2001

Re: Actors' Additions

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2496  Tuesday, 30 October 2001

[1]     From:   Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 29 Oct 2001 11:12:03 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2490 Re: Actors' Additions

[2]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 29 Oct 2001 20:58:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2490 Re: Actors' Additions


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Oct 2001 11:12:03 EST
Subject: 12.2490 Re: Actors' Additions
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2490 Re: Actors' Additions

<< > From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 > I found what might be interpreted as an actor's addition in Troilus
and
 > Cressida. I give the Q version:
 >
 > Pan: Here, here, here he comes, a sweete ducks.
 > Cres. Oh Troilus, Troilus. >>

The formulation 'here he/she comes' / 'see where he comes' etc
(particularly with the repeated 'here' which is also a formulaic
element) is a standard oral device as witnessed in Laurie Maguire's
'Shakespearean Suspect Texts' (where she draws on Thomas Pettit's series
of articles on Zielform / formulaic structures in Renaissance play texts
/ ballads / pamphlets).

The 'sweet ducks' element whilst containing a clear colloquial aspect is
however also in keeping with the colloquial / bawdy 'character' of
Pandarus.  (i.e. see Chaucer's version etc).

Wider repetitions of 'o/oh' as Gary Taylor has pointed out tend to sound
non-Shakespearean but are also heavily aligned with theatrical
repetition / orally derived texts.

The repetition of 'Troilus' could of course be intended rhetorically
however simple repetition for effect is commonly assumed to be an
indicator of stage influence / oral milling.

This passage alone does not necessitate the presence of theatrical
intervention but perhaps in the context of a wider analysis the noted
formulaic elements would certainly fit with a folkloric analysis and
point to a theatrical / oral source.

Best,
Marcus

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Oct 2001 20:58:49 -0500
Subject: 12.2490 Re: Actors' Additions
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2490 Re: Actors' Additions

Geralyn Horton suggests,

>May I suggest, hesitantly, that this might be intended to be an
>overlap?  . . . Cressida begins "O Troilus"
>as soon as she spots him, probably after the 2nd "here," and lengthens
>the "oi" sounds, while Pandarus takes an unnotated catch breath rest
>before "sweet ducks," so that the lines finish together.

This reading does not conflict with mine.  I was suggesting that those
scholars who believe in "actors' additions" might well identify "sweet
ducks" as such an addition.  But there is no reason to believe that it
is; "sweet duck" or "ducks" appears in both Q1 and the Folio.  Perhaps
Shakespeare was indeed thinking of an overlap as he wrote.  In any case,
it's an interesting possibility.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

_______________________________________________________________
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: Rumors about John Florio's Wife

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2495  Tuesday, 30 October 2001

[1]     From:   Ed Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 29 Oct 2001 10:53:07 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2485 Rumors about John Florio's Wife

[2]     From:   David Wilson-Okamura <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 29 Oct 2001 10:17:58 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2485 Rumors about John Florio's Wife

[3]     From:   Tom Rutter <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 29 Oct 2001 22:20:06 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2485 Rumors about John Florio's Wife


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Oct 2001 10:53:07 -0500
Subject: 12.2485 Rumors about John Florio's Wife
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2485 Rumors about John Florio's Wife

Actually it was Jim Florio and they got together at Drumthwacket.

Ed Kranz

Open your ears; for which of you will stop
The vent of hearing when loud Rumour speaks?

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Wilson-Okamura <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Oct 2001 10:17:58 -0600
Subject: 12.2485 Rumors about John Florio's Wife
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2485 Rumors about John Florio's Wife

Roy Flannagan wrote,

>Somewhere recently I read that John Florio's wife is a candidate for the
>dark-ladyship, and that Florio, Shakespeare, and Florio's wife were in
>Southampton's household at the same time.  Is this just a juicy rumor,
>or is there any possible truth in it?

