2004

The Globes Audience in the Future

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1677  Wednesday, 8 September 2004

[1]     From:   Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 7 Sep 2004 13:33:23 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1669 Is the Globe the wrong way round?

[2]     From:   John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 07 Sep 2004 10:35:47 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1669 The Globes Audience in the Future

[3]     From:   Thomas M. Lahey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 7 Sep 2004 11:15:09 -0700
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1656 The Globes Audience in the Future


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 7 Sep 2004 13:33:23 +0100
Subject: 15.1669 Is the Globe the wrong way round?
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1669 Is the Globe the wrong way round?

John Reed wrote:

 >I saw an afternoon performance and couldn't
  help
 >noticing the sun, which was in the south, shone on the audience, leaving
 >the actors and the stage and the background, in shadow.  I think they
 >have it turned the wrong way.

Kathy Dent replied:

 >No, it's crucial that the actors have a very good view of the audience -
 >it's this that makes the Globe different from most other theatres and
 >it's this that triggers the actor/audience interaction.  Don't forget
 >that, what with English weather and the playhouses often being closed
 >due to plague in the summer months, too much sun would not have been a
 >problem very often at the original Globe!!

I suspect John Reed is right, and the new Globe *has* been built the
wrong way round - contrary to popular myth, London is a pretty sunny
place, and being in the Globe yard in full sun is not fun.  Giving the
actors a view of the audience would not have been a USP when the first
one was built - the owners' priority would have been to make their
audience as comfortable as possible.

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.

Jonathan Hope
Strathclyde University, Glasgow

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 07 Sep 2004 10:35:47 -0400
Subject: 15.1669 The Globes Audience in the Future
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1669 The Globes Audience in the Future

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

 >No, it's crucial that the actors have a very good view of the audience -
 >it's this that makes the Globe different from most other theatres and
 >it's this that triggers the actor/audience interaction.  Don't forget
 >that, what with English weather and the playhouses often being closed
 >due to plague in the summer months, too much sun would not have been a
 >problem very often at the original Globe!!

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.

 >May I point you to the work of Robert Weimann?  He has based much of his
 >theory about Shakespearean drama on the actor/audience relationship;
 >where the convention of the actors directly addressing the audience
 >springs from; and how greatly an understanding of Renaissance drama is
 >transformed by an awareness that the actors often occupy a transitional
 >space that lies between the imaginary world of the play and the 'real'
 >world of the playhouse.  The skill of playing with the approaching and
 >receding distance between themselves and the audience is what some
 >modern actors struggle with at the Globe.

As I have said from time to time, US Shakespeareans are far more used to
this sort of thing.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas M. Lahey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 7 Sep 2004 11:15:09 -0700
Subject: 15.1656 The Globes Audience in the Future
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1656 The Globes Audience in the Future

1)  To each his own; makes the world go around.

2)  The idea that the theater "compares unfavorably with movies" doesn't
work for me.  I saw Hamlet (London, Mark Rylance, thank you, thank you,
...) & left the theater about 3 to 4 feet (more than a meter) off the
ground. The performance was so enthralling that I made a life commitment
(won't fulfill it) to see the RSC do all Shakespeare's plays.  I have
seen the RSC do a Comedy of Errors that was worth it, & a Lear that wasn't.

I've never seen a movie Hamlet that would inspire me to see all the
movie verisons of Shakespeare's plays.

I also prefer concerts to CDs.

Stay healthy,
Tom

_______________________________________________________________
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 15.1676  Wednesday, 8 September 2004

From:           William Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 7 Sep 2004 22:28:40 EDT
Subject: 15.1664 Legitimizing the Q1 Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1664 Legitimizing the Q1 Hamlet

Normon Hinton writes:  <<I don't know who believes this had 'fallen out
of use', but I can point you to a number of studies of this kind of
chiasmus in medieval literature. (And art as well)>>

