2002

Re: Shakespeare and Sex

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0504  Thursday, 21 February 2002

[1]     From:           Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 14:25:19 -0000
        Subj:           Re: SHK 13.0494 Re: Shakespeare and Sex

[2]     From:           Brandon Toropov <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 06:37:18 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:           Re: Shakespeare and Sex (Parenting)

[3]     From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 21:02:27 -0000
        Subj:           Re: SHK 13.0494 Re: Shakespeare and Sex

[4]     From:           Adrian Kiernander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:           Thursday, 21 Feb 2002 15:32:44 +1100
        Subj:           Re: SHK 13.0468 Re: Shakespeare and Se

[5]     From:           Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:           Thursday, 21 Feb 2002 08:04:19 EST
        Subj:           Re: SHK 13.0494 Re: Shakespeare and Se


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 14:25:19 -0000
Subject: 13.0494 Re: Shakespeare and Sex
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0494 Re: Shakespeare and Sex

>From Brian Willis

(from Sam Small)

> > Quite true, but Bill the Man spent his whole life
> > from 18 onwards in
> > total and unabashed adulterous affairs with both
> > women and men.

(from Brian Willis)

>> Your proof?

I'm not sure what you want from me, Brian.  Are you suggesting that
Shakespeare did not have adulterous relationships after he left
Stratford for the first time?  Or do I ask you for proof of his
celibacy? The sonnets are littered with sexual incidents so we have to
believe the man himself.  He was married with children yet fornicated
across London and half the counties of England.  But adultery can be
with or without deception (the bigger sin, in my view) but we do not
know if Hathaway knew about the sexual dalliances of her husband the
poet.

SAM SMALL

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brandon Toropov <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 06:37:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0494 Re: Shakespeare and Sex (Parenting)
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0494 Re: Shakespeare and Sex (Parenting)

I wrote,

> > for all Macduff's agony, S chooses not to show him
interacting with the children he leaves in Scotland

Larry Weiss wrote,

> No, but Lady Macduff is shown as a loving mother.

Loving, yes, but doesn't her scene come off as just a little stilted
until the warning of the murderers' approach?  The vaudeville act with
the precocious kid setting up his own punch line ... for me, it all
points toward a man who didn't really spend a lot of time with children.

> And isn't Aaron a
> model father?

Puppet-show territory, I think.

Brandon

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 21:02:27 -0000
Subject: 13.0494 Re: Shakespeare and Sex
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0494 Re: Shakespeare and Sex

My thanks to all who provided the deluge of instances contradicting my
original point.  I'd like, if I may, to try to digest them.

(My apologies to anyone who isn't given proper credit in the following).

Several people on-list (and Ed Taft backchannel, who advanced my sense
of the issue even before the public posts appeared) cited Gertrude.

I'd like (if I may) to daff this one aside -- the play leaves it open
whether or not Gertrude has committed adultery with Claudius while her
husband was still alive, but Hamlet (who has no reason to feel kindly
towards him) notably calls Claudius a "Remorseless, treacherous,
lecherous, kindless villain" -- lecherous not adulterous.

["adulterous", the concordances tell me, occurs twice in the plays, and
"adultery" six times.]

The relation between Edmund and Goneril is more problematic.  I'll leave
it at that for the moment.

Bertram and Helen (cited by  Karen Peterson and John Drakakis) I'd like
to come back to.

Tamora's adultery with Aaron is pretty unequivocal, as Larry Weiss
points out.

Antony's adultery seems to me quite complicated.  He's explicitly termed
(by Mecaenas addressing Octavia in 3,vi) "the adulterous Antony".  But I
tend to see him as +effectively+ 'married' to Cleopatra, and his formal
marriage to Octavia as a political act rather than anything else.
"Husband, I come."

One further stray instance (if I may proffer it myself) would be
Antipholus of Ephesus and the Courtesan in _The Comedy of Errors_

Ed Taft pointed me to towards Paris and Helen in _Troilus and Cressida_,
to which I'd add (though Cressida and Troilus aren't formally married)
Cressida and Diomedes.  This seems to me +the+ major counter to whatever
argument I was trying to make in my original post -- the play isn't
simply permeated by sexuality but gives us one, possibly two, instances
of adultery which are  +central+ to the action.  Enough said.  <sigh>

Helen Vella Bonavita makes an interesting point:

"On a more abstract level, grievances against the monarchy in many of
the history plays are frequently expressed in terms of marital
fidelity/adultery."

