1999

Re: Shakespeare in the Caribbean

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1904  Friday, 5 November 1999.

From:           Mary Jane Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 15:53:43 -0500
Subject: 10.1898 Shakespeare in the Caribbean
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1898 Shakespeare in the Caribbean

No.  But for what it is worth,  I saw an amateur version of MND  in
Montego Bay in 1964 or 5 in the very posh gardens of an estate where the
court were drawn from   the town's upper class   and the mechanicals
played  their linesin patois - a charity fundraiser as I recall.  Most
people of that class  in Montego Bay  (where we lived for six years)
could speak patois as well as more standard English. I remember that
Theseus and Hippolyta were pretty wooden in their demeanour and
delivery, the lovers were OK, I don't remember the fairies at all and
remember  enjoying mostly Bottom and co who were fresh and funny. I was
in my early 20s at the time.

Mary Jane

Re: Cardenio

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1903  Friday, 5 November 1999.

From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 04 Nov 1999 11:09:13 -0800
Subject: Re: Cardenio
Comment:        SHK 10.1895 Re: Cardenio

Larry Weiss wrote:

>at a performance in New York of TSMT as "Cardenio"
>(which I attended a couple of years ago), Hamilton said
>that he did not base his conclusion on handwriting analysis
>at all.  He said it was textual and thematic resemblance to
>WS's late romances.

Interesting in light of my rather opposite experience.  Very shortly
before Charles Hamilton's death, he appeared at U.C. Berkeley making his
case for The Second Maiden's Tragedy as Cardenio.  He passed out
photostats from his book and pointed out similarities between the ms. of
Tragedy and Hand D in Sir Thomas More.  That was the bulk of his
presentation, but he added everything Larry heard as additional reasons
to accept the ascription.

The next morning, a Berkeley professor (can't think who) used Hamilton's
own handouts, citing different examples, to show just how unalike the
handwriting was.  There was also a performance where the professional
actors were ready to accept the attribution until they started working
on the play.  One said the language did not feel like Shakespeare's
language, and the character's don't grow during the course of the
action, as Shakespeare's character's do.  Thus Hamilton's points were
answered, though not disproved.  Subjectivity was involved.

If anyone wants to know more, I wrote about this in Shakespeare Bulletin
a few years ago.  I don't remember the issue, but I'm sure Jim will be
happy to sell it to you, assuming availability.

I also wrote a short review of Hamilton's book when I was the
Shakespeare reviewer for Small Press Magazine.  There are some real
logistical problems with accepting the attribution, which Hamilton
acknowledges.  When these problems are lined up in order, as I did, the
attribution strains credulity.  I won't burden this list by including my
review, but write if interested.  I'll send a copy to you off list.

Best,
Mike Jensen

Re: Gertrude

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1901  Friday, 5 November 1999.

[1]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 12:36:48 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1888 Re: Gertrude

[2]     From:   H. R. Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 19:36:12 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1888 Re: Gertrude


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judith Matthews Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 12:36:48 -0600
Subject: 10.1888 Re: Gertrude
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1888 Re: Gertrude


Graham Bradshaw writes:

<In other words, the play itself resists
<attempts to see the play through Hamlet's eyes?

I find this an incredible reversal of the way the play is constructed:
the asides invite the audience to see inside Hamlet's interior
ruminations on what is going on onstage and his real feelings about
Gertrude and Hamlet 1's marriage that may contradict his actual actions
onstage. For example, his first aside, "A little more than kin, and less
than kind" (1.2.65, Arden) announces that his ambiguous relationship as
"cousin" (line 64) and/or "son" is less than natural in the obsolete
meaning of "kind," ("that is, or exists in accordance with nature or the
usual course of things OED").  The irony of "kind" also suggests that
his polite words to them both have an undercurrent of anger that never
leaves him until Act 5 when he returns from England more regenerate.

His anger at his mother seems entirely justified to me; the drinking
motif surely parallels her "drunken" sexual behavior in marrying so soon
after Hamlet 1's death and forgetting that her son lives, breathes, and
has a being-perhaps even a right to the throne himself which she has
flippantly bestowed on Claudius.

I don't find her behavior the result of mental stupidity:  I find it the
result of her choices in life-to disregard anyone but herself and her
own sensual desires.  She is impenetrable to Hamlet's moral criticism
because she has temporal power over him and  because she has
DELIBERATELY chosen to be blind and wants to remain that way.

Such tipsy "out-of-it" behavior is displayed in another  Shakespearean
royal personage, Cymbeline, who NEVER has a clue the entire time the
play is going on that anything is really amiss-that his wife hates him
to the extent that she poisons herself rather than continue with him,
that his children are missing and wandering all over Wales, that the
Romans are threatening war about which he has no real strategy, and that
his warlike advice from his queen actually masquerades a plot for her
son's advancement (unlike Gertrude, ironically).  Cymbeline  finally
wakes up at the end of the play to find everything resolved for him so
that he can offer up "crooked smokes" to the Druids-once again oblivious
that anything like a new religious figure is being born that might
provide a better way.

Tipsy sexual behavior is dangerous in king and queens, and Hamlet at
least has the strength of character to resist it.

Judy Craig

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           H. R. Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 19:36:12 EST
Subject: 10.1888 Re: Gertrude
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1888 Re: Gertrude

Seems to me that we are dealing with a hard drinking pair in a
hard-drinking court (with the notable exception of the Melancholy D
himself, but not necessarily an alcoholic pair. I would chose to see
their drinking as yet another example of the appetitive nature existing
separately, then stirred to flame by each other, and sensual at the
center of the conflagration. A good case could be made, and probably has
been made, for Hamlet's father as a frigid, icy sort, highly dutiful but
not particularly entertaining type.  Hamlet, as noted, has a priggish
side to his nature; he cannot abide his mother's lubriciousness, but
more to the point, he makes generalizations about "the heydey of the
blood" being past, reflecting not only a generic puritanism one might
say, but also an all too common belief that older people are somehow
less sexy (and C and G are hardly dotards). Reminds of the old analytic
gag: Who never has sex? Your parents and your analyst...

