2001

Re: LLW

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2394  Friday, 19 October 2001

[1]     From:   C. Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 10:20:17 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2387 Re: LLW

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 13:06:59 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2387 Re: LLW

[3]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 19:38:15 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2387 Re: LLW

[4]     From:   Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 17:31:30 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2366 Re: LLW


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           C. Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 10:20:17 EDT
Subject: 12.2387 Re: LLW
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2387 Re: LLW

> I am amused that Larry Weiss is unperturbed by the absence of LLW from F
> despite it being printed (presumably in quarto) and listed by Meres as
> being written by Shakespeare.

What evidence is there that it was printed?

One reason that it might not have been included in F is that they didn't
have a printed copy - a rather simple explanation.

Personally, I've thought that the end of "LLL" cried out for a sequel.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 13:06:59 -0400
Subject: 12.2387 Re: LLW
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2387 Re: LLW

John Briggs wrote:

>  Clearly, a man of Larry's equanimity
> would be useful in a crisis!

I've been told this before.

>   The "lost play" hypothesis
> demands that it was consciously omitted from F for reasons that we
> cannot even guess at.

I assume that John does not intend us to understand "consciously" as
"deliberately," as that would suggest some sinister purpose.  If
Heminges & Condell were not able to make a last minute deal for the T&C
MS, that too would have "consciously" been omitted.  It is possible that
some such problem also existed for the hypothesized LLW MS.  But it
isn't even necessary to assume that the play was known to the F1
publishers.  If it was a sequel to LLL, it would have dated from the
early 1590's, before the establishment of the company in which WS,
Heminges & Condell were all members, and if the play were not
particularly popular -- say, by continuing the Euphues parody of LLL,
which would not have been particularly accessible to any but the most
elite audience -- it could have been forgotten by 1623.  It is also
improbable that a great many copies of the quarto were printed; and it
is even possible that the quarto was not printed until after 1623.

But it isn't necessary to come up with any explanation for the absence
from F1, as that just can't prove that the play never existed.

> Actually, the simplest hypothesis (although not
> my favourite) would be to assume that Meres was mistaken, and that the
> play was not by Shakespeare, but a sequel or continuation written by
> another member of Shakespeare's company, or a rival company.

An odd mistake to make, and one which I do not believe Meres made
anywhere else.

If someone else wrote the sequel, it would also have been odd for WS to
suggest in LLL,V.i that there would be a continuation?

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 19:38:15 +0100
Subject: 12.2387 Re: LLW
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2387 Re: LLW

Cyberspace seems to have introduced an interesting twist in my post on
this topic.

What appeared as, "If this distinction is alloWednesday, Wyatt ..."
should, of course, have read: "If this distinction is allowed, Wyatt
..."

Robin Hamilton

[Editor's Note: No cyberspace demons here; the mistake was all my fault.
Over the years of editing SHAKSPER, I have developed a number of
shortcuts to assist me as I format the text for digests. I did not type
the "W" in "Wed," so "ed," was replaced by "Wednesday," and I missed the
mistake as I proceeded. -Hardy]

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 17:31:30 -0400
Subject: 12.2366 Re: LLW
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2366 Re: LLW

> Bob Grumman comments on my observation that
>
> > > The end of LLL contains strong suggestions that the story is to be
> > > continued and language reminiscent to me of modern broadcasters'
> > > exhortations to "stay tuned ... same time, same station," such as
> > > Berowne's "that's too long for a play." Shakespeare was in all other
> > > cases quite insistent on marrying off the main characters (consider
> > > M/M), it seems inherently improbable that he would end a play with
> > > none of the four main couples getting married, and, instead,
> > > assigning tasks to all four male characters that would be potentially
> > > amusing to see executed but which we are left only to imagine.
> >
> > The problem with that last is that I don't see how he could
> > make a whole play out of it.
>
> He made whole plays out of far less promising material.  How can you
> make a four and a half hour play out of a prince's desire to kill the
> king?

Any play's plot or theme can be over-simplified to show that one can
write a play about anything.  But, as a writer of comedies myself, I
just find it hard to think how Shakespeare would have done a romantic
comedy sequel for LLL.  It'd require the men to try to win the women,
but they're already won, really--and they are absent.  So Shakespeare
could have the men try to carry out the chores assigned to them, and I
suppose he could make that funny, but it'd be much different from his
normal kind of comedy--no boy girl stuff, for one thing.  I dunno, I
just think he milked his characters and situation in LLL as much as he
could.  And he couldn't just give them a new comedy like he gave
Falstaff, because they have to win the women a second time.

All this is just my intuition.  My real arguments are the ones about
Meres and H&C.  I'd add that I just read that LLL was performed after
1608 at the Blackfriars Theatre which suggests that it maintained its
popularity a long time--which makes it all the more unlikely, to me,
that a sequel to it would have disappeared entirely.

