2004

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0300  Tuesday, 3 February 2004

[1]     From:   Joseph Sullivan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 02 Feb 2004 09:05:01 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0286 Henry V Question

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 2 Feb 2004 11:16:44 -0800
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.0286 Henry V Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joseph Sullivan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 02 Feb 2004 09:05:01 -0500
Subject: 15.0286 Henry V Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0286 Henry V Question

Larry Weiss makes an important connection when he suggests that the
Welsh, the Irish, and the Scots all seem to work well with the
English on campaign for a common purpose.  This interpretation has
always been popular and cannot (should not) be easily dismissed.  In
fact, when I was looking at popular histories of WWII, the Henry V
tags like 'Band of Brothers' and 'We Few', etc. were often
associated with Australian forces and other non-English (ex-)Brits.
  Having said that, it is also quite possible to measure a
considerable tension within this "union" and it is likewise possible
to trace that tension to the fact that the English claim on Ireland
(I'll leave Wales and Scotland to others) is as dubious as its claim
on France.  This tension is communicated by the fact that the
various nationalities (what speak we of my nation?) are overtly
distinguished through accents and languages.  Henry, the man,
certainly spoke a number of languages.  Henry, the dramatic
character, REALLY does not.  He is English and he only speaks
English and he never once demonstrates a shred of interest in
speaking anything but English.   So, what I see is a functional
union, as Larry describes, but one with serious structural questions
surrounding it.  Perhaps the play is as ambivalent about the British
union itself as Rossiter claimed it to be about Henry and his French
ambitions.

Joe Sullivan

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 2 Feb 2004 11:16:44 -0800
Subject: 15.0286 Henry V Question
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.0286 Henry V Question

Larry Weiss asks,

 >I wonder if Shylock isn't meant to speak in dialect:  "Pill'd me
certain
 >wands" for example.  His speech mannerisms, inverted word orders,
etc.,
 >are suggestive.  But where would WS have heard a Yiddish accent?

... and I wonder too.  Could he have been played with an Italian
accent?  While I realize that all the other characters would have a
better claim to being Italian, or at least Venetian citizens,
Shylock is marked as a further outsider, and might even serve as a
synecdoche for the whole commercial centre.

Has anyone mentioned Robert Greene's _The Scottish History of James
the Fourth, Slaine at Flodden_?

Yours,
Sean Lawrence.

_______________________________________________________________
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.