October
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0936 Monday, 5 October 1998. [1] From: Harry Hill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 02 Oct 1998 19:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 9.0933 Two Questions: Aldridge and "Bad" [2] From: Peter Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1998 11:07:22 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 9.0933 Two Questions: Aldridge and "Bad" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 02 Oct 1998 19:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 9.0933 Two Questions: Aldridge and "Bad" Comment: Re: SHK 9.0933 Two Questions: Aldridge and "Bad" Parts of the altar are delightfully blemished, as if some Posterior Muse had installed gargoyles. Surely there is a plethora from which to choose. My favourite bad bit is Laertes' response to "Thy sister's drown'd, Laertes", which I think is something like "Drown'd? Oh! Where?" Mind you, the page just ain't no stage. That "Oh!"" can, in the lungs and larynx of a fine actor, be like the cry of Medea or Elektra. Good artists in the theatre have been making silk purses out of such sow's ears for four hundred years. I'd hope a similar point would be the foundation of your talk in Poland. Harry [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1998 11:07:22 GMT Subject: 9.0933 Two Questions: Aldridge and "Bad" Comment: Re: SHK 9.0933 Two Questions: Aldridge and "Bad" On Shakespeare as a 'bad' writer, may I suggest George Steiner's brilliantly provocative Ker lecture, 'A reading against Shakespeare', published by the University of Glasgow in 1986.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0935 Monday, 5 October 1998. [1] From: Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Oct 1998 17:12:24 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 9.0930 Re: Bankside Globe [2] From: William Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 02 Oct 1998 17:12:48 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 9.0930 Re: Bankside Globe [3] From: Justin Bacon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 03 Oct 1998 02:40:15 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 9.0908 Re: Bankside Globe [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Oct 1998 17:12:24 -0400 Subject: 9.0930 Re: Bankside Globe Comment: Re: SHK 9.0930 Re: Bankside Globe On the subject of 'seeing' versus 'hearing' an Elizabethan play, several esteemed contributors have argued that the latter was what Elizabethans thought they were doing. Barbara Palmer notes that > The customary (actually, I know of no variations thus > far) phrase in the records is that one goes to hear > a play: e.g., "Pd to my master when he went to > hear a play at poule's" or "pd to the links when my > mistress went to hear a play at blackfriars." This > phrasing of going "to hear a play" holds for all of > the extant Talbot, Shrewsbury, Saville, Wentworth, > Hardwick, Clifford, and Ingram family records-no mean > sample and with a chronological spread from c.1590 to c.1640. This is powerful evidence indeed. But it also appears from Henslowe's records and other sources that the companies spent huge amounts of money-often as much as the cost of a custom-built playhouse-on their costumes. That suggests that even if the customers thought that they were going to a play to treat their ears, the players took a great deal of trouble to feast their eyes too. Maybe saying that you went to listen was considered more sophisticated than saying that you went to look. Gabriel Egan [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 02 Oct 1998 17:12:48 -0500 Subject: 9.0930 Re: Bankside Globe Comment: Re: SHK 9.0930 Re: Bankside Globe Tom Simone said: "As for the response of the actors, I believe the Globe Shylock (forgive me, his name escapes me and my program is elsewhere) was quite disturbed by the audience reaction to his performance. I do not believe the MERCHANT production was particularly good, and it surely did not know what to do with the Shylock and anti-semitic elements of the play or the audience. In response to David Nicol about the AS YOU LIKE IT production, the "milling audience" was clearly included in the production's plans. All of the yard action and the majority of entrances and exits through the yard showed a production concern with involving and directing the audience's attention. One of my students who went to a second performance, now in the yard, exclaimed "I held Orlando's coat!" And another said, "Touchstone shared my beer!" The point is, in my view, that the dynamic of the theater and the greater mobility of body and voice in the audience demand a good production that considers the experience of the new Globe. I believe that, among other things, the AS YOU LIKE considered and worked very well with the theater and the audience. The MERCHANT production seemed adrift." Two points: Several of my students had extended conversations with Norbet Kentrup (Shylock in the Merchant) this summer and he expressed such views as Tom Simone suggests, but not only toward the audience but toward the whole production. Nothing personal, mind you, but a full understanding of the source (Jewish) of Portia's "Quality of Mercy" speech and the Christians' failure to follow any of the precepts in it. 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. 