A thought (for fun): maybe there were two versions of LLL, one with
marriages at the end, one without, and Shakespeare's company finally
decided the one without was better, and junked the other.

> > > It seems to me that the very simple inference that WS wrote a sequel
> > > which is unfortunately lost to us.  This theory fits all the facts.
> >
> > Not quite.  You still have the problem of Meres's knowing of a play
> > written after Loves Labours Lost that Heminges and Condell don't.  So
> > far as we know, Heminges and Condell got all the plays known to have
> > been completely written by Shakespeare into the First Folio.  There's
> > also the problem of Meres's knowing of LLW but not of The Taming of the
> > The Shrew, which seems to me for many reasons to have to have been
> > written before Meres wrote his book.
>
> See my response to John Briggs' similar comment.  Also, Meres clearly
> did not attempt to catalogue all of WS's plays written prior to 1598,
> only the ones he particularly admired (as he said himself).  He selected
> four tragedies, four comedies and four histories (perhaps a coincidence,
> perhaps not).  The notion that T/S is LLW has been considered and
> rejected by far more serious scholars than I pretend to be.

I don't see that Meres clearly did not attempt to catalogue all of
Shakespeare's plays he knew of.  And I suspect there are serious
scholars who have not rejected the T/S is LLW possibility.

> > I don't understand why my argument would be circular.
>
> It's circular because it proceeds from the notion that since we don't
> have something it never existed.

Clever, but (1) I argue that we have it under a different name and (2)
that because H&C seem to have collected every known non-collaborative
play by Shakespeare, it follows that they collected LLW under a
different name and that since it seems Meres mentioned all the plays
known to have been written by the time of Meres's book except the Henry
VI set, which may have been a collaboration and/or not known to Meres
because it was anonymous and not done by Shakespeare's company (that it
wasn't, I don't know, but am guessing), it follows that his not
mentioning T/S by that name means he gave it another name.

I'd find your position here stronger if there were a quarto of a play
certainly by Shakespeare entirely, and given to him on its title-page
that Heminges and Condell ignored completely.

> >    As for wishful, what I
> > would wish was that there WAS a lost comedy by Shakespeare we could hope
> > would one day be discovered.
>
> It is wishful because it is human nature to want all the pieces of the
> puzzle.

Sure, but I was merely saying if I were arguing in accordance with my
wishes only, I would argue that it's a lost play.

> > Although if it was indeed lost, it is
> > unlikely it was very good.
>
> And the grapes are sour.  WS wrote a lot a stuff that wasn't up to his
> best, but we would be sorry not to have it.  I personally don't believe
> that there is any substantial evidence for Cardenio, but if it were
> shown to have existed, I would want to read it and I certainly would not
> assume that since it didn't survive it wouldn't be worth the effort.

I'd want to read LLW if it were found, too.  I merely think that it's
being ignored by Heminges and Condell, and mentioned by no one but Meres
(except at a sale), suggests it wasn't among Shakespeare's best.  But
maybe it was his best by far, so much so that it went over the heads of
his audience.  Although its apparently having been printed is
interesting.

I think the question is very interesting and definitely would not bet
more than four dollars on my own theory; but I still prefer it to all
others.  And I think that may be my last word on the topic unless
significant new data is introduced.

--Bob G.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: 2002 Stratford Festival Playbill

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2393  Friday, 19 October 2001

[1]     From:   Bradley Berens <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 07:20:03 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2381 Re: 2002 Stratford Festival Playbill

[2]     From:   Alan Somerset <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 17:00:04 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2381 Re: 2002 Stratford Festival Playbill


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bradley Berens <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 07:20:03 -0700
Subject: 12.2381 Re: 2002 Stratford Festival Playbill
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2381 Re: 2002 Stratford Festival Playbill

Hi everybody,

This is for Richard Nathan.  From their website, the dates for the
Stratford Ontario festival look not to have been set yet:

http://www.stratfordfestival.ca/2001/playbill/newplaybill.html

However, you might call the toll-free box office number and ask if they
know more than the site does.  The number is 1-800-567-1600.

Best,
Brad Berens

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Alan Somerset <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 17:00:04 -0400
Subject: 12.2381 Re: 2002 Stratford Festival Playbill
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2381 Re: 2002 Stratford Festival Playbill

Closing dates and the performance schedule have not yet been announced.
In general terms, however, plays running at the Tom Patterson Theatre
close in late September, while those at the Festival and Avon Theatres
generally run until late October or early November.  Nothing should have
closed before late September.

