1999

Re: Joyce and Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0306  Tuesday, 23 February 1999.

[1]     From:   Ron Dwelle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 22 Feb 1999 12:55:05 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0295 James Joyce and Hamlet

[2]     From:   Lois Feuer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 22 Feb 1999 10:29:41 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0295 James Joyce and Hamlet

[3]     From:   Francois Laroque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 22 Feb 1999 20:04:50 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0295 James Joyce and Hamlet


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ron Dwelle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 22 Feb 1999 12:55:05 -0500
Subject: 10.0295 James Joyce and Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0295 James Joyce and Hamlet

Vince Cheng has a good book on Shakespeare and Joyce; it includes a
great deal about Hamlet and Stephen.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Lois Feuer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 22 Feb 1999 10:29:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10.0295 James Joyce and Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0295 James Joyce and Hamlet

May I immodestly mention my paper on "Joyce the Postmodern: Shakespeare
as Character in Ulysses" forthcoming from Fairleigh Dickenson UP in *The
Author as Character* edited by Paul Franssen (fellow SHAKSPER member)
and Ton Hoenselaars? The standard reference on your topic would be
William M.  Schutte, Joyce and Shakespeare: A Study in the Meaning of
Ulysses, (1957), which itself was anticipated by William Peery in "The
Hamlet of Stephen Dedalus," Univ. of Texas Studies in English, 31
(1952), 108-19. I would also recommend Vincent Cheng, *Shakespeare and
Joyce: A Study of "Finnegans Wake"* (Penn. State UP, 1984), as well as
the standard works on Ulysses.

Best regards,
Lois Feuer
California State University, Dominguez Hills
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Francois Laroque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 22 Feb 1999 20:04:50 -0600
Subject: 10.0295 James Joyce and Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0295 James Joyce and Hamlet

You can always look up Rene Girard's Shakespeare: Theater of Envy which
includes a whole chapter on this question. I think that Helene Cixous
also wrote an article about it (in the 1970's)

Best of luck,
Francois Laroque

Re: Touchstone on the Lie

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0305  Tuesday, 23 February 1999.

[1]     From:   M. W. McRae" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 22 Feb 1999 11:07:13 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0299 Touchstone on the Lie

[2]     From:   Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 22 Feb 1999 13:51:17 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0299 Touchstone on the Lie

[3]     From:   Ray Lischner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 23 Feb 1999 05:58:46 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0299 Touchstone on the Lie


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           M. W. McRae" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 22 Feb 1999 11:07:13 -0600
Subject: 10.0299 Touchstone on the Lie
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0299 Touchstone on the Lie

>In a college production I'm working with, the actor playing Touchstone
>asked a really good question: what's the difference among the lie, the
>lie circumstantial, and the lie direct? A quick survey of notes in
>various edition (including the Variorum) discovered little help. I
>welcome any efforts to explain why saying "you lie" (the fifth degree)
>doesn't lead immediately to a challenge.
>
>And, by the way, our actor is finding Touchstone to be very funny. So
>are the rest of the cast.
>
>Bill Kemp
>(not, as far as I know, related to the actor who quit Shakespeare's
>company to perform a publicity stunt).

You should find Steven Shapin's A Social History of Truth to be
helpful.  The various ways in which a gentleman could lie are one of
Shapin's topics in this fascinating, richly-detailed, and provocative
analysis of the connections between veracity and social status in early
modern Europe.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 22 Feb 1999 13:51:17 -0500
Subject: 10.0299 Touchstone on the Lie
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0299 Touchstone on the Lie

Bill Kemp, of all people, asks us, apropos of Touchstone:

>to explain why saying "you lie" (the fifth degree)
>doesn't lead immediately to a challenge.

The fifth degree does not actually involve saying "you lie". It says "If
you were to say x, I would say 'you lie' " (The Countercheck
Quarrelsome).  The Lie Circumstantial, though not explicitly detailed,
presumably involves some similar loophole, perhaps a change of mood ("If
you say, I will") . As Touchstone himself explains, you may avoid even
the Lie Direct, both parties being willing, with an "If".  Romeo's
attempt to evade Tybalt's insults offers one instance of this kind of
avoidance behaviour. Not that it does any good, one of the parties
pointedly not being willin'.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ray Lischner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 23 Feb 1999 05:58:46 GMT
Subject: 10.0299 Touchstone on the Lie
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0299 Touchstone on the Lie

>In a college production I'm working with, the actor playing Touchstone
>asked a really good question: what's the difference among the lie, the
>lie circumstantial, and the lie direct?

Take a look at modern politicians. They are masters of the various
levels of lying. "I never slept with that woman." "I am not a crook."
Look at what they say to each other and how they say it. It's quite
remarkable how closely politicians hew to Touchstone's categories.

Ray Lischner  (http://www.bardware.com)
co-author (with John Doyle) of Shakespeare for Dummies

Early Reception of Venus and Adonis

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0303  Monday, 22 February 1999.

