2003

Re: Shakespop

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0341  Friday, 21 February 2003

From:           John Zuill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Feb 2003 10:43:00 -0300
Subject: 14.0334 Shakespop
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0334 Shakespop

Did anyone mention "Last Action Hero".  The film starts with Arnold
Schartzenagger as an action hero Hamlet. He tosses the skull aside and
blows up the castle; helicopters and gun galore. It's the only part of
the film which is fun. Arnold always has a strain of irony running
through his flicks even at their most puerile.

John Zuill

_______________________________________________________________
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: Endings of Titus Andronicus

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0340  Friday, 21 February 2003

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Feb 2003 23:50:21 -0500
Subject:        Re: Endings of Titus Andronicus

I happily concede that I was not born to be an editor.  So I may be
totally in the dark here without knowing it.  But I am surprised (and
even dismayed) by the way so many people pass off speculation and
conjecture as fact and certainty when it comes to talking about editing
Shakespeare. In the case of the ending of Titus Andronicus, we have
what, for the sake of clarity, I will label an "addition" theory:  the
printers added the lines.  Since I do not find this theory convincing,
let me add a possibly new "restoration" theory, namely, that the lines
are by Shakespeare (or his representative or his collaborator).

I don't find the addition theory convincing for several reasons.

1. It assumes, without any foundation as far as I know, that problems in
Q2 were introduced by someone other than Shakespeare (either the
printers or the editor[s]) while Q1 is a perfect transcription of what
Shakespeare wrote.  Why not consider that the printers of Q1 mistakenly
cut the lines in Q2 and that the printers of Q2 were correcting their
error?

2. The idea that the printers added the lines depends on the
contradictory assumptions that (a) they were too dumb to recognize the
real ending, which is supposedly good and marked by the final, redundant
couplet and (b) smart enough to rewrite the final line (of Q1) and then
make up the final four lines (of Q2) themselves.  Further, it assumes
that they were industrious enough to write the lines but too lazy to ask
the editors about the correct ending of Q1.

3. The addition theory also assumes that the there was no intermediary
between Q1 and Q2.  The printers of Q2 merely used Q1 and did not have
access to the source of Q1 or a more recent and revised version of the
source of Q1.  What if this assumption is incorrect?  What if the
printers of Q2 added lines given them by the editor(s) of Q2?   If the
ending of Q2 the result of editing rather than printing, we may view the
ending of Q2 as an attempt to correct perceived problems with the ending
of Q1.  The most obvious problem is that the final couplet rhymes the
same word, namely, "pity."  One can make a virtue of this defect, of
course. One could argue that the word "pity" is so important in the play
that Shakespeare repeats it in the last two lines of the play so his
audience can appreciate its importance. But if that was the goal, the
execution is patently awkward.  It's kind of like an Oliver Stone movie
where EVERYTHING IS SPELLED OUT REALLY CLEARLY because the viewer is
assumed to be incredibly stupid.  If a case can be made for the Q1
ending, a case can also be made against it, it's enough to see.  And so
if the editor(s) of Q2 thought the ending of Q1 weak, or knew that
Shakespeare thought so, they may have either restored Shakespeare's
original ending (missing from Q1) by supplying what were Shakespeare's
original lines or by supplying what they thought was an approximation of
Shakespeare's lines or by supplying what were lines added in performance
and written by someone else, possibly with Shakespeare's knowledge.  I'm
not saying that the rewritten line and added lines of Q2 were
necessarily written by Shakespeare.  I am saying that they were an
effort to restored rather than simply tacked on.

4. Finally, Heminge and Condell accepted the Q2 ending.  Perhaps they
were lazy, indifferent, or incompetent editors in this instance. Perhaps
not. Perhaps they thought the Q2 ending the better ending.

If there are "facts" of which I am ignorant that invalidate my
restoration theory, let me just say "never mind" in advance.

Best,
Richard

_______________________________________________________________
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: 400th Anniversary of Elizabeth I

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0338  Friday, 21 February 2003

From:           Nancy Charlton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Feb 2003 15:32:21 -0800
Subject: 14.0319 Re: 400th Anniversary of Elizabeth I
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0319 Re: 400th Anniversary of Elizabeth I

Today's CS Monitor has a report on the exhibit at the Huntington and
also the forthcoming one at the Folger:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0221/p20s01-alar.html

The Folger, sez the article, will focus on the ". . . glittery side of
Elizabeth's court - her wardrobe, men, and court entertainments." The
Huntington, however, ". . . offers a context for Elizabeth's person and
times via letters, maps, artwork, anecdotes, and works of literature
(such as Edmund Spenser's "The Faerie Queen")."

No mention of Our Will.

