2004

RSC Revival

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0372  Tuesday, 10 February 2004

From:           Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 9 Feb 2004 15:53:35 -0800
Subject:        RSC Revival

Charles Spencer in the Telegraph Monday gives credit to the Royal
Shakespeare Company's revival in London to one of the regular directors,
Gregory Doran:  "It wouldn't be too strong to suggest that he has
redeemed the RSC's battered reputation at a time when it was reeling
from the sudden resignation of its former artistic director Adrian Noble
[who was replaced by Michael Boyd] and the crisis that followed the
company's precipitate decision to quit the Barbican. The RSC has still
to announce which theatre will become its new London home." Spencer
discusses the current pair, Taming of the Shrew and The Tamer Tamed (by
Fletcher), and upcoming All's Well, with Judi Dench as the countess.
More, including an interview with Doran, at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/02/09/btdoran09.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.

Richard III without the Soliloquies

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0371  Tuesday, 10 February 2004

From:           Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 9 Feb 2004 11:21:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Richard III without the Soliloquies

I'm teaching Richard III this week. We, the readers/audience, always
have Richard's soliloquies to free us from Anne's quandary when she
says, "I would I knew thy heart" (1.2.192). Though they are among
Shakespeare's great speeches, what would happen for us if Richard does
not later reveal himself with such lines as "I'll have her, but I will
not keep her long" (1.2.229). When I've seen this play performed, it is
usually with cuts of the citizen scene (2.3), the scrivener (3.6), and
much of 4.4.

Has a director ever experimented with reducing the soliloquies that
reveal Richard's intentions and emphasizing more the quandary of the
lower class and Richard's open interactions with the other nobles? Was
this an effective staging?

Jack Heller
Huntington College

_______________________________________________________________
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.

More on "In Search of Shakespeare"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0369  Monday, 9 February 2004

[1]     From:   John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 6 Feb 2004 17:30:57 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0346 More on "In Search of Shakespeare"

[2]     From:   Tad Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 6 Feb 2004 22:02:11 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0346 More on "In Search of Shakespeare"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 6 Feb 2004 17:30:57 -0000
Subject: 15.0346 More on "In Search of Shakespeare"
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0346 More on "In Search of Shakespeare"

Alan Dessen wrote:

 >For the record (since his name has been invoked on this thread), Sam
 >Schoenbaum's first name was *not* "Samuel." If you look at any of his
 >many publications, he will be listed as S. Schoenbaum.

Maybe so, but the Library of Congress Name Heading is:

Schoenbaum, S. (Samuel), 1927-

John Briggs

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tad Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 6 Feb 2004 22:02:11 -0500
Subject: 15.0346 More on "In Search of Shakespeare"
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0346 More on "In Search of Shakespeare"

My biggest problem with Wood's book is that it gives short shrift to
Shakespeare's last years. There's nothing about the enclosure
controversy, for example -- which is surprising, because it seems made
to order for Wood's approach. Apart from that, I think it does an
outstanding job doing the thing that Gary Taylor singles out: bringing
alive the places associated with Shakespeare. That by itself is no mean
feat.

Tad Davis
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
http://taddavis.blogspot.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.

Teeth or Arms? A Titus Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0370  Tuesday, 10 February 2004

From:           Sherri Fillingham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 9 Feb 2004 10:37:47 EST
Subject:        Teeth or Arms? A Titus Question

I tried searching the database at Shaksper.net, and couldn't light upon
the search terms that could give me the info I was looking for.  So I
apologize in advance if this has already been gone over.

I have two different versions of Shakespeare (the Oxford and the Modern
Library).  In Titus Andronicus, Act III, Scene i, line 280-282, Titus
instructs Lavinia to carry off his severed hand.  In the Oxford, he
tells her to carry it off between her arms, in the other, he tells her
to carry it off in her mouth.

I have asked friends to check their versions, and almost all of them say
teeth.

