2002

Re: Pessimism in Lear

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0901  Saturday, 1 April 2002

[1]     From:   David Wilson-Okamura <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 11:26:58 -0600
        Subj:   Re: Pessimism in Lear

[2]     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 31 Mar 2002 09:30:33 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 13.0876 Re: Pessimism in Lear


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Wilson-Okamura <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 11:26:58 -0600
Subject:        Re: Pessimism in Lear

A few addenda to my earlier remarks on tragedy, in the form of
quotations:

1. C. S. Lewis, _An Experiment in Criticism_, pp. 77-79

No one denies that miseries with such a cause and such a close can occur
in real life. But if tragedy is taken as a comment on life in the sense
that we are meant to conclude from it 'This is the typical or usually or
ultimate form of human misery' then tragedy becomes wishful moonshine.
Flaws in character do cause suffering but bombs and bayonets, cancer and
polio, dictators and roadhogs, fluctuations in the value of money or in
employment, and mere meaningless coincidences cause a great deal more.
Tribulation falls on the integrated and well adjusted and prudent as
readily as on anyone else. Nor do real miseries end with a curtain and a
roll of drums 'in calm of mind, all passion spent'. The dying seldom
make magnificent last speeches. And we who watch them die do not, I
think, behave very like the minor characters in a tragic death-scene.
For us the play is not over. We have no _exeunt omnes_. The real story
does not end: it proceeds to ringing up under-takers, paying bills,
getting death certificates, finding and proving a will, answering
letters of condolence.  There is no grandeur and no finality. Real
sorrow ends neither with a bang nor a whimper....The tragedian dare not
present the totality of suffering as it usually is in its uncouth
mixture of agony with littleness, all the indignities and (save for
pity) the uninterestingness of grief. It would ruin his play. It would
be merely dull and depressing. He selects from the reality just what his
art needs; and what it needs is the exceptional.

2. Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Experience"

People grieve and bemoan themselves, but it is not half so bad with them
as they say. There are moods in which we court suffering, in the hope
that here, at least, we shall find reality, sharp peaks and edges of
truth. But it turns out to be scene-painting and counterfeit. The only
thing grief has taught me, is to know how shallow it is. That, like all
the rest, plays about the surface, and never introduces me into the
reality, for contact with which, we would even pay the costly price of
sons and lovers.

3. Dostoevsky, _Brothers Karamazov_, bk. 7, ch. 4

[A ruined woman threatens to kill her seducer with a knife. In the end,
though, she leaves the knife at home. Alyosha comments afterwards,] She
has gone to the feast....No, she has not taken the knife...That was only
a tragic phrase....Well...tragic phrases should be forgiven, they must
be.  Tragic phrases comfort the heart...

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 31 Mar 2002 09:30:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Pessimism in Lear
Comment:        SHK 13.0876 Re: Pessimism in Lear

Martin Steward shares with us the news that, after reading King Lear, '
I always feel the need to run off to Cymbeline as quickly as possible.'
Some colleagues may be unfamiliar with this use of the play's title as a
verb.  It is of course theatrical slang for a process of cathartic
evacuation.

Terence Hawkes

_______________________________________________________________
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: Antic Disposition: Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0900  Saturday, 1 April 2002

[1]     From:   Holger Schott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 12:14:43 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.0883 Antic Disposition: Question

[2]     From:   Harvey Roy Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 17:51:48 ES
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0883 Antic Disposition: Question

[3]     From:   Cliffford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 22:41:51 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0883 Antic Disposition: Question

[4]     From:   Andy White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 30 Mar 2002 08:27:48 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0883 Antic Disposition: Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Holger Schott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 12:14:43 -0500
Subject: 13.0883 Antic Disposition: Question
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.0883 Antic Disposition: Question

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

>Does anybody know more about the punishment for murder committed in a
>state of madness in  Elizabethan England, ancient Rome (cf. Seneca's
>tragedies) or  Greece (Medea, Hercules etc.)?

I'm not absolutely positive about the situation in early modern England,
but I'm pretty sure that there was no insanity defense - at least I
can't think of any major trial where the accused was acquitted because
of alleged health issues (mental health and physical health being
essentially inseparable in the period). I imagine convicted felons might
have been able to obtain a royal pardon on the basis of insanity, but
pardons could pretty much be granted to anyone on any grounds whatsoever
anyway... As for the Roman and/or Greek practice, I have no idea, but
Daniel N. Robinson's _Wild Beasts and Idle Humours: The Insanity Defense
from Antiquity to the Present_ (Harvard UP, 1996) should have the
answer...

