2000

Re: Bottom's Hay

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0666  Monday, 3 April 2000.

[1]     From:   Tom Reedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 31 Mar 2000 11:19:30 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0639 Bottom's Hay

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 31 Mar 2000 18:17:54 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0639 Bottom's Hay

[3]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 31 Mar 2000 13:31:48 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0639 Bottom's Hay


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Reedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 31 Mar 2000 11:19:30 -0600
Subject: 11.0639 Bottom's Hay
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0639 Bottom's Hay

Werner Broennimann <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> writes:

> In contrast to Marlowe or Jonson, Shakespeare does not mention tobacco.

This is not true.  In 1.3 of 1H4 Hotspur complains of a snuff-taking
messenger:

He was perfumed like a milliner;
And 'twixt his finger and his thumb he held
A pouncet-box, which ever and anon
He gave his nose and took't away again;
Who therewith angry, when it next came there,
Took it in snuff; and still he smiled and talk'd.

Tom Reedy

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 31 Mar 2000 18:17:54 +0100
Subject: 11.0639 Bottom's Hay
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0639 Bottom's Hay

I have no answer to Werner Broennimann's charge that my "bumming a fag"
anecdote is homophobic, because I don't understand it. The "why" as well
as the "what" of the charge might help my understanding. If it's the
circulation of the offensive term "fag" then how are we to treat the
critical term "queer theory"-the thing the students in question were
studying-which is (pace Jean Peterson) at least as problematic as
"nigger" and "bitch"? Rather than assume, as Peterson does, that
reappropriation of offensive terms is an unalloyed good, the first
lesson was a discussion of the merits and demerits of this phenomenon as
an act of political resistance.

As for the "goof" that "Shakespeare does not mention tobacco" I can only
plead that I didn't suggest Shakespeare does. (But I'm glad to have been
prompted to check the veracity of Broennimann's assertion.)

Gabriel Egan

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 31 Mar 2000 13:31:48 -0500
Subject: 11.0639 Bottom's Hay
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0639 Bottom's Hay

Wasn't a "bottom" some sort of spool used in weaving?  The name would
then refer to Nick's trade, like "Snug the Joiner" and "Starveling the
tailor." (Tailors were proverbially impoverished)

Re: Wooden O

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0665  Monday, 3 April 2000.

From:           Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 31 Mar 2000 13:26:28 +0000
Subject: 11.0561 Re: Wooden O
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0561 Re: Wooden O

The Unnecessary Zed ;  The Unnecessary Zero

Kent's words in King Lear, 2.2.65 to Oswald, "Thou whoreson zed! Thou
unnecessary letter!" has been related in the discussion with the
prologue in "Henry V" because of the O or naught  "within this wooden O
the very casques /  That did affright the air at Agincourt" There is a
connection, if a fool can be a philosopher and his skull, like Yorick's,
is remembered to hold a brain with abilities just  like the  wooden,
playhouse does.  Yes, and both require life. Thus the perimeter, the O,
of the Globe theater is compared to the skull of a man. But those
connotations seem to lead away from the mood of Kent and not toward it
-except as we will see, by the ciphering  tendency that is in the
prologue.  For Kent is addressing a man as if with an unnecessary
appendage upon his shoulders.  How is it related to a Zed, the last
letter of the alphabet?  It would be hard to get along without the
letter:  no Zider Zee, no Wizard of Oz, no zounds!   However the zed  is
much less significant  when the alphabet is inscribed as a
'Christ-cross-row' as were found in old primers and mentioned in"Richard
III ( i 1) "heakens after prophesies and dreams;/And from the cross-row
plucks the letter G." In position the Zed is just the tip of the graphic
construction. Its erasure would not displace the rest. Further, if the
sound be translated into the Hebrew letter 'zien', Kent's  rhetoric is
made even stronger  Because a  zien is also a man's penis, the tip of
the human construction and Kent is saying that an emasculated person
does not  require it.