Jonathan Bate toys with this theory in _The Genius of Shakespeare_
(1997), 54-58. After setting out the evidence, he concludes, "We will
never know whether Shakespeare and/or Southampton really slept with
Florio's wife and the sonnets knowingly allude to actual events, or
whether the sonnets are knowing imaginings of possible intrigue....My
story is and is not a fantasy. To adopt what Oscar Wilde once said of
Will Hughes, his candidate for the 'fair youth': you _must_ believe in
Mrs Florio -- I almost do myself. I began to work on the sonnets with a
determination to adhere to an agnostic position on the question of their
autobiographical elements. But, like Sidney Lee, I have been unable to
hold fast to my unbelief" (p. 58).

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Rutter <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Oct 2001 22:20:06 -0000
Subject: 12.2485 Rumors about John Florio's Wife
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2485 Rumors about John Florio's Wife

Jonathan Bate discusses this one in ch 2 of 'The Genius of Shakespeare',
though I don't know if that's where you came across the rumour in the
first place

Tom Rutter

_______________________________________________________________
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: Shakespeare in Movies

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2493  Tuesday, 30 October 2001

From:           Karen Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Oct 2001 07:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 12.2481 Shakespeare in Movies
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2481 Shakespeare in Movies

Syd Kasten writes about Shakespearean echoes in the 1963 *McLintock!*,
with John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara. He mentions that

> the preview or trailer suggested that we would be
> seeing a Western remake of Taming of the Shrew.  In
> fact, it was the Tempest that popped up here and
> there.

The more "shrewish" John Wayne movie, it seems to me, would be John
Ford's 1952 *The Quiet Man*, also with Maureen O'Hara in the "shrew"
role as the aptly-named "Mary Kate".  Tim Dirks' "Greatest Films"
website reports that "after the financial and critical success of Rio
Grande (1950) for the studio, the third of Ford's 'cavalry trilogy,' he
convinced Republic Pictures to support him for his next riskier film -
an Irish "Taming of the Shrew" tale that was remarkably similar in plot"
(http://www.filmsite.org/quie.html).

For what it's worth.

Cheers,
Karen

_______________________________________________________________
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, Sebastian, et TN

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2494  Tuesday, 30 October 2001

[1]     From:   Michael Friedman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 29 Oct 2001 10:40:07 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2424 Re: Sir Toby et al.

[2]     From:   Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 29 Oct 2001 10:13:12 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2466 Re: Sir Toby et TN

[3]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 29 Oct 2001 18:34:47 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2483 Re: Sir Toby et TN

[4]     From:   Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 29 Oct 2001 13:55:55 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2483 Re: Sir Toby et TN

[5]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 29 Oct 2001 19:54:00 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2466 Re: Sir Toby et TN



[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Friedman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Oct 2001 10:40:07 -0500
Subject: 12.2424 Re: Sir Toby et al.
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2424 Re: Sir Toby et al.

Again, apologies for my late response.  David Bishop asks for more
textual evidence that Sebastian is poor, so here goes.  The play
emphasizes the fact that the shipwreck has left Sebastian without any
money (at least on his person).  Before he parts from Antonio, we have
the following exchange:

Antonio: Hold, sir, here's my purse. . . .
Sebastian: Why I your purse?
Antonio: Haply your eye shall light upon some toy
              You have desire to purchase, and your store
              I think is not for idle markets, sir. (3.3.38, 43-46)

Antonio gives Sebastian his purse because Sebastian doesn't have enough
money for anything but the most necessary purchases.  This exchange
convinces me that Shakespeare wants to underscore, just before Sebastian
meets Olivia, that Sebastian's funds are low.

As for Sebastian's "estates at home," the play seems to be silent on
this matter.  We could assume that Sebastian has land back in Messaline,
or we could just as easily assume that he does not.  "Right noble is his
blood" (5.1.264) the Duke says, but, as I understand the historical
circumstances, nobility did not necessarily imply riches.  What we do
know for sure is that Sebastian and his sister have left Messaline for
some unspoken reason and never mention any intention of returning.
Perhaps there's nothing to go back to?