... which could serve as a lead-into adultery in the history plays as a
distinct issue.

Alan Somerset points to Margaret of Anjou and Suffolk in 1 and 2 HVI,
Louis Swilley and Clifford Stetner to Edward and Jane Shore in RIII, and
(most recently, and pertinently)  Brian Willis to _King John_.

I'm not sure if there's a common thread here, other than the absence of
a common thread -- the probability of adultery between Margaret and
Suffolk is powerfully suggested but never quite unequivocally confirmed;
the adultery of Edward and Jane Shore is referred to but never shown
(and moreover, overshadowed by the later relation between Hastings and
Mistress Shore); in _King John_ (as Brian Willis shows) adultery begins
the play and is incarnate (shades of the black baby in TA?) in the
person of the Bastard, who continues central to the play.

Having worked through all the instances of adultery cited (and hoping I
haven't missed any), I'd like to turn the coin over to non-instances (an
issue which Karen Peterson mentioned explicitly in her post and which
others touched on).

In three plays -- MAAN (if we extend the term a little), WT, and Cymb,
we find Hero, Hermione, and Imogen falsely accused of adultery by
Claudio, Leontes, and Posthumus.  In each case, again, the women
apparently die, but are returned to life by the end of the play, and in
each case, the weight of condemnation rests heavily on the accusing male
figure.

Ed Taft pointed out to me that the pattern could be extended to _The
Merry Wives of Windsor_:

"I'd add that _The Merry Wives of Windsor_ is a classic example, in
which, as you know, Masters Ford and Page think that their wives have
committed adultery, but both are mistaken.  That's comedy, I suppose,
but often I get the sense in Shakespeare that he wishes to reinforce the
idea that couples can  and do stay true to each other -- that it's
foolish to be jealous without reason: it destroys trust unnecessarily."

If MWW is the wholly comic bracket, then the tragic bracket would be
_Othello_, where Desdemona, falsely suspected of adultery, authentically
dies.

Which brings me (back) to Bertram (with thanks to Karen and John for
introducing this, and which, before, it hadn't occurred to me to think
of in this context).  In some ways, Bertram's +attempt+ to commit
adultery, which turns out to be illusory, is the flip-side of the
illusory adultery that the women are accused or suspected of.  And here
I'd like to add-in Angelo's illusory attempt to commit (if we allow a
slight extension of the term) adultery which (like Bertram's) is
actually consummated upon the person of his to-be wife.  (Arguably, the
act of consummation here, given the nature of the previous contract
between Angelo and Marianna, itself confirms their marriage.  Or perhaps
that's pushing it just a little.)

Despite being learnedly deluged with more instances of adultery than I'd
expected, I think I'd still want to argue that instances of
non-adultery, if not greater in number, form a strangely coherent
thematic pattern.

With thanks to all, but especially Ed Taft, who is less-acknowledged in
what I've said above than he deserves, and certainly shouldn't be held
at all responsible for any infelicities, mistakes, or absurdities herein
contained.

Robin Hamilton

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Adrian Kiernander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Feb 2002 15:32:44 +1100
Subject: 13.0468 Re: Shakespeare and Sex
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0468 Re: Shakespeare and Sex

One of the clearest and most eyebrow-raising examples of adultery in
Shakespeare is the liaison between Bianca and Cassio, who is (at least
according to Iago) "a fellow almost damned in a fair wife".

Adrian Kiernander

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Feb 2002 08:04:19 EST
Subject: 13.0494 Re: Shakespeare and Sex
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0494 Re: Shakespeare and Sex

Don't forget the Henry VI plays (as everyone always does) remember
Suffolk's wooing of Margaret and his last lines of 1HVI?

