1999

Re: Lack of Toilets

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0840  Monday, 10 May 1999.

[1]     From:   Charlotte Pressler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 7 May 1999 13:44:21 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0803

[2]     From:   Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 07 May 1999 16:45:14 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0832 Re: Assorted Responses


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charlotte Pressler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 7 May 1999 13:44:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 10.0803
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0803

John Savage asked:

>Does anyone have any solid info on the existence-of lack-of toilets in
>the Globe and other Elizabethan playhouses?  Were elegantly-dressed
>ladies expected to just go out on the grass?

Gail Kern Paster's The Body Embarassed contains a discussion of the
options available to London women in her first chapter, "Leaky Vessels."
They were few, especially for women of higher station, who were
increasingly bound by cultural codes that made excretion a matter for
shame. Men might still make use of "Pissing Alleys," but women had to
resort to makeshifts like the chamber pot in the stall of _Bartholomew
Fair's_ Ursula the pigwoman.

Bests --

Charlotte Pressler
Graduate Student/English
SUNY at Buffalo
e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 07 May 1999 16:45:14 -0400
Subject: 10.0832 Re: Assorted Responses
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0832 Re: Assorted Responses

>>Don't forget that women wore shifts but not underpants, so the
>>association of ideas would have been something like eating parsley-having
>>to urinate-squatting in the field-one thing leads to another.
>
>Does anyone have any solid info on the existence-of lack-of toilets in
>the Globe and other Elizabethan playhouses?  Were elegantly-dressed
>ladies expected to just go out on the grass?

The farthingale is a cumbersome garment, but here is one instance in
which it proves useful.  As a portable modesty tent, it makes "out on
the grass" easy.

Juliet's Age and "Average" Age at the Time

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0839  Monday, 10 May 1999.

From:           M. Morford <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 8 May 1999 22:19:39 +0800
Subject:        Juliet's Age and "Average" Age at the Time

Bard co-conspirators;

I just got this note from Newscan - another listserv. I'm assuming the
age of Juliet is close if not correct. But what about the life span of
the "average" non-dramatic personage in the time of WS? Certainly well
over 18, but how far past 50? How did the gender divide work then? The
excerpt below states the that death of children at birth was quite
common. I read somewhere long ago that the most common casualty was
usually the mother. Any thoughts on aging and survival?

Morf


WORTH THINKING ABOUT: HOW OLD WAS JULIET?

In his book "Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize The 21st Century,"
physicist Michio Kaku says:

"Generations of high school children gasp when they read Shakespeare's
'Romeo and Juliet,' for they are amazed to discover that Juliet was only
thirteen years old.

"We sometimes forget that, for most of human existence, our lives were
short, miserable, and brutish.  Sadly, for most of human history, we
repeated the same wretched cycle: as soon as we reached puberty, we were
expected to toil or hunt with our elders, find a mate and produce
children.  We would then have a large number of them, with most of them
dying at childbirth.

"As Leonard Hayflick says, 'It is astonishing to realize that the human
species survived hundreds of thousands of years, more than 99% of its
time on this planet, with a life expectancy of only 18 years.'

"Since the industrial revolution, thanks to increased sanitation, sewage
systems, better food supplies, labor-saving machines, the germ theory,
and modern medicine, our life expectancy has risen dramatically.  At the
turn of the century, the average life expectancy in the United States
was 49.  Now, it is around 76, a 55% increase in a century.

Various Responses

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0837  Monday, 10 May 1999.

[1]     From:   H. R. Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 7 May 1999 10:01:45 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0827 Clint Eastwood: Shakespearean Actor?

[2]     From:   Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 07 May 1999 07:58:36 PDT
        Subj:   A B&F Edition

[3]     From:   John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 7 May 1999 12:08:53 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 10.0826 Taming in DC (girls, girls, girls)

[4]     From:   Anthony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 7 May 1999 15:51:58 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0759 Stage Devils in Art

[5]     From:   R. Schmeeckle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 8 May 1999 09:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0821 Assorted Responses

[6]     From:   Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 08 May 1999 12:58:07 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Assorted Responses


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           H. R. Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 7 May 1999 10:01:45 EDT
Subject: 10.0827 Clint Eastwood: Shakespearean Actor?
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0827 Clint Eastwood: Shakespearean Actor?

