
word)--Would you object to the synonymity of those two words in quotes?
--Chris S.

Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0409.  Thursday, 3 April 1997.

[1]     From:   Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 02 Apr 97 10:00:35 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[2]     From:   Simon Malloch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 23:36:56 +0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[3]     From:   Jacqueline Strax <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:16:52 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[4]     From:   Gabriel Wasserman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 11:20:41 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[5]     From:   Richard A Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 11:32:49 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[6]     From:   Erika Lin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:52:27 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[7]     From:   Mark Mann <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 12:05:56 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[8]     From:   Derek Wood <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 12:48:56 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[9]     From:   Cristina Keunecke <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 14:15:34 -0800
        Subj:   Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[10]    From:   Jameela Ann Lares <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:33:46 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[11]    From:   Ron Dwelle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 13:44:22 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[12]    From:   Stephen Schultz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 02 Apr 97 13:49:21 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[13]    From:   Roger Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 13:21:41 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[14]    From:   Norm Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 02 Apr 97 15:11:39 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[15]    From:   Fred Wharton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 16:00:22 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

[16]    From:   Syd Kasten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 11:26:44 +0200 (IST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 02 Apr 97 10:00:35 EST
Subject: 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

In an article, "Hamlet in the Thirties," _Theatre Survey_ 26 (1985):
63-79, I've argued the John Barrymore was aware of Ernst Jones' work and
made use of it in his 1922 production. My source was John Kobler's
biography of Barrymore, _Damned in Paradise_ (1977); Kobler says that
Olivier modeled parts of his interpretation on Barrymore's, which
Olivier saw at the age of 17. Hope that helps!    Fran Teague

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Simon Malloch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 23:36:56 +0800
Subject: 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

Ian,

Yes,  Freud does discuss Hamlet in light of the Oedipal complex.  You
will find it in his *Interpretation of Dreams*.  As for "collegues and
biographers" you are most probably referring to Ernest Jones.  He wrote
two pieces on the subject,  the most important being *Hamlet and
Oedipus* (1949).

Simon Malloch.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jacqueline Strax <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:16:52 +0000
Subject: 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

Dear Ian:

You ask, "my roommate thinks that maybe Freud talks about Hamlet."

He does.  In a footnote to The Interpretation of Dreams.  It will be in
your library. Hamlet will be listed in the index.

You also ask about "one of Freud's colleagues and biographers (his name
escapes me right now)."

Ernest Jones.  His book will be near Freud's.  Ah the joy of looking
things up!

Good luck with your project
Jackie Strax

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Wasserman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 11:20:41 -0500
Subject: 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

