Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: October ::
Re: Elopement
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0949  Tuesday, 6 October 1998.

[1]     From:   David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 05 Oct 1998 14:17:57 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0927  Re: Elopement

[2]     From:   David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 05 Oct 1998 14:28:48 -0400
        Subj:   Elopement

[3]     From:   Scott Crozier <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 06 Oct 1998 10:38:30 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0938  Re: Elopement


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 05 Oct 1998 14:17:57 -0400
Subject: 9.0927  Re: Elopement
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0927  Re: Elopement

There are only two full-blown elopements in the canon-that is, the
couple run off to another place and marry without parental consent:
Jessica and Lorenzo in *Mer*; Perdita and Florizel in *WT*, though
Perdita's peculiar parentage inflects the second oddly.  There are two
proposed elopements in which marriage does not occur until the fathers
have been at least formally reconciled to the idea: Sylvia and Valentine
in *TGV*; Hermia and Lysander in *MND*.  There are four secret marriages
without running away: Bianca and Lucentio in *Shr*; Juliet and Romeo;
Anne and Fenton in *Wiv*; Imogen and Postumus in *Cym*.  There is one
secret marriage-in-all-but-name: Juliet and Claudio in *MM*.  To these
anomolous unions we might add the politically foolish marriages of
Tamora and Saturninus in *Tit* and of Margaret and Henry in *1H6*, the
public marriage without paternal blessing of Cordelia and France in
*LR*, and the marriages apparently without reciprocal love of Anne and
Richard in Richard III and of Katharine and Petruchio in *Shr* (only an
oddity in comedy).  The treatment of these unions within the texts and
the potential assessments of them by early modern or postmodern
audiences and readers seem to me far too various to encourage easy
generalization.

David Evett

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 05 Oct 1998 14:28:48 -0400
Subject:        Elopement

Oops! Don't know how I managed to leave Desdemona and Othello out of my
list of secret marriages without running away.  I do have an elaborate
argument about how generic (as in genre) expectations affect these
relationships, but it's too complex to summarize in a couple of
screens.  Anybody interested can email me offlist to ask for a copy of
the essay-not published.

David Evett

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Crozier <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 06 Oct 1998 10:38:30 +1000
Subject: Re: Elopement
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0938  Re: Elopement

Stuart Manger wrote:

[during rehearsals of MND]> I

> keep coming back to the fact that this play is damn near a fantastic
> tragedy for ALL - except Theseus. Think how close they all come to
> disaster?

Although dated now, Peter Brook's production of MND in 1970 (following
Dunlop's earlier 1967 attempt at the same idea) that was heavily
influenced by Jan Kott really was a seminal work as a representation of
the horror of adolescent burgeoning sexuality and the trauma of escape
from parental strictures.  It is a real pity though that since then the
RSC productions of the same play have been stuck in a post-Brookian
shadow of influence.  All of them, including Barton's 1977 production,
in some way are forced to deal with Brook before they deal with anything
else.

Regards,
Scott Crozier
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.