2003

Re: Actors v Scholars

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0999  Thursday, 22 May 2003

[1]     From:   Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 20 May 2003 15:40:39 +0000
        Subj:   Acting off the book

[2]     From:   Kelley Costigan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 May 2003 13:22:28 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0977 Re: Actors v Scholars


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 20 May 2003 15:40:39 +0000
Subject:        Acting off the book

>SHK 14.0977 Re: Actors v Scholars
>
>For a thoughtful examination of the differing ways that actors and
>scholars engage with their texts, see W. B. Worthen, Shakespeare and the
>Authority of Performance (Cambridge, 1997).
>
>Frank Whigham

However not much depth of examination on the actor/scholar or the
scholar/actor in the same body - which is a species thought to be a
chimera by some. To some extent Worthen perpetuates the stereotype.
Clever folk can also act. Pure actors or pure scholars, if such exit,
are at the extreme percentiles of normality. However, it is quite normal
to be dim and unable to act. Certain theatrical companies (no names, no
pack-drill) exhibit such types regularly! The completely dim often pay
to see them. (No name, etc.)

Yours,
Noah Nemgivin.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kelley Costigan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 May 2003 13:22:28 -0700
Subject: 14.0977 Re: Actors v Scholars
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0977 Re: Actors v Scholars

Tue Sorensen writes:

>'There is a book series called "Players" (I'm not sure
>about the title,
> but I think it was reviewed in Shakespeare Magazine) which collect RSC
> actors' accounts of how they perceive Shakespeare's literary and
> theatrical meaning.'

I believe she means the Players of Shakespeare series which is published
by Cambridge University Press (edited by Robert Smallwood - other
editors have included Jackson and Brockbank) which is up to number 4.
It contains essays by RSC actors regarding their impressions of playing
various Shakespearian roles which is extremely informative from a
performance-based point of view (as opposed to a non-actor's point of
view).  It is a wonderful series and well worth a look, even if it is
just to see how a performer interpreted a role in a production you
either did not understand or enjoy.

Regards,
Kelley Costigan
Blood & Thunder Theatre Company

_______________________________________________________________
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.

6th Triennial Congress of the Shakespeare Society of

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0998  Tuesday, 20 May 2003

From:           Hilde Slinger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 20 May 2003 11:59:56 +0200
Subject:        6th Triennial Congress of the Shakespeare Society of Southern
Africa: 25-28 June

This notification may be of concern to delegates or prospective
delegates.  It has come to our notice that e-mails (including Abstracts)
over the above stated period have not reached us. The cause has been a
technical breakdown, which has been under repair, but without guarantee
that all mail could be saved or restored.  If delegates have written to
us and received no response, please send the matter by return.  Ideally,
we would like to hear from delegates to update their position with
regard to Congress.

We have obviously extended our closing date for Abstracts to allow for
delays caused by the serious problem.

Congress fees are due
<http://www.ru.ac.za/institutes/isea/shake/ConferenceForm.htm>

Congress website <http:///www.ru.ac.za/ShakespeareCongress>

Thank you for your understanding and co-operation.

Yours sincerely,
Hilde Slinger
Congress Convenor
Colonial Shakespeare
< This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >

_______________________________________________________________
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.

15 or 16 Years in Winter's Tale?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0996  Tuesday, 20 May 2003

From:           Ivan Fuller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 May 2003 20:34:45 -0500
Subject:        15 or 16 Years in Winter's Tale?

Please help me resolve this apparent (?) inconsistency in "WT."  Time
has stated that sixteen years have passed, but in the very next scene
(4.2) Camillo says that it's been fifteen years since he's seen
Sicilia.  Any idea what's going on?  Is this just one of those
inconsistencies, or am I missing something?

Ivan Fuller
Bare Bodkins Theatre Company
Sioux Falls, SD

_______________________________________________________________
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.

To Be or Not To Be. Whatever.

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0997  Tuesday, 20 May 2003

From:           Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 May 2003 23:09:31 -0700
Subject:        To Be or Not To Be. Whatever.

Adam Nicolson's column in the Daily Telegraph today (May 20), "Whatever
Happened to Conversation?" so thoroughly condemns a common American, now
transatlantic usage that you will swear never to use it again.
"Whatever" is the one-word that seems to dismiss the very idea of saying
anything.