The Hebrew is not arbitrary in connection to the fool. I have sometimes
described how the Tarot enigmas appear in the plays and particularly in
"Romeo and Juliet" I will describe that here.  The word 'tarot' means
order and pertaining to order are the Hebrew letters that the various
arcana  are assigned -  except for the 'fool' who is exceptional in that
he has no letter, just a naught. Thus a fool may be an 'unnecessary
letter' - to the Hebrew alphabet, where all else have their place.

Bill Butler , ("Dictionary of The Tarot",  Shocken,  1975) p.109
observes the pairing of  arcanae and in particular the Fool and the
Minstrel. In recent times there has been some confusion between the
two,  perhaps because of Jung's choice of the term trickster, which more
suitably has been used as an alternative word for  'minstrel' ,
'juggler', and 'magician', regarding the first (aleph) arcana.  But he
has said that a 'trickster' is a kind of fool  'the archetype of the
unconscious'  (Paul Radin).  Maybe to a puzzled psychoanalyst it is a
trickster.

However the difference is very clear. Although both are performers and
marginal in society, the Minstrel  is the manipulator and the Fool -
manipulated: straight man and dope, Costello and Abbot.  No better
example is there of minstrel-trickster  then  Iago who attempts to turn
everyone near him into a fool. Without a compliment he is an ee ego
(Heb. negation and an island)  lacking the wholesomeness of Cassio . "He
has a daily beauty in his life/ that makes me ugly"

In "Hamlet"( III,ii)  this is  what happens when  fools are found out
while trying to play as minstrels:

     Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of
     me! You would play upon me; you would seem to know
     my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my
     mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to
     the top of my compass: and there is much music,
     excellent voice, in this little organ; yet cannot
     you make it speak. 'Sblood, do you think I am
     easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what
     instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you
     cannot play upon me.

It is they who are played upon by Claudius.and indeed Hamlet too,
unavoidably.

Who is the Fool and who the Minstrel in "Romeo and Juliet" ?  The Tarot
are laid out inexorably, because the young lovers must rely upon ' the
Wheel of Fortune' rather than  the desired protection of their
families.  It is a jurisdiction that is very swift and remorseless. We
see the Stars and Moon when  good things happen;  the Sun's dominion
when there is catastrophe. We see the World,  (Tybolt's name is the
Hebrew 'Tevel' v=b, meaning world). We see the Lovers, a Hermit, and
Death. These are all enigmas of the Tarot cards. There are the suits of
Swords, of  Cups, Scepters and Wheels.  While the action is determined
by the Wheel of Fortune the families are allocated suits. Surely the
golden suit of Wheels are the Capulets. There is the significance  of
Rome and Jerusalem - Romeo and Juliet, which would make a Circle an
appropriate historical symbol for the one and  Swords for the other.
Scepters belong to the sovereign; leaving Cups the symbol of sacrifice
for the ill-fated couple.

So then who is the Fool? Many take a turn. Romeo recognizably, at the
outset, when he is in love with love. Capulet when he is moved from
tolerance to tyranny; the Friar; the nurse who condescends to change
from doting Fool to conspirator, from mother to madam. Even the
permissive Duke has been Foolish. Who is the Minstrel? Is it the rash
Tyboldt - the World? Mercutio?  His name, one may read, leads straight
to that arcana. But the best are ineffectual under Fortunes Wheel.  Even
the Empress, Juliet must succumb and be a naught.

Florence Amit

Shakespeare Virtual Cards

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0663  Monday, 3 April 2000.

From:           Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 31 Mar 2000 11:07:33 -0500
Subject:        Shakespeare Virtual Cards

We are currently beta-testing our new free Shakespeare postcard page.
If anyone is interested in taking a look and giving it a try, it can be
found at the hidden URL

www.bardcentral.com/card.html

Any suggestions, errors or praise will be gratefully received, even if
it does take me a while to sort things out.

Tanya
Poor Yorick

Re: Pictures/Poetry

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0664  Monday, 3 April 2000.

