2004

The Globes Audience in the Future

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1698  Friday, 10 September 2004

[1]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 9 Sep 2004 07:43:53 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1656 The Globes Audience in the Future

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 9 Sep 2004 14:34:43 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1677 The Globes Audience in the Future

[3]     From:   John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 09 Sep 2004 14:19:54 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1687 The Globes Audience in the Future

[4]     From:   Duncan Salkeld <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 09 Sep 2004 20:48:07 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1677 The Globes Audience in the Future


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 9 Sep 2004 07:43:53 -0500
Subject: 15.1656 The Globes Audience in the Future
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1656 The Globes Audience in the Future

I was contemplating a post in response to John Reed's expressed
preference for movies over stage drama, along the lines of -- "if you
don't understand an art form, leave it alone."

But then I came to the word "poeticistic."

Cheers,
don

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 9 Sep 2004 14:34:43 +0100
Subject: 15.1677 The Globes Audience in the Future
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1677 The Globes Audience in the Future

Jonathan Hope writes

 >I know there is a lot of debate about the accuracy of the various
 >etchings of the Globe in situ, but none of them have the stage facing
 >the river, as it does at the new Globe.

It doesn't face the river, exactly, but is 48.25 degrees east of north,
which is very nearly the bearing on which the sun would have risen at
midsummer in Southwark. The Hollar sketch shows that Globe-2's stage had
this bearing, which is why the replica has it. Noticing the coincidence
in the Hollar sketch and pondering its significance, John Orrell
memorably observed that Clio is a tight-fisted muse.

Gabriel Egan

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 09 Sep 2004 14:19:54 -0400
Subject: 15.1687 The Globes Audience in the Future
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1687 The Globes Audience in the Future

D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >John W. Kennedy:
 >
 >"And let me add, as someone who has played on a Globe-like stage in the
 >summer, that if it faces south, the sun not only gets in the actors'
 >eyes, but has a tendency to broil them."
 >
 >I would say that (1) what with the high wattage of stage lights, actors
 >better get used to getting broiled or find a new line of work,

The two are not even remotely comparable.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Duncan Salkeld <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 09 Sep 2004 20:48:07 +0100
Subject: 15.1677 The Globes Audience in the Future
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1677 The Globes Audience in the Future

Peter Streete's contract for building the Fortune for Henslowe and
Edward Alleyn, dated 8 January 1599/1600, requires that the 'saide
Stadge to be in all other proporcons Contryved and fashioned like vnto
the Stadge of the the saide Plaie howse Called the Globe'.   It
stipulates that the Fortune shall have 'a shadow or cover over the saide
Stadge.'   It seems reasonable to infer that the stage was thus in
shadow for an afternoon performance, and that, happily, the new Globe
has been built the right way round.  'If we shadows have offended ...'

Duncan Salkeld

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Legitimizing the Q1 Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1696  Friday, 10 September 2004

From:           William Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 9 Sep 2004 21:27:51 EDT
Subject: 15.1684 Legitimizing the Q1 Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1684 Legitimizing the Q1 Hamlet

Mr. Hinton, I want to thank you for your suggestions and I will be
certain to follow-up on them as soon as I can (hopefully the weekend
will afford an opportunity).  In the meantime, your last post triggered
a few thoughts about the presence of complex chiasmus in literary works,
and I thought I would add a couple notes to clarify the style of complex
chiasmus that I have been referring to in the earlier messages.  If you
don't mind, I'd like to use the example you gave of Beowulf to open up
the topic to the group at large, and share some thoughts with everyone
about the different styles of complex chiasmus.

"Complex chiasmus" is a rather general term, unfortunately, for the
process of presenting material in one order, and then revisiting that
material in a stepwise, reverse order in longer passages.  There are
many different styles and approaches to accomplish that arrangement, but
not all of them are identical (both in style and in specificity).  I
have been familiar with the idea that complex chiasmus is present in
Beowulf for a few years now (I blame my oldest sister.  She specializes
in Renaissance literature, and my brother-in-law in Medieval Latin, so
between the two of them I get a great deal of feedback on these ideas).
  In Beowulf, it has been suggested that the presence of complex
chiasmus occurs primarily in the ordering of events in the story; or
rather, the arrangement of themes and ideas, and how they play off each
other throughout the narrative.  But that style of complex chiasmus is
not the same as the one I hope to address in Shakespeare.

The difference between the style of complex chiasmus suggested in
Beowulf (a style which also occurs in biblical passages), and the
intricate style I am hoping to address (another style of biblical
chiasmus), is the style -- and this is a very important distinguishing
characteristic -- where every single phrase in a passage plays an
integral role in the overall form (i.e., where every line and/or
parallelism has a counterbalancing line or parallelism in the chiastic
system).  In a way, it is something of an intermediate form between the
small-scale rhetorical structures and the "macro" structures of chiastic
ordering (although this is a bit misleading, since the generalized forms
can also occur at that intermediate level as well; yet, they still do
not express phrase-by-phrase correspondence in the overall system).

The generalized forms of complex chiasmus, which do not build on the
framework of balanced phrases throughout a complex system, are actually
quite common.  To give a few examples, one of the editors of the Faerie
Queen (Langdon?  I'm going off memory here) suggested that the ordering
of the books in the Faerie Queen was arranged in a chiastic pattern; I
am also told that many of the sonata forms and early Renaissance
Madrigal forms (particularly those dealing with inversion) follow basic
and complex chiastic ordering; in "Torture of the Mind: Macbeth, Tragedy
and Chiasmus" Anthony Paul points out that the order of deaths in
Macbeth follows a chiastic pattern (he gives a great selection of the
small-scale forms, and addresses the overall chiastic ordering of where
the deaths occur in the plot, but unfortunately doesn't mention the
larger, intermediate forms that cover entire speeches in the play).
These types of complex chiasms are very common, and I'm not aware of any
time period in which they have fallen out of use.  Shakespeare uses
these generalized chiastic patterns as well, but he also uses the highly
specific variety that is far less common.  And those are the chiastic
systems I am addressing in my essays.

