Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: August ::
Re: Cymbeline at Shakespeare Santa Cruz
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1518  Wednesday, 16 August 2000.

[1]     From:   Geralyn Horton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Aug 2000 12:32:43 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1507 Re: Cymbeline at Shakespeare Santa Cruz

[2]     From:   Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Aug 2000 14:01:45 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1507 Re: Cymbeline at Shakespeare Santa Cruz


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Geralyn Horton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Aug 2000 12:32:43 -0400
Subject: 11.1507 Re: Cymbeline at Shakespeare Santa Cruz
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1507 Re: Cymbeline at Shakespeare Santa Cruz

>the play's language, far from being sharp and polished is often notoriously
>contorted and impenetrable. E.g.

If you hadn't obliged with examples, I might have nodded "of course"--
impenetrables.  But your examples aren't even difficult.  The first--
lust turned to disgust-- is one an actor should be able to grasp and
convey in a cold reading.

>Sluttery, to such neat excellence opposed,
>Should make desire vomit emptiness,
>Not so allured to feed.
>(1. 6. 44-46)

the 2nd yields easily to a little re-arrangement;

     forthwith they fly (like) Chickens
the way which they stooped (like) eagles:
(fly like) slaves, The strides they (when) victors made;
and now our cowards,
Like fragments in hard voyages, (jetsam) became
The life o' the' need.
(5. 3. 39-45)

The off stage action described is astonishing-- 3 routing 1000's--
perhaps even "imbecilic". But the description is at least as clear as
that of the bloody Soldier in Macbeth. No unfamiliar terms like
"gallowglasses" that require a footnote.

Geralyn Horton, Playwright
Newton, Mass. 02460
<http://www.tiac.net/users/ghorton>

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Aug 2000 14:01:45 EDT
Subject: 11.1507 Re: Cymbeline at Shakespeare Santa Cruz
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1507 Re: Cymbeline at Shakespeare Santa Cruz

Maybe I'm missing Terence Hawke's Wit but isn't the first chunk from
Cymbeline fairly straight forward:

Namely that: Harlotry, being empty (devoid of value) should allay not
provoke desire (making desire seem literally (w)retched).

> Sluttery, to such neat excellence opposed,
> Should make desire vomit emptiness,
> Not so allured to feed.
> (1. 6. 44-46)

Lord knows what the second quote means...(corrupt text? Shock! - even in
the sacred Shakespearean Folio...?) rout and confusion aided by
Shakespeare's apparently indiscriminate usage of 'old-fashioned'
non-personalised and undemonstrative 'which' clauses.

I saw Cymbeline recently at the Globe and thought it made far more sense
on stage than on the page (laughable Jove bits included) and also seems
far more comic (!) than the raw text might sometimes indicate.

Cheers,
Marcus
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.