From:           Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 31 Mar 2000 11:56:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 11.0645 Re: Pictures/Poetry
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0645 Re: Pictures/Poetry

In a recent note I saw a request for a list of works on the
picturae/poesis dichotomy. Here's a list of works that appeared some
time back on the Renais-L listserve. (I regret very much not being able
to recall who provided the list; I simply saved it to guide my own
reading.  Since it's not my list, I hope those who are more
knowledgeable will supplement it with their expertise.)

Words and Pictures Bibliography

Norman Bryson, "Intertextuality and Visual Poetics," _Style_ (1988)

Henryk Markiewicz, "Ut Pictura Poesis: A History of the Topos and the
Problem," _NLH_ (1989)

Erica Harth, _Ideology and Culture in 17th C France_.

Ann Hurley, "Ut Pictura Poesis: Vermeer's Challenge to Some Renaissance
Literary Assumptions," _Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism_ (1989)

Mary Ann Caws, _The Art of Interference: Stressed Readings in Verbal and
Visual Arts_.

John Hollander has a new book on ekphrasis.  I think the title is _The
Gazer's Spirit_: Poems Speaking to Silent Works of Art_ (Chicago, 1995).

You might want to check Jonson's _Eupheme_, a sequence that includes two
poems related to visual vs. verbal art: "The Picture of the Body" and
"The Mind."

A classic article on the conflict between verbal and visual
representation is D.J. Gordon, "Poet and Architect: The Intellectual
Setting of the Quarrel between Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones," _JWCI_
(1949).

Norman K. Farmer, Jr., _Poets and the Visual Arts in Renaissance
England_, is useful in itself and for its bibliography.

Renselaer Lee, _"Ut pictura poesis": The Humanistic Theory of Painting_.
Norton, 1967.

Work on emblems - eg Erwin Panofsky, Fritz Saxl

Peter Daly, _The English Emblem Tradition_.

Roy Strong, _The Elizabethan Icon_.

EH Gombrich, _Art and Illusion_.

Leonard Barkan,  "Making Pictures Speak: Renaissance Art, Elizabethan
Literature, Modern Scholarship." _Renaissance Quarterly_ Summer 1995.

SK Heniger, _The Subtext of Forms in the English Renaissance: Proportion
Poetical_.

Rosalie Colie, _My Ecchoing Song_. (on Marvell)

Jean Hagstrum, _The Sister Arts_.

Wendy Steiner, _The Colours of Rhetoric_

Ernest Gilman, _Down Went Dagon: Iconoclasm and Poetry in the English
Reformation_.

Michael O'Connell, "The Idolatrous Eye . . ." _ELH_ 52.

Entries in the Spenser Encyclopaedia.

KJ Holtgen. _Word and Visual Imagination: Studies in the Interaction of
English Literature and the Visual Arts_.  Nurnberg: Univ.-Bibliothek
Erlangen, 1988.

Ruth Samson Luborsky.  "The Illustrations to _The Shepheardes Calender_.
in Patrick Cullen and Thomas P. Roche, Jr., eds. _Spenser Studies: A
Renaissance Poetry Annual_ 2. PA: Pittsburgh UP,  1981: 3-53.

Margery Corbett and Ronald Lightbown. _The Comely Frontispiece: the
Emblematic Title-Page in England, 1550-1660_. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1979.

AM Hind.  _Engraving in England in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries_ 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1952.

Michael Bath. _Speaking Pictures: English Emblem Books and Renanssance
Culture_. Longman: London and New York, 1994.

Michael Leslie. "Edmund Spenser: Art and _The Faerie Queene_."
_Proceedings of the British Academy_ 76 (1990).

Fran Teague <http://www.arches.uga.edu/~fteague>

Re: The Topic

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0662  Monday, 3 April 2000.

