Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: October ::
Re: Bankside Globe
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0942  Tuesday, 6 October 1998.

[1]     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 5 Oct 1998 09:12:45 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0935  Re: Bankside Globe

[2]     From:   Louis Swilley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, October 5, 1998
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0935  Re: Bankside Globe


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 5 Oct 1998 09:12:45 -0400
Subject: 9.0935  Re: Bankside Globe
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0935  Re: Bankside Globe

William Williams's point about use of the yard at the Wanamaker Globe is
right:

> Second, the AYL use of the yard is not only a modern intrusion into a
> historical model, it flies in the face of much of what we know of the
> pre-1642 stage.  Have a look at items 31 and 34 in R. A. Foakes
> +Illustrations of the English Stage: 1580-1642+ London: Scolar, 1985.
> In these two instances the stage has railing which looks, in 31, about
> shin-, or knee-, high to me.

But John Astington "The Origins of the _Roxana_ and _Messalina_
Illustrations" in Shakespeare Survey 43 (1990) pp149-169 shows that
these pictures are considerably less reliable than was hitherto assumed.

> I also recall seeing, but am currently
> unable to find, an illustration of the
> stage from the period with
> pointed, curved iron spikes pointing
> outward toward the audience.

One of C Walter Hodges's sketches, maybe?  The Fortune contract calls
for the first gallery to be "fenced with strong iron pikes", so it would
be reasonable to suppose that the yardlings were to be contained. The
Wanamaker Globe people have considered putting such pikes (simulated in
rubber) into their reconstruction.

Gabriel Egan

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Louis Swilley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, October 5, 1998
Subject: 9.0935  Re: Bankside Globe
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0935  Re: Bankside Globe

I hope Mr. Bacon acknowledges that Cordelia's speech, treating love
quantitatively  and divisible ("half for you and half for my husband"),
is her repetition of the error of her father in dividing the kingdom,
therefore not approved by Shakespeare in the argument of this play.

Love, of course, is not divisible, but grows in all directions as it is
expressed in one of them.  That point is repeated in the three-part
recitation of the daughters' love for Lear: the first says, "I love you
more than anything"; the second, "I love nothing else but you"; the
third (Cordelia), should have said, "I love everything else because of
my love for you." (Instead she says, "Nothing").  The Elizabethan
audience, aware of these three steps in spiritual development, must have
gasped at Cordelia's failure to complete the formula.

Desdemona's remarks are different: she speaks of "preferred" love, which
I presume allows for the fact that she does not love her father less
because she now also loves her husband.  Duty, responsibility to a new
family makes "preferred" acceptable, without denying that the love for
her father grows rather than diminishes with the love of her husband.

Cordelia's estimate of love as divisible is wrong-headed (she is too
much her father's daughter!); Desdemona's, correct  - both in the
context of their respective plays.


     L. Swilley
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.