2005

Credit Where Due

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1223  Wednesday, 20 July 2005

From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Jul 2005 18:01:56 -0700
Subject:        Credit Where Due

Three or four years ago a member of this list was kind enough to check
the 1946 Bartlett's Familiar Quotations for me (that edition not
available on my campus or at local libraries) to see if a number of
quotes from Shakespeare were there, and they were, solving a minor
mystery. I am getting ready to publish this, but can not find the name
of the woman who was kind enough to do the leg work. If my helper sees
this message, please contact me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  I very much
want to credit you.

If she does not see this message, this will go to the SHAKSPER archive
as a record of my gratitude.

All the best,
Mike Jensen

author site:
http://www.geocities.com/mikejensen16/michaelpjensen.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.

Shylock as Suffering Servant

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1222  Tuesday, 19 July 2005

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 18 Jul 2005 11:45:53 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1213 Shylock as Suffering Servant

[2]     From:   Joachim Martillo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 18 Jul 2005 13:12:58 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1213 Shylock as Suffering Servant

[3]     From:   Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 Jul 2005 08:21:33 +0300
        Subj:   16.1204 Shylock as Suffering Servant


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Jul 2005 11:45:53 -0400
Subject: 16.1213 Shylock as Suffering Servant
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1213 Shylock as Suffering Servant

 >I look forward to the day
 >when a production does NOT cast an Olivier, a Pacino or whoever as
 >Shylock and makes him a subordinate character,

The Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival did just that a few seasons ago
and it was very refreshing.  Shylock was played by the same actor who
played Friar Lawrence in R&J that season, with about equal centrality.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joachim Martillo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Jul 2005 13:12:58 EDT
Subject: 16.1213 Shylock as Suffering Servant
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1213 Shylock as Suffering Servant

When I try to hear the name Shylock as a 16th century Londoner or
someone from Stratford might have heard it, I hear a name something
modern German abscheulich, scheusslich or Scheissloch, which all existed
in variants in Friesian and English and Scottish dialects of
Shakespeare's time.  These words mean things like terrible, horrible or
shithole.  I have certainly heard shite for shit in England and Scotland
and some rural dialects in the USA (including among Pineys and
Clamdiggers in NJ).  With the propensity of many dialects in England and
Scotland to convert a /t/ to a glottal stop before /l/, Shylock may have
subconsciously suggested "lake of shit" of the audience.

Joachim Martillo

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Jul 2005 08:21:33 +0300
Subject:        16.1204 Shylock as Suffering Servant

Dear forum members,

Colin Cox asks "How far into the future do you propose that to be?"
"when the audience will be free of anti-Semitism."  Who can answer that?
  The future that I look forward to is when the audience will be
presented with the play that Shakespeare wrote - which is a compliment
and gift to the Jewish people in the way of George Elliot's "Daniel
Deronda".

Mr. Cox also says that "I always thought it was "shallach" meaning
cormorant. The cormorant, as a symbol of greed, would have struck a
chord with the Elizabethans."

Yes, Sir Israel Gollancz  points out in his book "Allegory and Mysticism
in Shakespeare" (George Jones,  London, 1931), that Shylock comes from
the Hebrew word `shallach' meaning 'cormorant' which according to the
Elizabethans meant usurer, "in the same way that we use the term
vampire".  Shakespeare in his placing of multiple meanings was never
afraid to be the devil's advocate to show a complete picture.  It is for
the reader to choose the right casket, here too.

I like Stuart Manger's choice of cast. and his wanting to put the play
into the right historical perspective - which implies an expression of
the  Jim Crow period of relationships between Venetians and Jews  due to
the  Inquisitional attitude of Pope  Paul IV and the paranoia connected
with the confrontation in  South- Eastern  Europe with  the Ottoman Turks.

I wish to add to Michael Egan's statement about act 5 that the gala
expressed there includes a kind of repertoire of the plays being
produced by Shakespeare's company. It is an agreeable kind of reminder
that this is theater and not reality.

Mr. Weiss, the reason why I did not send my essay before is because the
old web site for "shaksper" did not include the means for showing Hebrew
characters. The essay will be sent shortly.

Bill Arnold probably knows by now that I do not agree with the
simplistic depiction of Shylock that he puts.  From my point of view the
character cannot be defended with the attitudes he is presumed to
possess. I defend another Shylock.

A very great difficulty that is emphasized by the confrontation of
Antonio with Shylock is that the truths of one religion as they are
expressed and developed in sacred writings do not equip the bearer of
those truths to communicate with the bearer of truths of another religion.

So either you look at the play as a sociological study - which indeed it
is, or you suspend judgment and accept the stranger's truth for the
duration of the play.

However, I believe that the milieu of the play is that of the Jews and
crypto Jews.

