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 10.2029  Friday, 19 November 1999.

[1]     From:   Robert Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 16 Nov 1999 00:40:05 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1983 Re: Innogen

[2]     From:   David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 17 Nov 1999 14:46:53 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1946 Re: Innogen


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robert Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 16 Nov 1999 00:40:05 -0000
Subject: 10.1983 Re: Innogen
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1983 Re: Innogen

There seems to be much noise but little light in this thread.

First off, we AREN'T dealing with a Q/F split, since both witnesses give
the same stage direction (F from Q from foul papers?):

1.1
Enter Leonato gouernour of Messina, Innogen his wife, Hero his
daughter, and Beatrice his neece, with a messenger.

2.1
Enter Leonato, his brother, his wife, Hero his daughter, and
Beatrice his neece, and a kinsman.

Does 2.1 refer to Leonato's wife or Leonato's brother's wife? -- Innogen
is (explicitly) referred to in the stage directions once rather than
twice.

Seventeenth century plays didn't come with programs-how would the
original audience know "Innogen" was on stage?

Occam's razor would suggest a ghost Innogen from the foul papers,
otherwise she would (at the very least) appear in stage directions after
2.1, which she doesn't.

Robin Hamilton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 17 Nov 1999 14:46:53 -0500
Subject: 10.1946 Re: Innogen
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1946 Re: Innogen

Tom Bishop wrote

>I like Michael Friedman's ideas about experimenting with "Innogen's"
>muteness and its effect on drawing our attention to the silence and
>silencing of women in the play-not only Hero and Beatrice, but also
>Margaret's failure to come forth, which students often question. It's
>important to note, however, that this approach involves writing
>"Innogen" IN to a number of scenes, esp the Big Wedding scene. It
>doesn't really solve the puzzle of "her" appearance in only those two
>early headnotes. If a production follows those notations strictly as
>simple facts, the audience will spend the rest of the play puzzled not
>by her silence, but by her total absence.

Could be fascinating-this mute presence cropping up here, there, those
on stage as well as in the audience growing more aware of her and her
silence, pauses and longer pauses waiting for her utterance, anxiety. .
.  .  But of course it could all be directed (a pun! a pun!) many
ways-very different if some sort of mutuality with Beatrice and Hero
develops than if Benedick finds her silence more intriguing than
Beatrice's volubility.  Tim Perfect, are you listening?

Dave Evett
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.