2003

Quiz Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2196  Tuesday, 18 November 2003

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Nov 2003 12:02:11 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2181 Quiz Question

[2]     From:   Tom Pendleton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Nov 2003 14:53:43 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.2168 Quiz Question

[3]     From:   Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Nov 2003 22:38:10 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2181 Quiz Question

[4]     From:   Rolland Banker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 16 Nov 2003 23:54:58 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Quiz Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Nov 2003 12:02:11 -0500
Subject: 14.2181 Quiz Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2181 Quiz Question

>references to 'choler' in Shakespeare
>are almost certainly not references to cholesterol

Of course not.  But the two words have the same root.  They both refer
to yellow bile.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Pendleton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Nov 2003 14:53:43 -0500
Subject: 14.2168 Quiz Question
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.2168 Quiz Question

Sir Andrew Aguecheek notes that he is "a great eater of beef" and fears
"that does harm to my wit" (1.3.85-86).  Presumably, rare to medium
rare, since, as Petruchio tells Kate, "overroasted flesh" engenders
choler (4.1.172-75)rather than stupidity. According to Thersites, the
"beef-witted" Ajax (2.1.13) would seem to share Sir Andrew's malady.

Tom Pendleton

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Nov 2003 22:38:10 -0700
Subject: 14.2181 Quiz Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2181 Quiz Question

Margaret Hopkins points out, after an epidemic of mad cow disease, that

>our Shakespeare seemed to know what he was talking about.

Dickens as well!  The orphanage in which Oliver Twist grew up seemed to
based on the theory that meat was not appropriate for young boys - it
would make them act up and be too aggressive!  I believe that the
funeral director who adopted Oliver was of the same mind.

And I recall an episode of "The Little Rascals" where they were in an
orphanage eating mush for much the same reason.

So it seems to me that the idea of red meat as a cause of choler
orunpleasant behavior was a very prevalent school of thought.

Susan.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rolland Banker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 16 Nov 2003 23:54:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        Quiz Question

Shucks!  I missed the buzzer; gotta be quick on this enthusiastic list,
but for sure no one will submit the unspeakable lines from:

Don Faljohn in the lost Cardenio Play(in my family's possession; we do
whatever we want with it and always will; nah nah nah nah nah!), Act
3.2.121

Faljohn:
He that eateth red meat getteth weak feet
And a choler to boot, put that in's mind
And ne'r look again to this rhyme of mine.

Lucrescendo:
Meats o'er heat tis mete for my feat o rhyme
But Ducats are better than thy rheumy whine
Why dost thou not come up and see
Me some

Don Faljohn:
        Time!!
I have ne'r the wit or time for such gross
Action! Your dowry was 'greed, witless that
I am, lackbrained too, it is too much
I must now pay for a wench like you. Zounds!

(It goes on something like that for a quite awhile. My kids have
scribbled on the text and in fact added their own crazy words in crayon
from time to time. Sorry!)

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Dramatis personae

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2195  Tuesday, 18 November 2003

[1]     From:   Dan Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Nov 2003 13:41:16 -0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.2182 Dramatis personae

[2]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Nov 2003 13:49:10 -0000
        Subj:   SHK 14.2182 Dramatis personae

[3]     From:   Dana Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Nov 2003 06:39:37 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2182 Dramatis personae

[4]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Nov 2003 07:05:33 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2173 Dramatis personae

[5]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Nov 2003 12:15:24 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2182 Dramatis personae

[6]     From:   Jay Feldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Nov 2003 13:42:32 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2182 Dramatis personae

[7]     From:   Susanne Collier-Lakeman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Nov 2003 11:52:31 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2182 Dramatis personae

[8]     From:   Mary Beth Geppert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 17 Nov 2003 09:02:46 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2173 Dramatis personae


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dan Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Nov 2003 13:41:16 -0000
Subject: 14.2182 Dramatis personae
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.2182 Dramatis personae

At the risk of inflaming the "is it a spirit or a ghost" argument again,
I quite like the idea that Hamlets real father is Claudius ;-)

I have no textual support for this of course but I someday I would quite
like to see a production that hinted at it in casting.

Dan Smith

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Nov 2003 13:49:10 -0000
Subject: Dramatis personae
Comment:        SHK 14.2182 Dramatis personae

Writes Thomas Larque:

'If you have doubts about whether the Ghost is a Ghost, as Hamlet does
himself - wondering if it is instead an evil spirit or "goblin damned"
pretending to be the ghost of his father...

