October
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2334 Friday, 12 October 2001 [1] From: Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 07:57:21 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 12.2324 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_ [2] From: Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 11:29:24 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 12.2324 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_ [3] From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 13:38:21 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 12.2313 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_ [4] From: Tony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 14:58:04 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 12.2324 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_ [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 07:57:21 -0700 Subject: 12.2324 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_ Comment: Re: SHK 12.2324 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_ >From: Steve Sohmer >1603. Next? Okay, so when is your Othello paper coming out? (Some of us couldn't make Valencia.) Next EMLS? Thanks, Steve http://princehamlet.com [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 11:29:24 EDT Subject: 12.2324 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_ Comment: Re: SHK 12.2324 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_ What about the incongruous rhyming couplets scene between Brabantio and the Duke that sounds like a passage in Selimus? Clearly Othello was co-written by Greene just before he died and was resuscitated by Chettle (and it's in the FOLIO). ...When remedies are past, the griefs are ended, By seeing the worst, which late on hopes depended. To mourn a mischief that is past and gone, Is the next way to draw a new mischief on. What cannot be preserv'd when fortune takes Patience her injury a mockery makes. The robb'd, that smiles, steals something from the thief; He robs himself, that spends a bootless grief... etc Oh the poetry, oh the wisdom of the bard!! [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 13:38:21 -0400 Subject: 12.2313 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_ Comment: Re: SHK 12.2313 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_ John Briggs: >The problem of "Othello" is this. It is widely accepted that the Q text >derives from Shakespeare's "foul papers". There is similar agreement >that the F text derives from an edited "fair copy," presumably by >Shakespeare himself. Yes, it is widely accepted, but Paul Werstine challenges these accepted truths. How can you prove that a printed text is derived from rough draft (i.e., "foul papers") or a "fair copy"? The manuscript has been prepared for the printer, and a compositor or two and a corrector of the press stand between us and the manuscript from which the script has been printed. We should also, perhaps, consider Bill Long's work on early modern "promptbooks." Yours, Bill Godshalk [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 14:58:04 -0400 Subject: 12.2324 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_ Comment: Re: SHK 12.2324 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_ The references to verbal "echoes" Shakespeare may have stolen from himself, either from Hamlet to Othello or vice versa, or in other comparable situations seem to me to go far into the realm of casual speculation and poor critical methodology. We are not talking about two different authors, one of whom was creative and the other a magpie. Shakespeare's inner creative vision gave rise to both examples (in every such case), and HE is the authentic source of each one. To say that he copied, echoed, or borrowed from the earliest example of a particular expression is entirely absurd, especially in light of the problematic issue that we don't know whether he had written copies of his scripts lying around to which he could refer. We can use Occam's razor to expose the most reasonable treatment of these correspondences: he found a later situation that brought to mind and image or phrase of his own that aptly described an earlier example of a similar situation. For those who object that one case is different from its supposed parallel, the challenge is for them to find the common feature which prompted a literary genius to come back from the well of his imagination with the same pitcher, and not to assume that his creativity suddenly escaped him and left him grasping for old near-solutions. Tony B _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2333 Friday, 12 October 2001 [1] From: Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 10:03:10 -0400 Subj: Stratford Festival Season 2002 [2] From: John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 12:48:33 -0400 Subj: Stratford Ontario Season [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 10:03:10 -0400 Subject: Stratford Festival Season 2002 The following news release was issued on the 10th. Tanya Gough Release 36/2001 SEVENTEEN PRODUCTIONS, INCLUDING SEVEN BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, IN