2001

Re: Volpone Production Dates

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1641  Thursday, 28 June 2001

From:           Jim Lusardi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 12:52:52 -0400
Subject: 12.1627 Re: Volpone Production Dates
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1627 Re: Volpone Production Dates

For those unaware of this invaluable resource on dating in the early
modern era, I recommend:

Cheney, C. R., ed.  <Handbook of Dates for Students of English History>.
London:  Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1955.

If it hasn't been recently reprinted, it may be purchased from
second-hand booksellers.

Jim Lusardi

_______________________________________________________________
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>

Re: "not well married"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1640  Thursday, 28 June 2001

[1]     From:   John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 12:15:40 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1618 "not well married"

[2]     From:   Philip Weller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 11:31:33 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1626 Re: "not well married"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 12:15:40 -0400
Subject: 12.1618 "not well married"??
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1618 "not well married"??

>To me it looks like this implies that the longer a woman is married, the
>more likely she is to sin, which seems excessively cynical for the
>context.  It seems more appropriate to Rosalind's teasing of Orlando
>about the waywardness of wives.
>
>So, I have two questions:
>
>1) Is there another way to interpret these lines?
>
>2) Could the statement be a "sentence," a truism which the Friar could
>think would be helpful to the grieving parents?

I think #2 is a valid interpretation.  But as Laurence knows Juliet is
not really dead the actor could play the lines in comic fashion.

John Ramsay

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Philip Weller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 11:31:33 -0700
Subject: 12.1626 Re: "not well married"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1626 Re: "not well married"

In response to my question, Alexander Houck wrote, "Friar appears to be
telling the Capulets that they should no longer weep for their young
child who has moved on to a better place: heaven.  This reinforces the
second line of the citation where the benefit of her young death is that
she has enjoyed young love and has gone to heaven (since it is not a
suicide)."  If that's the case, has the Friar made a slip?  He's the
only one present who knows that Juliet is married and "has enjoyed young
love."

_______________________________________________________________
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>

Re: Life is a Dream

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1638  Wednesday, 27 June 2001

From:           Robert Teeter <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 07:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 12.1600 Life is a Dream
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1600 Life is a Dream

Mike Jensen wrote:

> I'm writing from Ashland, Oregon, where the Oregon Shakespeare Festival
> is mounting an 11 play season, including Shakespeare's *The Tempest* and
> Calderon's *Life is a Dream.*  A comment by artistic director Libby Apel
> makes it clear that this is deliberate, and the two plays have some
> interesting resonances.  Let me defensively add that I have not read
> *Life,* nor seen it produced before, so I may have missed some things.

        <...>

> The parallel between the King's study and Prospero's art is obvious.  In
> fact the King is a bit of a fortune teller, saw in the stars that his
> son would be a bad ruler, and so had him banished to a man-made cave to
> the east.  Anyway, this sets up such other resonances with *Tempest* as
> succession, and the politics of who should rule.
>
> There is also a Caliban character, the King's cave-raised son.
        <...>

> Those are the parallels I noticed.  I'll be interested to know of
> list-members are aware of others.

I just got back from Ashland.  Having seen both of these plays, I
noticed the following parallels in plot or theme, some of them similar
to what Mike Jensen writes above:

* Revenge vs. forgiveness (also seen in other plays at the festival this
season: Merchant of Venice, Merry Wives, Troilus and Cressida)

* A rightful heir exiled (Prospero, Segismundo)

* Confusion of reality and illusion (Miranda not sure if the storm is
real; the shipwrecked crew believing others in their party to be lost;
Segismundo's "dream")

* A youth exiled from society at an early age (Miranda and Segismundo)

* Civilization vs. wilderness (Prospero's island, Segismundo's prison)

* Revolution (Stephano, Trinculo, Caliban; Segismundo)

* Overly controlling father figures (Prospero, King Basilio; also seen
in Master and Mistress Page and Pandarus)

Life is a Dream is well worth seeing, but I should note that the Ashland
production makes a change in the ending that will bother some more than
others.

Bob Teeter (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) | http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/

_______________________________________________________________
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>

Re: "What's in a name?"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1639  Thursday, 28 June 2001

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 08:52:12 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1624 Re: "What's in a name?"

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 11:41:02 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1624 Re: "What's in a name?"

[3]     From:   John Velz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 16:47:25 -0500
        Subj:   Peters


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 08:52:12 -0700
Subject: 12.1624 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1624 Re: "What's in a name?"

Let's cut through the crap.

Seems to me that Saari and Taylor have proven just about everything
EXCEPT that Peter was a phallic reference in *R&J,* or that it was used
this way so early in English.  Presenting more facts of the same sort
will not change that, nor will "cleverly" dismissing those who point out
their mistakes.

It seems to me that the only intellectually honest way for them to go is
to admit that all the evidence they have presented is circumstantial,
from languages other than English, and that the connections with English
are tenuous, and sometimes speculative.  Having admitted that, they can
say they suspect the name Peter was colored in this way, but since it
can not be clearly proven, it is a speculation until a hitherto
unnoticed reference is found, and isn't it interesting to speculate?  I
doubt anyone would have a problem with that.

The confidence with which the current claims are made is excessive and
suspect.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 11:41:02 -0700
Subject: 12.1624 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1624 Re: "What's in a name?"

Stuart Taylor points out,

>Now, _there's_ a phallic reference:  "burden".  See Chaucer, CT A673,
>A4165; Shakespeare, RJ I.iv, Sonnet 23; and Rabelais.

This ability to find perverse meaning in everyday sentences is kind of a
problem, isn't it?  Reading texts by some critics, one rather wonders
how one would have a conversation with them, without their starting to
chortle at every word, like Beavis and Butthead.  This isn't to deny
that secondary meanings are sometimes clearly available in the text, but
surely we should distinguish substantive meanings from every other
meaning that's possible.  After all, we do this in everyday
conversation.

Cheers,
Se


Hamlet Spinoff

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1637  Wednesday, 27 June 2001

From:           Werner Broennimann <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 11:47:44 +0100
Subject:        Hamlet Spinoff

The Icelandic film "101 Reykjavik", Baltasar Korm


Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.