An interesting post.  I do not know if Eastwood has ever played
Shakespeare, but his preoccupations are intermittently Shakespearean
notably in terms of the latent nihilism and chaos in Lear.  I would
particularly direct attention to UNFORGIVEN, Eastwood's anti-Western. It
has the same spirit as Kurosawa's RAN and Kurosawa's connection to
Shakespeare and Eastwood are equally intriguing. I will ask around but
doubt that he ever played any Shakespearean role anent Coriolanus and
the American rugged individualist.  Whereas Coriolanus obviously brings
the temple crashing down upon his own Head, the American warrior
individualist, whether vigilante, cop, western Hero, usually prevails,
while bringing rack and ruin to friend alike. You might want to like at
an essay called ON THE MCMOVIE in my SCREEN MEMORIES: HOLLYWOOD CINEMA
ON THE PSYCHOANALYTIC COUCH  Columbia U  1993  for more on this score

Best,  hr greenberg md endit

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 07 May 1999 07:58:36 PDT
Subject:        A B&F Edition

Dear List Members:

I have decided to pursue the task of putting together a marketable
edition of Beaumont and Fletcher plays. "The Maid's Tragedy"
(co-written) is currently available with "The Tragedy of Valentinian"
(Fletcher only) in the Oxford edition of "Four Jacobean Sex Tragedies."
Therefore, the plays I am thinking of including are "The Knight of the
Burning Pestle," "The Faithful Shepherdess," "Philaster," and "A King
and No King." Am I overlooking any more-necessary play by Beaumont and
Fletcher? Do these choices seem appropriate and sufficient? Your
comments offlist will be appreciated.

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

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 7 May 1999 12:08:53 -0400
Subject: Taming in DC (girls, girls, girls)
Comment:        SHK 10.0826 Taming in DC (girls, girls, girls)

>The play is set in a 1940's Parisian
>bookshop, where the shop owner and her patrons (all women) decide to
>stage Taming of the Shrew to determine if Shakespeare was worthy enough
>to remain on the shelves of this strongly feminist bookstore.

Obviously had Sylvia Beach and "Shakespeare & Co." in mind?

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Anthony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 7 May 1999 15:51:58 -0700
Subject: 10.0759 Stage Devils in Art
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0759 Stage Devils in Art

You can find one and probably two images of stage devils in Allardyce
Nicoll's 1966 The Development of the Theatre, at figs. 64 and 65; the
accompanying text doesn't make it clear whether the author considers any
of >the images in the first illustration to be a devil, but the
identification seems clear enough.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. Schmeeckle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 8 May 1999 09:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 10.0821 Assorted Responses
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0821 Assorted Responses

Clifford Stetner wrote re Hamlet:

>His hesitation at the door of the chapel is based on Christian
>principles.  So how come he never considers the unambiguous Christian
>position: turn the other cheek?  Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord and
>all that.  As some kind of Christianized pagan, a right move is offered
>him, but seems to be beneath his contempt.  He needs a dramatic
>rendition of the Trojan War to remind him that doing nothing is
>"inherently wrong."

Hamlet's motive in hesitating is that he desires Claudius' damnation and
killing him while he is praying might result in the salvation of his
soul.  This might be dismissed as a mere rationalization, particularly
if one takes the conventional view that Hamlet's delay in fulfilling the
ghost's request is attributable to negligence.  I do not take that
view.  I see this as an example of Hamlet's utter degradation.  ("O what
a noble mind is here oe'rthrown.)  To wish another's damnation is the
most extreme example imaginable of a lack of Christian charity.  This is
evidence not that Hamlet is a Christianized pagan, but that he is a
Christian whose soul has been corrupted by his desire for vengeance.
This raises the question of Shakespear's own Christianity.  It seems
demonstrable that Hamlet possesses Christian faith and a Christian
conscience.  What, if anything, can be inferred about the author's view?