STRATFORD'S GOLDEN 50TH SEASON October 10, 2001... The Stratford Festival of Canada celebrates its 50th season of theatre in 2002 with a playbill described by Artistic Director Richard Monette as a "celebration of how artists heal through laughter, tears and beauty." At the core of the 2002 playbill are seven plays by William Shakespeare, including the two plays first mounted at Stratford in its first year, 1953. "The Stratford Festival began with Shakespeare in 1953" with productions of the All's Well That Ends Well and Richard III, said Mr. Monette. The Festival Theatre stage "was conceived by our first Artistic Director, Tyrone Guthrie, and realized by designer Tanya Moiseiwitsch, for playing Shakespeare. Although they went back to Elizabethan staging for inspiration, our Stratford stage liberated Shakespeare and changed forever the way we do theatre." Mr. Monette said that the Festival in its 50th season should celebrate its accomplishments, "even at a time when the world is not in a mood for celebration, after the terrorist attacks of September 11. But as Winston Churchill said during the Second World War, if we do not maintain the arts, then what are we fighting for?" In times of trouble, people turn to music and words, said Mr. Monette, and Shakespeare's words have a particular power to heal and help us understand the human condition. "At the theatre, those words are made flesh. We celebrate the actors who make this happen, and the audiences who come to the theatre to share together their laughter and tears." Opening the season on May 27 will be All's Well That Ends Well, a Shakespearean romantic comedy directed by Mr. Monette, who describes the play "as a romance, a fairy tale." This is the fifth time in 50 years the Festival has produced All's Well, which was one of the plays chosen by Guthrie to launch the Stratford Festival in 1953. All's Well was written in 1603, the same year a painting of a young man named as Shakespeare was created by John Sanderson. His descendants brought the portrait to Canada, where this year its current owner has revealed it to the world. While scholars cannot definitively determine if the portrait is, indeed, of Shakespeare, Mr. Monette and Executive Director Antoni Cimolino have secured reproduction rights of the image for the Festival's 2002 season to celebrate "Shakespeare in the new world," says Mr. Cimolino. As Sanderson's family is thought to have brought this portrait of Shakespeare to Canada, "so the Stratford Festival of Canada has brought Shakespeare's plays to our new world." Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare's timeless romantic tragedy of two young star-cross'd lovers, also will be presented at the Festival Theatre, opening May 31 and directed by Miles Potter. Rounding out the Shakespeare presentations at the Festival Theatre is the previously announced production of Shakespeare's King Lear, directed by Jonathan Miller and set to open August 24. The Festival also will complete its cycle of Shakespearean history plays that started with Richard II in 1999 and continued in 2001 with Henry IV, Part 1, Falstaff (Henry IV, Part 2) and Henry V. In 2002, the three plays written about Henry VI's reign will be presented in two parts at the Festival's Tom Patterson Theatre as Henry VI: Revenge in France and Henry VI: Revolt in England. These two productions, opening June 1, will both be directed by Leon Rubin. The saga of the Wars of the Roses continues with Shakespeare's Richard III: Reign of Terror, which will open at the Avon Theatre July 13. Tyrone Guthrie directed Richard III to open the Stratford Festival on July 13, 1953; in 2002, Martha Henry will direct this golden season production. The final Shakespeare play is actually a late-career collaboration between Shakespeare and John Fletcher. The Two Noble Kinsmen, to be presented at the Tom Patterson Theatre and directed by Conservatory Principal David Latham, will feature graduates of the Festival's Conservatory for Classical Theatre Training, now in its fourth year. The Festival has never before mounted a full production of this Shakespearean play, which will open July 12. The Festival will present two musicals this year: My Fair Lady by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe at the Festival Theatre, directed by Mr. Monette; and The Threepenny Opera by Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill at the Avon Theatre, directed by Festival alumnus Stephen Ouimette, who makes his directorial debut at Stratford with this production. My Fair Lady, which will open May 28, features such well-known songs as "The Rain in Spain," "I Could Have Danced All Night," "Get Me to the Church on Time" and "On the Street Where You Live." The Threepenny Opera, a witty and satirical jazz musical about the thieves-and-beggars world of Mack the Knife, will officially open the newly refurbished Avon Theatre on May 29. The final play at the Avon Theatre will be The Scarlet Pimpernel by Beverley Cross, adapted from the novel by Baroness Orczy. This swashbuckling adventure of concealed identities and heroic rescues set in