Alan Somerset
Department of English U. of Western Ontario

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Leah

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2391  Friday, 19 October 2001

[1]     From:   Jane Drake Brody <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 10:00:49 EDT
        Subj:   Leah

[2]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 11:51:09 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2372 Re: Merchant

[3]     From:   Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 21:36:39 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2372 The Ring Cycle


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jane Drake Brody <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 10:00:49 EDT
Subject:        Leah

> Leah, although it has been implied by several correspondents in this
> thread, need not necessarily be Jessica's mother - or for that matter,
> Shylock's wife.

If she is not his wife, we are implying that Shakespeare just dropped
the name into the text with no reason to do so.  Why on earth would he
discuss "Leah" if she were not Jessica's mother?  Or is there a missing
play concerning Leah, sister-in-law of Shylock.  It seems reasonable to
assume, that Shylock would value the ring given to him by his dead wife
before marriage above other treasures and that it would naturally go to
their daughter.  Its being given to a monkey mocks his marriage and his
love of his daughter.  If "Leah" is simply an old girl friend, the power
of the ring is lost.

Jane Drake Brody

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 11:51:09 -0400
Subject: 12.2372 Re: Merchant
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2372 Re: Merchant

Larry Weiss writes:

 >"I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor" conjures up
>a matrimonial connection.  Are we to assume that Leah was Shylock's
>maiden aunt?

Some auditors (e.g., many of my students) tell me that they think
Shylock is referring to a pre-marital lover. Leah is a former
girlfriend, the one he did NOT marry.  Leah left him, and now Jessica
leaves him.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 21:36:39 +0000
Subject: 12.2372 The Ring Cycle
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2372 The Ring Cycle

From: Larry Weiss

[...]"I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor" conjures up a matrimonial
connection.[...]

[...] Are we to assume that Leah was Shylock's maiden aunt?[...]

An eastern talisman pursues:

Which is?...and, no. Also, there is the question of sterility and
turquoise (Boswell, SQ 14, ) - although my personal belief is he was
confusing the issue with Superman and Kryptonite.

___Best wishes, Graham Hall

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Othello's Name

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2392  Friday, 19 October 2001

[1]     From:   C. Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 10:19:06 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name

[2]     From:   Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 10:20:22 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name

[3]     From:   Karen Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2371 Othello's Name

[4]     From:   Grant Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 12:08:39 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name

[5]     From:   David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 15:43:03 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name

[6]     From:   Wes Folkerth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 17:45:41 -0700
        Subj:   Othello's Name

[7]     From:   David Schalkwyk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Oct 2001 14:18:38 +0200
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           C. Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 10:19:06 EDT
Subject: 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name

>I think it was Stanley Cavell who pointed out that in the center of
> Othello is Ot-hell-o and Desdemona is Des-demon-a. As for the
> significance of this...??
>
> Ed Kranz


The name "Desdemona" comes from Shakespeare's source, Hecatommithi,
whereas "Othello" and "Iago" are his own invention.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 10:20:22 -0400
Subject: 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name
Comment:        RE: SHK 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name

One of the best theories I know of on Othello's name is from the late
Joel Fineman's book "The Subjectivity Effect in Western Literary
tradition." He conjectures that is from a Greek root "ethelo" or
"thelo," meaning wish, want, will, or desire--all central issues in the
play, mostly concentrated in the shifting meanings of the word "will."

Best,
Hugh Grady

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 12.2371 Othello's Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2371 Othello's Name

> In conversation once the subject of where Othello's
> name came from and
> what it might mean (if anything) arose.
>
> I have always harboured a pet theory that it is an
> Italilanized version
> of Ottoman/Othoman/Othman, and that the play might
> be capitalizing on
> contemporary interest in the Turkish empire
> following the publication of
> Knolles's Generall Historie of the Turkes... to the
> rising of the
> Othoman Familie (1603).

Was this conversation with Jonathan Bate by any chance?

This is very much a part of what Bate discussed in his keynote lecture
to the World Shakespeare Congress in Valencia this past April.  A
shortened version of the lecture appears in this week's *Times Literary
Supplement* ("Othello and the Other", 19 October 2001, pp. 14-15).  Bate
cites Knolles, and also "recently published books such as Lewis
Lewkenor's 1599 translation of Gasparo Contarini's *The Commonwealth and
Government of Venice* [and] John Pory's 1600 translation of *A
Geographical History of Africa* by 'Leo Africanus'" (14).

On the matter of Othello's name, Bate writes, "The audience hears a
consonance between the names of the captain-general 'Othello' and that
of the general enemy 'Ottoman'.  This would have been especially
apparent if, as is likely, the original pronunciation of the hero's name
was Otello.  Othman was the founder of the Turkish empire; Ottoman-ness
is thus suggested by Othello's name, but he is turned against the
origina implied by that name" (14).

Further, rather than perceiving "the Turks" as a monolithic entity, Bate
argues that Shakespeare and his contemporaries, while perceiving all
Islamic characters as "other," that they did draw distinctions between
Turk, Arab, Barbar and Moorish cultures.