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 31 Mar 2000 10:59:18 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0624 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 31 Mar 2000 18:22:48 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0637 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name

[3]     From:   Susan Neill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 31 Mar 2000 16:32:40 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0637 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name

[4]     From:   Simon Malloch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 01 Apr 2000 16:06:53 +0800
        Subj:   The Rise and Rise of Richard Burt

[5]     From:   Simon Malloch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sat, 01 Apr 2000 16:07:07 +0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0608 The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name

[6]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 2 Apr 2000 23:01:13 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0624 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name

[7]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 2 Apr 2000 23:01:13 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0624 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name

[8]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 2 Apr 2000 23:01:13 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0624 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 31 Mar 2000 10:59:18 -0500
Subject: 11.0624 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0624 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name

Gabriel Egan wrote

> Giulio Romano's I modi erotic drawings (16 of them) were widely
> disseminated through Europe as engravings and depicted a variety of
> positions of sexual intercourse; Shakespeare probably saw them in this
> form, and would certainly at least have heard of them and their content.
> Aretino, Romano's friend, claimed to have been inspired by the erotic
> pictures to write 16 sonnets. There are references to Aretino in
> Jonson's Volpone (1605-6) and The Alchemist (1610) as well as in Thomas
> Nashe's 1594 novel The Unfortunate Traveller.

Of course, there is a reference to Romano himself in WT,V.ii.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 31 Mar 2000 18:22:48 +0100
Subject: 11.0637 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0637 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name

David Lindley has already noted that even the most liberal of us don't
really believe in complete freedom of speech. Melissa Cook seems to hold
up the absolutist position:

> Allowing messages which cite porn or any other controversial
> material on the list does not mean that the list, its members, or
> its editor support pornography.  It simply means that the list
> supports the free speech of the person making the posting.
> Nothing more.

Surprisingly, no one took the bait of my offering racism as a topic upon
which liberals run hard up against their own prejudices. That is to say,
defenders of free speech often get uncomfortable when asked to defend
the right of racists to spread their filth. Actually, this issue was
scarcely address by respondents, most of whom asserted-as Melissa Cook
does-that they support free speech without addressing the boundary
cases. Perhaps racism was not a clear enough example, so might I offer
"holocaust denial" as a better test? I'd be surprised if SHAKSPERians
defended a listmember's right to assert that the Nazis didn't murder
millions of Jews, communists, gypsies, and others.

The liberal defence of free speech as an absolute (based on a false
distinction between saying and doing) betrays a failure to grasp
post-Saussurian linguistics' principle that language is not an innocent
window on the world; it is itself performative.

Gabriel Egan

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Susan Neill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 31 Mar 2000 16:32:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 11.0637 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0637 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name

Melissa wrote:

<<Discussion of whether or not pornography is
exploitation is very interesting and
relevant but doesn't have much to do with the list
itself.>>

Personally, this discussion has made me think more about how I define
"pornography" than whether or not "porn." is exploitation. I think I
believe that only sexual "material" - movies, live shows, magazines,
whatever - that DOES exploit is pornographic. I've seen only one "hard
core" (genetalia obviously visible and the sex was not simulated) movie
(by mistake, believe it or not....really). I didn't watch the whole
thing; what I did watch was boring as hell but I'm not sure it was
pornographic. There was no violence. No one was forcefully causing
someone else physical pain or humiliation for his/her own sexual
gratification.  If there had been violence, I would have turned it off
immediately (what happens to the "actors," etc.  working in the
"porn"/adult entertainment industry is a different topic, I think).

Anyway, I don't think that the many sexual references, etc. in WS's
writings can be classified as pornography.  "Erotica" is a better
descriptor for these references in some plays and "bawdiness" for
others. It seems to me that WS had a healthy attitude about sex and the
human body and knew that these references got the laughs and pissed off
the "puritans."

Susan Neill

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Simon Malloch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 01 Apr 2000 16:06:53 +0800
Subject:        The Rise and Rise of Richard Burt

Recent discussion has focused on the presence or promotion of
pornography on this list.  Frankly,  the primary issue is not the
'promotion' of porn,  but rather the 'promotion' of Richard Burt.

Richard Burt is a vigorous self-promoter:  a web-site,  notices about
his book and its sales,  about book reviews,  about conference and
personal appearances (even of his wife!),  naming dropping of academic
supporters,  and,  of course,  these postings about Shakespeare and
porn.  These latter are,  to my mind,  less about porn and more about
Richard Burt promoting himself and his own brand of Shakespearean
cultural criticism.