Best  hr greenberg md endit

Re: 20th Century Poetry

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1902  Friday, 5 November 1999.

[1]     From:   Manuela Rossini <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 04 Nov 1999 21:04:33 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1894 20th Century Poetry

[2]     From:   Syd Kasten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 5 Nov 1999 14:01:29 +0200 (IST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1894 20th Century Poetry


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Manuela Rossini <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 04 Nov 1999 21:04:33 +0100
Subject: 10.1894 20th Century Poetry
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1894 20th Century Poetry

Dear Ellen Lawrence

One poetic revision of the father-daughter relationship in KING LEAR I
know of is Adrienne Rich's poem "After Dark", to be found in the
collection NECESSITIES OF LIFE (1966). Rich uses the metaphor of the
prison to describe the speaker's relationship to her father. The desired
escape from the paternal fetters is expressed in her line: "Now let's
away FROM prison" (cp. Sh's LEAR: away TO prison).

I'm sorry for not being able to send you the whole text right now.

Can you let me/us know the name of the painter in exchange?

Thanks,
Manuela Rossini

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Syd Kasten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 5 Nov 1999 14:01:29 +0200 (IST)
Subject: 10.1894 20th Century Poetry
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1894 20th Century Poetry

I don't  remember Allen Ginsberg acknowledging debt to or offering
homage to Shakespeare.  (which doesn't mean that he didn't)

Ginsberg, Allen (1926-1997), American poet, regarded as the spokesman
for the Beat Generation of the 1950s. Born in Newark, New Jersey,
Ginsberg was educated at Columbia University. During his time in New
York City he met Jack Kerouac and William S. Burroughs, who would later
become integral members of the Beat movement. After graduating from
Columbia in 1948, Ginsberg worked at various jobs before moving to San
Francisco in the early 1950s. There he met American poets such as
Kenneth Rexroth, Gary Snyder, and Lawrence Ferlinghetti. Ferlinghetti's
bookstore, City Lights, published Ginsberg's first book, Howl (1956).
Howl was initially seized by the government under obscenity charges, but
the charges eventually were dropped, and the book is now recognized as
the first important poem of the Beat movement. An angry indictment of
America's false hopes and broken promises, Howl uses vivid images and
long, overflowing lines to illuminate Ginsberg's thoughts. Howl and
Ginsberg's subsequent poetry show the influence of English poet William
Blake (who Ginsberg claimed once spoke to him in a vision) and American
poets Walt Whitman and William Carlos Williams.  Ginsberg's poetry is
informal, discursive, and often repetitive. Its immediacy, honesty, and
explicit sexual subject matter frequently give it an improvised quality.

"Ginsberg, Allen," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c)
1993-1997
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Re: Productions of Much Ado

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1900  Friday, 5 November 1999.

[1]     From:   Al Cacicedo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 13:14:24 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1893 Re: Productions of Much Ado

[2]     From:   Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 13:55:04 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1896 RE: SHK 10.1883 Re: Productions of Much Ado

[3]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 19:43:28 -0000
        Subj:   RE: Productions of Much Ado

[4]     From:   Alan Dessen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 14:46:52 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1893 Re: Productions of Much Ado


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Al Cacicedo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 13:14:24 -0500
Subject: 10.1893 Re: Productions of Much Ado
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1893 Re: Productions of Much Ado

That's true enough--but as a tactic for wedded bliss it seems to me to
fall a tad short for Beatrice as for Hero.--Al Cacicedo

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 13:55:04 -0500
Subject: 10.1896 RE: SHK 10.1883 Re: Productions of Much Ado
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1896 RE: SHK 10.1883 Re: Productions of Much Ado

John Drakakis refers to the "simple fact" (the what? I hear the cries,
but down, wantons, down) of the appearance of the words "Innogen his
wife" in two early scenes of the Q and F1 texts of "Much Ado".  As some
will recall John and I a few years back rehearsed in laborious detail
various arguments about what those few inky marks on those old pages may
mean. It was a pretty thorough go-round. Interested parties may like to
consult the record in the SHAKSPER archives, to save John going through
it all again.

Tom

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 19:43:28 -0000
Subject:        RE: Productions of Much Ado

John Drakakis writes

>I'm a little surprised by Paul Swanson's comment that Innogen "may or
>may not be a character" in Much Ado.  I draw his attention to the simple
>fact that in Q1 (1600) her name appears twice in the head titles of two
>early scenes. She's there all right.  The question is: what is she doing
>there? and what does her presence in these scenes contribute to the
>meanings that we generate?

By this logic Edmund is there on the Dover cliff with Gloucester,
because the Pied Bull quarto of King Lear tells us so. If you insist on
Innogen's presence you have to accept Edmund's presence, and so the
questions are: what is he doing there? and what does his presence in
this scene contribute to the meanings that we generate?

Gabriel Egan

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Alan Dessen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 14:46:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 10.1893 Re: Productions of Much Ado
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1893 Re: Productions of Much Ado

>In defense of Benedick, the tactic of shutting off inconvenient
>conversation with a kiss was earlier suggested by Beatrice, to Hero, in
>connection with Claudio.
>
>Dana (Shilling)

In defense of Benedick, the line in question ("Peace, I will stop your
mouth") is Leonato's in both Quarto and Folio.  Giving the line to
Benedick started with Theobald in the early 18th century and, with few
exceptions, has been part of the editorial tradition ever since.

Alan Dessen

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.