Holger

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:              Harvey Roy Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 17:51:48 EST
Subject: 13.0883 Antic Disposition: Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0883 Antic Disposition: Question

A plea of madness did not help an English lord escape the gallows during
the l8th century. Cannot remember his name at the moment, but he brought
in one of the great London mad doctors, James something or other, who in
his testimony at the house of Lords was quite circumspect -- the man in
question was not deluded, no did he hallucinate, he was a right mean
vicious bastard by all accounts. He did not succeed, as noted, and was
executed.

The plea of innocent by reason of insanity as far as I know did not
enter English jurisprudence until the l9th century, in the famous
M'Naughton assassination case, in which it was propounded that one had
to understand the difference between the right and the wrong as was so
far deranged by mental incapacity or illness that one could not adhere
to the right.

As far as earlier pleas in England elsewhere, I do not think there was
law per se to support them, except -- and I may be wrong here -- for the
Talmud, which would at least ask that a consideration of the murderer's
mental state be undertaken. But this is dim in my memory.

Harvey Roy Greenberg

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Cliffford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 22:41:51 -0500
Subject: 13.0883 Antic Disposition: Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0883 Antic Disposition: Question

The traditional connection between revenge and feigned madness that
includes David, Brutus and all of the sources of Hamlet is usually a
ploy to divert suspicion in advance of the act.  The issue of punishment
generally doesn't come up, as the avenger either dies in the process or
inherits the victim's political power. The feigning of madness as a
literary trope (as opposed to the real madness of Medea and Hercules)
is, in all cases I'm aware of, expressly calculated to protect the
avenger who is in a vulnerable position from falling prey to the fate of
the victim of the crime he is planning to avenge. Real madness is more
complicated. The Hercules myth is often cited as reflecting Greek ideas
about insanity, as he was forgiven for his crime and treated
sympathetically by the community, reflecting Plato's Laws Book 9 which
suggests that insanity should be exculpatory to a certain degree. The
history of the insanity defense is widely covered in legal and medical
literature. Here are some of the important precedents (from
http://ua1vm.ua.edu/~jhooper/insanity.html ):

ROMAN LAW- the Twelve Tables ~450BC ROME: Excused children and the
insane from crimes; gave guardianship for fools, usually their paternal
family Romans used expert witnesses, but no Drs. - one law says public
officials should check carefully since many people feign insanity to
avoid civil obligations

Code of Justinian - Corpus Iuris Civilis 528AD Rome: Codified Roman law,
separated it from Church Law- Discussed the rights of the insane,
competency to make wills, excused all insane from any criminal
responsibility - insane were like someone dead or asleep "soundness of
mind, not... of body, is required... to make a will."

Henri de Bracton. On the Laws & Customs of England 1256 England:
described the "wild beast" test, also noted that insane were allowed to
seek pardons from the King to release from responsibility. This is
essentially a Guilty But Insane (GBI) law, with exclusion after the
fact.

Edward I -The King's Right 1300: differentiated between 'natural fools'
who were congenitally abnormal and 'non compos mentis' who could wax &
wane in symptoms.

Principles of legal insanity between 14th and the 16th century seem to
be Texan rather than Roman.

REX v. William LAMBARDE Eirenarcha 1581 ENGLAND: "If a madman or a
natural fool or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy has no knowledge of
good or evil and he does kill a man, this is not a felonious act, for
they can not be said to have any understanding Will."

REX v. ARNOLD16 How. St. To. 695 1724 ENGLAND: Trial of "Mad Need"
Arnold is the first known Insanity trial in which full transcript
exists. Arnold shot Lord Onslow - believed Onslow was "in his belly and
Bosom, and caused imps to keep him awake at night"; Charge said "must
have no more understanding than an infant, brute, or Wild Beast" Arnold
found guilty, but sentence commuted to life by Lord Onslow.

It would seem then that Saturninus' comment reflects a "new" rather than
a continuous legal principle in England.

Clifford

> It is a recurrent motif in revenge tragedies that revengers feign
> madness before they start their revenge. Could this just be to escape
> capital punishment after the deed?
>
> Titus Andronicus, IV.4. 21ff "But if I live, his feigned ecstasies /
> Shall be no shelter to these outrages, / But he and his shall know that
> justice lives / In Saturninus' health..." seems to indicate this.
> (feigned ecstasies / madness = legal shelter)
>
> Does anybody know more about the punishment for murder committed in a
> state of madness in  Elizabethan England, ancient Rome (cf. Seneca's
> tragedies) or  Greece (Medea, Hercules etc.)?

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andy White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 30 Mar 2002 08:27:48 -0500
Subject: 13.0883 Antic Disposition: Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0883 Antic Disposition: Question

Feigned madness has a tradition that goes back to pagan times; madness
could be put on in order to conceal the hero's plan for revenge -- it
has been pointed out that the "original" version of the Hamlet legend,
written by a Latin monk, seemed to borrow heavily from the lore of a
previous regicide who feigned stupidity as he plotted his revenge --
i.e., "Brutus," which in Latin has the connotation of 'dummy.'