the time of the French Revolution, a wonderful Family Experience show for all ages, was first written for the Chichester Festival Theatre in England. Directed by Dennis Garnhum, it opens May 30. The Festival will also open its fourth theatre space, the Studio Theatre, on July 13, 2002, with two new Canadian one-act plays. "The commitment to new play development and Canadian plays remain strong, although given recent events in the world and the change in economic conditions, we've had to reposition our playbill for the Studio Theatre in its first year to ensure its long-term viability," Mr Monette says. Six one-act plays - five of them new works by Canadian authors - will be presented at the theatre, as well as a new full-length play, The Swanne, Part 1: The Death of Cupid by Montreal director and dramaturge Peter Hinton. This play, set in the childhood time of Queen Victoria, is described by Mr. Monette as an edgy, challenging work written in verse for a cast of 21. It will premi
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2332 Friday, 12 October 2001 [1] From: Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 10:24:28 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 12.2329 Re: Sir Toby [2] From: Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 13:09:10 -0400 Subj: Sir Toby? [3] From: Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 19:23:02 +0000 Subj: Tearful misanthropy [4] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 12 Oct 2001 11:15:44 +0100 Subj: Love's Labours Won [5] From: Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 17:20:27 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 12.2329 Re: Sir Toby [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 10:24:28 -0600 Subject: 12.2329 Re: Sir Toby Comment: Re: SHK 12.2329 Re: Sir Toby Some thoughts on a possibly sympathetic Malvolio: It may be true that we (moderns) are more tolerant of folly and more sympathetic with suffering than Shakespeare and his contemporaries were. But maybe we shouldn't congratulate (or condemn) ourselves too quickly. The differences between ourselves and our predecessors may not be quite so stark as we're imagining. _King Lear_ makes it quite clear that Shakespeare's audiences were capable of sympathizing with suffering, even on the part of someone who has been pompous and foolish. Shylock is a harder case. Yet while Shylock is certainly the villain of _The Merchant of Venice_ , the play also extends a few unmistakable invitations to understand and sympathize with him. In any interpretation of _Twelfth Night_ that makes sense, Malvolio is deeply flawed: self-centered, lacking in self-awareness and in sympathy for others, and a killjoy besides. (He's not literally a Puritan, though, if we're to believe Maria: "The dev'l a puritan that he is, or anything constantly but a time-pleaser, an affection'd ass," etc. [2.3.147ff.]). The trick on Malvolio, at least up till his imprisonment, provides some of the best fun in all of Shakespeare. But I don't think the play, considered carefully and as a whole, wants us simply to enjoy the tormenting of Malvolio and side with his opponents. Maria and probably Feste come off mainly sympathetically, but our response to Toby and Andrew will be mixed. I find Toby especially hard to entirely like, partly because Olivia's and Maria's criticism (even some of Malvolio's) seem justified, and even more because by the end Toby reveals a side of his character worse than drunkenness or even than Malvolio's stupidity: Toby's self-centeredness and lack of sympathy for others are more conscious and deliberate than Malvolio's, revealing themselves in his manipulation of Andrew (compare Iago with Roderigo) and in his savagely turning on him at the end ("an ass-head and a coxcomb and a knave, a thin-fac'd knave, a gull!" [5.1.206-07]). Does the play invite any sympathy with Malvolio? Consider the following: When she hears of Malvolio's supposed madness, Olivia says, "Let some of my people have a special care of him. I would not have him miscarry for the half of my dowry" (3.4.62-63). Apparently, for all his faults, Malvolio is a valued servant. Audiences may respond with either pain or amusement (or a mixture of both ) to Malvolio's description in the last scene of what he's been through. But Olivia's response shows something other than heartless enjoyment of another person's suffering: Prithee be content. This practice hath most shrewdly pass'd upon thee; But when we know the grounds and authors of it, Thou shalt be both the plaintiff and the judge Of thine own cause. Fabian suggests that the trick on Malvolio was at once funny and cruel and argues that both sides of the quarrel have a case: How with a sportful malice it was follow'd May rather pluck on laughter than revenge, If that the injuries be justly weigh'd That have on both sides pass'd. Then Olivia: "Alas, poor fool, how have they baffled thee!" I think the play ends with a mixture of attitudes: both sympathy and amusement at Malvolio's plight, a desire for harmony and some degree of justice and mutual satisfaction (and enlightenment) on both sides of the