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. It might seem that rather than making use of the yard and the theatre entrances a Renaissance company might have been very concerned to maintain some distance from the audience-a Safety Curtain for different means? WPW [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Bacon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 03 Oct 1998 02:40:15 -0500 Subject: 9.0908 Re: Bankside Globe Comment: Re: SHK 9.0908 Re: Bankside Globe Abigail Quart wrote: > Take another look. Daughters disobeying their fathers in the name of > love was sometimes a necessary thing, but never a good one. In your opinion. Shakespeare's opinion is clearly quite different. In MND, R&J, OTHELLO and LEAR we see clear examples of daughters rebelling against their fathers-and the fact that this was considered the *right* choice. In HAMLET we see Ophelia *fail* to rebel against her father and the result is hardship for herself and Hamlet, and her eventual death. In LEAR we even hear the words, from Cordelia's lips: "You have begot me, bred me, lov'd me: I Return those duties back as are right fit, Obey you, love you, and most honour you. Why have my sisters husbands if they say They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed, That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry Half my love with him, half my care and duty: Sure I shall never marry like my sisters, To love my father all." Or Desdemona in OTHELLO: "My noble father, I do perceive here a divided duty: To you I am bound for life and education; My life and education both do learn me How to respect you; you are the lord of duty,-- I am hitherto your daughter: but here's my hudband; And so much duty as my mother show'd To you, preferring you before her father, So much I challenge that I may profess Due to the Moor, my lord." > It always > came on the heels of parental abdication of an unwritten law to rule > wisely and with love. Well, yes. If the father didn't force the issue then the issue wouldn't be forced, QED. However, these two passages also point out two things: 1. If the father DOES force the issue, then the daughter is right to "prefer [her husband] before her father". 2. Even if the father does NOT force the issue, then the daughter must still give "half [her] love" to him. If the father recognizes this truth, fantastic. If not, it doesn't change the issue. > Shakespeare saw the role of parents as he saw the > role of kings. A good king does not force his subjects, does not push > them into actions against heart and conscience. Neither does a good > parent. When either or both child and citizen are forced to rebel by the > abdication of right authority, confusion and danger and often death > ensues. Or happiness and prosperity. Cordelia wins a better husband for her wisdom although she ends in tragedy for quite different reasons; Hermia's story ends in happiness; Desdemona and Juliet do not end up dead BECAUSE they disobeyed, but for quite different reasons. Ophelia, OTOH, dooms herself in her decision to honor her father before her love. Justin BaconThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0934 Monday, 5 October 1998. [1] From: David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 02 Oct 1998 15:31:59 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 9.0931 Re: Ed3 [2] From: Jerry Bangham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 3 Oct 1998 09:26:55 -0500 Subj: Edward III [3] From: Justin Bacon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 03 Oct 1998 03:00:23 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 9.0929 Re: Ed3 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 02 Oct 1998 15:31:59 -0500 Subject: 9.0931 Re: Ed3 Comment: Re: SHK 9.0931 Re: Ed3 Scott Oldenburg wrote: > What is the probability that the next > Riverside (or other publication of the complete works) will include > _Edmund Ironside_? Extremely low, approaching zero. I'm not aware of any Shakespeare scholar other than Eric Sams who takes seriously Sams' claim that this play was written by Shakespeare. Shakespeare certainly was familiar with *Edmund Ironside* and used it as a source for Titus Andronicus, but the arguments against his authorship are good ones, in my opinion. Donald Foster, in a review of Sams' *Edmund Ironside* book in Shakespeare Quarterly (around 1988, I think) summarized the arguments against the attribution to Shakespeare and presents some arguments in favor of Robert Greene's authorship. > What is the consensus among members of this list > regarding Edmund Ironside and other Shakepeare apocrypha? There's little consensus regarding most of the Shakespeare apocrypha-by definition, or it would be considered part of the canon rather than apocrypha. But some plays formerly considered apocrypha have made their way into the canon. As this thread has indicated, a consensus has slowly been emerging that Shakespeare was at least the part author of *Edward III*, with the Arden, New Cambridge, and new Riverside editions including the play. Hand D of *Sir Thomas More* is even more widely accepted as Shakespeare's-it has been included in all the major one-volume editions since the first Riverside (1974), and several books arguing for the attribution have been published. Early in this century, *The Two Noble Kinsmen* and *Pericles* were widely considered apocryphal, and as recently as 1969 both were excluded from the one-volume Penguin edition, but today they are generally considered to be collaborations between Shakespeare and other authors, and are included in all major editions. More recently, the subject of whether the *Funeral Elegy* was written by Shakespeare has been a contentious one, with many people arguing passionately against Shakespeare's authorship of the poem despite its inclusion in the recent new Riverside, Bevington, and Norton editions. There was a lot of discussion of the poem on this list back in early 1996, and that discussion is archived on the web at: http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us/cybereng/ebooks/fe-crit.txt