In *Die Traumdetung*, pg. 298 [in my edition], Freud says: "Another of
the great creations of tragic poetry, Shakespeare's *Hamlet*, has its
roots in the same soil as *Oedipus Rex*.  But the changed treatment of
the same material reveals the whole difference in the mental life of
these two widely separated epochs of civilization:  the secular advance
of repression in the emotional life of mankind.  In the *Oedipus* the
child's wishful fantasy that underlies it is brought into the open and
realized as it would be in a dream.  In *Hamlet* it remains repressed;
and-just as in the case of a neurosis-we only learn of its existence
from its inhibiting consequences. Strangely enough, the overwhelming
effect produced by the more modern tragedy has turned out to be more
compatible with the fact that people have remained in the dark as to the
hero's character.  The play is built up on Hamlet's hesitations over
fulfilling the task of revenge that is assigned to him; but its text
offers no reasons or motives for these hesitations and an immense
variety of attempts at interpreting them have failed to produce a
result.  According to the view which was originated by Goethe and is
still the prevailing one today, Hamlet represents the kind of man whose
power of direct action is paralyzed by an excessive development of his
intellect.  (He is 'sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought.')
According to another view, the dramatist has tried to portray a
pathologically irresolute character which might be classed as
neaurasthenic.  The plot of the drama shows us, however, that Hamlet is
far from being represented as a person incapable of taking any action.
We see him doing so on two occasions: first in a sudden outburst of
temper, when he runs his sword through the eavesdropper behind the
arras, and secondly in a premeditated and even crafty fashion, when,
with all the callousness of a Renaissance prince, he sends the two
courtiers to the death that had been planned for him.  What is it, then,
that inhibits him in fulfilling the task set him by his fathers ghost?
The answer, once again, is that it is the peculiar nature of the task.
Hamlet is able to do anything-except take vengeance on a man who did
away with his father and took that father's place with his mother, the
man who shows him the repressed wishes of his own childhood realized.
Thus the loathing which should drive him on to vengeance is replaced in
him by self-reproaches, by scruples of conscience, which remind him that
he himself is no better than the sinner whom he is to punish.  Here I
have translated into conscious terms what was bound to remain
unconscious in Hamlet's mind; and if anyone is inclined to call him a
hysteric, I can only accept the fact as one that was implied by my
interpretation.  The distaste for sexuality expressed by Hamlet in his
conversation with Ophelia fits in very well with this:  the same
distaste which was destined to take possession of the poet's mind more
and more during the years that follow, and which reached its extreme
expression in *Timon of Athens*.  For it can of course only be the
poet's own mind which confronts us in *Hamlet*.  I observe in a book on
Shakespeare by Georg Brandes (1896) a statement that *Hamlet* was
written immediately after the death of Shakespeare's father (in 1601)
that is, under the immediate impact of his bereavement and, as we may
well assume, while his childhood feelings about his father had been
freshly revived.  It is known, too, that Shakespeare's own son who died
at an early age bore the name of 'Hamnet', which is identical with
'Hamlet'.  Just as *Hamlet* deals with the relationship of a son to his
parents, so *Macbeth* (written at approximately the same period) is
concerned with the subject of childlessness.  But just as all neurotic
symptoms, and, for that matter, dreams, are capable of being
'over-interpreted' and indeed need to be, if they are fully understood,
so all genuinely creative writings are the product of more than a single
motive and more than a single impulse in the poet's mind, and are open
to more than a single interpretation.  In what I have written I have
only attempted to interpret the deepest layer of impulses in the mind of
the creative writer.  [Added 1919]-The above indications of a
psycho-analytic explanation of Hamlet have since been amplified by
Ernest Jones and defended against the alternative views put forward in
the literature of the subject.  Further attempts at an analysis of
*Macbeth* will be found in a paper of mine and in one by Jekels.  [Added
1930]-Incidentally, I have in the meantime ceased to believe that the
author of Shakespeare's works was the man from Stratford."

I hope this helps.

GZW

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard A Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 11:32:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

Freud discusses Hamlet in the Interpretation of Drams; Ernest Jones, the
colleague to whom you refer, wrote a book about Hamlet and the Oedipus
complex (sorry, can't remember the title).  Jackie Rose has an excellent
discussion in an essay in _Alternative Shakespeares_, ed John Drakakis
worth checking out.  If you haven't already seen the Zeffirelli film,
check itout.  It is even more overtly Oedipal version than Olivier's.
For  superb discussion of the two films (Olivier as Freudian, Zeff as
Lacanian), see Julia and Reinhard Lupton's book _Shakespeare After
Oedipus_.

Best,
Richard

[6]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Erika Lin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:52:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

Ian,

Re: "possible Hamlet-Gertrude Oedipal complex BEFORE Lawrence Olivier's
stage production, and the film that follows"-see Freud, _The
Interpretation of Dreams_ (pub. originally in 1898, though Freud wanted
the title page dated 1900), section V.D (Material and Sources of Dreams:
Typical Dreams).  In my copy, ed. and trans. by James Strachey, and
pub.  by Avon Books, it's on pp. 294-300.

