2003

Historians Today

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1865  Friday, 26 September 2003

[1]     From:   Kathy Dent <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 12:10:46 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1850 Historians Today

[2]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 19:40:13 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1857 Historians Today


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kathy Dent <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 12:10:46 +0100
Subject: 14.1850 Historians Today
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1850 Historians Today

>I gather there is some British meaning to the concept "bunfight" that
>eludes their American cousins. Or is there? As a concept it is new to me
>though not without a certain salacious appeal.

I can assist Don with the term 'bunfight'.  It's one of my own personal
favorites and broadly equivalent to a 'knees-up'.  Just a bit of a
get-together really, with implications of chaotic revelry leading to
punch-ups.  Knowing this, however, was no assistance to me in
understanding Graham Hall's comments on historians, which I found
completely incomprehensible.  So if anyone can explain what he was
getting at, I'd be interested.

Kathy Dent

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 19:40:13 +0100
Subject: 14.1857 Historians Today
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1857 Historians Today

>Salacious falacious. If you want to visualize a "bunfight," think John
>Belushi in the cafeteria in "Animal House."
>
>Susanne Collier

A bunfight is what takes place in a beanfeast in the dorm.
Metaphorically extended, a happy little intimate battle with no blood
shed.

Robin Hamilton

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Ambiguous Words

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1864  Friday, 26 September 2003

[1]     From:   Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 08:11:21 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1854 Ambiguous Words

[2]     From:   Bob Rosen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 12:36:12 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1854 Ambiguous Words

[3]     From:   Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 17:50:18 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.1854 Ambiguous Words

[4]     From:   Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 22:55:17 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1854 Ambiguous Words


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 08:11:21 -0400
Subject: 14.1854 Ambiguous Words
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1854 Ambiguous Words

Having decided that, despite Hardy's valiant and concerted efforts to
keep them otherwise, many of the threads on SHAKSPER-L have degenerated
into showcases for inflated egos---and arenas in which inflated egos
attempt to deflate one another---often clumsily, and sometimes
maliciously---rather than forums for the polite exchange of scholarly
ideas, I was determined not to participate further (the obvious comeback
"good riddance" notwithstanding). However, I do need to correct an
apparent misperception on Peter Groves' part: as Ms Swilley points out,
I did NOT say that MoV was anti-Semitic: I said that *Antonio* was
(which is quite a different observation). In an earlier post on this
same subject (which Ms. Swilley obviously recalls) I had said that I
thought that Shakespeare's portrayal of Christians who behaved in a most
un-Christian manner worked as a foil to the *play's* (but not
necessarily Shakespeare's) stereotypical attitude toward Jews. I see no
reason to accept the testimony of Shylock's treacherous and self-serving
daughter concerning her father's motives, and while Shylock's motives
for the  price he names may not be altruistic, I don't believe he
intends to enforce payment in that form *when the pact is made*: even
the Jew-hating Antonio says, privately, to Bassanio, once Shylock has
left the stage, "The Hebrew will turn Christian: he grows kind"
(1.3.122).

Indeed, "o father Abram"---see Abram and Melchizedek, Hebrews 7:1-10, in
this context, which Shakespeare may be glancing at ironically via
Shylock's exclamation---"what these Christians are, / Whose own hard
dealings teaches them suspect / The thoughts of others!" It was a
well-known irony too that English Christians who did not engage in usury
because of their religious convictions (Jesus drove the moneylenders
from the temple) thought nothing of borrowing from Jews who did---and
that therefore even in the days when the banishment of Jews from the
nation was actually enforced, officials "looked the other way" for those
who performed that service, since it was essential to commerce.
Hypocrisy abounds in this play---and Shylock is not its only, or even
its worst, practitioner.

I did not say that the UCC applied to this play (that would be
ludicrous), only that it was a modern analogue for the equality of the
principals in terms of their ability to judge the ramifications of their
pact. I also did not say that being hoisted on one's petard had only one
meaning; just the context in which it was being discussed, it had a
metaphorical rather than a literal meaning (and I have no wish to pit my
"acclaimed editors" against the respondent's).

I do hope that all of the Monday morning quarterbacks post with the same
nitpicking precision that they demand of others . . . and that when they
don't, they are hoisted on their own petards royally by those at whose
jugulars they have previously lunged. (And before anyone puts this at
the feet of Terry Hawkes, I do not include him in this broadbrush: his
role---and it is a role---as resident curmudgeon is one he invented, and
he plays it well, without malice; not so those who attempt to imitate
him, without his malcontent's wit.)

Please do let me know if and when scholarly decorum returns to
SHAKSPER-L. I will return then, too.