      Roger Schmeeckle

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 08 May 1999 12:58:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Assorted Responses

I hope that next time Bill and Terence meet, the latter will bend over
backwards in attempt at reconciliation. For, I have heard that Bill is
quite good at inserting his point when the occasion arises.

--Ed Taft

Various Queries

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0838  Monday, 10 May 1999.

[1]     From:   Eric Andrew Swan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 7 May 1999 10:30:04 -0500
        Subj:   Lear and Suffering

[2]     From:   Andy Drewry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 08 May 1999 14:49:49 -0700
        Subj:   Polonius and Corambis

[3]     From:   Carrie Lyn Brooks <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 9 May 1999 13:35:23 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Reduced Hamlet


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Eric Andrew Swan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 7 May 1999 10:30:04 -0500
Subject:        Lear and Suffering

My class just finished up two weeks on studying King Lear, and we ended
with a discussion on the suffering of the characters in the play.
Something that I can not resolve is the fact that everyone in the play
seems to suffer greatly, including the extremely virtuous, almost to a
fault, Cordelia.  Edgar claims in Act 5 Scene 3 that the "gods are just,
we bring punishment on ourselves."  Since that is basically the last
mention of a philosophy in the play, is this how we are supposed to
interpret everything that went on?  Am I to accept this philosophy as
the meaning that Shakespeare was trying to get me to understand?  I am
just having a hard time accepting this explanation as the truth and
reality of justice.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andy Drewry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 08 May 1999 14:49:49 -0700
Subject:        Polonius and Corambis

Can anyone pass along possible sources for either of these names in
Hamlet.  Corambis is the first quarto character that corresponds with
Polonius in the Folio, and I am searching for studies that mights
explain the source of either of these names or research about general
changes in the Folio.

Thank you,
Andy Drewry
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carrie Lyn Brooks <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 9 May 1999 13:35:23 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        Reduced Hamlet

I am currently working on a paper to reduce the length of Hamlet to a
half an hour. When I first went through making the reductions, I
completely eliminated Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Ophelia from the
play in order to focus on the relationship between Hamlet and Claudius.
Now I'm beginning to wonder if I was too hasty, especially with cutting
out Ophelia. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Re: Troilus and Cressida

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0836  Monday, 10 May 1999.

[1]     From:   Bruce Golden <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 7 May 1999 08:37:15 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0832 Re: Assorted Responses

[2]     From:   Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 9 May 1999 13:31:42 -0400
        Subj:   More Genre


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bruce Golden <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 7 May 1999 08:37:15 +0000
Subject: 10.0832 Re: Assorted Responses
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0832 Re: Assorted Responses

Re: T&C genre (again, or still).

For those interested in an even earlier, more (old) historical based
claim that this play is satire ( a study listed even in the up-to-date
Norton edition in the selected bibliography for the play), is Oscar J.
Campbell, Comical Satyre and Shakespeare's T&C, San Marino CA:
Huntington Library, 1938.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 9 May 1999 13:31:42 -0400
Subject:        More Genre

Troilus & Cressida was classed as a comedy because there were only three
options considered (Tragedy/Comedy/History). History might have been a
better choice, but after all T&C is about private rather than the public
matters of the English Histories.

"Problem Play," "Beats Me," and <INVALID PASSWORD> were not available as
categories, so the inquiry defaulted to a simple vertical:horizontal
ratio.

No matter how miserable, sexually harassed, or venereally diseased most
of the characters of T&C are, most of them are nevertheless alive at the
final curtain.

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

PS-not only is it a great theatrical effect for Lavinia to hold the bowl
between her stumps, she would no doubt be downstage of Chiron &
Demetrius, making it easier for the audience to "see" nonexistent
gushing blood. Like the shower scene in Psycho-there are shots of Janet
Leigh's body and the knife, but not together.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.