2005

Antony and Cleopatra 4.3

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0970  Monday, 23 May 2005

[1]     From:   Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 20 May 2005 17:39:47 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0955 Antony and Cleopatra 4.3

[2]     From:   Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 20 May 2005 13:32:07 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0955 Antony and Cleopatra 4.3

[3]     From:   Mary Rosenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 21 May 2005 16:35:41 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0942 Antony and Cleopatra 4.3


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 20 May 2005 17:39:47 +0000
Subject: 16.0955 Antony and Cleopatra 4.3
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0955 Antony and Cleopatra 4.3

Men! It always pisses me off when symbols of female power are co-opted
for the almighty dick, peter, johnthomas, or, as someone once called the
item of a friend, "Chuck." Diatribe over, the asp is a venomous serpent,
and anything that bites, strikes, or puts something, in this case,
poison, into something else, can probably be claimed as male. Although
why men would want to lay claim to something squirmy, small, and wiggly
is, as always, beyond me. Maybe if I just think of it as "fishbait...."

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 20 May 2005 13:32:07 -0500
Subject: 16.0955 Antony and Cleopatra 4.3
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0955 Antony and Cleopatra 4.3

 >It has been suggested here that "worm" refers to death and to a snake.
 >Might it not also refer, in the case of these two super-passionate,
 >ill-starred lovers, to the penis?
 >
 >L. Swilley

 >Norman Hinton rightly pointed out:
 >
 >>Because one of the meanings of "worm" was "snake" -- here's the first
 >>definition of "worm" from the OED:
 >>
 >>I. 1. A serpent, snake, dragon. Now only arch.
 >
 >But has anyone yet suggested a possible phallic meaning for the "worm"?
 >Joy o the worm indeed.
 >
 >Jack Heller

Probably thus giving rise to Dylan Thomas's lines in "The Force that
through the Green Fuse Drives the Flower":

And I am dumb to tell the lover's tomb
How at my sheet goes the same crooked worm.

Frank Whigham

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mary Rosenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 21 May 2005 16:35:41 -0700
Subject: 16.0942 Antony and Cleopatra 4.3
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0942 Antony and Cleopatra 4.3

Marvin Rosenberg's posthumous "The Masks of Anthony and Cleopatra,"
published by Associated University Presses, should be out before the end
of this year, and includes a discussion of the strange music in 4.3 and
the phallic associations of the "worm" in 5.2.

Mary Rosenberg

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakespeare's Mythical Monkey Authors

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0969  Monday, 23 May 2005

From:           Richard Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 21 May 2005 08:57:19 -0700
Subject: 16.0940 Shakespeare's Mythical Monkey Authors
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0940 Shakespeare's Mythical Monkey Authors

Starting with Adam and Eve, and given an eternity of infinite events
following, all history would eventually be repeated just as we know it
today, but let's hope not.

_______________________________________________________________
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 and Improved Lear

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0967  Monday, 23 May 2005

From:           Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 21 May 2005 10:11:20 +0800
Subject: 16.0953 New and Improved Lear
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0953 New and Improved Lear

James Doyle writes:

 >In the original story in Geoffrey of Monthmouth's History of the Kings
 >of Britain (I'm not sure if Holinshed's version is the same), Lear is
 >restored to the throne by Cordelia, but is later deposed by the allied
 >sons of Goneril and Regan.  So one could say that Shakespeare's change
 >was more of an abridgement, avoiding a problematic generational change
 >on stage, and ending up with the winning and losing sides, if not
 >personnel, the same.
 >
 >James Doyle

In so doing, we might notice, Shakespeare has changed Geoffrey's account
to make Goneril and Regan barren, like Edmund, like the Macbeths and
virtually every other villain in the plays.  It's an entirely
characteristic move, in other words.

Arthur

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Suggestions

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0968  Monday, 23 May 2005

From:           Richard Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 21 May 2005 08:46:31 -0700
Subject: 16.0939 Suggestions
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0939 Suggestions

 >After completing four opera librettos for operas based on Shakespeare's
 >works, I am looking for a publisher.
 >
 >The title will be
 >*Four Operas by Shakespeare*
 >Antony and Cleopatra = All for Love
 >Macbeth= The Bloody Throne
 >Othello = Iago
 >Hamlet= The Revenging Prince
 >All Now in Rhyming Couplets
 >
 >Might anyone suggest some publishers that might be interested in such a
 >book?

Give us a few lines.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Gambon as Falstaff

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0966  Monday, 23 May 2005

From:           Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 20 May 2005 13:49:41 EDT
Subject: 16.0954 Gambon as Falstaff
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0954 Gambon as Falstaff

Barring new evidence we'll never know who was the original Falstaff, but
if we are to speculate, I'd go with Thomas Pope rather than John Heminge.

We know that John Lowin eventually inherited the role of Falstaff, at
least by the 1630s. (Interesting tangent-- compare the beard and dress
in Lowin's portrait with the representation of Falstaff in "The Wits"
illustration. Even after Lowin's death Falstaff was thought of as
looking like him, even as we think of Frankenstein as looking like
Karloff or Sherlock Holmes as looking like Rathbone.)  Lowin joined the
King's Men in 1603 and was probably the original Sir Pol in Volpone
[1606] and Sir Epicure in Alchemist [1610]-- at least he was playing
these foolish knights by 1615<>1620. Also, his girth well fitted him for
the part.

Heminge on the other hand did not die until 1630, was certainly still
acting as late as 1611, and seems to have acted at least occasionally as
late as 1615<>1620. It's unlikely Lowin would have taken a famous part
from Heminge while the latter was still on the boards. And Heminge,
while he seems to have played old men, is not associated with corpulent
parts-- we know he played the cadaverous Corbacchio in Volpone, and
suspect he played Polonius and Julius Caesar.

Thomas Pope is known to have played at least some comic parts, and he
died in 1603, just as Lowin was joining the King's men. The transition
from Pope to Lowin seems natural.  This leaves the question of why
Falstaff was written out of Henry V-- again we don't really know. It
tends to support the Kempe theory, but doesn't work any better for
Heminge than for Pope.

We should be careful however in assuming that 'clowns' could only play
foolish servingmen and rustic dolts. More substantial parts (often with
a comic element) were within their range. John Shanks, the jigging
clown, played the clergyman Sir Roger in Fletcher's The Scornful Lady.
Thomas Pollard, who played the Kemp-worthy roles of The Cook in The
Bloody Brother and the eponymous role in The Humourous Lieutenant, also
played Silvio in Duchess of Malfi and other 'courtly' parts [see
Bentley, JCS, ii]. There's some reason to suspect that Robert Armin, who
we tend to think of as a 'jester', may have taken straight-ish roles as
well-- Matt Flowerdale in The London Prodigal [1601<>1605], Edgar in
King Lear [1605] and Abel Drugger in The Alchemist.

I tend to go with Pope as Falstaff but I don't find it inconceivable
that Kempe may have risen to the occasion when presented with such a
role. He often played fools but was not himself a fool-- see Juliet
Dusinberre's recent article detailing his musical skills. If we go for
Pope as Falstaff, I'd nominate Kempe for Gadshill in Part 1 and Shallow
in Part 2.

Ah, speculation! (but not unreasonable speculation I hope...)

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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.