From:           Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 21 Feb 1999 14:26:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Early Reception of Venus and Adonis

I am new to this list, so if this repeats any previous inquiry, please
excuse me. In Thomas Middleton's play A Mad World, My Masters, a
husband, Harebrain, forbids his wife to have a copy of Venus and Adonis
and Hero and Leander because, he thinks, those poems will incite her
lust. So, Mistress Harebrain hides copies of these poems in her skirt
(with all puns and bawdy implications intended). I am curious about
other references which suggest that these poems had a particular erotic
appeal to women readers, especially if such references come from early
modern women writers themselves. Any suggestions?

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

Thomas Kyd, *The Spanish Tragedy*, in New York

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0304  Monday, 22 February 1999.

From:           Daniel Traister <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 21 Feb 1999 15:01:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Thomas Kyd, *The Spanish Tragedy*, in New York

Professors Jean E. Howard and Barbara H. Traister having provided them a
cautiously and tepidly enthusiastic preliminary report after seeing,
last weekend (February 14), Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy, Professors
Steven Urquartowitz and Phyllis Rackin, the undersigned, and three
students saw this production last night (Saturday, 20 February).

The play runs only one more weekend: the one coming up (25-28 Feb, at 8
PM Thurs, Fri, Sat; 2 PM Sun). It's performed at Collective Unconscious
(a Jung company), 145 Ludlow Street (two blocks east of First Avenue and
about two-and-a-half blocks south of Houston Street), New York City.
Tickets cost $10 if reserved in advance at 212 254 5277; an additional
phone number you must call comes at the end of the long taped message
you will hear. They cost $12 at the door; it's probably worth the two
bucks not to have to listen to the message. Howard and Traister shared
the theater last weekend with about eight others; we saw it this weekend
with about fifty. (Good word-of-mouth?) There were seats available both
nights (the space probably seats close to 65-70 altogether).

The theater looks like a former garage or an opium den from a Sergio
Leone movie; it is not well-heated; and if I remark that, in contrast to
Professor Urquartowitz (see below), I was on the edge of my seat for
much of the performance, that is a comment on the seats, not on the
production.  Come equipped.

On the other hand, the chance to see so rarely-performed a play does not
often come up; cautious and tepid though the enthusiasm of our
informants may have been, this production seems worth recommending, even
at this late date, to others in the New York area able to get to it. The
price is certainly worth it. In view of current New York theatrical
prices, one might even say that the production is worth every penny.

Professor Urquartowitz, who recently reported here on the snooze factor
at a Kabuki Shakespeare production, spent the first third of the
production intently studying this phenomenon once again, and chose to
absent himself from the felicities of the latter two thirds of the
performance; his assessment would no doubt differ from mine. I found the
production watchable, even moving, despite faults. Bel-Imperia (Jeff
Bear) is played by a good actor, but he is simply too big for the role
(he is a fine Revenge, however). Isabella, by contrast, worked better
(Gianni Baratta).  (The students remarked their interest in seeing what
they have only heard about in Elizabethan theater: male actors in female
roles.)

Jason Kaufman, the best actor on the stage, gets offed earliest: he's
Horatio. Too bad. Moses Morales opens as Don Andrea. A good actor, he
has an accent that does not enhance his understandability. Jason
Reynolds is a very decent Lorenzo/Viluppo. Other actors also have real
virtues, even Caleb J. Sekeres (Hieronimo), although a stronger
Hieronimo than he would have been desirable.

Dan Nichols, directing his first stage production, must love the play:
why else would he have done it? But he neither uses the constricted
space of his venue imaginatively nor has a clue about how to use his
actors; the production, as Professor U. noted, is static -- ALL
rhetoric, no action; and the lines of the speeches are all end-stopped
(whether they need to be or not).

By no means an "ideal" Spanish Tragedy, this is one we've got right now.
If you can get to it I don't think you'll regret it too much at all.

Dan Traister
Walter H. and Leonore Annenberg Rare Book and Manuscript Library
Van Pelt-Dietrich Library, University of Pennsylvania

High School Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0302  Monday, 22 February 1999.

From:           Richard A Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 21 Feb 1999 13:05:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        High School Shakespeare

I saw Jawbreakers last night.  There is a brief mention of Shakespeare
in an English class.  The play under discussion is Macbeth, the
character is Lady Macbeth.  Surprisingly, three out of the four trailers
also had Shakespeare references.  Never Been Kissed (with Dru Barrymore
playing a nerdy 24 yr old who returns to high school pretending to be
17) has a scene in an English class about As You Like It, and The Rage:
Carrie II has a similar scene in which Romeo and Juliet is being
discussed (shots of a girl jumping to her death from a school building
are intercut with shots of the class discussion).  The other trailer was
for the adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew entitled Ten Things I Hate
About You.  It's set in high school.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.