2005

Renaissance Drama Anthologies

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0530  Tuesday, 22 March 2005

From:           Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 21 Mar 2005 20:35:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 16.0519 Renaissance Drama Anthologies
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0519 Renaissance Drama Anthologies

Bevington's anthology seems to be the clear favorite. My thanks to all
who responded.

Jack Heller

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Lear: Macready or Kean?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0529  Tuesday, 22 March 2005

[1]     From:   Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 21 Mar 2005 10:50:57 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0517 Lear: Macready or Kean?

[2]     From:   L Wood <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 20 Mar 2005 10:42:30 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0517 Lear: Macready or Kean?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 21 Mar 2005 10:50:57 -0800
Subject: 16.0517 Lear: Macready or Kean?
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0517 Lear: Macready or Kean?

 >When did Shakespeare's "original" text of King Lear replace Nahum Tate's
 >revised version on the English stage?  Gary Taylor in "Reinventing
 >Shakespeare" says Macready did it in 1838, but Richard Altick in "The
 >English Common Reader" says it was Kean in 1823.  Thank you.

To add to the confusion, I would suggest it was Garrick who started the
ball rolling in the 1740's. Garrick played Lear over a 35 year span and
seems to have altered Tate's 'script' back to some portion of
Shakespeare's every time he performed the part. It was Garrick who put
back "O me, my heart! my rising heart . . ." True Garrick never did
break away from the 'happy ending' nor did he restore the Fool (though
he thought about it upon suggestion from Samuel Foote). He also kept
elements of the Cordelia - Edgar love affair and Cordelia's 'friend'
Arante (kinda makes you want to see it huh?) but he did try to put back
as much of the Shakespeare as he believed his audience would let him.

For the record, or at least the one I remember, it was Macready who put
back the Fool in the 1838 production. Kean, apart from being remembered
for his outstanding Iago and Richard III, was one of the first
'sympathetic' Shylocks (he himself probably being Jewish).

Colin Cox

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           L Wood <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 20 Mar 2005 10:42:30 -0800
Subject: 16.0517 Lear: Macready or Kean?
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0517 Lear: Macready or Kean?

Chris Baker wrote:

 >When did Shakespeare's "original" text of King Lear replace
 >Nahum Tate's revised version on the English stage?  Gary
 >Taylor in "Reinventing Shakespeare" says Macready did it in
 >1838, but Richard Altick in "The English Common Reader"
 >says it was Kean in 1823.  Thank you.

Odell (in *Shakespeare from Betterton to Irving*, vol 2, pp 151-54,
194-96) says Edmund Kean appeared in manager Robert Elliston's partial
restoration of Lear in 1820; it was published as King Lear, "chiefly
from Nahum Tate's Edition, with some Restorations from the Original
Text".  Then, in 1823, Kean and Elliston again did Lear with the final
act restored, which was considered a landmark event.  Perhaps that is
what Altick refers to.  But, their version still retained the
Cordelia/Edgar love plot, as well as other additions to and omissions
(such as the Fool's part) from the original.

When Macready produced King Lear in 1838, it was completely "freed from
the interpolations" of the last 200 years.  There were still cuts and a
few scenes or speeches shifted, but the tragic ending and the Fool were
there, and the Cordelia/Edgar affair was not.

Lynette Wood

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Words Ending in eth/th

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0527  Tuesday, 22 March 2005

From:           William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 21 Mar 2005 17:13:55 -0500
Subject:        Words Ending in eth/th

Some years ago while reading an essay by Randall McLeod I found that
Randy had found some evidence that words ending in eth/th were
pronounced in the seventeenth century (if not before) as if they ended
in s. For example, hath was pronounced has. To make a long story short,
I didn't write the reference down, and now I can't find it. Does anyone
have this information to hand?

I have been looking for Randy's email address, to no avail. I guess I
could always use the telephone.

Bill

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Character Ages

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0528  Tuesday, 22 March 2005

From:           Mark Alexander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 21 Mar 2005 07:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        Character Ages

Hello,

Is there a reference in a book or on the internet that lists all of the
character ages in Shakespearean plays?

As an actor and having to prepare 2 Shakespearean monologues I often am
not quite sure about some of the character ages.  Could someone please
help me with this?