All the best,
Erika Lin

[7]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mark Mann <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 12:05:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

John Barrymore, who played Hamlet in the 20s, was once asked what he
thought when he looked at Claudius onstage, and he said what went
through his mind constantly was, " You dirty @$#%^@#, you're $@#$%% my
MOTHER!!" Not exactly textbook Freud, but ...cheers, Mark Mann  Arden
Shakespeare Company, Columbus, Ohio

[8]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Derek Wood <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 12:48:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

Ernest Jones?

[9]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Cristina Keunecke <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 14:15:34 -0800
Subject:        Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory

Regarding the query about sources for the Oedipus Theory, I can surely
answer that was Freud who first linked it to Hamlet. He debated this
question in his book *The Interpretation of the Dreams*, published in
1900. In later works, Freud had added several examples of Hamlet related
with his theory. After this, his colleague and biographer ERNEST JONES
had published a more complete essay with the tittle  *The Oedipus
Complex as an Explanation to the Mystery of Hamlet*. This essay was
first published in 1910, in *The American Journal of Psychology*. In
1949, the essay was expanded and was published as a book, entitled
*Hamlet and the Oedipus Complex*. So, although the book was published
one year after the Olivier's movie version, I think that the
psychoanalytical interpretation of Hamlet was not Olivier's original
idea.

Yours,
Cristina Keunecke

[10]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jameela Ann Lares <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:33:46 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

I imagine a number of list-members will respond on this, but according
to the Susanne L. Wofford, ed. Case Studies edition on _Hamlet_
(Bedford, 1994), the disciple of Freud you're thinking is Ernst Jones.
Even though Olivier's 1948 production predated Jones's _Hamlet and
Oedipus_ (1949; repr. Norton, 1976), parts of Jones's argument were
published in essay form in 1910 and 1923.  Wofford's bibliographical
note indicates that Jones "influenced the Olivier film version of
_Hamlet_" (p. 255).

Jameela Lares
Univ. of So. Miss.

[11]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ron Dwelle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 13:44:22 -0500
Subject: 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

Ernest Jones published the long essay, "The Oedipus Complex as an
Explanation of Hamlet's Mystery," in The American Journal of Psychology,
January, 1910. I believe the general idea had a wide audience from this
point on. If I recall correctly, it was this essay which Jones expanded
into the book Hamlet and Oedipus, published shortly after WWII. In
short, I don't think Olivier did any more than adopt a known theory.

[12]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen Schultz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 02 Apr 97 13:49:21 EST
Subject: 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

In response to Ian Doescher's query about Oedipal Hamlets onstage:  If I
remember correctly, Gene Fowler credits John Barrymore with the stage
original.  That would place it ca. 1920.  Olivier (and Tyrone Guthrie)
were attracted to the Oedipal reading by Ernest Jones's <Oedipus and
Hamlet>.

[13]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 13:21:41 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

Ian Doescher asks about the "source" of the Hamlet/Oedipus idea.

The psychologist you are thinking of is Ernest Jones who was not only,
as you say, Freud's English biographer but Olivier's therapist at the
time when Olivier was shaping his ideas about both HAMLET and OTHELLO.
Jones is the author of a book that probably holds something for you,
HAMLET AND OEDIPUS.  Jones persuaded Olivier that Hamlet had an Oedipal
attachment to Gertrude and that Iago had a homosexual attraction to
Othello.  The story of the unfortunate production which resulted when
Olivier as Iago played the idea and Ralph Richardson as Othello rejected
it is pretty widely known.  I heard it from Tony Guthrie who was the
director-as-helpless-bystander of the production.

Roger Gross
U. of Arkansas

[14]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Norm Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 02 Apr 97 15:11:39 EST
Subject: 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

Re: Oedipal stagings of Ham.

Mr. Doescher's question was not quite clear to me, whether he was asking
when the oedipal reading of Ham. originated or when there were oedipal
stagings.  Presumably the latter, but just for the record-

Freud first broached the oedipal reading of Ham. in a letter to Fliess,
October 15, 1897.  He repeated the insight again and again, most fully
(if I remember right) in _The Interpretation of Dreams_ (1901).  Ernest
Jones expanded Freud's one-paragraph insight into a book that grew and
grew as it went through successive editions.