Because the study of complex chiasmus crosses several disciplines, I
would not be surprised to find that the biblical researchers do not have
a monopoly on knowing whether or not it existed, or didn't exist, in
medieval writings.  So, despite what I have read and been told, I am
still fully open to the idea that these complex biblical forms could
have been used as patterns in medieval writing.  I would be very
interested to follow-up on the sources you suggested, so that I can see
how they are similar and/or different from the biblical structures.
Among biblical scholars, however, they seem fairly convinced that the
highly complex forms found in Hebrew writing did not exist in European
literature.  In the book "Chiasmus in Antiquity," the editor, John
Welch, has an article entitled "Chiasmus in Ancient Greek and Latin
Literatures" where he essentially says as much (and he is not the only
scholar to reflect these sentiments).  He refers to this idea both
directly and indirectly in the opening of his essay, saying things such
as, "numerous Western scholars have exhaustively studied secular Greek
literary texts since the thirteenth century, and Latin, since it was
spoken in Rome.  The use of literary devices in Hebrew literature, on
the other hand, has only been given relatively sparse scholarly
treatment in the West for something over two hundred years, and the
study of figures of speech in most other ancient languages, dialects and
literatures can still be said to be somewhat in a state of infancy.  In
addition, since the occurrence of chiasmus in the Classical European
texts is often a relatively simple phenomenon, it has usually been an
easy thing for commentators to detect, natural to comment upon, and
relatively inconsequential and uncontroversial once observed."  Later,
commenting on the decline in the complexity of chiastic structures from
the earliest Greek and Latin texts, he says, "although, as this essay
will show, the complexity of chiasmus diminishes markedly in the later
Greek and Latin writers (setting the style for most Western writing ever
since), it is still important to observe and appreciate the extent
chiasmus was used by them..."  Despite statements such as these,
however, I want to reiterate that I am still open to the possibility of
large-scale, complex chiastic systems appearing in medieval (or even
Renaissance) literature.  After all, Shakespeare made widespread use of
the forms throughout all his works and, based on what I have read of the
biblical scholars, they still haven't commented on it.

John Kennedy writes: <<It seems to me that any attempt to account for
the Q1 Hamlet -- and let us take the "To be" speech in particular to
account for -- must take
into consideration its frequent complete breakdowns of meter and syntax,
which are far beyond the wildest license Shakespeare ever allows himself
in any text generally acknowledged as "good".  I am completely open to
the possibility that Q1 represents in some way a Shakespearean ur-text
(to be distinguished from the hypothetical ur-Hamlet of the
oyster-wife), but am firmly of the opinion that there is more to it --
if not memorial reconstruction or plagiarism by stenography, then
perhaps stolen foul papers?>>

I believe you raise a good point about the "frequent complete breakdowns
of meter and syntax" that this speech contains in the Q1 text.  My essay
does not address that specific issue (not directly, at least), and I
hesitate to offer possible theories at this point - particularly when I
haven't formed an opinion about it yet.  I would, however, like to
suggest something to keep in mind regarding emendations within complex
chiastic structures.  Whenever a complex chiasm has undergone
rearrangement (phrases excised from one location, then reinserted into
balanced positions elsewhere in the form), both the meter and syntax of
the overall form are inevitably interrupted.  This happens because old
phrases are broken down, new ones are constructed, and these
rearrangements create new verse lines in the final form that are often
composed by two phrases that were originally on opposite sides of the
complex system from each other.  When that task of rearrangement is
further complicated with the need to fit the newly formed text inside
the metrical constraints of verse, the results would understandably
contain a series of irregularities in the length of each verse line, and
problems with the basic grammar and syntax of the individual sentences.
  This challenge can immediately be seen in the Q1 revised examples of
the essay.  If you have had a chance to read the paper, I'd invite you
to go back and read through the Q1 revised speech in the rough form (the
version that has not been "smoothed out" to cover up the irregularities
and syntactical problems), and notice how it can be a rough ride.  So
what could this mean for the Q1 text, particularly if we consider the
possibility that it might be an earlier version of Hamlet that predated
the Q2/F1 variants?  In addition to the scenarios you suggested, I
believe a number of other possibilities could achieve a plausible
explanation for those challenges; however, in context of complex
chiasmus there is one scenario I would like to add that could create
such a situation:  it could mean that the Q1 speech was not the "first
version" of this speech, and that the text had already undergone at
least on revision prior to the passage found in the 1603 publication.
For now, however, this is merely conjecture on my part, and I haven't
drawn any conclusions as to why the Q1 text appears in the rough shape
that it does.  Since my focus in the essay was on the stepwise
progression of structural manipulations occurring between the Q1 and
Q2/F1 texts, I only marginally addressed that issue in the paper.