In these legends, the madness was not adopted in anticipation of legal
proceedings, but it's worthwhile to consider whether Shakespeare added
that layer into his version of the story -- hence, Hamlet's claim before
the duel that he acted out of temporary insanity.

Good question!

Andy White

_______________________________________________________________
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: Towards a New Dunciad

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0898  Saturday, 1 April 2002

[1]     From:   R.A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 10:46:22 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad

[2]     From:   R.A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 10:49:21 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad

[3]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 31 Mar 2002 19:05:33 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R.A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 10:46:22 -0600
Subject: 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad

> PS - "The Masque of the Red Death" is a masterpiece, and I'll contend
> with anyone who thinks otherwise. (No, it's not Jonson, it's Corman
> "interpreting" Poe...)

I worked on several of Roger's epics in the 70's.

All the best,
R.A. Cantrell
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R.A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 10:49:21 -0600
Subject: 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad

> Unfortunately, most Shakespearean
> films offer little or nothing of enduring socio-cultural interest.

Should they? I didn't get the memo.

All the best,
R.A. Cantrell
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 31 Mar 2002 19:05:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad

David Bishop writes, "Charles Weinstein shows a touching faith that an
advanced degree in film studies makes one an expert on film, and in
literary studies an expert on literature. What then are his credentials
for judging Shakespeare films? Not that I care. My point is that for me
the only credentials he needs are to be found in the quality of his
thinking, on any subject. As for all the valuable work those amateurs
writing on film would be doing if only they would turn their attention
back to their legitimate field, I think I can safely do without most of
it."

I believe I have mentioned I was a motion picture projectionist for
several decades, among other duties in my lifetime here on the planet,
and have a relative fondness for the medium.  I have had a number of
famous actors and directors walk abruptly in my booth over the years, I
ran the rushes for the director and casting director of _Jaws_, I ran
the world's premiere of _Harold and Maude_ for Ruth Gordon, personally,
and all those memories make me remember all that movies meant to me when
I was young and tender.  I even recall getting up and walking out on the
last scene of _Easy Rider_ before it happened, knowing _what_ was going
to happen.  To this day I can't swim in the ocean [Jaws] nor ride on
motorcycles [ER].  Film is powerful, and so is stage drama.  And it
entertains.  Does CW _really_ know what the word _entertain_ means?

Now that I am an old bird, I look back on films I saw years ago through
the wrong end of a telescope.  Memory has a way of collapsing reality
for us, agreed?  Anyway, I cannot quite follow CW's point about film and
Shakespeare, at all.  By way of example, I think back on a unique black
and white film, quite artsy, in my distant past, one I am sure some of
you all remember as a ghostly remembrance of its past, and yet are quite
_glad_ it was put into celluloid.  It was _Last Year at Marienbad_.  God
help me if I spelled that wrong.

Here's my point: CW can categorize the arts however _he_ wishes.  I saw
the latest R&J By BL and in hindsight I _loved_ it.  It is now a _fond_
memory like that grainy LYaM.  But I know art would not be the same:
film, stage, whatever, but for the tantalizing film LYaM.  It was like
BL's R&J: a _new_ way of looking at entertainment.  Who knows how many
writers, directors, et al., have been _affected_ artistically by LYaM,
and it is part of their ID and they do _not_ know it, even as they do
new artistic endeavors.

After all, what is Shakespeare, but entertainment?  The cottage industry
which has developed around his plays and his memory is just that.  So
what.

CW cannot stop  billions upon billions of people from going out, paying
their saw bucks for tickets, gulping down soda and popcorn and saying,
"well, we had a nice time at the movies."  Entertained :)

Bill Arnold

_______________________________________________________________
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: Plagiarism and Update

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0899  Saturday, 1 April 2002

[1]     From:   David Wilson-Okamura <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 11:05:56 -0600
        Subj:   Re: Plagiarism and Update

[2]     From:   Nancy Charlton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 11:08:03 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0885 Re: Plagiarism and Update

[3]     From:   David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 30 Mar 2002 12:31:50 GMT0BST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0885 Re: Plagiarism and Update

[4]     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 31 Mar 2002 09:28:56 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 13.0885 Re: Plagiarism and Update


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Wilson-Okamura <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 11:05:56 -0600
Subject:        Re: Plagiarism and Update

Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

>When I have a case where I'm confident that the paper has been
>plagiarized, but can't find the source (or don't want to spend the time
>looking), I simply refuse to accept it. I give the student a set amount
>of time in which to write a replacement, with the proviso that he or she
>be prepared to show notes and drafts. I have never (yet) had a case of a
>second effort at plagiarism with faked notes and a fake rough draft.