I realize that describing complex chiasmus in these terms might
potentially cause some confusion for those who are unfamiliar with the
forms, so I'm going to suggest a few books for those who are interested
in pursuing the topic:  "Chiasmus in Antiquity" edited by John Welch
(Research Press, 1981; this is a collection of essays on chiasmus by
biblical scholars); "The Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the
Scriptures and Beyond" (1994) and "Scripture in Tradition" (2001) both
by John Breck (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press); finally "Chiasmus in the
New Testament: a Study in Formgeschichte" by Nils Lund (Chapel Hill, UNC
Press, 1942, 1992 reprint; Nils Lund is considered the modern pioneer in
the discovery and research of the most highly complex chiastic
structures in biblical passages).

Mr. Hinton, I am looking forward to reading the books you have
suggested, and I appreciate your consideration in letting me know about
them.  This has intrigued me a great deal, and I'm curious to see how
these forms were used in medieval literature.  Thank you for taking the
time to share this information.

All the best,
William Davis

_______________________________________________________________
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 Model for Romeo and Juliet?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1694  Friday, 10 September 2004

From:           David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 9 Sep 2004 13:07:32 +0100
Subject: 15.1685 The Model for Romeo and Juliet?
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1685 The Model for Romeo and Juliet?

Whether or not the elopement of Maria Thynne provided some inspiration
for R and J, the letters of Maria Thynne are very well worth reading for
all sorts of reasons. They are edited by Alison D. Wall, 'Two
Elizabethan Women: Correspondence of Joan and Maria Thynne, 1575-1611'
(Devizes: Wiltshire Record Society, 1983). The introduction, as I
recall, does talk about the possible connections with Shakespeare's
play, but the letters are chiefly interesting for what they manifest of
the negotiations between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, and for what
they show of Maria's character and situation.

David Lindley

_______________________________________________________________
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, Earl of Richmond

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1695  Friday, 10 September 2004

From:           Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 9 Sep 2004 08:12:47 EDT
Subject: 15.1682 Henry, Earl of Richmond
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1682 Henry, Earl of Richmond

 >>why did Shakespeare never write a history play on Henry
 >>VII (there's actually an article with this question, I think).
 >
 >I had always assumed that it was because a Henry VII play would be:
 >a) too boring (efficient, ruthless government not a good draw)
 >b) too dangerous (at least during Elizabeth's reign) or see a).

As to reason a), Henry Bolingbroke and Richard Gloucester were purveyors
of ruthless government but were not deemed too boring for dramatization.
Furthermore, Robert Wilson [perhaps with others unnamed] wrote two parts
of *Henry Richmond* for the Lord Admiral's players in 1599. A bit of the
plot of Part II survives. [See Foakes & Rickert's ed. of Henslowe's
Diary, pp. 126, 287-8.]  Apparently the play began with Henry's
encounter with Richard III, but since the plot breaks off after Act I
the rest of their treatment of Henry's story is lost.

Due to reason b) one presumes that Wilson's Henry Richmond plays
provided a positive slant on his person and reign. For a more nuanced
Henry, we have to wait for John Ford's *Perkin Warbeck", written after
the Tudors were gone.

Of course Shakespeare did write of Henry Richmond, in the last acts of
*Richard III*.  But by 1600 he had written 10 English history plays in
perhaps 10 years, wanted to turn his attention elsewhere, and just
didn't feel compelled to devote an entire play to the subject.

Bill Lloyd

_______________________________________________________________
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.

New Production of Richard III

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1693  Friday, 10 September 2004

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 9 Sep 2004 17:28:00 -0400
Subject:        Size Doesn't Matter in a New Production of Richard III

Size doesn't matter in a new production of Richard III at the Public Theater
The Little King
by Charles McNulty
September 7th, 2004 11:00 AM
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0436/mcnulty.php

Sitting in the lobby of the Public Theater during a rehearsal break from
Richard III, Peter Dinklage seems far too nice to play one of
Shakespeare's nastier butcher kings. Though a little fatigued from his
theatrical labors, he still exudes friendliness. Acknowledging company
members with an outsize smile, he flashes a two-fingered peace sign to
an exiting pal. Even the goatee he's sprouted for the role has a genial
effect-at least, that is, when he's holding forth on the Bard in what
appears to be his girlfriend's Vassar T-shirt. To dispose of the
obvious: Dinklage, the world's most famous dwarf actor, stands no taller
than your average fourth-grader. Once you get past that (give it about
two minutes of conversation), you can't help observing how well-adjusted
he is, how normal. By theater standards, he's off-the-charts normal. To
tell the truth, it's a little unnerving. (Celebrities typically wear
their neuroses on their sleeves.) But Dinklage's laid-back energy is
positively contagious. There's nothing awkward or self-conscious about
him, nothing defensive or sinister. He's the last person you'd cast as a
villain, yet he's clearly mastered the art of transforming himself. How
else to explain a four-foot-five guy rising so high in a profession not
known for overlooking physical differences? . . . .

[ . . . ]

_______________________________________________________________
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.