quarrel, some continued mocking (by Feste--but he's the only one at the end who keeps playing that note), and of course the joy and wonder of the newly united and enlightened lovers and siblings. The laughter Feste is hoping for now in place of revenge is not, I think, malicious and mocking, but a kind of healing, self-aware laughter, of which even now Malvolio (and probably Toby and Andrew) are unfortunately incapable. Malvolio may forfeit some of the sympathy we'd like to give him when he says, "I'll be reveng'd on the whole pack of you." But Olivia immediately follows with: "He hath been most notoriously abus'd." And then Orsino: "Pursue him, and entreat him to a peace." Their responses do much to raise them in our opinions--they certainly have a capacity for generosity that Malvolio lacks. But of course they weren't locked up in a dark house either. In any case, I don't think the play is trying to exalt Malvolio as a model for our imitation. But I think it is suggesting that Olivia's and Orsino's responses to his suffering and anger are appropriate--he has been badly wronged, and it is right to hope his anger can be mollified. It's possible to make of Malvolio nothing but an object of scorn and malicious enjoyment. But doing so requires ignoring or discounting all of these indications that another, more complicated response is possible. Bruce Young [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 13:09:10 -0400 Subject: Sir Toby? After reading Don Bloom's two most recent posts, I came across an old transcript from the 1870's of an encounter between a student and his professor that may shed some light on recent critical discussions on this thread: Student: (timorously advancing). "Professor Blume, I have a great idea about _Hamlet_: I think. . . ." Professor: "You think? Don't tell me you're making inferences again! The text, man, the text is the thing." Student: "Well, yes, but I've been reading over the play, and I think that there are parallels between some of the other characters and Hamlet himself." Professor: "What? Impossible." Student: "Well, not really. It seems that Fortinbras, Laertes, even Ophelia are all in some ways parallel to . . . ." Profesor: "To Hamlet?? Nonsense! Does Ophelia have a scene in her mother's bed chamber? Does Fortinbras? Does Laertes?" Student: "Well, no, but . . . " Professor: "Well, there's an end on it! You are inferring your way into nonsense, boy!" Stick to the text! Practice philology and morphology; and for heaven's sake, understand that people back in 1600 don't think like you - thank God!" Student: "But if you'd just consider. . . ." Professor: "Look: let me make it clear: you are wrong-headed and entirely incorrect. Now stop wasting my time." [Student walks away, slowly, scratching his head.] There's more to this fascinating manuscript, but that's enough, perhaps, for us to understand why Kenneth Muir once remarked that each generation of Shakespeare scholars literally has to overthrow the previous one. It would be different, of course, if the senior generation were willing to listen. Alas, that doesn't seem to be in the cards. --Ed Taft [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 19:23:02 +0000 Subject: Tearful misanthropy >From: Don Bloom [...]>3. I find, reading over the immensely learned postings on this list, >hardly one person in five who seems to have any concept of friendship [...] > > >[...]4. Malvolio becomes a sympathetic figure for the same reason that >Shylock does -- we are in this era a great deal more sentimental about >such things than people in Shakespeare's time. And we are a much deal more tolerant of folly.[...] A stiff upper lip replies: Perhaps you are right....but I don't think you live where I do. I have hoped for years that perhaps there will be a director who will suggest that Malvolio speaks his exit line with a sense of enlightened humour. It would make a change. Best wishes, Graham Hall [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 12 Oct 2001 11:15:44 +0100 Subject: Love's Labours Won The references to Love's Labours Won in the "Sir Toby" thread have persuaded me to offer my own theory to an uncaring world. First of all one should point out that there are very few facts, and no one theory can match all of them. Q1 of LLL says on the title page "Newly corrected and augmented". It seems highly probably that there is a lost edition, probably by a different publisher. It used to be thought that this was a "bad" quarto, but opinion is turning towards Q1 being a straight reprint. In Francis Meres' "Palladis Tamia" (1598) he lists some of Shakespeare's plays including "his Loue labors lost, his Loue labors won". What is thought to be part of a bookseller's stocklist was discovered, and this concludes: marchant of vennis taming of a shrew knak to know a knave knak to know an honest man loves labor lost loves labor won The 1590s are becoming a trifle crowded with Shakespeare's plays: there doesn't really seem to be space for a "lost" one. Suggestions have been made in the past that LLW could be an alternative title for either Much Ado or The Shrew, but these are now