Looking back at my _Psychoanalysis and Shakespeare_, I find some oedipal
stagings prior to Olivier's 1937 production and 1948 film.  The earliest
I found was Arthur Hopkins' production  in 1922 with John Barrymore as
the prince.  (Hopkins also produced Mac. in 1921 drawing on
psychoanalytic ideas.)

Next came a production in 1946 by Jean-Louis Barrault, also, apparently
influenced by the Freud-Jones reading.

Then came Olivier, who actually consulted Jones in person.  Then, the
interpretation became fairly standard for a while.  If memory serves me
right, Olivier in his autobiography (the professional one) says he
thought by the end of his life that he had overdone it.

It is interesting to me that the more recent Hamlets I've seen make the
relation between Hamlet and his mother open to that interpretation
without making it as obvious as Olivier did, Branagh certainly, and Mel
Gibson, as I recall.

Now, may I pose my own question?  Can anyone suggest to me why Hamlet in
his final instructions to his mother states them as a long, affirmative
instruction to do bad things, prefaced by a single, bracketing
negative?  "Not this, by no means, that I bid you do: / Let the bloat
king tempt you again to bed," etc.  What is the psychological or
thematic sense in his *bidding* her to do these things?  Is he relishing
his imagining of her in these incestuous acts?  That's kind of sick, and
I'd love to hear a better reason.

 --Best, Norm Holland

[15]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Fred Wharton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 16:00:22 -0500
Subject: 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

How about Freud himself? Ernest Jones' essay, *Hamlet and Oedipus,*
didn't appear until 1949, a year after the Olivier film.

Fred Wharton.

[16]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Syd Kasten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 11:26:44 +0200 (IST)
Subject: 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0408  Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

Freud discussed Hamlet in his book The Interpretation of Dreams (1900),
contrasting the actual transgression of the incest taboo and the later
explicit awareness in the Oedipus story with the hypothesized fantasized
experience and its unconscious continuation in Hamlet.  He suggested
that Hamlet's inability to kill Claudius had something to do with the
fact that Claudius, in killing Hamlet's father, had done the deed that
the boy Hamlet had wished to bring about. Recognizing that a stage
character is an expression of the author's mental state, Freud suggested
that the play has something to do the death of Shakespeare's father
apparently a short time before the play was written.

Freud used Hamlet as an illustration in a couple of places in the book
in discussing the work of dreams.

The student and, later, biographer (excellent) was Ernest Jones, a
British (Welsh?) psychoanalyst, to whom Freud gave credit in a 1919
footnote for amplifying his own "indications of a psycho-analytic
explanation of Hamlet".  Jones' original article was written in 1910 and
appeared in a more complete form in "Hamlet and Oedipus" ( A Doubleday
Anchor Book) in 1949.  (S. Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams,
translated by James Strachey, Basic Books in the U.S. by arrangement
with George Allen & and Unwin  and The Hogarth Press)

Freud, incidentally, had something to say on a rhetorical question that
is invoked from time to time on the list. "Just as *Hamlet* deals with
the relation of a son to his parents, *Macbeth*......is concerned with
the subject of childlessness."  Which implies his belief that if the
Macbeths ever had children, by the time we observe them they didn't.

Best wishes
Syd Kasten

Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0410.  Thursday, 3 April 1997.

[1]     From:   Jameela Ann Lares <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 08:52:57 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0405  Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music

[2]     From:   Gabriel Wasserman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 09:49:37 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0405  Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music

[3]     From:   Charles Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 10:24:40 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music

[4]     From:   Katherine Acheson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 10:36:00 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0405  Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music

[5]     From:   Peter Hadorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:06:01 -0500
        Subj:   Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music

[6]     From:   Amy Ulen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 10:59:41 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0393  RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music

[7]     From:   Peter D. Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 20:34:47 +0100 (BST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0393  RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music

[8]     From:   Louis Scheeder <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 19:00:07 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0405  Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jameela Ann Lares <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 08:52:57 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 8.0405  Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0405  Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music

I haven't entirely been following this thread, but are we only talking
about tag lines?  I can't remember the title or artist, but there's a
classic rock song which compares one's new romance with Romeo &
Juliet's.  The refrain includes the phrase "just like Romeo and
Juliet."  (It also has a catchy syncopated beat.)