Best regards to both,
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.

NEA Director and Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1674  Wednesday, 8 September 2004

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 31 Dec 1969 20:04:19 -0500
Subject:        NEA Director and Shakespeare

September 7, 2004
Endowment Chairman Coaxes Funds for the Arts
By BRUCE WEBER
NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/arts/07gioi.html

Mr. Gioia hasn't bothered to defend the independence of artists or the
value of subversive art, stances that hampered previous chairmen, among
other reasons because many in Congress bristled at the way artists
condescended to them.

Instead his approach has been to seek common ground between artists and
legislators, to remind lawmakers of how important the arts can be in
awakening the imaginations of people who haven't been exposed to them.
"Excellence" and "access" are Gioia buzzwords, values that are hard to
assail.

He has steered the endowment toward the creation of big, visible
programs like Shakespeare in American Communities, which is bringing
professional productions of "Othello," "Romeo and Juliet," "Richard
III" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream" to smaller cities and towns, and
Operation: Homecoming, through which poets and novelists visit military
  installations to conduct writing workshops for veterans of Iraq and
Afghanistan.

These programs, though successful, have dismayed some arts
administrators, who say the endowment's creation of its own programs -
and its solicitation of corporate funds to foot the bill - puts the
endowment in direct competition with the organizations it is supposed
to support.

"The N.E.A. has always been seen as the entity that stimulates other
organizations to raise money, not one that takes the money for itself,"
said Robert L. Lynch, president of Americans for the Arts, the
country's largest nonprofit arts advocacy group.

Another criticism of Mr. Gioia's stewardship of the agency is that he
has not restored, or even attempted to restore, its former emphasis on
supporting artists and new art.

"Gioia has gotten praise from those people who say, 'You see, it doesn't
have to be all Mapplethorpe,' " said Gordon Davidson, the  artistic
director of the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles and a member  of the
national council. "Well, I'm sorry. I think we need Mapplethorpe. I
think the agency has to be Mapplethorpe and Shakespeare. And I worry
there isn't enough energy being put into the people who make art, as
opposed to into projects." . . . .

The NEA Shakespeare website is at
http://www.shakespeareinamericancommunities.org/home.html

The productions have not been well-reviewed.

NEA's Shakespeare Tour: Some Say 'Fair,' Some 'Foul'
By Leonard Jacobs
http://www.backstage.com/backstage/features/
article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1898285

In springtime came major news from Dana Gioia, chairman of the  National
Endowment for the Arts: The agency's Challenge America program  would
launch, this September, "the largest theatrical tour of  Shakespeare in
American history." Indeed, no fewer than six American theatre companies
would be funded to bring forth the Bard in over 100 small and midsized
communities in every state. In an April interview with Back Stage, Gioia
elaborated on his goals for the program, stating the companies would
"appear mostly in the midsized and smaller communities which not only
don't get classical drama, but also don't have professional theatrical
groups."

_______________________________________________________________
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 15.1675  Wednesday, 8 September 2004

From:           Dennis Taylor <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 3 Sep 2004 14:16:11 -0400
Subject: 15.1640 Henry, Earl of Richmond
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1640 Henry, Earl of Richmond

Here's a topic:  why did Shakespeare never write a history play on Henry
VII (there's actually an article with this question, I think).

Best
Dennis Taylor

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Jennifer Speake

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1673  Wednesday, 8 September 2004

From:           Kevin De Ornellas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 07 Sep 2004 18:39:50 +0000
Subject:        Jennifer Speake

Would anyone have a contact address (preferably e-mail) for Jennifer
Speake, the editor of the 'Encyclopedia of the Renaissance and the
Reformation' (Facts on File, 2004)? Please contact me off-list, if you
can help.

Kevin De Ornellas
Queen's University, Belfast
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

_______________________________________________________________
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.