2005

Shakespeare's Bottom Pinched

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0139  Tuesday, 25 January 2005

From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 25 Jan 2005 10:11:29 -0000
Subject:        Shakespeare's Bottom Pinched

An article in the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday 25th January,
"Shakespeare's Bottom pinched by Levi admen", describes how Midsummer
Night's Dream has been expropriated for a television advert.

 >Although the language is complex and archaic, Levi's says it is not
worried
 >that it will go over the heads of young jeans buyers.
 >
 >"I think we underestimate young people today. Our research shows that they
 >understand it immediately," said Kenny Wilson, brand president for Levi's
 >Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/24/nlevi24.xml

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.

Date of King John

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0138  Tuesday, 25 January 2005

From:           Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Jan 2005 09:07:14 EST
Subject:        Query: Date of King John

Dear Friends,

Can anyone tell me the latest received opinion -- and supply a reference
-- re the date of King John?

Many thanks.

Steve Sohmer

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Macbeth Characters

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0137  Monday, 24 January 2005

From:           John Reed <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Jan 2005 23:03:32 -0800
Subject:        Re: Macbeth Characters

S. Zarela wrote:

 >The ridicule wouldn't be directed at you, but at the King who allowed
 >himself to be 'attended' by a Porter.  If the King were powerless, like
 >Lear, the ridicule would change to pity.  But a Lord in his own castle,
 >surrounded by his pomp and soldiery, yet having a Porter for
 >'Attendant'-makes himself ridiculous, in Shakespeare's world and terms.

I am apparently having a hard time getting across what I am attempting
to.  The phrase having a Porter for an attendant makes him sound so
real, so solid, so fixed, so unchangeable.  Once a Porter always a
Porter, eh, Stanzi?  I'm probably looking at this character less from
the standpoint of history, or historical drama, or even less psychology
or sociology, than I am from a stagecraft, or theatrical, or
metaphysical standpoint.  There might be at least three levels to him.
The first is the actor portraying the role (for the sake of simplicity
let's say there is only one - one actor).  The second level is the
recognition by the audience of the character as having a particular
identity: an identity distinct from that of the other characters in the
play.  Then the third level concerns his "role," or his function within
any given scene.  Macbeth himself has different functions: warrior,
husband, king, murderer, and so on.  In his case his functions are not
reflected in his Speech Prefixes, whereas Lady Capulet, in Q2 Romeo and
Juliet, does have this peculiarity.

As usual what I am trying to get at is how this was originally performed
and perceived, whether or not it might play well now.

Here we have a play with a certain number of indistinct, or vague might
be a better term, Speech Prefixes where many of them are currently
broken out into different characters, using the modern principle of
distinct prefix means distinct character.  There might be some that are
homologous in the manner of Lady Capulet.  So I am trying to decide who
the characters are, from various clues, realizing that just because a
character in one scene has a different Speech Prefix than a character in
another scene doesn't mean they are different characters.

So in my list I have made an attempt at homology, involving the Porter.
  But I am trying to get away from the idea that a Porter also,
incongruously, serves as a royal attendant; the Porter is not the
Porter.  I have a different kind of incongruity in mind.  I suggest the
original audience may have perceived a certain identity to the character
identified by the Speech Prefix Porter.  They didn't see him as merely a
Porter, although he functioned as a Porter in one scene.  Like Macbeth,
he had other functions in other scenes.  So I am trying to say the term
Porter is a kind of loose identifier which may have, down through the
centuries, served as a disguise.

How old is this guy (leaving aside the question of how many children
Lady Macbeth had)?  Thirty years?  Four point six times ten to the ninth
years?  How old is the universe - 15, 20 billion years?  Here is a play
where there is at least one and probably three characters who are not
Homo sapiens (Hecate, Paddock, and Graymalkin), and several more who
consort, shall we say (since they are witches) with spirits.  So it
might be that this so-called Porter is another one of them spirits, who
functions outwardly (while disguised), first as a Porter, then as a
murderer, and so on, culminating in his named role as S-E-Y-T-O-N,
phonetically speaking.  The power behind the throne, so to speak.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

From the London Review of Books

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0137  Tuesday, 25 January 2005

From:           Michael Dobson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Jan 2005 13:02:42 GMT
Subject:        From the London Review of Books

London Review of Books, cover date 19 August 2004

Posthumous Gentleman

Michael Dobson on Kit Marlowe's Schooldays

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n16/dobs01_.html

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Did the Bard Have Syphilis?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0136  Monday, 24 January 2005

[1]     From:   William Walsh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 21 Jan 2005 09:48:34 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0126 Did the Bard Have Syphilis?

[2]     From:   Bob Rosen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 21 Jan 2005 12:33:19 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0126 Did the Bard Have Syphilis?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Walsh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Jan 2005 09:48:34 -0500
Subject: 16.0126 Did the Bard Have Syphilis?
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0126 Did the Bard Have Syphilis?

I posted a link to this article because I thought it might be of general
interest, but also because I was wondering if anyone thought it said
something about the peer review process.  Clinical Infectious Diseases
is a respected publication with a healthy impact factor.  Are there
similar humanities titles that would accept my musings on nucleic acid
sequence--based amplification?

Bill

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Rosen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 21 Jan 2005 12:33:19 EST
Subject: 16.0126 Did the Bard Have Syphilis?
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0126 Did the Bard Have Syphilis?

 >"Enquiring minds," will never know for sure whether poor Will had this
 >repugnant venereal disease - but we are left with another slur on
 >Shakespeare's reputation.

Dear Colleagues,

Shakespeare's plays indicate to me that he had generally a very positive
view of women, other than Lady Macbeth, who was very pushy to say the
least. I could just hear S's wife give him what for in the matter of
bringing in some pounds. That would send any man off to London to get
away from it all.

When Will made good along the Thames, he still harbored some resentment
toward the little woman back home for kicking him out of the house with
her critical harangue ringing in his dome.

Bob Rosen

_______________________________________________________________
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 Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.