Thus Suffolk hath prevailed, and thus he goes,
As did the youthful Paris once to Greece,
With hope to find the like event in love-
But prosper better than the Trojan did.
Margaret shall now be queen, and rule the King:
But I will rule both her, the King and realm.

(Arden Ed.5.4.103-108)

(Of course these lines could be written by that pesky Shakespearean
interferer Nashe or maybe poor old Greene from his death bed - the lusty
beggar! I think that given the context of this discussion however I am
happy to accept their Shakespearean origin...)

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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: New York Times Articles

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0503  Thursday, 21 February 2002

[1]     From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:           Thursday, February 21, 2002
        Subj:           Re: New York Times Articles

[2]     From:           Brandon Toropov <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 06:24:37 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:           Re: SHK 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles

[3]     From:           John Ciccarelli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 10:18:36 -0500
        Subj:           Re: NY Times Article

[4]     From:           Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 11:31:03 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:           Re: SHK 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles

[5]     From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 09:56:56 -0800
        Subj:           Re: SHK 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles

[6]     From:           Philip Tomposki <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 13:55:40 -0500
        Subj:           Re: New York Times Articles


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, February 21, 2002
Subject:        Re: New York Times Articles

I think this thread has probably gone on long enough, given the
discussion parameters that I have established.

Hardy

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brandon Toropov <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 06:24:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles

I wrote,

> >Sound and fury.
> >
> >I'm really surprised the Times bought into this.
> >
> >Brandon

David Kathman wrote:

> So am I.  But we're in verboten territory here, and
> I don't want to get
> a knuckle-rapping from Hardy.

In a totally unrelated development, I hear the Times is now planning a
six-part series exploring the ongoing controversy over whether or not
Paul McCartney is, in fact, dead. Much new "evidence" to examine,
including the possibility that George Harrison's recent shuffling off of
the mortal coil was an elaborate hoax meant to distract Beatles fans who
were finally homing in on the long-concealed truth. And let's be frank:
no album-cover clues whatsoever can be found to support the lead
guitarist's alleged demise.

Always two sides to every story, yes?

Brandon

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Ciccarelli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 10:18:36 -0500
Subject:        Re: NY Times Article

It's sorry to say that this NY Times article is not an isolated incident
but part of disturbing trend.  Within the last two years, I've seen a
few other instances of otherwise reputable sources putting forth
Oxfordian notions as if they were accepted facts and giving no space for
a Stratfordian rebuttal.  The trend is either to present their case
directly or by presenting a traditional Shakespeare biography but
pointedly remark of the "controversy" surrounding his authorship or lack
of facts about his life.  The most flagrant of these was an article that
appeared in US News and World reports (a July 2001 issue, I believe).
It appeared in a series of articles called "Mysteries of History" and
went to on to state the usual Oxfordian points.  The article stated its
information with an air of absolute certainty.  I wrote a letter to the
editor pointing out several of their errors, but I received no
response.  Also I noticed that the only letters that were printed in
regards to the article were pro-Oxfordian.  I believe there is a link to
this article on Dave and Terry's page.

Examples of the "Let's slip this in" approach are the A&E influential
people of the millennium countdown and the History Channel's Lost and
Found episode profiling Shakespeare's will.  Both pieces featured the
usual pomp and reverence surrounding a Shakespeare biography but then go
on to make open-ended remarks about the signatures or no mentions at the
time of his death.  Just enough of these remarks are peppered into the
segment to give the viewer doubt, while giving no time to refute these
points.  The sad part about these presentations is that they may be used
as educational tools for many years to come and be taken at face value.

I have no doubt that we will be seeing more of these articles and
presentations in the near future.

John Ciccarelli

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 11:31:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles

Could it be that because it's theatre, the Times (and the Washington
Post, which did a similar hack job a few years back) don't feel it
necessary to get their facts straight?  They seem to give themselves
tons of permission to get it wrong, and rely on gossip, when it's
theatre.

Of course, some of us would point out that the Times and others have a
similar lack of interest in checking facts in the other sections of
their paper, too, but that's one I'd rather not touch for now.

The abiding rule for journalism, as I understand it, should always be:

"If your mother says she loves you, check it out."

