1999

Re: Merchant as Psychodrama

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0161  Saturday, 30 January 1999.

[1]     From:   Catherine Loomis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Jan 1999 15:25:16 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0157 Is The Merchant a psychodrama?

[2]     From:   Scott Oldenburg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Jan 1999 15:31:44 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0157 Is The Merchant a psychodrama?

[3]     From:   Richard Regan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Jan 1999 23:51:03 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0157 Is The Merchant a psychodrama?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Catherine Loomis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Jan 1999 15:25:16 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 10.0157 Is The Merchant a psychodrama?
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0157 Is The Merchant a psychodrama?

One possibility your analysis over looks is that Antonio needs to give
up his infatuation with Bassanio before Bassanio and Portia can be each
other's surety.  Look at Antonio's "I once did lend my body for his
wealth / Which but for him that had your husband's ring / Had quite
miscarried" (5.1.249-51) where body-which-but(t)-husband's ring is a
mis-carriage of the heterosexuality Portia requires.  In sooth, he knows
not why he is so sad, or perhaps it's just, for a merchant, unspeakable.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Oldenburg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Jan 1999 15:31:44 -0700
Subject: 10.0157 Is The Merchant a psychodrama?
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0157 Is The Merchant a psychodrama?

Brian Hylett wrote "There is a mystery about

>characters that both exist in their own right but also as manifestations
>of a conflict in the hero's psyche. Psychodrama (for want of a better
>name) is a sophisticated form of allegory, a form that Shakespeare
>obviously knew well. But he seems to have leapt outside his time to play
>out this soul-searching in realistic form - if Belmont is completely
>realistic."

Interesting reading!  However, rather than "psychodrama" might we be
observing a manifestation of transference-an unconscious assignment to
others of feelings and attitudes that were originally associated with
other important figures...parents, siblings, etc.?  Psychodrama, after
all, relies on transference to achieve its therapeutic end.

As most Shakespeareans will point out, Shakespeare could not have had
knowledge of Freud (or psychodrama).  He may, however, have observed the
phenomenon of transference in himself and others (examples in everyday
life are abundant).  The question is, whose transference? Shakespeare's?
the character's? or the critic's?

All the best,
Scott Oldenburg
SFSU

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Regan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Jan 1999 23:51:03 EST
Subject: 10.0157 Is The Merchant a psychodrama?
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0157 Is The Merchant a psychodrama?

I think Portia's "You shall not know by what strange accident I chanced
on this letter" is a metadrama joke, an extension of magic in AMND and a
look forward to Rosalind's manipulations and the entrance of Hymen in
AYLI.

Richard Regan
Fairfield University

Re: Globe Season; Editions; Screenplays

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0160  Saturday, 30 January 1999.

[1]     From:   John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Jan 1999 16:17:45 -0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 10.0155 Re: Globe Season; Order of plays

[2]     From:   William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Jan 1999 08:38:26 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0152 Re: Editions

[3]     From:   Laura Fargas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 30 Jan 1999 05:16:48 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0149 Re: Screenplays


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Jan 1999 16:17:45 -0000
Subject: 10.0155 Re: Globe Season; Order of plays
Comment:        RE: SHK 10.0155 Re: Globe Season; Order of plays

I see Mark Rylance as one of the roadsweeepers that the reconstructed
Globe displaced.

If he's prepared to take on that role, I'll be happy to guest direct a
production of Henry VIII and see if the place will burn.  That would be
authenticity!

Cheers,
John Drakakis

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Jan 1999 08:38:26 -0600
Subject: 10.0152 Re: Editions
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0152 Re: Editions

This is NOT a flame!  It has struck me that some of the discussion on
this subject, good as it has been, demonstrates that we probably need a
serious and broad re-introduction of instruction in bibliography and
textual criticism in colleges and universities.  I think that in the old
days (1960s?) there would not have been as much "wonderment" over early
modern typography when this sort of study was pretty generally
compulsory for students in literature.  Of course, I must declare an
interest in such a re-introduction, but have not other "old folks" felt
the same thing when they saw some of the postings on this subject?

William Proctor Williams

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Laura Fargas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 30 Jan 1999 05:16:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 10.0149 Re: Screenplays
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0149 Re: Screenplays

David Hale wrote:

> Dave Evett asked about published screenplays. Many are included in
> "Shakespeare on Screen: A Bibliography" in POST SCRIPT 17.1 (1997):
> 91-146. One not in this list is Trevor Nunn's Twelfth Night (London:
> Methuen, 1996), which may not be widely available in the U.S. I got mine
> from amazon.co.uk.

There are commercial sources for scripts, bound script-fashion, not
book-fashion, in Los Angeles and New York.  One in LA has a particular
reputation for completeness; it has most individual episodes of most TV
series, as well as nearly all commercially released films.  That said,
I'm sorry I don't know its name offhand, but if anyone would like to
know, write me privately and I'll get it from my screenwriter friend.

Laura Fargas

Re: Spear-treking

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0158  Saturday, 30 January 1999.