If you have doubts about the actual identity of the Ghost, such that you
are suggesting that it is a ghost, but not of Hamlet's father, then we
have the Ghost's own word to the contrary "I am thy father's spirit",
and no apparent reason to suspect that it is lying.'

Doesn't the first one cast quite a bit of doubt on the second?

m

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dana Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Nov 2003 06:39:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 14.2182 Dramatis personae
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2182 Dramatis personae

Tom, et al,

Tom wrote:

>If you have doubts
>about whether the Ghost is a Ghost, as Hamlet does
>himself - wondering
>if it is instead an evil spirit or "goblin damned"
>pretending to be the
>ghost of his father - then the character name given
>to the Ghost in
>Folio, "Good" Quarto, and "Bad" Quarto alike
>strongly suggests that the
>Ghost is, as it claims, a ghost.

Tom I'm afraid that if you have been following this thread about the
semantical 'ghost' of Will S, you will realise you bring us to the edge
of a precipice, tottering on which we look down and dizzily wonder what
is a 'goblin'.

To risk the genetic heresy, I seem to recall it has something to do with
the element of cobalt, and therefore is an earthy substance, native
beneath the mountain.  In this case, I would identify the goblin with
the gravedigger.

Clearly, the earthy 'absolutism' of the gravedigger makes him the foil
of the 'airy' prince, who would call the compass of a nutshell a broad
expanse, to be spared evil dreams.

I am,
D-

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Nov 2003 07:05:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 14.2173 Dramatis personae
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2173 Dramatis personae

David Friedberg writes, "The Folio of 1623 does not give a list of
Dramatis Personae for Hamlet, but my copy of the Oxford Shakespeare
does.  It lists the Ghost as of Hamlet's father. I am not at all certain
that this ghost is that of Hamlet's father.  Can anyone tell me when did
a list of characters appearing in the play become the norm?  Has the
Ghost always been definitively described as Hamlet's father?"

Well, well, well: I guess not all the *Spirit/Ghost* posts of late were
read by all, which does not surprise me.  Anyway, it is crystal clear
that Will S, who wrote the play Hamlet, has characters in ACT ONE
*definitively describe* the *Spirit/Ghost* as the father of Hamlet;
indeed, down to minute details, so that there is *no doubt* whatsoever:
including the way Hamlet's father was last in his clothes, in armor,
with his armored "Beaver up" and his face exposed, and his face
frowning, and his demeanor one of an angry former king who *then*
relates details of his death by poison by his brother so that, again,
there is no doubt to Globe Groundlings who watched the play that it was
the *Spirit/Ghost* of Hamlet's father [consult Hardy's SHAKSPER archives
with the *SEARCH* function]!  In addition, the other characters,
including Prince Hamlet, confirm this fact of the dramaturgy.

The Holy *Spirit/Ghost* actually says to his *Son* Prince Hamlet, "I am
thy father's spirit...If thou didst ever thy dear father love--"

To which Prince Hamlet--horrified that his departed father's *Spirit*
would even entertain such a despicable thought, and doubt his *own* son,
echoing Will S's New Testament referents, that the Saviour said the
Greatest Commandment was to love thy Father in Heaven, who is thy God,
with all thy heart, and all thy mind, and all thy soul, from his
depths--blurts out, "O God!  ...and thy commandment all alone shall live
Within the book and volume of my brain...by heaven!"

Again: this Father, Son and Holy Spirit/Ghost *Trinity* dialogue is
right out of Will S's laundry list of nearly two thousand *spiritual*
allusions, quotations and paraphrases to the Bible, particularly the New
Testament; thus, do not doubt that the *Spirit/Ghost* is unequivocally
the *Spirit/Ghost* of the father of Prince Hamlet.

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Nov 2003 12:15:24 -0500
Subject: 14.2182 Dramatis personae
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2182 Dramatis personae

David Friedberg tells us,

>'I am not at all certain that this ghost is that of Hamlet's father.'

T. Hawkes responds,

>Neither am I. It's certainly the ghost of Gertrude's first husband, but
>that's not necessarily the same thing.

But since the ghost seems to enjoy at least a modicum of omniscience --
e.g., he knows who killed him even though he was asleep at the time --
is it not reasonable to assume that he would know if he is actually
Hamlet's father?  He says "I am thy father's spirit.

If we are to accept the bona fides of the ghost as that of Gertrude's
late husband, but question the perfectness of his knowledge (or his
veracity), we will have to travel even more convoluted byways.  The
effort required for such metal contortions is not worth whatever
harmonic satisfaction is derived from giving a literal interpretation to
"Our son will win."