Carol Barton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Rosen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 12:36:12 EDT
Subject: 14.1854 Ambiguous Words
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1854 Ambiguous Words

>I've never heard of any Western legal code that grants executionary
>>power to a party, etc.
>
>In the case of "Merchant," it does. That's a fact of the *play*; we can
>no more question that fact than we can doubt that Portia is accepted as
>a man, Balthasar, that she is undectected by Bassanio,  or that she
>could be so knowledgeable of the law. --L. Swilley

L,

What you are saying is that the audience accepts the above values,
including anti-semitism, as it does all the other conventions in the
play's production.  That the real world outside the theater's orb means
nothing.  Entertainment can come at any price. In that case, Shakespeare
is full of ethical flaws. He panders to Christians while giving them a
schoolmaster's hard look, easily overlooked by the audience. The saving
grace in this play is that it's not about racism, as Shylock's daughter
is easily accepted as Christian through marriage. Yet according to
Jewish law, her future children will be Jewish and can reenter the
Jewish community. Shakespeare's ignorance never ceases to amaze me as
does his talent. In a strange way his ignorance saves him, or this
epistle would never have been posted. But where is he saved and by
whom?  Us! This elite list. So he has the last laugh.

And others, the eternal sorrow.

br

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 17:50:18 -0400
Subject: 14.1854 Ambiguous Words
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.1854 Ambiguous Words

Anti-Semitic? Wow. I thought Will took standard anti-Semitc swill and
stood it on its head. The Christians who bait him in the beginning are
disgusting creeps. And to even imagine "hath not a Jew eyes" is
anti-Semitic is....is....well, what is the biggest most humongous word
for "dumb"?

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 22:55:17 +0000
Subject: 14.1854 Ambiguous Words
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1854 Ambiguous Words

L. Swilley writes,

> Peter Groves writes:
>
> >I agree with Carol that the play is profoundly anti-Semitic...
>
> If it is, it is also profoundly anti-Christian.

Excuse me, but I've never said anything of the sort (as a judgemnet it
appears grossly oversimplified).

Peter Groves

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1862  Friday, 26 September 2003

[1]     From:   Annalisa Castaldo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 07:50:02 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

[2]     From:   Ben Spiller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 12:54:49 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

[3]     From:   Ben Spiller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 13:08:41 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

[4]     From:   Bob Linn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 08:21:58 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

[5]     From:   L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 07:36:50 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

[6]     From:   Michael Friedman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 11:57:19 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

[7]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 19:37:37 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

[8]     From:   Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 22:10:13 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Annalisa Castaldo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 07:50:02 -0400
Subject: 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

Although it is not Shakespearean, in Marlowe's Dr. Faustus, Faust often
refers to himself in the 3rd person. There, I think, it is a sign of his
dangerous pride, but I'm not aware of any studies supporting this, or
relating it to other examples.

Annalisa Castaldo
Widener University

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ben Spiller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 12:54:49 +0100
Subject: 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

Faustus addresses himself in the second person in the opening speech of
Marlowe's play (after the Prologue):

Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin
To sound the depth of that thou wilt profess:
Having commenced, be a divine in show,
Yet level at the end of every art,
And live and die in Aristotle's works.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ben Spiller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 13:08:41 +0100
Subject: 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

Another one has just come to mind...  Lady Anne in *Richard III* refers
to herself in the third person when speaking to the corpse of Henry VI
in I.2:

Poor key-cold figure of a holy king,
Pale ashes of the house of Lancaster,
Thou bloodless remnant of that royal blood,
Be it lawful that I invocate thy ghost
To hear the lamentations of poor Anne...

Also, the sisters in *Macbeth* chant about themselves in I.3:

The weird sisters, hand in hand,
Posters of the sea and land,
Thus do go, about, about...

I'm also thinking of a moment in *The Two Gentlemen of Verona* when
Lance laughs at himself with the audience, and refers to himself in the
third person (probably due to the rapport between the audience and Will
Kemp, or whoever played Lance in the first performances -- his fame was
such that he could play himself, 'outside' the character written for him
by the playwright).

Henry V talks about the king (i.e. himself) with his soldiers on the eve
of battle, but he is disguised of course.  Viola, too, talks about
herself in the third person with Orsino (but in code, as she too is
disguised), as does Rosalind with Orlando.

I'm sure there are plenteous others....

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Linn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 08:21:58 -0400
Subject: 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

Leeds Barroll in Artificial Persons commented that the practice of
characters addressing themselves in the third person in Elizabethan and
Jacobean drama adumbrated the modern schizophrenic.  I cannot recall
Professor Barroll's examples, but his book has several.

Bob Linn

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 07:36:50 -0500
Subject: 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

Ching-Hsi Perng asks,

>Are there other examples of characters addressing themselves as third
>person...

In "Richard III," Richard says, "Richard loves Richard."(V, 3), and
somewhere in this area of the play, "Richard's himself again."