Nicolson quotes Cordelia in passing ("that glib and oily art, / To speak
and purpose not") and ends with:

"Poetry, for one, can't really survive in a whateverised world.  To be
or not to be, that is the question. Whatever. Is this a dagger I see
before me? Whatever. The rest is silence.  Whatever."

The column is at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/05/20/do2002.xml

Al Magary

_______________________________________________________________
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: Shakespeare in the Groatsworth

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0995  Tuesday, 20 May 2003

[1]     From:   Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 May 2003 16:26:08 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0976 Shakespeare in the Groatsworth?

[2]     From:   Russell MacKenzie Fehr <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 May 2003 21:59:03 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0976 Shakespeare in the Groatsworth?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 May 2003 16:26:08 -0400
Subject: 14.0976 Shakespeare in the Groatsworth?
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0976 Shakespeare in the Groatsworth?

>Bob Grumman writes, "I have little problem with the notion that
>Shakespeare collaborated with Peele on Titus but think it more likely
>that he was only influenced by Peele.  He may also have revised a Peele
>play.  Reason: Greene in the Groatsworth warns Peele (many scholars are
>agreed) to watch out for Shakespeare, which suggests Peele didn't know
>Shakespeare.  But that, of course, assumes that Titus was done before
>1592, which I'm sure of although I have no more factual evidence for my
>belief than Vickers has for his belief in a later date for the play.
>(Vickers has also stated it as a fact that Chettle wrote the
>Groatsworth, based on a stylometric study he likes, so he can counter
>that Chettle didn't know what he was talking about."
>
>OK, you got me.  But I am curious, just what is this warning that Greene
>gave to Peele "to watch out for Shakespeare."  Who was Greene, dates and
>place, and who was Peele, dates and place, and when and where was this
>"Goatsworth" written or published?  And what is the specific referent to
>Shakespeare?  Can you quote it?  Thanks, in advance.
>
>Bill Arnold

The text I'm referring to is Greenes Groatsworth of Witte, by Robert
Greene, playwright, poet, pamphleteer, c. 1558-1592, or--many claim--by
Henry Chettle, who had it printed shortly after Greene died.  In this
book, there is a letter by Greene (supposedly) that is written to three
of Greene's fellow-playwrights, all unnamed but described in such a way
as to identify them, in the view of most scholars who have dealt with
the book, as Marlowe, Nashe and Peele.  At one point, Greene (or
Chettle) says, "Yes trust them (actors as a class, against whom he has
been inveighing) not, for there is an upstart crow among them who, with
his "tygers hart wrapt in a players hide," supposes he is as well-able
to bombaste out a blanke verse as the best of you, and being an absolute
Johannes fac totum, is in his own conceit the onely Shake-scene in a
countrey."  (spelling only sort of accurate)  Greene is actually warning
his three associates against actors in general--here and through the
fairly short letter--but he includes Shakespeare with them.

Do a search for Greene and the Groatsworth.  I am fairly certain that
copies of it are online.

--Bob G.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Russell MacKenzie Fehr <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 May 2003 21:59:03 EDT
Subject: 14.0976 Shakespeare in the Groatsworth?
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0976 Shakespeare in the Groatsworth?

Robert Greene (who was born in 1558, and died in 1592) was a playwright
and writer of prose. George Peele (who was born in 1556, and died in
1596) was another playwright. Shortly after Greene's death, a pamplet
entitled (using current spelling) Greenes, Groats-worth of witte, bought
with a million of Repentance was released. What is of interest with this
is not the actual topic of the pamplet (which is a fictionalized
autobiography of Greene), but, rather, an afterword, which is commonly
believed to have been aimed at Christopher Marlowe, Peele, and satirist
Thomas Nashe. In it, Greene warns about an "vpstart crow, beautified
with our feathers". This is under debate, and could be either a charge
of plagiarism or a complaint about an actor working as a playwright.
Greene mentions "his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde", which is a
parody of a line in 3 Henry VI ("O Tiger's heart wrapp'd in a woman's
hide"- I.iv.137), and, in addition states that the playwright "is in his
owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey".  These quotes make it
obvious that Greene is talking about Shakespeare, and is angry at him
for reasons that are still under debate to the present day.

Russell MacKenzie Fehr

_______________________________________________________________
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.