discounted. Could it be an alternative title for LLL itself? These are probably all the facts there are. T.W. Baldwin managed to write a whole book with these few facts about a totally non-existent play! I couldn't swear to have actually read the book: although I do possess a copy, it is buried beneath a particularly high pile of books, and so is essentially inaccessible! It is a slim book, especially by Baldwin's standards, so I may have absorbed the contents by osmosis! Anyway, my solution is as follows: the lost quarto (probably a "bad" quarto) was entitled "Love's Labours Lost, Love's Labours Won", and this title was independently mistaken by both Meres and bookseller as being two works. I know this is a bit messy, but as I said before, no one theory fits all the facts! Thoughts anyone? John Briggs [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 17:20:27 -0400 Subject: 12.2329 Re: Sir Toby Comment: Re: SHK 12.2329 Re: Sir Toby > > > I rather think that these marriages take place at the > > > end of the lost sequel -- Love's Labours Won > > > > Well, I don't think there was a true sequel. It'd be > > in the First Folio if there were > > If F1 were the immutable limit of the Canon, we wouldn't include Per, > TNK, the Shakespearean passages in Sir Thomas More or any of the > non-dramatic poems, and we came close to losing T&C. Right, we wouldn't include some plays that Shakespeare CO-authored (apparently). But I never said the First Folio was the "immutable limit of the Canon, or even--more sensibly--of the dramatic canon; I said that if there had been a Loves Labours Won, it would have been in it; I say that because (1) Loves Labours Lost was in it, which suggests a follow-up play would have been in it, too; (2) Loves Labours Wonne would have been entirely by Shakespeare so eligible for the First Folio; (3) it is likely it would have been fairly popular (as LLL seems to have been) and well-written since it would have been written just as Shakespeare was coming into his own, so not overlooked for the First Folio; (4) Meres knew about it, so why wouldn't Heminges and Condell? (5) Meres left out The Taming of the Shrew, which almost certainly had been written and performed by 1598 (for stylistic and dramaturgic reasons). > > I think Meres's Loves Labours Won was The Taming of the > > Shrew. > > Others have thought so as well, but not many. In any case, Meres > is not the sole bit of extrinsic evidence. A bookseller's > inventory was discovered c. 1952 which list LLW as a separate > volume. I remember reading about that but forget the details. Was The Taming of The Shrew listed separately? If not, then LLW could have been it. --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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2331 Friday, 12 October 2001 [1] From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, October 12, 2001 Subj: Apology [2] From: Aubrey Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 16:39:20 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 12.2323 Re: PBS Masterpiece Theatre/Merchant of Venice [3] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 13:23:55 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 12.2323 Re: PBS Masterpiece Theatre/Merchant of Venice [4] From: Louis Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 16:28:14 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 12.2323 Re: PBS Masterpiece Theatre/Merchant of Venice [5] From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 20:33:44 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 12.2323 Re: PBS Masterpiece Theatre/Merchant of Venice [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, October 12, 2001 Subject: Apology Let me apologize to Yacov Kenigsberg for not attributing to him his excellent post of yesterday, which follows: Although I did not recognize the melody to the song Jessica sang at the end of MOV, but I did recognize the words. They were from "Eishet Chayil (Woman of Valor)," which is traditionally sung by Jewish men at the beginning of the friday night Sabbath meal in honor of their wives. The words to "Eishet Chayil" are verses 10-31 of Proverbs 31 (the last 22 verses of the book). The verse Jessica sang was verse 12: "Gemalatu tov, v'loh rah, col y'may chayehah (she repays his good, and not bad, all the days of her life)" (my rough translation and even rougher transliteration). [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Aubrey Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 16:39:20 +0000 Subject: 12.2323 Re: PBS Masterpiece Theatre/Merchant of Venice Comment: Re: SHK 12.2323 Re: PBS Masterpiece Theatre/Merchant of Venice > Chris Stroffolino asked > Does anybody know when this will be on TV in the bay >area..... Merchant was on KQED on Monday 08Oct2001 and KTEH on Tuesday 09Oct2001. I guess you missed it. Aubrey Chan San Francisco [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 13:23:55 -0400 Subject: 12.2323 Re: PBS Masterpiece Theatre/Merchant of Venice Comment: Re: SHK 12.2323 Re: PBS Masterpiece Theatre/Merchant of Venice Philip Tomaski wrote: > It seems strange to me that no > one