1999

How to Contact Them?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1293  Thursday, 22 July 1999.

From:           Christine Tsai <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 18 Jul 1999 09:01:37 +0800
Subject:        How to Contact Them?

I need the e-mail addresses of researchers (writers) on Queen Elizabeth
I, such as Julia Walker, Helen Hackett, or Susan Frye, or even Louis A.
Montrose.  Does anybody know how to contact them or their publishers'?

Christine Tsai

Re: Horatio

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1292  Thursday, 22 July 1999.

From:           Lucia Anna Setari <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Jul 1999 12:36:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 10.1282 Re: Horatio
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1282 Re: Horatio

 Clifford Stetner wrote:

<<For me, Horatio is Kyd whom Shakespeare has brought on stage as
personal tribute and as symbol of the nobler aspirations of Elizabethan
tragedy.>>

This is very interesting and suggestive.

I confess I  am not yet convinced enough about Horatio as a name coming
from "ratio". It is true that Horatio is thought by Hamlet as a scholar
of philosophy and  a kind of  Stoic, but his role in the play seems
rather that of a friend, who, rather than showing a more clear reasoning
than Hamlet's , listens to and sympathizes with him. Also from a
dramaturgical point, besides being, as it is been said already, the one
who certifies the ghost is not just a Hamlet's mind's creation, allows
Hamlet to open his heart and tell his purposes to a second person and
not just to himself by monologuing.

But I have a question.

I read once  that someone mantained that, from a metatheatral point,
Horatio, as the one who listens to Hamlet, shares his suspects, his
purposes and his feelings,  may represent the audience. He gives the
audience a pattern of  how to listen to Hamlet.

This opinion was mentioned by another scholar or writer, whose different
opinion was that Horatio represents rather  the Author's shade.

To him Hamlet in fact entrusts his story to be told - and the play, in a
way, may be seen as the result of both what Horatio remembers as a
witness and what he invents or perhaps has been told by other witnesses.
This scholar (or writer) supported his opinion also with saying that
Shakespeare had been actually a sort of witness as a spectator of the
previous play on Hamlet (or just knowing it), so that his work in
building his new "Hamlet" was like Horatio's supposed one in rescuing
Hamlet's story.

I do not remember this writer's name.  I wonder if anyone on this list
can help me in finding it.

This came to my mind reading Clifford Stetner's  question : <<Perhaps
his role has more to do with "oratio" than with "ratio?">>

I thought of the "oratio obliqua" as well as of the classic conception
of history as "opus oratorium" : Horatio may be seen as  the one who
takes the task of reporting Hamlet's words and deeds (if we may say so)
in a high style .

Lucia Anna S.

Re: Shakespeare vs. Shakespeare...

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1290  Thursday, 22 July 1999.

From:           Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 18 Jul 1999 16:18:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 10.1277 Re: Shakespeare vs. Shakespeare...
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1277 Re: Shakespeare vs. Shakespeare...

Clifford, your point about the metadramatic qualities to T of S is
interesting, but still not sure if it makes it a better play than MND.
Of course, I just saw the awful Central Park version of it.  But did you
ever read I think Karen Newman's essay about the "Shakespe arean editor
as shrew tamer" (in ELR 1992 Spring i think) which makes a good case for
the "ur-Shrew" which keeps the Sly framing device in the end of the play
as well (which was practically the only good "innovation" the Central
Park production added, but wasn't enough to redeem it). I am also
curious if you could elaborate on how this metadramtic quality makes it
like Baudelaire....

      Chris

Re: Shakespeare Acting Books

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1291  Thursday, 22 July 1999.

From:           Gavin Witt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Jul 1999 14:42:49 CDT
Subject:        Shakespeare Acting Books

Of course the all-time best in my opinion is John Barton's PLAYING
SHAKESPEARE, now sadly out of print but still available around.
Transcripts of his workshops with RSC actors and the clearest, most
astute direct guide to balancing text-based analytical approach with
necessities of physical enactment.  Does not delve much into oblique,
abstract, conceptual approaches.

For these, though it's not directly an "acting" book, I recommend the
recent NEW SITES FOR SHAKESPEARE (on Shakespeare encountering Asian and
Near Eastern theater).

Hope these help.

Gavin Witt
Northlight Theater/University of Chicago
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Unwitnessed Events

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1289  Thursday, 22 July 1999.

[1]     From:   Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Jul 1999 13:12:21 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1284 Re: Unwitnessed Events

[2]     From:   Gerda Grice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Jul 1999 22:34:56 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1284 Re: Unwitnessed Events

[3]     From:   Michael Ullyot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 14 Jul 1999 10:33:58 +0100
        Subj:   Descriptions in The Winter's Tale

[4]     From:   John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 20 Jul 1999 13:40:36 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 10.1276 Re: Unwitnessed Events

[5]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 20 Jul 1999 11:10:32 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1284 Re: Unwitnessed Events


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Jul 1999 13:12:21 +0000
Subject: 10.1284 Re: Unwitnessed Events
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1284 Re: Unwitnessed Events

Michael Yawney writes,

>I am surprised that in the discussion of The Winter's Tale no one has
>mentioned the possibility that Hermione and Perdita were played by the
>same actor, . . . This doubling is often seen in production. Of course
>this necessitates either cutting Hermione's lines to Perdita or using a
>double (perhaps veiled) to play the silent Perdita. . .
>If this was Shakespeare's intent, it would also explain why Perdita
>never speaks in the final scene-an oddity only matched by Isabella's
>silence in response to the Duke.

But Perdita speaks earlier in the scene, more than once.  If the scene
is played as written, the same actor can't play both parts, unless some
kind of switch is made mid-scene.  I would think such a switch would be
awkward, unnecessary, and not worth the trouble.