I'm looking for male characters between the ages of 30-40.  What
Shakespearean characters are between the ages of 30-40?  I not just
looking for the major characters but any minor ones too.  If you want to
recommend any monologues that work well for auditions that would be a
bonus.  I find that soliloquies don't work as well for auditions, but
rather speeches that are involved in a dialogue.

Thanks,
Mark Alexander

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Othello's Name

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0526  Monday, 21 March 2005

[1]     From:   Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 Mar 2005 11:21:11 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0512 Othello's Name

[2]     From:   John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 Mar 2005 15:26:04 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0512 Othello's Name

[3]     From:   Todd Pettigrew <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 Mar 2005 17:20:50 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0512 Othello's Name

[4]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 Mar 2005 18:49:46 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0512 Othello's Name


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 Mar 2005 11:21:11 -0600
Subject: 16.0512 Othello's Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0512 Othello's Name

 >Othello was entrusted to guard the safety of Venice
 >against a Turkish threat, hence he must have totally identified with
 >Venice, in religion and all else.

Patently false. All guards are 110% committed to what they're guarding?

Frank Whigham

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 Mar 2005 15:26:04 -0500
Subject: 16.0512 Othello's Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0512 Othello's Name

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

 >I have to say I find your argument unconvincing. In The Duchess of Malfi
 >(written reasonably close to Othello), John Webster has the Duchess say:
 >"I have heard lawyers say a contract in a chamber,/ per verba de
 >presenti is absolute marriage:" Who then would have been able to prevent
 >this marriage?

Any competent lawyer, inasmuch as the law made marriage between a
baptized Christian and an infidel null and void. (That is, not merely
forbidden, but inoperative.)

 >Othello's final speech which you cite, indicates Othello
 >thought of himself as a Muslim, an outsider, the "circumsized dog" so I
 >don't see how that provides any support for the view that he converted
 >to Christianity.

On the contrary, the "circumcised dog" is someone else:
                      ...in Aleppo once,
     Where a malignant, and a Turbond-Turke
     Beate a Venetian, and traduc'd the State,
     I tooke by th'throat the circumcised Dogge....

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------


That Othello is a Christian seems clear from at least two passages.

For one, Othello seems to contrast himself and his men with non-Christians:

"Why, how now, ho! from whence ariseth this?
Are we turn'd Turks, and to ourselves do that
Which heaven hath forbid the Ottomites?
For Christian shame, put by this barbarous brawl"

For another, when Iago argues that Othello loves Desdemona so completely
that he would do anything for her, he notes that Othello is baptised and
that to renounce it would be the just the sort of unbelievably
outrageous thing that he might do for Desdemona:

"And then for her
To win the Moor--were't to renounce his baptism,
All seals and symbols of redeemed sin,
His soul is so enfetter'd to her love,
That she may make, unmake, do what she list,
Even as her appetite shall play the god
With his weak function."

Othello is a baptised Christian. Whether this implies that he is
converted is another matter.

Todd Pettigrew
Cape Breton University

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 Mar 2005 18:49:46 -0500
Subject: 16.0512 Othello's Name
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0512 Othello's Name

 >Tolstoy was critical of this play, finding as too improbable that a
 >sophisticated man could be so readily tricked into jealousy the way
 >Othello was. Apparently, the Bible disagrees with Tolstoy on the
 >potential for such a happening since the Pentateuch in Numbers 5:14
 >discusses the problem of what is to be done if "the spirit of jealousy
 >come upon him [the husband], and he be jealous of his wife, and she be
 >not defiled." The Pentateuch prescribes the procedure that is to be
 >followed. The husband is not allowed to harm his wife but must bring her
 >to a priest so that she can go through an awesome ceremony of drinking
 >"bitter waters." If the "bitter waters" have marked physical effects on
 >her, it is proof of her guilt and he may put her aside, but not harm her
 >physically in any way, as the Talmud interprets it. But if the waters
 >have no effect, the Bible specifically dictates that she must be
 >returned to her home and she cannot be put aside by her husband for the
 >rest of her life.

I'll take Tolstoy over the author of the Pentateuch any day.  He was far
more intelligent, sophisticated, educated and knowledgeable, and
probably held a more exalted social rank.

To suggest that it would have been better all around if Desdemona had
been put to the ordeal rather than convicted (albeit erroneously) based
on circumstantial evidence and false testimony about a confession speaks
volumes about those who put their faith in scriptures.

_______________________________________________________________
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.