2003

Pitch a Play Contest

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1912  Wednesday, 1 October 2003

From:           Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 13:30:23 -0400
Subject:        Pitch a Play Contest

Just a reminder that the Poor Yorick Pitch a Play Contest ends on
November 30, 2003, so be sure to get your entries in!  We have (finally)
uploaded an online form, so you can enter directly from our website.

The odds of winning are still excellent, and Shakespeare Newsletter has
agreed to publish the winning entry.

Tanya Gough
The Poor Yorick Shakespeare Catalogue
www.bardcentral.com

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Penetrating Studies

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1911  Wednesday, 1 October 2003

From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 16:37:15 +0000
Subject:        Vic's Old Tate Globe

 Arthur Lindley writes (14.1896): "Don't the proprietors refer to it as
Shakespeare's Globe?"

They do. However the term is neither stable nor agreed universally
although that may come. Numerous articles - including some in "Around
the Globe" (the house journal)- use varied terminology. Comparison (by
serendipity originally) with articles on the "Tate Modern" suggested
that there is no parallel between the "Tate/Tate Modern" usage which is
very solid and that for the three "Globes" which is rather fluid. Hardly
of cosmic proportion but interesting but nevertheless. Possibly the fact
that there are two existing London "Tates" but only one Globe has a
bearing. "Old/Young Vic" also comes to mind as another example.

Best,
Graham Hall

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1909  Wednesday, 1 October 2003

[1]     From:   Annalisa Castaldo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 09:17:56 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1905 Hamlet

[2]     From:   Dana Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 06:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1905 Hamlet

[3]     From:   Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 08:49:34 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1905 Hamlet

[4]     From:   Mary Jane Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 12:30:43 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1905 Hamlet

[5]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 13:44:31 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1905 Hamlet

[6]     From:   Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 19:56:17 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1905 Hamlet


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Annalisa Castaldo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 09:17:56 -0400
Subject: 14.1905 Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1905 Hamlet

"Why would Hamlet deny giving Ophelia some gifts if they both know that
he did so?"

I've always taken the emphasis on Hamlet's line to be on the "you": I
never gave YOU (this woman who has rejected and betrayed me) aught." But
the possibility that Hamlet is continuing his act of insanity seems
perfectly probable. I'm not convinced that he's trying to drive Ophelia
crazy; one assumes he's still in love with her, and why would one be
driven crazy by the conflicting information from a person self
designated as mad?

Annalisa Castaldo

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dana Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 06:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 14.1905 Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1905 Hamlet

HHG,

O, everyone of us are arrant knaves.  You can trust none.  We all have
our parts to play.
-Shak, Ham.

D-

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 08:49:34 -0700
Subject: 14.1905 Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1905 Hamlet

Helen Gordon writes:

>I've often wondered about Ophelia's reply, "My Lord, you know right well
>you did." Why would Hamlet deny giving Ophelia some gifts if they both know
>that he did so?

Dover Wilson argued that it's about the pronouns in Hamlet's previous
lines "No, not I. I never gave you ought." He suggested that the 'you'
indicates Ophelia has changed and is not the woman he once loved.
Others, especially Harold Jenkins, believe it's in the repetition of the
two I's. It's Hamlet who has changed. I think this is particularly borne
out in the later exchange "I did love you once." "Indeed, my lord, you
made me believe so."

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mary Jane Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 12:30:43 -0700
Subject: 14.1905 Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1905 Hamlet

It makes sense, if he knows he is being watched by her father- and
whether he knows that he is being watched has been discussed before in
this forum

Mary Jane

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 13:44:31 -0500
Subject: 14.1905 Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1905 Hamlet

Helen H. Gordon asks,

>I've often wondered about Ophelia's reply, "My Lord, you know right well
>you did."
>
>Why would Hamlet deny giving Ophelia some gifts if they both know that
>he did so?
>
>If Hamlet is pretending to have forgotten, yet actually does remember,
>is he just trying to drive her crazy?

My answer is probably unhelpful: nothing in this scene makes consistent
sense. From, "Nymph, in thy orisons . . .' to "O, what a noble mind" it
is a mass of contradictions and blind alleys. One would be tempted to
think that Shakespeare had completely lost control of this scene, if it
didn't make such wonderful theater. It is possible that there are
elaborate staging ideas that are (typically) not included as directions,
and I have fantasized on these in the past. But that remains
speculation.

We can assume that Hamlet is pretending to be mad, whether he knows or
suspects that he is being spied on. (It would be wise of him not to drop
his cover even if he thought they were alone, and so I assume he agrees
with me.) But it has often been pointed out, however, that as a pretense
of madness it's a flop: the king is left more suspicious than ever.

If he suspects (or knows) that Ophelia is betraying him, as well as
lying to him, what he says and does can have a generalized logic. But in
detail it is all "wild and whirling words."

Cheers,
 don

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 19:56:17 -0700
Subject: 14.1905 Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1905 Hamlet

>Helen Gordon asks -
>If Hamlet is pretending to have forgotten, yet actually does remember,
>is he just trying to drive her [Ophelia] crazy?

I always thought he was purposely lying as part of his own feigned
madness.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Eunuchs

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1910  Wednesday, 1 October 2003

From:           Eduardo del Rio <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 09:42:48 -0500
Subject:        Eunuchs

Thank you all for the info. regarding the possible meaning(s) of the
reference to eunuchs in Twelfth Night.

What I am really interested in is trying to figure out what
Shakespeare's audiences may have thought of the reference, if anything.
How were the castrati viewed in Elizabethan England? Any info.  or
sources will be appreciated.

ed

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Now God stand up for bastards

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1908  Wednesday, 1 October 2003

[1]     From:   Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 07:57:51 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1894 Now God stand up for bastards

[2]     From:   C. David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 09:03:05 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.1874 Now God stand up for bastards

[3]     From:   HR Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 10:00:22 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1894 Now God stand up for bastards


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 07:57:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 14.1894 Now God stand up for bastards
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1894 Now God stand up for bastards

In the list of bastards, it occurs to me that we have excluded a person
whose legitimacy both as heir and monarch was contested: Elizabeth I.
And she does appear in drama, though in plays that would have defended
her legitimacy, especially Heywood's If You Know Not Me plays (based
largely on John Foxe's Acts and Monuments).

Jack Heller
Huntington College

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           C. David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 09:03:05 -0400
Subject: 14.1874 Now God stand up for bastards
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.1874 Now God stand up for bastards

Thanks for the replies.  I was prompted to the question from reading an
article about The Revenger's Tragedy, which makes much of Spurio's
bastardy and comments that the allegorical nature of the bastard was
pretty much a constant in the writing of the time -- and since
Faulkenbridge seems to be pretty much the only "good" bastard that comes
to mind (Brutus is, I think, a problematic possibility), I'll go under
the assumption that this notion holds water.

cdf

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           HR Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Sep 2003 10:00:22 EDT
Subject: 14.1894 Now God stand up for bastards
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1894 Now God stand up for bastards

In the two productions of King John I've seen, Falconbridge has been
played either as a patriot, or a Machiavellian schemer with ambiguous
feelings about "goodness".

I think the character is ambiguous, and subject hence to multiple
readings.

All too the good, I would say. HR 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.