Andy White

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 09:56:56 -0800
Subject: 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles

David Kathman observes, on the subject of an Oxfordian article in the
NYTimes:

>The author had been seduced by Oxfordians, and for some reason,
>otherwise intelligent people tend to toss their normal standards
>completely out the window once they're under the thrall of that cult.
>I've never quite understood it.

I'm wondering if this should make us reconsider our commitments to
interdisciplinarity.  Oxfordians like to trot out (otherwise) smart
people who hold their views, and I'm wondering if their ability to do so
just indicates that people can be highly trained in one or two areas
(say, American law or psychotherapy) and remain completely ignorant in
others (i.e., Shakespeare Studies).  Perhaps this should make us
question our own forays into law, history, psychotherapy, etc.

Cheers,
Se n.

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Philip Tomposki <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 13:55:40 -0500
Subject:        Re: New York Times Articles

For those who are shocked (shocked!) by the NY Times ?authorship'
article, a quick primer on the fundamental principle of the news
industry:

Dog bites man - no news.  Man bites dog - NEWS!

Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare - no story.  Oxford, Marlowe, Bacon,
Elizabeth I and/or an alien from Alpha Centauri wrote Shakespeare -
STORY!

Philip Tomposki

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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: Machiavelli

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0501  Thursday, 21 February 2002

[1]     From:           Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 13:53:58 -0000
        Subj:           Re: SHK 13.0485 Machiavelli

[2]     From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 08:12:27 -0800
        Subj:           Re: SHK 13.0485 Machiavelli

[3]     From:           Jill Phillips <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:           Thursday, 21 Feb 2002 09:04:40 -0500
        Subj:           Re: SHK 13.0485 Machiavelli


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 13:53:58 -0000
Subject: 13.0485 Machiavelli
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0485 Machiavelli

Martin Steward well notes the importance of Machiavelli in Shakespeare's
works, and others, in Elizabethan times.  In my view "The Prince" is
probably the most important book I have read and would support its
compulsory insertion into every school curriculum wherever there are
schools on the planet.  Machiavelli did not invent 'real politic' he
merely reported the methods of diplomats of the most successful
governments in the world from Alexander to his present day.  As he says,
those Princes (politicians/diplomats) who wish to be good, noble and
honest are crushed by their enemies and their country thrown into
terrible chaos.  Lie, cheat, torture, ruin reputations, break your
solemn word, murder and blame others for the deed - all is permissible
in the struggle to keep the nation state intact and your people free to
enjoy their business and leisure.  And so it is today.  All successful
governments including Japan, USA, Britain and Europe conduct their
affairs in this manner to keep us all in the lifestyle we know as free
democratic consumerism.

If indeed Shakespeare was an old style idealistic Catholic and came to
know the ugly politics in the Elizabethan court (and the benefits that
came from it) - then he must have had a real crisis of faith.  This
comes out in a tirade in sonnet 66 and in sonnet 71 when dead will flee
from this "vile world".  But this political vileness is never expressed
more clearly than that in Hamlet where "Prince" Hamlet tries to do the
good thing and bring justice to Claudius.  But the truth is that his
uncle Claudius' reign is successful, whilst his father was a poor
leader.  The truth of this drives Hamlet mad.  In the chaos of the
ending when indeed Claudius is killed, Denmark is invaded and brought to
its knees.

Within "The Prince" lies the world's most awful truth.  The blurb on my
copy of "The Prince" says that this book still shocks.  It does.

SAM SMALL

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 08:12:27 -0800
Subject: 13.0485 Machiavelli
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0485 Machiavelli

I thank Martin Stewart and Bill Arnold for their learned comments about
Shakespeare and Machiavelli.  I see nothing in them that argues Virgil
Whittaker was wrong.  (Martin was not arguing this.  I'm not sure if
Arnold was or not.  His first and last paragraphs seemed at odds with
each other.  A clarification is welcome.)