Florence Amit

_______________________________________________________________
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.

All in the Family

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1220  Tuesday, 19 July 2005

[1]     From:   Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 18 Jul 2005 12:33:28 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1212 All in the Family

[2]     From:   Lea Luecking Frost <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 18 Jul 2005 12:30:47 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1212 All in the Family

[3]     From:   Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 18 Jul 2005 18:12:27 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1212 All in the Family


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Jul 2005 12:33:28 -0400
Subject: 16.1212 All in the Family
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1212 All in the Family

 >While married, Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh played a number of
 >Shakespearean spouses:  the Macbeths, Romeo and Juliet, Richard III and
 >Lady Anne.  They also played Antony and Cleopatra, a common-law couple.
 > On one occasion, they incestuously played Titus Andronicus and his
 >daughter Lavinia.

And of course, Joan Plowright, his third wife, introduces a clip of
Olivier's Hamlet in Last Action Hero, remarking that the school children
might remember him from "Clash of the Titans"

Tanya Gough
The Poor Yorick Shakespeare Catalogue
www.bardcentral.com

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Lea Luecking Frost <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Jul 2005 12:30:47 -0500
Subject: 16.1212 All in the Family
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1212 All in the Family

Charles Weinstein said:

 >while
 >father-and-son actors Brian and Jamie Glover played King
 >Henry and Hal in both the Arkangel and BBC audio
 >recordings of 1 and 2 Henry IV.

Just a brief correction there: it's Julian Glover who played Henry, not
Brian. Incidentally, in the BBC recording, married couple Timothy West
and Prunella Scales appear as Falstaff and Mistress Quickly, who aren't
an item in the play *exactly*, but close enough! Along similar lines,
West has also played Falstaff opposite his son Samuel as Prince Hal,
though I don't remember the details of the production offhand...

Regards,
Lea

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Jul 2005 18:12:27 -0400
Subject: 16.1212 All in the Family
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1212 All in the Family

 >"... father-and-son actors Brian
 >and Jamie Glover played King Henry and Hal in both the Arkangel and BBC
 >audio recordings of 1 and 2 Henry IV."

Sorry:  I confused my Glovers.  (Thanks to Stuart Manger for pointing
this out).  *Julian* and Jamie are the father and son who played King
Henry and Hal.  Brian Glover has done Shakespeare--he played Bottom in
the BBC Midsummer--but he doesn't look a thing like Julian and he hasn't
a son named Jamie.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Less said the better, it seems

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1221  Tuesday, 19 July 2005

[1]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 18 Jul 2005 11:11:22 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.1211 Less said the better, it seems

[2]     From:   Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 18 Jul 2005 16:28:47 -0600
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.1211 Less said the better, it seems

[3]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 18 Jul 2005 20:31:12 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1211 Less said the better, it seems

[4]     From:   Kareen Klein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 Jul 2005 12:41:41 +0200
        Subj:   Less said the better, it seems


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Jul 2005 11:11:22 -0500
Subject: 16.1211 Less said the better, it seems
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.1211 Less said the better, it seems

Terence Hawkes quotes me: "Don Bloom concludes 'WS has lasted through
the centuries because there remain plenty of us who simply love reading
and watching and talking about and teaching his work.'

and then remarks:

"Oh dear. At such moments, am I the only person into whose mind words
such as 'sentimental', 'simple-minded' and  'codswallop' gently drift?
So does the word 'circular', but perish the thought."

I knew there was a risk when I wrote what I did, but I meant it and
believe it, so there we are. As to my remarks being sentimental, I fail
to find that either insulting or critical. There is bad (inappropriate,
forced) sentimentality, but there is also good. It is not infrequently
found in the work of WS.

I am not sure whether by "simple-minded" TH means "simplistic" or
"stupid." If the former, then I simply plead guilty. I knew that I had
already gone out on a limb in speaking so sentimentally. Having gauged
the quantity of alligators in the swamp below I did not wish to go any
farther.

If he means that it is stupid to love Shakespeare's work -- well, I
leave him to explain that. I cannot.

As to "codswallop," it is a delightful word but I am unclear as to its
precise meaning. Obviously negative. Perhaps suggesting "sentimental
effusions."

Avoiding the limb and the alligators as best I can, I will say that I
have thought a great deal off and on about what identifies some
literature as great. As near as I can tell, it is so because enough
people care enough about it to devote their lives to it. I have my own
ideas about what causes this devotion in these people-but that is
another swamp, another set of gators.

If I have sounded rather like Florence Gertrude Margaret Taylor, the
sentimental, overly dramatic and intellectually contemptible drama
teacher in my junior high school, so be it. Sometimes the Mrs. Taylors
of the world are right, and it can't be helped.

Cheers,
don

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Jul 2005 16:28:47 -0600
Subject: 16.1211 Less said the better, it seems
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.1211 Less said the better, it seems

I'm going to analyze Terence Hawkes's astonishment at Don Bloom's words
and then offer an assertion.

Hawkes wonders if he is "the only person into whose mind words such as
'sentimental', 'simple-minded' and 'codswallop' gently drift."