Don, could you say a bit more about how this works better than an
accusation of plagiarism? If you can't prove plagiarism, how do you
persuade the putative offender to write that replacement paper? I can
see how this might work with a student who already feels guilty or
nervous; but in my experience a lot of students don't.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nancy Charlton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 11:08:03 -0800
Subject: 13.0885 Re: Plagiarism and Update
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0885 Re: Plagiarism and Update

This isn't exactly about plagiarism but it's close. A few days ago on
the shakespearehigh.com discussion board, someone posted an ad for 500
essays on Shakespeare, freely downloadable. This was universally met
with disapproval by the webmaster Amy Ulen and others, who stated that
their purpose was to help students do their work but not to do it for
them.

Yesterday a different person announced an "educational tool for the
digital age," namely, a DVD of Macbeth. As described, it isn't all that
bad. Had this person posted once, making a simple and dignified
announcement, I might have quoted the post here. However, he spammed
Amy's board, posting the same message in every single discussion thread.
He obviously expects a cordial and enthusiastic reception because inter
alia he mentions that they are seeking investors for another similar
production. Maybe he knows his market better than I do, but my reaction
was that he has shot himself in the foot by protesting too much.

Nancy Charlton

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 30 Mar 2002 12:31:50 GMT0BST
Subject: 13.0885 Re: Plagiarism and Update
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0885 Re: Plagiarism and Update

Edmund Taft writes:

> there really is a fundamental problem when writing about
> authors like Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer, etc. that is not talked about
> often.  In short, is it POSSIBLE to write an essay about Shakespeare
> without plagiarism?  Can ANYONE cleanly and completely categorize/know
> what is entirely new (and hence one's own) and what is stored in memory
> and gotten from years, decades, of reading?
>
> I will confess that more than once I thought I had come up with an idea
> (and was completely convinced it was mine alone), only to discover that,
> really, I had read it elsewhere but forgotten that I had done so.
> Doesn't that really happen often? -- more often than perhaps we would
> like to admit?

Yes, it does happen.  To give an example:  in my introduction to The
Tempest I used the phrase 'hall of mirrors' to characterise the effect
of the many repetitions within the play.  At the last stage of writing,
I encountered the phrase (a not particularly original one, it has to be
said) in an essay by Harold Brooks which I had no record of having read
earlier - though I well might have done.  Having discovered this, I
acknowledged it.

But I would maintain that if I had not reread the essay, and hence
(re)discovered the parallel, my initial use of the phrase would not have
been 'plagiarism', since plagiarism includes in its definition an
intention to deceive, and knowingly to pass off the words of others as
one's own.  In the case of student essays it is not the chance use of an
idea or a phrase encountered elsewhere which is plagiarism, but, to
paraphrase Spenser, 'a continued dark deceit' which counts.  Or, to
borrow from Ben Jonson (himself borrowing from generations of
authorities) the distinction is between borrowing which is 'servile',
and imitation which is 'able to covert the substance, or Riches of
another Poet to his own use ... not as a Creature, that swallowes, what
it takes in, crude, raw, or indigested; but, that feedes with an
Appetite, and hath a Stomacke to concoct, divide, and turne all into
nourishment.'

I've never found it particularly hard to distinguish the one from the
other.

Professor David Lindley
Head, School of English

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 31 Mar 2002 09:28:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Plagiarism and Update
Comment:        SHK 13.0885 Re: Plagiarism and Update

Bill Arnold writes about

'the tendency of certain cliques with anonymous internet names to
develop round certain viewpoints round certain authors and certain
scholars, so much so that their unsubstantiated viewpoints ride herd on
certain lists which if published in book form would never fly.'

Eh?

T. Hawkes

_______________________________________________________________
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: Acting the Bard

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0897  Saturday, 1 April 2002

From:           Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 16:43:34 -0000
Subject: 13.0886 Re: Acting the Bard
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0886 Re: Acting the Bard

As a human being first (actor third) I must profoundly disagree with
both Aimee Luzier and Susan St. John who I am sure are wonderful
actresses.  My point is that first you have to decide one of two things
- and if I may take Iago as an example.  Did Shakespeare withhold Iago's
source of ire because (a) he was being mischievously secretive or (b) he
deliberately withheld the information.  Actors have no more information
that the audience in this matter.  To the acting Ms St John and Luzier I
say - that means you too! You don't know therefore can't know.  I think
the clue is clear.  It is a universal, Lucifer type, demonic hatred that
would not be stopped by a brown envelope saying that the promotion had
finally come through.  Iago, don't forget, is not only after the
destruction of the noble Othello and his innocent wife but the complete
humiliation of his reputation - which he
achieves.   There's lots madness in Iago - but of course, lots of method
too.  If you don't understand the awe-inspiring power of irrational
hatred then don't play Shakespeare.

SAM SMALL
http://www.passioninpieces.co.uk

_______________________________________________________________
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.