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jay Feldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Nov 2003 13:42:32 EST
Subject: 14.2182 Dramatis personae
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2182 Dramatis personae

Thomas Larque writes: . . . The most likely alternative to the Ghost
being the ghost of Hamlet's father is - as Hamlet suspects - that the
Ghost is not a ghost at all but an evil spirit in disguise (an
interpretation supported by a sizable minority of critics) . . .

I do not believe that this was Shakespeare's intention but it could be a
legitimate interpretation of the play requiring no alteration in the
text.  To assure understanding of this devilish deceiver's active
ill-will in the minds of the audience, it could appear on stage, unseen
by the actors, pleased with Hamlet's vile behavior to Ophelia in the
nunnery scene and during his murder of Polonius. Additionally or
alternatively, it could assume the role of one or more minor characters
such as Reynaldo, Fortinbras' captain, the priest, the second
gravedigger, and/or Osric.

I wonder if anyone has produced a Hamlet using a demonic ghost who so
steadfastly steers Hamlet to corruption?

Inquiringly,
Jay Feldman

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Susanne Collier-Lakeman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Nov 2003 11:52:31 -0800
Subject: 14.2182 Dramatis personae
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2182 Dramatis personae

Thank you Terence. Always good for a laugh.

Can we not reference the revenge or blood tragedy tradition, which harks
back to the Greek tradition, that one cannot introduce the supernatural
unless the ghost/god has info not available to mere mortals.  Think of
the opening scene of the Spanish Tragedy.  One has to have a spirit to
get the old revenge thing going. Thus one takes on trust that the ghost
is "real".

Btw. Does anyone else agree with me that Brian Blessed is the best Ghost
on record? Now I'm probably getting into hot water.

Cheers,
Susanne

[8]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mary Beth Geppert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 17 Nov 2003 09:02:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 14.2173 Dramatis personae
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2173 Dramatis personae

Gary Taylor's "Remaking Shakespeare" 1985? details the beginning of
annotation and Dramatis Personae.  If my memory serves correctly
Alexander Pope in the early 18th century began listing the characters.
However it was during the Victorian period where they were organized as
we know them.  ie Touchstone for Clown, Duke Senior for Measure, etc.
Check out Taylor's book for a great cultural reference of Shakespeare.

Cheers,
Mary Beth

_______________________________________________________________
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.

The Shakespeare Theatre's Dream

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2192  Tuesday, 18 November 2003

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Subject:        The Shakespeare Theatre's Dream

I very much enjoyed the Shakespeare Theatre's latest version of /A
Midsummer Night's Dream/ as did the Shakespeare Theatre's newest
subscriber ten-year-old Rebecca Mary Elizabeth Cook, her big sister, and
mother.

Sparkling, Magical 'Dream'
The Shakespeare Theatre's Production Is as Enchanting As Midsummer
Moonlight
By Peter Marks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 11, 2003; Page C01

At times you can only barely make out the poetic speechifying in the
Shakespeare Theatre's new mounting of "A Midsummer Night's Dream," and
it has nothing to do with the audibility of the actors. No, what speaks
loudest in this ravishing production is the breath-stopping realization
of an enchanted world, as fit for the dream state as any you might
conjure in your own fertile unconscious.  While mouths are moving, your
distracted eye lingers on the image of Titania and Oberon, both 12 feet
tall in immense skirts and drifting through the forest like spellbinding
tepees. Or of Titania's winged fairies, wearing bits and pieces
scavenged from a janitor's closet and somersaulting through space, or
skulking on the ground, toting ghost lights. Or of the Changeling Boy,
floating down from the heavens on the fairy queen's bed, as if he were
one of the lost lads visiting from Neverland.

This boy, played by James E. Bonilla, is merely referred to in most
productions; he's the child over whom Oberon and Titania, king and queen
of the fairies, start their comic war, the battle that sucks in the
unsuspecting mortals from Theseus's Athenian court. But in Mark Lamos's
luminous staging, the boy is a ubiquitous character, present in both
court and forest scenes. And he has a real purpose. It's the dreams of
the young, the production asserts, that facilitate the greatest leaps of
imagination, that can animate the spirit in the most primitive and
magical ways. In concert with a prodigiously talented set designer,
Leiko Fuseya, and a costume designer, Constance Hoffman, who's a
virtuoso with needle and thread, Lamos does something to astonish a
seasoned theatergoer: He makes the play feel young again.

. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24243-2003Nov10.html

_______________________________________________________________
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://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.