thinks of the 'alien' law until after Shylock has renounced his > contract. In fact, the implication is that the law has no bearing on > the contract at all. This flies in the face of my admittedly limited > understanding of the law. Killing an innocent person, whether done by > an 'alien' or not, is pretty much universally a criminal offense. It > does not become legitimized simply by virtue of a contract. I can't > imagine this was not true in Venice at any point in its history. Does > anyone know if there is any basis for this, or is it simply one of those > plot devices that does not bear 'thinking too precisely on the event'? The important legal point to remember is that this is a fairy tale. I do not believe that English common law or equity would ever have granted specific performance of a pound of flesh forfeiture, whether or not it was prohibited by an alien law. There were statutes aplenty forbidding murder; but apart from that, a forfeiture which would result in the death of defaulting party (other than by slow starvation in debtor's prison, of course) would have been contrary to the common law. (As an aside, there is a question as to whether Shylock was seeking legal or equitable redress. Hew was asking for specific performance of his contract, and today most courts regard that as equitable relief, but from an historical standpoint that is in error as the law courts traditionally granted specific performance as a legal remedy.) An interesting point that I have never seen mooted is why Shylock did not simply take his forfeiture without legal process. There is no indication that the bond required a foreclosure proceeding. Since Shylock could simply "fee ... an officer" to arrest Antonio, he might have been able to take the pound of flesh by self-help. In any prosecution for murder, Shylock would have set up the defense of the contract -- volente non fit iniuria. Of course, the poor draftsmanship on which Portia relied would presumably have defeated the defense. Of course, if WS was intending to depict legal proceedings of any sort, he had English process in mind, not Venetian. But I doubt that Venetian law of the Renaissance would have been any different on this point, unless, of course, it received the ancient Roman legis actio per manus iniectionem, which did not depend on a contract -- it was a statutory procedure (legis actio) deriving from the Twelve Tables under which creditors had the right to tear their debtors to pieces. Interestingly, the Roman statute anticipated Portia's argument, as it specifically provided that if any creditor took more or less than his fair share it was not a wrong. It is probable that the creditors usually preferred the alternative remedy of selling the debtor into slavery to realize the debt. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 16:28:14 -0500 Subject: 12.2323 Re: PBS Masterpiece Theatre/Merchant of Venice Comment: Re: SHK 12.2323 Re: PBS Masterpiece Theatre/Merchant of Venice Philip Tomposki writes, "It seems extremely cavalier of Portia to risk Antonio's life without a clear foolproof plan. In the PBS version Portia (Derbhle Crotty) seemed to have assumed that her (and her money's) powers of persuasion would carry the day. When she realizes the depth of Shylock's hatred and resolve, she appears to be in shock, thinking her bit of sport had doomed her husband's friend. This makes for high drama (Trevor Nunn was clearly not aiming for comedy) but puts it Portia in a very bad light, and I doubt it's what WS had in mind." [The sense of all that has gone before in Portia's conduct at the trial is her earnest desire to bring Shylock around to mercy and common sense (twice to ten times the debt?) out of his own conscience. In the PBS production, she is almost successful in this, as Shylock has early shown his distaste for the task he is to perform and even at the very point of cutting, weeps and backs away from the gruesome task of taking his pound of flesh. But when he pulls himself together in his hate and moves forward quickly and finally to cut, even against his own better feeling, it is clear that every hope for self-correction in Shylock has been exhausted and Portia's next step must be taken to save Antonio's life. Granting her intentions, I don't believe that this puts Portia in any but the best possible light. As for Shakespeare's intentions, those are whatever any good director and actor, faithful to the argument of the play, makes them. (And they appear to be so delightfully ambiguous in this play as to warrant several possible interpretations.)] "A more logical approach (not that logic necessarily is the best approach in the theater) is to have Portia string Shylock along, preparing a trap for him. When it become undeniably clear that he does intend to murder Antonio, Portia stops him, with a rather casual 'Tarry a little' before presenting her 'jot of blood' ploy. When he finally abandons his suit, she springs the 'alien' on him. This works better in a comic setting, with Portia calmly making her pronouncements, thereby signifying she has something up her sleeve. The audience can then enjoy the