With regard to Sebastian's interest in Olivia's wealth, I cannot provide
unequivocal proof, only a suggestion.  In his long soliloquy after
meeting Olvia and receiving from her a pearl, Sebastian wonders about
the whereabouts of his companion:

                              Where's Antonio then?
        I could not find him at the Elephant;
        Yet there he was, and there I found this credit,
        That he did range the town to seek me out.
        His counsel now might do me golden service (4.3.4-8)

On the literal level, "golden" here means "valuable," but in conjunction
with the financial imagery of the whole passage ("credit"), we may also
see Antonio's service (helping Sebastian figure out what to do about
Olivia) as one that might bring Sebastian gold.

Compare this speech from *Merchant* by Bassanio, another young man who
appreciates a woman's good qualities but by no means discounts her
financial value:

        In Belmont is a lady richly left,
        And she is fair and, fairer than that word,
        Of wondrous virtues. Sometimes from her eyes
        I did receive fair speechless messages.
        Her name is Portia--nothing undervalu'd
        To Cato's daughter, Brutus' Portia.
        Nor is the wide world ignorant of her worth;
        For the four winds blow in from every coast
        Renowned suitors, and her sunny locks
        Hang on her temples like a golden fleece (1.1.161-70)

Again, the mention of "gold" here literally refers to the color of
Portia's hair, but I don't think it's much of a stretch to see that the
word choice also flows from Bassanio's concern for her riches.
Bassanio, in this speech, says nothing about "loving" Portia.  That
comes later, as, I would argue, it is entirely possible that Sebastian
will later love Olivia.  But for now, the money, beauty, and other good
qualities seem paramount.

Michael D. Friedman
University of Scranton
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Oct 2001 10:13:12 -0800
Subject: 12.2466 Re: Sir Toby et TN
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2466 Re: Sir Toby et TN

"T. Craik's mention in his Arden edition of Twelfth Night's appearance
in Shakespeare's likely source material. "Gl'Ingannati" contains in its
prologue the phrase "The story is new and taken from nowhere but their
own industrious pates whence also are taken your lots on Twelfth
Night"."

"Your lots" seems (?) to refer to a traditional Twelfth Night practice
with which I am unfamiliar. Does Craik explain it, or can any other list
member?

Thanks,
Steve
http://princehamlet.com

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Oct 2001 18:34:47 -0000
Subject: 12.2483 Re: Sir Toby et TN
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2483 Re: Sir Toby et TN

> >(The correct parallel to "Twelve Noon" is of course "Twelve
> >Midnight", and has always been.)
>
> asserts Tom Bishop in parenthesis.  But let me remind Tom that Jonson
> uses the phrase "the noon of night" in Sejanus.  It is also used by
> Herrick in Hesperides.  Drayton, Man in the Moon, uses the phrase
> "Nighted Noone." You can check these in the OED sb. 4, 4b. So I suppose
> "twelve of night" is possible, and might be abbreviated (by Gabriel's
> metaphor-wielding poet) as "twelve night."  Unfortunately, I cannot find
> an example.
>
> Yours, Bill Godshalk

A proxity search of TWEL* before NIGHT gives, as possibly the most
interesting collocation,

 1680 Lond. Gaz. No. 1520/1 The Twelfth at night, Captain St. Johns, by
the help of the Speaking Trumpet, called to us.
(speaking-trumpet 1671)

Also notable is:

1582 in Feuillerat Revels Q. Eliz. (1908) 349 At wyndesor at Twelf Eve
at night.

(The entire entry for TWELFTH EVE(N) seems relevant:

Obs.

  The eve of Twelfth-day; Twelfth-night.

   c1000 Ags. Gosp. Matt. ii. 19 rubric, 


The Bride--Richard III Reference

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2492  Tuesday, 30 October 2001

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 29 Oct 2001 10:04:34 -0500
Subject:        The Bride--Richard III Reference

In the horror movie The Bride, starring Sting and Jennifer Beal, there's
a brief discussion of Richard III and Shakespeare's histories.
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0088851

_______________________________________________________________
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.