Helena Bonham Carter's Ophelia

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2194  Tuesday, 18 November 2003

[1]     From:   Edward Pixley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Nov 2003 09:27:46 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2176 H B Carter's Ophelia [generation conflict]

[2]     From:   D. Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 14 Nov 2003 09:16:13 -0600
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.2176 Helena Bonham Carter's Ophelia


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edward Pixley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Nov 2003 09:27:46 -0500
Subject: 14.2176 H B Carter's Ophelia [generation conflict]
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2176 H B Carter's Ophelia [generation conflict]

>I have been thinking about Helena Bonham Carter's Ophelia.  Esp, just
>before the mad scene, there is a scene where O asks Gert "Who is the
>beauteous queen of Denmark?"   It occurred to me that as HBC played it,
>it was really a power struggle between the two, which of course O loses
>hence the mad scene to follow.  It reminded me of the scene in Glass
>Menagerie where the mother upstages the daughter in front of her
>suitor.  It all got me thinking about the extent to which the tragedy of
>Hamlet is not in some way driven by the refusal of the old generation to
>quit the stage.  It occurred to me that in Elizabethan Revenge Plays,
>there is a certain amount of the drama which depends on a
>transgenerational duty.

The Ragner Lyth (Swedish) film of Hamlet (c. 1970) makes this generation
conflict a central image of the production.  Of course, this was from a
period where both Europe and the US were in an intense generational
conflict  -- partly anti-Vietnam protest.  The Columbia and Sorbonne
riots of 1968, the Chicago Democratic convention demonstrations of the
same year, and the standard refrain -- "you can't trust anyone over 30"
-- are emblematic of the period.  "Jesus Christ, Superstar" and, in the
U.S., "Hair" and "Godspell" exemplify this generational conflict in the
theatre.  Just as in "Hair," no one comes out a winner.  Horatio's
attempt to report Hamlet's story is ignored, and Hamlet's body is hefted
out disrespectfully, as if it is going to be dumped on a garbage heap.
Fortibras costume suggests Viking, while Hamlet's final costume, on his
return from England, has a distinctive punk influence, dyed hair and
all.

Ed Pixley

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D. Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 14 Nov 2003 09:16:13 -0600
Subject: 14.2176 Helena Bonham Carter's Ophelia
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.2176 Helena Bonham Carter's Ophelia

Dana Wilson writes:

--I have been thinking about Helena Bonham Carter's Ophelia.  Esp, just
before the mad scene, there is a scene where O asks Gert "Who is the
beauteous queen of Denmark?"   It occurred to me that as HBC played it,
it was really a power struggle between the two, which of course O loses
hence the mad scene to follow. --

I don't know whether this is a typo or an actual replication of what
Bonham Carter said. The line is "Where is the beautious maiestie." I was
so startled I actually went to the trouble of looking it up to see if my
memory might have been mistook.

Did she really take it upon herself to improve Shakespeare in that
fashion?

Cheers,
don

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Bard Barred For Being Too Boring

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2191  Tuesday, 18 November 2003

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 17 Nov 2003 13:00:09 -0500
Subject:        Bard Barred For Being Too Boring

Bard barred for being too boring

Chris McGreal in Johannesburg
Wednesday April 18, 2001
The Guardian

Generations of schoolchildren have been saying it for years but finally
it is official: Shakespeare is boring, unlikely and ridiculous.

At least that is the view of a committee of teachers appointed by the
education department of South Africa's most important province, Gauteng,
which wants to ban some of the Bard's works from state school reading
lists because they have unhappy endings, lack cultural diversity and
fail to promote the South African constitution's rejection of racism and
sexism.

Julius Caesar never had a chance of making it past the sexism criteria,
with the committee condemning the work because it "elevates men". Antony
and Cleopatra and the Taming of the Shrew fared little better, both
being described as undemocratic and racist.

Hamlet was declared persona non grata on the grounds that the play is
"not optimistic or uplifting". But it was the "too despairing" King Lear
that fared the worst. "The play lacks the power to excite readers and is
full of violence and despair. The plot is rather unlikely and
ridiculous," the committee concluded.

Those that slipped through included Romeo and Juliet (presumably not for
its happy ending), The Merchant of Venice, (anti-semitism not being
considered racism?) and Macbeth.

. . .

Some of South Africa's most prominent writers and artists plan to send a
letter of protest to the ruling African National Congress accusing it of
"political correctness gone mad".

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,474398,00.html

_______________________________________________________________
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.