If one objects to the man's self-advertisement, then that is reason
enough to press the delete key.

Simon Malloch.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Simon Malloch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sat, 01 Apr 2000 16:07:07 +0800
Subject: 11.0608 The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0608 The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name

Professor Jean Peterson writes:

> I have found that an excellent teaching method is to occasionally shut
> my mouth and listen, without judgment or condescension, to what my
> students have to say.  If women approximately half my age tell me they
> find it empowering to call each other "bitch," or that they enjoy
> pornography, who am I to tell them they must be misguided or mistaken?
>

If your statement read "If men approximately...", would you still sit
back, listen, and respect?

At any rate,  I find it fascinating that your relativism stops at the
undergraduate classroom door.  Because, indeed, who are you to tell
Gabriel Egan that his is misguided or mistaken?

Simon Malloch.

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judith Matthews Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 2 Apr 2000 20:18:54 -0500
Subject: 11.0608 The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0608 The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name

Marilyn Bonomi writes:

<The sexual contents and contexts of Shakespeare's work <is a most
<appropriate subject for this list; in fact, we've debated <Sonnet 20
here
<as I recall.  (Yes, I believe it is distinctly a homoerotic <and
perhaps
<homosexual poem.  Is it Shakespeare or a constructed <voice who utters
<those sentiments?    Now THERE is a topic worthy of <SHAKSPER debate!)

If we have a topic of debate here, I would like someone to convince me
that Sonnet 20 is "a distinctly homoerotic and perhaps homosexual poem."
I have been on and off this list and have never seen it debated-perhaps
I should search the archives.  However, I cannot believe that the
speaker of this poem is a "constructed voice" of Shakespeare the
homosexual:  in short (not a slur for the penis), I protest that Sonnet
20 is homosexual in intent:  in fact,  it seems to me to say the
opposite in plain English:

        And by addition me of thee defeated,
        By adding one thing to my purpose nothing:
                        But since she pricked thee out for
                                    women's pleasure,
                        Mine be thy love, and thy love's use their
                                     treasure.
                                       ( lines 11-14)

I seems to me that Southampton here is the homosexual, not Shakespeare,
especially since he had been advocating marriage for this young man in
the earlier sonnets.

I realize that this argument is old and probably demolished to most
current readers' satisfaction; however, I retaliate with the intended ad
hominem slur that to the sexual mind, everything is sexual, (I can give
Biblical references for this one).  Moreover, why did W. H. Auden
equivocate on such an important matter (see the NYR March 23)?
Moreover, I think the whole context of Shakespeare's entire work negates
this possibility.

Can you make Cymbeline or Pericles into a homosexual advance on the
audience?  What about Troilus and Cressida?

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judith Matthews Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 2 Apr 2000 22:44:50 -0500
Subject: 11.0624 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0624 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name

Mike Jensen writes:

<We can
<make guesses, as I said, but they are only <guesses.  They will come to
<no satisfying conclusion, and can not since this <debate was not
current
<for him.

I guess we can then decide that all critical effort in Shakespeare
studies is meaningless since the author is dead and that any stab anyone
makes at interpreting Shakespeare is as good as any other.

For some reason-maybe it is age and irritability-I cannot accept your
muddleheadness on this issue.  I think Shakespeare can be known fairly
and convincingly; good and talented minds have been working on this
problem for a long time with fruitful results.  Personally, I hate
seeing a man of character and literary ability maligned just because
certain of us are too weak-willed and lazy to defend him.

Best,
Judy Craig

[8]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judith Matthews Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 2 Apr 2000 23:01:13 -0500
Subject: 11.0624 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0624 Re: The Topic that Will Not Speak Its Name

Gabriel Egan writes:

<Giulio Romano's I modi erotic drawings (16 of <them) were widely
<disseminated through Europe as engravings and <depicted a variety of
<positions of sexual intercourse; Shakespeare <probably saw them in this
<form, and would certainly at least have heard of <them and their
content.

I thought it was common knowledge that these drawings were the subtext
of the statue of Hermione coming to life in The Winter's Tale.

Judy Craig

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.