"Sentimental"=I suspect this is a reaction to the thought of people
"simply lov[ing]" doing things; perhaps the word "sentimental" betrays
an embarrassment at emotion, especially enthusiastic or positive
emotion.  Cerebration in its various forms is certainly safer, less
potentially embarrassing, and more respectable in academic discourse
than enthusiastic emotion.

A side note: Because much recent work on Shakespeare has ignored or
distanced itself from emotion, I look forward with interest to the
seminar on "Emotion and Affect in Shakespeare" at next year's World
Shakespeare Congress.  (The seminar description begins as follows:
"Recent tendencies to view literary texts as the effects of impersonal
forces of history or structures of language and ideology have occluded
the place of emotion and affect.  Can these concepts be returned to
critical view within current historicist or presentist projects, or is a
new theoretical or philosophical framework required?")

"Simple-minded"=Perhaps this is a reaction to Don Bloom's argument that
"WS has lasted through the centuries because there remain plenty of us
who simply love reading and watching and talking about and teaching his
work." Rather, many would more sophisticatedly argue, WS has lasted
because he has become the vehicle for cultural values or power
circulation or perhaps, more genially, because Shakespeare's oeuvre is
so sizable and complex that it has offered plenty of material for
centuries of interpretation and analysis.  (But, it is sometimes added,
the work of any number of other writers could have had the same fate if
the same cultural energies had chanced to latch on them instead of on
the work of Shakespeare.)

"Codswallop" (i.e., "nonsense, drivel")=I take this as simply a
redundant combination of the preceding two epithets.

"Circular"=This deserves further thought, but my initial reaction is
that Don Bloom's statement couldn't be both "simple-minded" (not an
adequate explanation of WS's lasting power) and "circular" (an
overadequate and obvious explanation of WS's lasting power).

My assertion: I think Bloom is right.  His explanation is not a complete
or tremendously nuanced one.  But I think it might be possible to prove
that, yes, people's love of "reading and watching and talking about and
teaching [Shakespeare's] work" is indeed the main reason (and certainly
the sine qua non) for his lasting power.

I don't believe cultural energies attach themselves simply by chance to
a body of work.  The body of work needs to be large enough and of
sufficient complexity that it can do the cultural work it is called on
to do.  (For instance, not every playwright could sustain the dozens of
festivals, with many weeks of performances repeated year after year,
that Shakespeare has managed to sustain.)  But more important even than
bulk and complexity is the love-the enthusiastic emotion, the
affect-that motivates thousands of people to direct, act in, watch,
write about, think about, talk about, teach, and otherwise be involved
with this particular body of work.  Some portion of those thousands may
have the enhancement of their own power, prestige, or self-image as a
stronger motive, but I think it could probably be demonstrated, with the
proper tools, that for most people love of the material itself (in its
multifaceted incarnations) is a stronger motive and that, unless it were
so, Shakespeare's popularity would not have lasted so long and at such a
high level.  In other words, from that love issues most of the energy
that, year after year, inspires and carries the various activities,
including analysis, criticism, and scholarship, along with it.

The question that remains is why so much enthusiasm for Shakespeare has
arisen.  I think the answer has to be something in the work itself as
well as in the various cultural accretions that now accompany it.

Bruce Young

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Jul 2005 20:31:12 -0400
Subject: 16.1211 Less said the better, it seems
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1211 Less said the better, it seems

 >Children's literature, including the works of Dodgson, Lewis, Baum,
 >Geisel and Rowlings, have legs largely because children who are
 >enthralled with them grow up to become parents and then want to share
 >the experience with their own children.

True enough, but begging the question why only a few of the thousands of
books for young people published every year show up library shelves for
decades thereafter. That's a version of the question, of course -
Terence, is this stupid stuff? - why Shakespeare rather than  Heywood
continues to occupy you and me and others.

David Evett

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kareen Klein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Jul 2005 12:41:41 +0200
Subject:        Less said the better, it seems

Interestingly, the "favourite movie" of the Genevans is "The Merchant of
Venice" at the moment:

http://geneve.cinemas.ch/home.php

So Shk does still sell ...

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Productions of Pericles

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1219  Tuesday, 19 July 2005

From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Jul 2005 11:30:41 -0400
Subject: 16.1208 Productions of Pericles
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1208 Productions of Pericles

 >The Globe just has a really exciting production of *Pericles* going on.

It would be more accurate to say that the production is "based on"
Pericles.  It may be imaginative and fun, but it ain't Shakespeare.

The entire season is a disappointment.  Actually, the Pericles is the
best of the Shakespearean productions on offer.  The Winters Tale, while
staged in traditional Globe fashion, was just flat and insipid.  I have
seen many WTs performed traditionally, and they almost always move me.
This one was just a bore.

As for The Tempest, performed by Mark Rylance and two other actors
playing all the roles, the less said the better.  I have no idea what
Rylance thought he was accomplishing, but it didn't include dramatic
theatre.

_______________________________________________________________
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.