tribulation of Antonio and his friends and Shylock's triumph, knowing that the situation will soon be reversed, all the while wondering what the clever gal has planned." [Although there is a possible consistency in this, inasmuch as Portia will later test her husband's fidelity by insisting on the gift of the ring, the much greater seriousness of the attempted evocation of mercy in Shylock does not suggest anything comic. At the end of the trial, the treatment of Shylock (above all else, requiring him to become a Christian!) is so fraught with ugliness on the "Christian" side, one is reminded of the overpowering nastiness of Orozco's satirical painting, "Sisters of Charity." This play has no happy ending as is attested by the conventional treatment of Jessica as sharply feeling her desertion of her father. (And did she really trade for a monkey the ring her mother gave her father ?!)] "Alternately, Portia could intend to spring her trap, but becoming increasingly sympathetic to Shylock as she becomes aware of the legitimacy of his grievances. In this case, her pleas for mercy are not to save Antonio, but to save Shylock from himself. Again, she waits for the last minute to stop Shylock to be sure of his intentions." [Yes! This is so much of the very heart of the argument of the play - the same "heart" that leads Antonio to pledge his life for Bassanio, then, later, to Portia, his soul for him - it is irrestible as an interpretation of Portia's intentions relative to Shylock. ] "This is probably not what WS was thinking, but might work better with the more serious interpretations a post-Holocaust MOV seems to demand. (In fact, I thought I detected hints of this in Goodman's and Crotty's performance.)" [Ideally, post- or pre- Holocaust should have nothing to do with this, our eternal struggle with the need to forgive, which "blesseth him that gives and him that takes."] " I have a question of my own to present. It seems strange to me that no one thinks of the 'alien' law until after Shylock has renounced his contract. In fact, the implication is that the law has no bearing on the contract at all. This flies in the face of my admittedly limited understanding of the law. Killing an innocent person, whether done by an 'alien' or not, is pretty much universally a criminal offense. It does not become legitimized simply by virtue of a contract. I can't imagine this was not true in Venice at any point in its history. Does anyone know if there is any basis for this, or is it simply one of those plot devices that does not bear 'thinking too precisely on the event'?" [This "law" is best considered a construction by Shakespeare for the play, rather than anything Venice or any other legal body ever recorded. That this "law" has been made specifically to deal with aliens rather than with anyone whatever stresses the hypocrisy of this "Christian" community in its failure to embrace an outsider as a brother. I think it should be played so. ] [L. Swilley] [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 2001 20:33:44 -0700 Subject: 12.2323 Re: PBS Masterpiece Theatre/Merchant of Venice Comment: Re: SHK 12.2323 Re: PBS Masterpiece Theatre/Merchant of Venice Philip Tomposki asks, >Alternately, Portia could intend to spring her trap, but becoming >increasingly sympathetic to Shylock as she becomes aware of the >legitimacy of his grievances. In this case, her pleas for mercy are not >to save Antonio, but to save Shylock from himself. Again, she waits for >the last minute to stop Shylock to be sure of his intentions. There's another possibility (IMHO) which you haven't listed: could she be keeping Antonio on death's door for as long as possible to gauge her position within the emerging triangular relationship with Bassanio and Antonio? After all, immediately before giving the pound of flesh to Shylock, she elicited Antonio's speech in which he convinces Bassanio to favour himself over her: "You, merchant, have you anything to say?" The whole procedure is perhaps cruel not only in how it treats Shylock, stringing him along before pointing out that (surprise, surprise) murder is illegal, but also in how Antonio is made to wait, like a captive on death-row, for the sentence. As to why nobody else notices the obvious, I would suggest that it might have to do with the way in which everyone's mental outlook in this fictional Venice is taken up by commercial law. One would think that the Duke (at least!) would have recalled the murder statutes, since they specify his prerogatives, but nobody does, because their city is a commercial city, ruled by contracts. Even though her own interpretation is even more literalist, Portia at least finds away around the bond where everyone else seems to be in awe of it. Cheers, Se
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2330 Thursday, 11 October 2001 From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 10 Oct 2001 18:57:24 -0400 Subject: DVD of Throne of Blood in UK Check http://www.moviem.co.uk/filmmore.php?index=8684 _______________________________________________________________ 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.