Other recent attributions to Shakespeare, such as Charles Hamilton's claim that the well-known *Second Maiden's Tragedy* is actually Shakespeare and Fletcher's *Cardenio* with the names changed, have met with much less favor. Dave KathmanThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 3 Oct 1998 09:26:55 -0500 Subject: Edward III Play gets first staging as Shakespeare's work By Leah Eichler TORONTO (Reuters) - A small Canadian theater will stage the first production of ``Edward III'' since the official arbiter of The Bard's legacy pronounced it a bona fide Shakespearean play. Shakespeare by the Sea, a Halifax-based theater company dedicated to the presentation of classical plays, will demonstrate its thespian prowess Friday with its production of the work, which was authenticated by the Arden Shakespeare Series, the world's leading publishers of William Shakespeare's works. ``To our knowledge, Shakespeare by the Sea will be the first theater company in the world to publicly perform excerpts of the play since authentication,'' Elizabeth Murphy, the theater company's general manager, said Thursday. The Sunday Times of London reported earlier this week that Arden had confirmed the play's authorship. The last time the play was performed was in 1987 by Theatr Clwyd in Wales, which listed it as written by ``question mark.'' With just three days' notice, the Canadian theater company downloaded the play in Old English from the University of Virginia's Web site and translated an excerpt for production. Patrick Christopher, head of the acting program at Dalhousie University in Halifax, adapted the excerpt from the Old English text for the theater company on Wednesday. The play, which will be staged before an audience expected to number 200, will be performed as a one-man show acted by Christopher. ``It's extraordinary,'' he said. ``I took the copy to my class of acting students yesterday. I didn't realize how exciting it was to have a new play that's 400 years old to add to such a small canon of work by Shakespeare.'' Since the play ``Edward III'' emerged approximately 400 years ago, its author has been unknown. Arden concluded its authenticity after running a computer analysis of text and language. Scholars now presume the play to be one of Shakespeare's earliest works, written in 1594-95 between ``Titus Andronicus'' and ``Romeo and Juliet.'' The play tells the story of the first campaigns of the Hundred Years War, when British monarchs tried to reclaim their Norman territories in France while holding off the Scots from the North. Reuters/Variety [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Bacon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 03 Oct 1998 03:00:23 -0500 Subject: 9.0929 Re: Ed3 Comment: Re: SHK 9.0929 Re: Ed3 > Finally, what's this about _E3_ bringing Shakespeare's canonical count > to 39? Was another contested play recently added? The Two Noble Kinsmen (supposedly recognized in the 1970s) would bring it to 38, with E3 bringing it to 39. Justin BaconThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0933 Friday, 2 October 1998. From: KrystynaKujawinska-Courtney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 01 Oct 1998 16:46:57 -0500 Subject: Two Questions: Aldridge and "Bad" I have two questions. 1. I am in the middle of writing a monograph on Ira Aldridge's visits in Central and Eastern Europe and his cultural and political influences and connections. When he played in Poland on six occasions, he always added Issak Bickerstaff's play THE PADLOCK (known in Polish as SPANISH FRIVOLITY) to his standard repertoire of Shakespeare's plays (OTHELLO, THE MERCHANT OF VENICE, MACBETH). The archive sources say that he always sang four American songs in his presentation of THE PADLOCK. Herbert Marshall and Stock, the authors of Aldridge's biography, say that he used to insert in his productions Black songs of freedom. I have found out the titles of these songs at one of the Polish theatre playbills, and I am very much interested in getting some more information on these songs. They were advertised in Polish as: --DEAR HEART, WHAT A TERRIBLE LIFE AM I LED; --OPOSSUM UP A GUM TREE; --A NEGRO-BOY; --DEAR LORD, DON'T BE ANGRY. Ira Aldridge died and is buried in my native town--LODZ 2. The Lodz Section of the Polish Academy of Science has approached me to give them a lecture on Shakespeare as a "bad" writer. It is a real challenge, since the Polish Shakespeare is the Shakespeare of tradition embedded in bardolatory and in conservative and essentialist interpretations. Could the member of the Conference help me with any ideas how to deal with this subject, and any bibliographical data, please?
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0932 Friday, 2 October 1998. [1] From: James P. Lusardi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 01 Oct 1998 12:43:49 -0500 (CDT) Subj: RE: SHK 9.0926 Re: Marlowe Plays [2] From: Mary McNally <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 01 Oct 1998 15:19:06 +0100 Subj: Thanks [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: James P. Lusardi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 01 Oct 1998 12:43:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: 9.0926 Re: Marlowe Plays Comment: RE: SHK 9.0926 Re: Marlowe Plays If it's still in print, see Irving Ribner, ed. The Complete Plays of Christopher Marlowe. New York: Odyssey P, 1963. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary McNally <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 01 Oct 1998 15:19:06 +0100 Subject: Thanks Thank you, everybody, for the recent replies about the Shakespeare CD-Rom. Mary McNally