If memory serves, one stanza goes something like--

        "Right now I'm speculatin'
        'Bout what tomorrow's gonna really bring.
        If I don't find love tomorrow,
        It's gonna be heartbreak and sorrow--
        Our love is gonna be [?] a tragedy
        Just like Romeo and Juliet."

Submitted for correction--

Jameela Lares
University of So. Miss.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Wasserman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 09:49:37 -0500
Subject: 8.0405  Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0405  Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music

In the show *The Compleat Works of Wllm Shkspr (Abrdged), they did a rap
song of
Othello:

        Desdemona loved Othello
        Like Adonis loved Venus;
        'Cause Othello had
        A really big---SWORD!
        Now there was a fellow,
        That made Othello sick
        -Cause Iago was
        A really big dick!

et cetera-ad nauseum-ad infinitum

It was in very poor taste

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charles Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 10:24:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music

And then there's the greatest line in all pop music, by the king of
course (Elvis): I can't remember the title, but the line is, "Someone
once said that all's the stage!" Sweet smoke of rhetoric!

Charlie Ross
Purdue

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Katherine Acheson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 10:36:00 +0000
Subject: 8.0405  Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0405  Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music

And Elvis Costello's album -- something like _The Juliet Letters_?

Kathy Acheson

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Hadorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:06:01 -0500
Subject:        Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this "early modern" Shakespeare
reference, but at the end of the Beatles "I am the Walrus" snatches of
_King Lear_ are spoken, supposedly recorded off of a radio play.

[6]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Amy Ulen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 10:59:41 -0800
Subject: 8.0393  RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0393  RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music

"Limelight" by Rush contains the following AYL paraphrase:

"All the world's indeed a stage,
And we are merely players,
Performers and portrayers,
Each another's audience
Outside the gilded cage."

[7]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter D. Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 20:34:47 +0100 (BST)
Subject: 8.0393  RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0393  RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music

And to show that not all references to Shakespeare in modern music need
be Anglophone: Udo Lindenberg and Nina Hagen have recorded a number
called 'Romeo und Julia'

[8]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Louis Scheeder <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 19:00:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0405  Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0405  Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music

Has anyone mentioned Ellington's *Such Sweet Thunder* album?  Dedicated
to the (at that time) Stratford Shakespearean Festival in Stratford,
Ontario.  Recorded New York 1956-57.  Composed and orchestrated by Duke
Ellington and Billy Strayhorn.  First performed April of 57, Town Hall,
NYC.

Includes Lady Mac, Sonnet to Han Cinq, Madness in Great Ones, etc.

Ellington's music was featured in the National Actors Theatre production
of *Timon of Athens* (the Langham/Bedford production) a few seasons
back.

Louis Scheeder

Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0408.  Wednesday, 2 April 1997.

From:           Ian Doescher <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 22:43:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Sources for Oedipus Theory

SHAKSPERians,

I'm wondering if anyone knows if there are sources that pointed to a
possible Hamlet-Gertrude Oedipal complex BEFORE Lawrence Olivier's stage
production, and the film that follows.  This issue arose in my
Shakespeare on film class:  my professor thinks Olivier was the first, I
think he probably wasn't, and my roommate thinks that maybe Freud talks
about Hamlet.  I know that Olivier's main source for the Oedipal idea
came from one of Freud's colleagues and biographers (his name escapes me
right now), but I'm still not sure that it was an original idea of
Olivier's.  Can anyone shed some light on this topic?

Thanks,
Ian Doescher

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.