For what it's worth.

Karen Peterson

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Grant Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 12:08:39 -0700
Subject: 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name

I have offered a hypothesis in two forums,

Smith, G.  (Sept. 23, 1999).  "Word play as invention in Shakespeare's
naming," XXth International Congress of Onomastic Sciences, Santiago de
Compostela, Spain.  [the proceedings are presumably forthcoming], and

Smith, G.  (Dec. 29, 1999).  "The function of sound in Shakespeare's
coinage of names," Am. Name Society, Chicago.

based on pronunciation and Occam's razor-i.e., that Othello's name is a
pun with the pronunciation of the medial -th- being /t/, much like we
find in the title of Much Ado.

In most cases, when his name is used in the text, a simple literal
meaning may be construed, O-Tell-O.  Thus, the name, Othello, echoes the
storytelling and truth-telling themes which run throughout the play.

It may also be observed that the main character is referred to by name
far fewer times than the other characters (especially Cassio)-i.e., just
in contexts where the pun makes sense.  Thus, the fact that this pun is
possible in the vast majority of a few cases strengthens the probability
that Shakespeare's coinage of the name is the simple result of wordplay.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 15:43:03 -0400
Subject: 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name

Just for fun, I like to give students this little mnemonic verse:

O the hell o' th' low!
Demon desire of mine,
Destined to moan,
I, ego--I, a god--
Cast you!

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Wes Folkerth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 17:45:41 -0700
Subject:        Othello's Name

If you're interested in Othello's name, an article worth looking into is
Joel Fineman's "The Sound of O in Othello." Fineman hears a Greek
derivation in the name, along the lines of "I desired."  The article is
included in the collection "Critical Essays on Shakespeare's Othello,"
Anthony Gerard Barthelemey (ed.), New York: G.K. Hall, 1994.

Wes Folkerth
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Schalkwyk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 19 Oct 2001 14:18:38 +0200
Subject: 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2385 Re: Othello's Name

A number of people have written about this topic.  Those that I recall
are:

Henry Kahane, "Desdemona: A Star-Crossed Name", _Names_ 35.3-4 (1987),
232-235.

John A Rea, "Iago", _Names_, 34.1 (1986), 97-8.

John C. Stephens, "Iago and His Good Name", _Notes and Queries_ 28:2
(1981), 136-7.

Samuel L. Macy, "The Naming of the Protagonists in _Othello_", _Notes
and Queries_ 25 (1978), 143-5.

Robert F. Fleissner, "The Moor's Nomenclature", _Notes and Queries_, 25
(1978), 143.

William C. Woodson, "Iago's name in Holinshed and the Lost English
Source of Othello", _Notes and Queries_, 25 (1978), 146-7.

T. Sipahigil, "Othello's name, Once Again", _Notes and Queries_, 18
(1971), 147-8.

Manfred Weidhorn, "The Rose and its Name: On Denomination in Othello,
Romeo and Juliet, and Julius Caesar", _Texas Studies in language and
Literature_, 11 (1969), 671-686.

I think that Brabara Everett's "'Spanish' Othello: The making of
Shakespeare's Moor",  _Shakespeare Survey_ 35 (1982), 101-12 contains a
discussion of names, but I'm not sure.

Stanley Cavell's remark about the shared satanic cores of Othello and
Dedemona's names is made on page 495 of _The Claim of Reason_ (Oxford:
OUP, 1979), "It is against the tradition of the morality play that I now
go on to call attention--I cannot think I am the first to say it out
loud-to the hell and the demon staring out of the names of Othello and
Desdemona".

Martin's notion is more than his pet theory.  It's been offered and
contested for a while....

Hope this helps.

David Schalkwyk

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Sir Toby et al.

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2390  Friday, 19 October 2001

From:           Jane Drake Brody <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 09:44:01 EDT
Subject:        Sir Toby et al

<<  Are we making the assumption that because he agrees to marry her, he
must love her?  I would have to respond that there are a whole lot of
reasons why people get married in Shakespeare plays, and love isn't the
only one. >>

The assumption of a love story is not naive in a play about the love of
love, being in love, unrequited love, silly love, and mixed up love.  It
is certainly a romance and deciding that Sebastian is only a fortune
hunter diminishes it charm and power.  Is it so very difficult to
believe in love at first sight?  The theatre is after all a form which
condenses and intensifies human interactions.  How long does Viola have
to fall in love with the Duke?  or Olivia to fall in love with Viola?
Most plays, Shakespearean or not are about love of some kind, love of
country, love of self, unrequited love, denial of love, twisted love and
so on and so on.  Love is the ground upon which drama stands, it does
not need absolute textual reference.

Jane Drake Brody

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.