I've heard of the parts being doubled, but I'm not sure whether I've
seen it done.  I saw a production in London 2 1/2 years ago with all the
parts played by 5 actors.  Perdita may have been doubled with either
Paulina or Hermione (Paulina, I think)--another move that required heavy
cutting or changing of lines in the final scene.  If I'm remembering
correctly, the last scene was rewritten to have Perdita in on the secret
and be the one who presents the statue.  (So there's no surprise for
her-and perhaps no mother's blessing.) It was a good production, but I
prefer the last scene as Shakespeare wrote it.

Bruce Young

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gerda Grice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Jul 1999 22:34:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 10.1284 Re: Unwitnessed Events
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1284 Re: Unwitnessed Events

The scene of Hermione's "resurrection" in The Winter's Tale is
breathtakingly magical and touching in the theatre, even in indifferent
productions.  Why would Shakespeare have wanted to dilute its effect by
making it compete with a Leontes-Perdita recognition scene?

Gerda Grice,
Ryerson Polytechnic University
Toronto, Canada

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Ullyot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 14 Jul 1999 10:33:58 +0100
Subject:        Descriptions in The Winter's Tale

Michael Yawney suggests that Perdita and Hermione could be doubled
characters, but it's the final scene that creates a few problems with
this theory. Are we really to believe that any stage company (Jacobean
or otherwise) would go to the trouble to have a veiled Perdita? Yes, the
implications of one actor representing the reconciliations of both
mother and child with Leontes are interesting, but then this scene is
never staged, so the visual impact and entire point would be, well,
somewhat lacking.

The theory is an interesting one but I would certainly need to see some
evidence of it in contemporary practice before I would be inclined to
believe that Shakespeare wrote 5.2 with this possibility in mind. It
seems more likely that he was, at this stage in his career, suspicious
of the power of descriptions to capture a complete event, and looking
for an opportunity to prepare us for Hermoine's reanimation by having
the Third Gentleman say things like:

I have never heard of such another encounter, which lames report to
follow it, and undoes description to do it. (5.2.57)

Conversely, when Hermine descends from the pedestal, Paulina affirms the
ability of this staged representation to overcome any suspicions we
might have were it merely reported:

                That she is living,
Were it but told you, should be hooted at
Like an old tale: (5.3.115)

I should add that this theory borrows from Anne Barton's essay "Enter
Mariners Wet: Realism in Shakespeare's Late Plays."

If Michael Yawney does have more evidence of this doubling-practice, it
would be interesting to see. But as speculation, it is an unconvincing
reason for 5.2 being described rather than seen.

Michael Ullyot
Clare College
Cambridge

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 20 Jul 1999 13:40:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Unwitnessed Events
Comment:        SHK 10.1276 Re: Unwitnessed Events

Clifford Stetner wrote:

>My reading of the bear (for reasons too numerous to enumerate here
>(again: paper at website)) is that he is a representative of State
>terror.

What's your guess as to what the bear was in Shakespeare's day?  There
were obviously quite a few bears around, what with bear-baiting arenas
near his theatre, but wouldn't it be difficult, if not impossible, to
get a bear to act on split-second cue, not to mention the danger of
dealing with a live, truculent bear?  Is it not more likely that, even
as today, the bear was a guy in a bear suit?

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 20 Jul 1999 11:10:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 10.1284 Re: Unwitnessed Events
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1284 Re: Unwitnessed Events

Ching-Hsi Perng finds Benvolio's report of the fatal fighting in Rom 3.1
"particularly distorted" because "[h]e puts the blame on Tybalt when the
audience has witnessed that it was Mercutio who started it all.
Benvolio's motivation for this perjury is clear, of course.  He said at
the end of the speech: 'This is the truth, or let Benvolio die'
(3.1.174:  Bevington edition).  And, sure enough, Shakespeare executed
him right then and there: Benvolio is not to be heard any more in the
play-not even in the final scene when almost everybody who is yet alive
is present.  A piece of poetic justice indeed."

Benvolio's account is hardly "perjury"-even if he were under oath, which
he is not.  (We Americans are very sensitive to the legal niceties of
this term these days.)  Mercutio has certainly challenged Tybalt, twice
(Arden 3.1.39-40, 74-81), on no more material ground than that Tybalt's
style offends him.  On both occasions Tybalt immediately accepts the
challenge, without hesitation or demur./  But Mercutio's line
immediately preceding the fight itself, "Come sir, your passado" (84),
strongly implies that Tybalt literally initiates the combat by making
the first thrust.  The remainder of Benvolio's narrative is accurate
(though calling the fatal thrust under Romeo's arme "envious" [170] is
probably objectionable).

In any case, we need, I think, to remember that the whole play is a kind
of trial, with the audience as witness, judge, and jury.  Benvolio the
character and the audience as witnesses have seen Tybalt as instigator
of violence throughout, beginning with his violent rejection of
Benvolio's peace overtures in the first combat (1.1.63-69), continuing
through his readiness to attack Romeo at the Capulet ball ("This by his
voice should be a Montague. / Fetch me my rapier, boy" [1.5.53-54]}, and
climaxing with his return to the stage after Mercutio's death, evidently
to carry out his deflected intention of finding and killing Romeo
(3.1.123-33).  In that context, when the Prince asks, "Benvolio, who
began this bloody fray," and Benvolio replies, "Tybalt," the answer is
not unreasonable.

As for Benvolio's disappearance from the text, it makes more sense to
suppose that one actor was doubling Benvolio and Paris, though
Benvolio's absence from the final scene when the structure of the
earlier scenes of violence would lead us to expect him to be there has
the effect of leaving Verona peopled almost entirely by the old-except
for Paris' page (still a child, presumably) no young men or women to
continue the life of the city.

Judiciously,
Dave Evett

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.