[1]     From:   William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Jan 1999 08:28:32 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0153 Re: Spear-treking

[2]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Jan 1999 11:21:58 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0153 Re: Spear-treking


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Jan 1999 08:28:32 -0600
Subject: 10.0153 Re: Spear-treking
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0153 Re: Spear-treking

>Of course, Picard's tag "Make it so" is lifted from  _White Jacket_, so

>perhaps there has always been a little touch of Melville in their
>flight.

>Cheers,
>Brian Jay Corrigan"

Probably not.  "Make it so" is a command used by commanders in at least
the 18th and 19th century British (and probably other) Navy.  It is, in
any case, a standard naval command and needn't be derived from Melville.

William Proctor Williams

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Jan 1999 11:21:58 -0500
Subject: 10.0153 Re: Spear-treking
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0153 Re: Spear-treking

> Of course, Picard's tag "Make it so" is lifted from  _White Jacket_, so
> perhaps there has always been a little touch of Melville in their
> flight.

Not exactly to challenge "White Jacket" as a source, but us Patrick
O'Brien enthusiasts can cite you dozens of occurrences of the phrase in
those delightful yarns, and be moved by them to suppose that since this
was just the way early C19 English-speaking naval officers turned a
subordinate's suggestion or observation into an order, that there are
probably many other "sources" as well.

Dave Evett

Jeopardy Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0159  Saturday, 30 January 1999.

From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Jan 1999 09:31:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Jeopardy

I did not switch back fast enough from the Simpson's last night to catch
the final Jeopardy question (answer).  I started like: "One reason he is
not buried in Westminster Abbey is the epitaph..." The answer (question)
was "who is William Shakespeare." Did anyone catch the rest of the
question (answer)?

Clifford Stetner
CUNY

Re: Props Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0158  Saturday, 30 January 1999.

[1]     From:   Tony Haigh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Jan 1999 09:58:53 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0151 Props Question

[2]     From:   Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Jan 1999 11:15:58 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0151 Props Question

[3]     From:   Michael Best <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Jan 1999 15:10:06 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0151 Props Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tony Haigh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Jan 1999 09:58:53 -0500
Subject: 10.0151 Props Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0151 Props Question

It is my understanding that the term "props" comes from Garrick's
innovative use of small naturalistic items on stage.  In order to
prevent actors stealing these trinkets he had them stamped with
"Property of the Management" hence the modern usage "props."

Has anyone else seen the innovative/interesting production of "Hamlet"
at Actor's Theatre of Louisville?  Set it 50's dress, it has Hamlet's
madness neatly sidetracked by his being addicted to heroin, and later
suffering from withdrawal.  In a much cut production I was glad to see
John Jory had left in Fortinbras, but was somewhat surprised when "Let
the soldiers shoot" became an order to have Horatio executed, leaving an
ebullient, quisling Osric in control of the court.

Cheers,
Tony

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Jan 1999 11:15:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 10.0151 Props Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0151 Props Question

Tom Bishops asks about "props." While the term "properties" is very old
(going back to the late medieval THE CASTLE of PERSEVERANCE), the
shorter props with a specifically theatrical meaning seems to originate
in the 19th cent. according to OED2.

Shakespeare's familiarity with the term "properties" shows up in
Qunice's reference to "a bill of properties" in MND. Hope this
information helps!

Fran Teague

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Best <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Jan 1999 15:10:06 -0800
Subject: 10.0151 Props Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0151 Props Question

Tom Bishop asks:

>Does anybody know whether stage properties (called "properties" in
>Henslowe's accounts) were ever known by the modern name of "props" among
>Renaissance players? I can find no instance of it, but may have
>overlooked something.

A quick check on Chadwyck-Healey's LION database (entering "props" and
"proppes" brought up quite a number of entries, none of which have the
meaning of "stage properties." In the Jacobean period there were 33
"hits," in the Restoration period 21, all of them meaning literal
supports (sometimes crutches) or metaphorical supports (most often to
the king, government, state, or love). "Props and pillars" crops up
quite often.

Out of curiosity I checked "properties," and found several theatrical
references-two entertaining enough to pass on. The first is in Dekker's
The Whore of Babylon (1607), where the introductory stage direction
after the Prologue reads:

"He drawes a Curtaine, discouering Truth in sad abiliments; vncrownd:
her haire disheueld, & sleeping on a Rock: Time (her father) attired
likewise in black and al his properties (as Sithe, Howreglasse and
Wings) of the same Cullor, vsing all meanes to waken Truth, but not
being able to doe it, he sits by her and mourns...."

And Richard Brome's _The Antipodes_ (1640), 3.5, has this speech by one
of the characters:

He has got into our Tyring-house amongst us,
And tane a strict survey of all our properties,
Our statues and our images of Gods; our Planets and our constellations
Our Giants, Monsters, Furies, Beasts, and Bug-Beares,
Our Helmets, Shields, and Vizors, Haires, and Beards,
Our Pastbord March-paines, and our Wooden Fies.

(I've no idea what a wooden fie is).

Michael Best
Department of English, University of Victoria
Coordinating Editor, Internet Shakespeare Editions
<http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare>

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.