Mike Jensen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jill Phillips <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Feb 2002 09:04:40 -0500
Subject: 13.0485 Machiavelli
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0485 Machiavelli

The stage machiavel was of course a stock character throughout
Renaissance drama, and its development is interesting to note once it
reaches comedy.  While machiavels in tragedy truly endanger the body
politic, like R III or Iago, authors of comedies use the name of
"machiavel" to signal merely commercial and social self-interest.  In
the mouths of characters who represent the virtuous country values of
the gentry, the slur implicates the greedy urban financier.  And the
name is used as a term of admiration by aspiring gullers.  When Juniper,
in Jonson's The Case is Altered (1597) calls Rachel "sweet Machiavel"
(2.554), the name refers to her skills as a crafty, subtle woman.  In
Shakespeare's Merry Wives of Windsor (1600), the Host offers a series of
synonyms, "Am I politic?  Am I subtle?  Am I a Machiavel?" (3.1.102).
Massinger's projector in A New Way to Pay Old Debts (1621), Sir Giles
Overreach, is described in terms Machiavelli reserved for his Prince, as
"both a lion and a fox."  And Jonson uses the word "machiavel" in The
Magnetic Lady (1632) to describe the political schemer Bias, "cut from
the quar/of Machiavel."  The name "Machiavel" also implicated the
aspirant to political sophistication who fails.  Characters wanting to
impress with their worldliness use it self-referentially.  In Volpone
(1606) Sir Politick Would-be advises Peregrine on how to be a savvy
Italian traveller, telling him to profess no religion, and to adhere
only to the local laws, adding that "Nic. Machiavel, and Monsier Bodin,
both/Were of this mind" (4.1.375).  Beaumont and Fletcher parody the
machiavellian villain in the character of Lucio in The Woman Hater
(1606), who in his attempts to be a successful secretary, boasts that
"my foreflap hangs in the right place, and as neare Machiavels, as can
be gathered by tradition" (5.1.29-31).

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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: Implied Stage Directions

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0502  Thursday, 21 February 2002

From:           Brandon Toropov <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 06:12:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0498 Implied Stage Directions
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0498 Implied Stage Directions

Werner Broennimann wrote,

> At a
> time (the 60s) when academic drama criticism almost
> completely
> disregarded the theatrical and communicative
> dimension of dramatic
> texts, he insisted on the performance aspect of
> Shakespearean plays,
> emphasising that the text was a score that only
> achieved completion in
> performance (on the stage or--here he made
> concessions--in our heads, if
> the text was read aright).

I think the described physicalization of the action is one of the things
that makes Shakespeare work so well as radio drama. Paradoxically,
though, it may also encourage people who are comfortable reading plays
"cold" to fool themselves into thinking that the texts are self-standing
entities. (This because implied stage directions often make it easier
for the reader to picture the action, often without his/her realizing
*why* it's easier to picture the action.)

> He investigated the signs
> in the
> Shakespearean text that pointed to the stage,
> systematising and
> discussing words that in subtle or obvious ways
> duplicated non-verbal
> stage sights, sounds, movements. Terms like "gestic
> impulse" (deictics
> like 'thus')

"Thus" is a great (and flexible) theatrical tool! It offers an example
of how some of S's implied stage directions can be both specific and
vague at the same time. Antony's "The nobleness of life is to do thus"
(I,i) necessitates that *something* physical happen onstage between
Antony and Cleopatra... but what is it? An embrace? A kiss? A sensual
caress that profoundly shocks the observing Romans?

The sense I get is of an experienced director who knew when he wanted a
specific stage picture, and was willing to write it in -- and also knew
when he wanted *something* to happen visually, but was willing to let
the company work out the details.

Brandon

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.

South Park

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0500  Thursday, 21 February 2002

From:           Marcia Eppich-Harris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 08:41:50 -0500
Subject:        South Park

I don't know if anyone here watches South Park, but in Season 5, there
is an episode about Terrance and Phillip in which the dynamic farting
duo part ways, and Phillip ends up playing Hamlet. The kids go to find
Phillip to convince him to perform at an Earth Day festival with
Terrance. They show the last minute of an abbreviated version of Hamlet,
and it's really funny - if you're into South Park that is.

Sorry if this has already been called to your attention. The skinhead
Hamlet made me think of this episode of South Park.

Cheers,
Marcia

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.