     L. Swilley

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Friedman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 11:57:19 -0400
Subject: 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

Marlowe does it pretty often, especially with characters who have a high
opinion of themselves, like Tamburlaine or Faustus.  Shakespeare creates
a similar character in Julius Caesar, who, before his assassination,
employs several arrogant third person references to himself.

Michael D. Friedman
University of Scranton
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 19:37:37 +0100
Subject: 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

> Was 't Hamlet wronged Laertes? Never Hamlet.
...
> Are there other examples of characters addressing themselves as third
> person, as Hamlet does here? And have there been studies on this
> phenomenon?

Richard III, perhaps, after the Ghosts have appeared to him:

        What do I fear? myself? there's none else by:
        Richard loves Richard; that is, I am I.
        Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am:
                ...
        Methought the souls of all that I had murder'd
        Came to my tent; and every one did threat
        To-morrow's vengeance on the head of Richard.

Robin Hamilton

[8]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 22:10:13 -0700
Subject: 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1861 Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

Ching-Hsi Perng asked

>Are there other examples of characters addressing themselves as third
>person, as Hamlet does here?

Polixenes, in the final scene of WT takes on some of the blame for
Leontes' sorrow and refers to himself in the third person:

"Let him that was the cause of this have power
To take off so much grief from you as he
Will piece up in himself."

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Women Fencing

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1863  Friday, 26 September 2003

[1]     From:   James Doyle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 12:46:13 +0100
        Subj:   Fencing and Stage-Fighting

[2]     From:   James McNelis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 09:18:03 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1848  Women Fencing

[3]     From:   Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 09:49:05 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1858 Women Fencing


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           James Doyle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 12:46:13 +0100
Subject:        Fencing and Stage-Fighting

James McNelis says that while stage combatants shouldn't be surprised,
an audience should be enthralled.

I agree, but find that virtually all stage fighting I see leaves me
fuming with its lack of authenticity.  As someone who has fenced (not
even 6th place for me, though!) and also fought in historical
reconstruction, the guiding principle of sword fighting is that you
defend yourself to the maximum possible extent and look for an opening
in your opponent's defence (in fencing, it is creating that flaw which
is key).

Stage fighting which is much more (apparently) aggressive, and to those
in the know often appears patently ridiculous with the lack of defence
offered.  I find stage fighting difficult, as my instinct is to take the
openings inevitably offered almost as soon as my opponent raises their
weapon.

I have choreographed fights twice - once in R&J, where we used rapiers
and traditional fencing technique, I played Mercutio and coached both
Romeo and Tybalt in their moves; the other was in Coriolanus, where I
(playing Coriolanus) fell out badly with the fight choreographer and
ended up doing it myself in cooperation with the actor playing
Aufidius.  In both cases, I worked out what I considered to be realistic
fights, with lots of defence and patient control.  And in both cases,
audience members (not fencing experts) commented how much they had
enjoyed the duels and how much more 'real' they seemed than normal stage
fights.

James

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           James McNelis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 09:18:03 EDT
Subject: 14.1848  Women Fencing
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1848  Women Fencing

Information on the staging of the fencing scenes in Flynn's and many of
the other great swashbuckler films can be found by searching the web for
"Ralph Faulkner", the Hollywood master who choreographed and coached for
many of the films, and often doubled for one actor or another when
necessary or prudent; see, for example,
http://fencersquarterly.com/RF/RF.htm.

James McNelis
Wilmington College

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 09:49:05 -0700
Subject: 14.1858 Women Fencing
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1858 Women Fencing

Graham Halll writes:

There was an (? actor's union) rule I vaguely recall - possibly someone
can expand - which determined that when a production had a sword fight
there had to be a rehearsal conducted within half an hour prior to
curtain up for purposes of safety.

We still have these 'fight calls' before each show (usually one hour to
forty-five minutes before curtain). The fight captain takes each of the
actors and actresses through the choreography to ensure they have
remembered it and that the moves are still safe.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1861  Thursday, 25 September 2003

From:           Perng Ching-Hsi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Sep 2003 01:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        Addressing Self as 2nd Or 3rd Person

In /Hamlet/, 5.2, Hamlet tries to reconcile with Laertes before the
fencing match. He says, in part,

Was 't Hamlet wronged Laertes? Never Hamlet.
If Hamlet from himself be ta'en away,
And when he's not himself does wrong Laertes,
Then Hamlet does it not, Hamlet denies it.
Who does it then? His madness. If 't be so,
Hamlet is of the faction that is wronged.
His madness is poor Hamlet's enemy.

Are there other examples of characters addressing themselves as third
person, as Hamlet does here? And have there been studies on this
phenomenon?

Any response will be appreciated.

Ching-Hsi Perng
National Taiwan University

_______________________________________________________________
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.