2000

Is Rubinstein Reliable?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0827  Monday, 17 April 2000.

From:           Allan Blackman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 16 Apr 2000 19:40:13 -0400
Subject:        Is Rubinstein Reliable?

I have raised this issue before, but no one chose to respond to it.
Maybe it was overlooked because the focus of the thread was pornography
and censorship.  Or maybe I didn't put the issue clearly enough.  Or
possibly no one is interested.  Anyway, let me put it as explicitly as I
can:

1) In reading Shakespeare, I have been struck by the degree to which
annotators ignore sexual content.

2) If Rubinstein's work on sexual puns is accepted as reliable, then a
radical reinterpretation of Shakespeare is surely called for; yet I find
no mention of her work by the annotators and commentators.

3) My inclination is to attribute this neglect to prudishness and to an
unwillingness to admit that (often deviant) sexual & scatological
behavior was of prime concern to everyone's literary hero.

4) As an amateur, I look for guidance from the professionals who
comprise this list.  Is Rubinstein's work reliable?  If it isn't, should
I throw it in the trash? If it is reliable, why hasn't it gotten more
attention?  If it has gotten some attention, could someone suggest
critical reviews?

Allan Blackman

Re: Julius Caesar, Cesario, Ganymede

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0826  Monday, 17 April 2000.

From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 15 Apr 2000 16:50:16 -0400
Subject: 11.0778 Re: Julius Caesar, Cesario, Ganymede
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0778 Re: Julius Caesar, Cesario, Ganymede

I would like to ask those who have rejected Shakespeare's intentional
use of Hebrew connotations (and many similar hypotheses) on the basis of
evidence of his own linguistic prowess, why it would not be possible for
him to consult friends and acquaintances regarding esoteric knowledge.
Given all the evidence of collaboration among the players, why is it
still acceptable to assume that if it couldn't be in Shakespeare's head,
it couldn't be in the plays?

Clifford Stetner
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
http://phoenix.liu.edu/~cstetner/cds.htm

Kenneth Tynan's List

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0824  Monday, 17 April 2000.

From:           Tom Dale Keever <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 15 Apr 2000 21:04:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Kenneth Tynan's List

I've posted a list of plays that might be a useful tool for teachers,
dramaturgs and directors.

When Kenneth Tynan created for himself the role of "Literary Manager" at
the nascent Royal National Theatre one of his first contributions was a
list of plays from the world repertoire that Lawrence Olivier and the
other directors could consult when planning the new theatre's first
seasons.  This was, quite simply, all the plays Tynan could think of
that the new National might want to consider staging.  Working from a
photocopy of the original typescript I've transcribed "Tynan's List" and
posted it on my website.

The URL is: http://www.columbia.edu/~tdk3/tynan.html

Tynan's orginal was very quickly compiled, used abbreviated play titles,
and listed only the playwrights' last names.  I've expanded the titles
and names, added the playwrights' dates, included titles in the original
languages when I knew or could easily find them, and even added dates
for some of the plays.  I intend to consult the list whenever I am
planning another course in theater literature or history and will share
it with my students.  I suspect artistic directors might find the list
as useful as Olivier and his colleagues did.

I confess that my photocopy was not perfectly clear, especially near the
bottom of some of the legal-sized pages.  A few titles are missing
because I could not make them out.  If anyone out there has a clearer
copy of the list and can add some titles I missed I would be very
grateful.

The Tempest Cuban Style

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0825  Monday, 17 April 2000.

From:           John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sun, 16 Apr 2000 01:39:08 -0400
Subject:        The Tempest Cuban Style

Hail SHAKSPERians,

A Cuban version of The Tempest is now playing in Toronto.

"In this new version, which incorporates Afro-Cuban music, dance, mask,
physical theatre, a whole ship full of refugees from other Shakespeare
plays (Hamlet, Lady Macbeth, Shylock) are marooned along with Prospero
and Miranda. There they meet the Yoruban deities who inhabit the
island..."

For a complete review see "Messing with the bard" at www.eye.net

John Ramsay
Welland, Ontario

Re: How Shakespeare Invented History

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0823  Monday, 17 April 2000.

From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 15 Apr 2000 17:06:14 -0400
Subject: 11.0761 Re: How Shakespeare Invented History
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0761 Re: How Shakespeare Invented History

 Tony Burton says:

>So as I read the sequence, the direction of growth is from a group
>mentality to an individual mentality, which I think can be described
>loosely speaking, as progress.  Granted, the excesses of untutored
>individualism were, as they still are, grievous and noticeable,

David Riesman would attribute this "progress" to the printing press,
which turned reading into a universal activity.  It is in reading, he
argues, that we develop "inner-direction," and this process allowed the
culture to progress from the "tradition-direction" of pre-modernity.
Marx, on the other hand, would attribute it to the rise of primitive
accumulation (i.e.  incipient capitalism) whose growing influence
contributed to an individualistic world view for reasons that should be
obvious.  The Merchant speaks "alwey th'increas of his wynning."  Since
we have yet to witness the consequences of global climate change brought
about by the excesses of untutored individualism, I think we must
suspend judgment as to whether this change can in any way be considered
"progress."

>This is not to say that the barons themselves might not have agreed with
>the "advance to barbarism" description of the tetralogy sequences, but I
>wouldn't saddle Shakespeare with that point of view.  He seems usually
>to be one step ahead of his readers, not behind them

I think his views developed over the course of his career, and that the
principles he embraced during the early period of comedies, he came to
revile in the middle period of his tragedies.  I certainly don't think
he was unambiguously in favor of the progress to individualism.  The
Edmund/Goneril/Regan faction has been used as evidence of a certain
antipathy, while Lear's retainer problem is evidence of some sympathy
with the Barons.

Clifford

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.