But I'm curious as to where the "arms" reading comes from since my
version doesn't have a note on this.

Any help would be appreciated.

Sherri

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Henry V Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0368  Monday, 9 February 2004

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 6 Feb 2004 06:58:59 -0800
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.0342 Henry V Question

[2]     From:   Thomas Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 6 Feb 2004 15:51:33 -0700
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.0342 Henry V Question

[3]     From:   Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 7 Feb 2004 10:00:31 +0800
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.0342 Henry V Question

[4]     From:   Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 07 Feb 2004 15:34:46 -0600
        Subj:   Subj: RE: SHK 15.0328 Henry V Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 6 Feb 2004 06:58:59 -0800
Subject: 15.0342 Henry V Question
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.0342 Henry V Question

Edward Brown says that

        As far as I know, Henry V had
        not a drop of Welsh blood in him.

Fluellen, of course, knows differently, though he seems to be confusing
the right of blood with the right of soil.

Yrs,
Sean.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 6 Feb 2004 15:51:33 -0700
Subject: 15.0342 Henry V Question
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.0342 Henry V Question

Every once in a while an exchange on SHAKSPER is provocative because of
its representational aspects.  The exchanges sent by Mr. Hawkes and Mr.
  Brown on the 5th and 6th on this thread stand as a kind of synecdoche
of the state of current Shakespearean criticism.

Oh well.  Such superfluous musings aside, I want to voice my support for
Mr. Hawkes interpretation.  Being born at Monmouth historically or as a
literary character was indeed a complex fate.  Further, with regards to
Mr. Brown's suggestion, it's worth mentioning that irony could be a
particularly dangerous attitude in the Elizabethan court, something
which survivors obviously knew.

Another way of looking at the line, is in the context of simply choosing
which way to deliver the line in performance.  Obviously, it can and
probably has been played both ways.  Nevertheless, which reading would
you prefer?  I much prefer an ideal king who demonstrates the strength
of his identification with his subjects by such a statement than the
alternative.  I don't need to see the dark side of medieval kingship
inflected on Henry V; the Henry VI plays, Richard III, Macbeth, Edward
II are quite sufficient, thanks anyway.

Last point.  Henry was indeed born at Monmouth and as anyone who was
born or raised in a foreign country knows, there is a part of you bound
to that place.  I simply believe King Henry, god bless him.

-Thomas Jensen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 7 Feb 2004 10:00:31 +0800
Subject: 15.0342 Henry V Question
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.0342 Henry V Question

I suppose the simplest way of putting it is that Henry professes to be
virtually everything: Welsh to the Welsh, plain English to his local
troops (except when they come from the Celtic fringe).  As soon as he
finishes doing his simple Englishman number on Katherine he will tell
her family that he's French.  If a Jew wandered in, he'd start speaking
Yiddish. The resemblance to certain current politicians has been duly
noted in the recent National Theatre production.

There's a nice moment in the wooing scene, by the way, when Alice
catches him translating _baiser_ while pretending not to speak French.

Arthur Lindley

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 07 Feb 2004 15:34:46 -0600
Subject: SHK 15.0328 Henry V Question
Comment:        Subj: RE: SHK 15.0328 Henry V Question

Those of us who study the history of English shouldn't be, but are often
surprised at what passes for information in "common knowledge"....

Henry IV is generally called "the first English king whose native
language was English" (cf. Richard Barber,  _The English Language: An
Historical Introduction_, Cambridge U. Press), and the knowledge that
Henry V wrote and spoke English has long been cited in histories of the
language.  His personal letters are in English -- though written by
scribes, they are signed by him.

And in 1422, the brewers of London passed a formal motion adopting
English as their official language, which included the following:

...our most excellent lord king Henry the Fifth hath, in his letters
missive and divers affairs touching his own person, more willingly
chosen to declare the secrets of his will in English; and for the better
understanding of his people hath, with a diligent mind, procured the
common idiom (setting aside others)....

In

_______________________________________________________________
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.