It then summarizes her life, noting that the exhibit whitewashes her
Machiavellianism. In fact, I couldn't help thinking of Dudley and
Raleigh when I read the concluding paragraph, perhaps pessimistically
interpreting the last of the series of terms:

     She won the hearts of the common folk through something akin to
     Renaissance sound bites. Her speeches and pamphlets went out of
     their way to use simple language to promote a living deity of
     remote beauty, mercy, piety, and Tudor resolve.

I'll refrain from making comparison to what's going down in the city of
the Folger except to say I did read somewhere recently that speeches
from the White House are written at either 3rd or 5th grade level.

Nancy Charlton

_______________________________________________________________
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: 15 Minute Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0339  Friday, 21 February 2003

From:           Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Feb 2003 18:21:32 -0700
Subject: 14.0332 15 Minute Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0332 15 Minute Hamlet

>Chae Lian writes:
>
>I am in desperate need of a copy of Tom Stoppard's FIFTEEN MINUTE
>HAMLET.  For some reason, this play no longer seems to be part of a
>Stoppard anthology and can only be found as a single copy.  It appears
>to have been "replaced" by DOGG'S HAMLET instead, which is quite
>different.

DOGG'S HAMLET includes the entire 15 minute Hamlet (even the 1 minute
re-cap)...it is the last few pages of the play.  DOGG'S HAMLET is a play
about a group of school boys, who speak a language called Dogg, who are
putting on the 15 minute Hamlet in its "original language."  But the
Hamlet section at the end is indeed the exact same as the previously
published 15 minute version.

So if you have access to DOGG'S HAMLET you already have what you need!

Susan.

_______________________________________________________________
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: Henry VI Part 1 Questions

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0337  Friday, 21 February 2003

[1]     From:   D. F. Coye <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Feb 2003 11:47:58 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0333 Re: Henry VI Part 1 Questions

[2]     From:   H. R. Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Feb 2003 12:16:55 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0333 Re: Henry VI Part 1 Questions


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D. F. Coye <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Feb 2003 11:47:58 EST
Subject: 14.0333 Re: Henry VI Part 1 Questions
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0333 Re: Henry VI Part 1 Questions

I must disagree with Bruce Willis who wrote:

"Frequently, as I know is certainly the case in King John and Henry V,
having performed the Bastard and Henry in those plays, the French and
English pronounce the Dauphin in different ways. Usually scanning the
meter helps one determine how they pronounce it. The speech of the
French characters places the stress on the second syllable - Do-FAN.
Most of the English (although the characters in King John are sometimes
torn between the two and not clearly of one descent) tend to emphasize
the first syllable - DO-fin/fan, or DOLL-fin. I paid a lot of attention
to this during those productions. I clearly remember that for both the
Bastard and Henry, characters of British descent, they favored the first
syllable."

This word should never pronounced with second syllable stress no matter
who is speaking, as for example in H5 when the French King says to his
son at the end of 3.5 "Prince Dauphin, you shall stay with us in
Rouen".  The pronunciation Shakespeare intended was /DAW fin/, the
anglicized form we should still be using today.  If actors or directors
insist on a frenchified pronunciation, they can use /DOH fan/ (with the
second syllable the Fr. nasal vowel I can't reproduce here), but stress
still has to fall on the first syllable--which is normal for some recent
French words borrowed into British English but not American English (cf.
cafe, hotel, garage).  The spelling "Dolphin" was used in Eliz. times,
which simply indicates that Dauphin-Dolphin were homophones, the /l/
being silent in Dolphin as it was for many dialects in "falcon" and
"Walter" (cf. the pun in 2H6 on Walter-water).   The /l/ was later
restored in standard English for all these words--but some dialects,
southern NJ for example, still don't have an /l/ before a consonant in
any word (milk, elm, elk), even among  prestige speakers.

D. F. Coye
Princeton, NJ
Author of "Pronouncing Shakespeare's Words: A Guide from A to Zounds."
Routledge, 2002

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           H. R. Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 20 Feb 2003 12:16:55 EST
Subject: 14.0333 Re: Henry VI Part 1 Questions
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0333 Re: Henry VI Part 1 Questions

My guess is that there was indeed some contempt for the Dauphin
expressed through the "wrong" pronunciation. One associates to the small
likenesses -- porcelain or ivory as I recall, that frontally showed
Napoleon looking suitably imperial, but the reverse of the status
revealed that he was sitting on a toilet.

I would also wonder about the English -- and not only the English
people's native love of jokey wordplay around foreign words: Ypres
becomes Wipers in WWI, et cetera. Something innate here to the language
brain, and folks in linguistics might have something useful to speculate
about here.

H. R. Greenberg

_______________________________________________________________
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.