Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: November ::
Re: Innogen
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1935  Wednesday, 10 November 1999.

[1]     From:   Tom Bishop <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Nov 1999 14:56:52 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1912 Re: Innogen

[2]     From:   Phyllis Gorfain <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 09 Nov 1999 20:29:52 -0500
        Subj:   Innogen


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Bishop <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 9 Nov 1999 14:56:52 -0500
Subject: 10.1912 Re: Innogen
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1912 Re: Innogen

John Drakakis writes:

>I still find the reasons for editing out "Innogen" less than
>convincing.  There is a perfectly good logic to support her presence in
>MA, whereas the case of the Pied Bull Lear is a whole other question,
>don't you think?

I'm inclined still to think of Innogen as a "cancelled" character, a
kind of ghost, but she's a ghost that points in important directions for
the play. Were I editing the text now, I'd probably try to contrive to
leave her in "sous rature", or at least draw prominent attention to the
issue.  The parallel problem of "John the bastard" listed as appearing
with Don Pedro at Folio TLN 197, where he can't really do so if the
action is to make sense, seems to me still to indicate uncertainties
about character disposition in this part of the old MS.  I agree about
the Pied Bull Lear.

Tom

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Phyllis Gorfain <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 09 Nov 1999 20:29:52 -0500
Subject:        Innogen

Michael Friedman has a very interesting idea about exploring in
performance the implications of the "presence" of Innogen in the 1600
Quarto. See his article,  'Hush'd on Purpose to Grace Harmony': Wives
and Silence in Much Ado about Nothing, Theatre Journal 42.3 (Oct, 1990):
350-63.

Rather than deciding whether Innogen is "really there" or not, Friedman,
in a production he directed, staged what happens if you believe she is a
character by taking seriously both the scene heading and her muteness.
Innogen's muteness becomes most evident, and serves for the basis of a
major theme built around the muteness of wives.  For example, Innogen's
apparent voicelessness at the wedding and the repudiation of her
daughter becomes another apparent matter, and her voicelessness
contrasts with Beatrice's protests.  This theme then was developed by
the stopping of Beatrice's mouth at the close of the action as she is
also rendered another mute wife, as Friedman played it.

Phyllis Gorfain
Professor of English
Oberlin College
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.