2006

Shakespeare and Southwell

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0200  Wednesday, 22 March 2006

From: 		Sophie Masson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 08:59:52 +1100
Subject: 17.0161 Shakespeare and Southwell
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0161 Shakespeare and Southwell

Re: the Devlin book on Southwell (which is very interesting and useful 
in the context of Southwell's and WS's relationship as has already been 
pointed out)

Devlin also wrote a rather nice little collection of essays called 
'Hamlet's Divinity', which is worth looking at.

Sophie Masson

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0199  Wednesday, 22 March 2006

[1] 	From: 	Jim Carroll <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 21 Mar 2006 17:07:46 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0194 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene

[2] 	From: 	Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 03:17:22 -0800 (PST)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0194 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Jim Carroll <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 21 Mar 2006 17:07:46 -0500
Subject: 17.0194 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0194 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene

Gerald E. Downs wrote:

 >But Greenblatt leaves the impression that Greene had more
 >to do with the book, and that is more than Greenblatt can know.

That's a little strong, isn't it? After all, isn't the title of the work 
"GREENS, Groats-worth of Wit,...  Written before his death and published 
at his dyeing request"?

See:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Erbear/greene1.html

Jim Carroll

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 03:17:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 17.0194 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0194 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene

Thank you Gerald for a terrific shake-down of the Shake-scene arguments 
on the Greene / Chettle debate.

As I'm sure everyone will be aware, if Chettle is the [main]author of 
GGW and the supposed attack on Shakespeare is actually aimed at Marlowe/ 
Nashe/ Peele, then it also seems to effect the issue (to which it is 
always attached) of the authorship of 1HVI.

I wonder if you have a view on this?

All best,
Marcus

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Doubling of Cordelia and the Fool: Again

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0197  Wednesday, 22 March 2006

From: 		Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 21 Mar 2006 17:11:57 -0700
Subject: 17.0191 Doubling of Cordelia and the Fool: Again
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0191 Doubling of Cordelia and the Fool: Again

As Hardy notes, the strongest evidence against the doubling of Cordelia 
and the Fool in Shakespeare's time would be the performance practice of 
his company.  But since I'm not an expert on the company's performance 
practice, I'd like to offer two other reasons against doubling Cordelia 
and the Fool.

(1) It seems to me that using doubling to achieve the "deeper ironies 
beyond the reach of words" referred to by Ackroyd is a modern practice 
Shakespeare and his contemporaries are not likely to have thought of, 
let alone indulged in.  I suspect they used doubling very 
pragmatically-and they probably had very limited choices as to which 
parts could reasonably be doubled.

(2) I've seen the play with Cordelia and the Fool doubled.  Possibly 
this sort of doubling sometimes works, but in the one case I've 
witnessed, it didn't.  The player was a passable Fool but a horrible 
Cordelia.  I'm not sure it's easy to find someone who can do both parts 
well.

So, yes, Cordelia and the Fool are associated-as truth tellers and 
characters loyal to Lear; also possibly by the line "my poor fool is 
hanged."  But those associations are present whether or not the parts 
are doubled.  I'm not sure doubling really adds illumination beyond 
what's there in the text.  If the audience notices that the same actor 
is playing both parts, the result may actually be confusion.  Is the 
Fool really Cordelia in disguise (an idea that makes no realistic 
sense)?  Or is the director trying to get me to see something deep and 
symbolic I'm not already seeing?  Or is the director trying to assure me 
of his or her cleverness and insight?

Thus, even in modern productions, I'm not sure doubling the parts is a 
good idea.

Bruce Young

_______________________________________________________________
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.

"hindered me a million"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0198  Wednesday, 22 March 2006

[1] 	From: 	Todd Pettigrew <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 21 Mar 2006 16:25:52 -0400
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0193 "hindered me a million"

[2] 	From: 	John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 12:42:55 -0000
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0193 "hindered me a million"

[3] 	From: 	David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 21 Mar 2006 21:05:32 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0193 "hindered me a million"

[4] 	From: 	Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 10:34:26 +0300
	Subj: 	"hindered me a million"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Todd Pettigrew <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 21 Mar 2006 16:25:52 -0400
Subject: 17.0193 "hindered me a million"
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0193 "hindered me a million"

Perng Ching-Hsi asks,

"When Shylock says Antonio "has hindered me half a million" (3.1.46), is 
he referring to money/profit) or to frequency?"

I like to imagine that Shylock is referring to profit and that he means 
"half a million" literally. That is, by his reckoning, Antonio's 
practice of lending money for free, together with Antonio's practice of 
publicly insulting Shylock has cost Shylock 500,000 ducats. But recall 
that Antonio's entire net worth is something like 27,000 ducats. So if 
Shylock would have been half a million richer without Antonio, his 
actual wealth must be astronomical.

In other words, Shakespeare is pointing out that Shylock's complaint 
about his losses are ridiculous since he is absurdly wealthy.

But then why does Shylock have to borrow money from Tubal to lend to 
Antonio? Because his funds are tied up somehow? Because he would rather 
risk someone else's money than his own?

Todd Pettigrew
Cape Breton University

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 12:42:55 -0000
Subject: 17.0193 "hindered me a million"
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0193 "hindered me a million"

I think he means money, though I agree it isn't clear.  Not 'half a 
million times' though, I think.

Hope this helps,
John Drakakis

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 21 Mar 2006 21:05:32 -0500
Subject: 17.0193 "hindered me a million"
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0193 "hindered me a million"

Dear Ching-Hsi Perng:

I would think that the term refers to currency, money. It refers to how 
much money he failed to make because of Antonio. It could not possibly 
refer to the number of instances in which he was hindered, too many to 
fit into the time allowed.

Stay well,
David Basch

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 10:34:26 +0300
Subject: 	"hindered me a million"

Dear Mr. Ching -His  Perng,

Knowing as I do that there are frequent and indisputable displays of 
Hebrew in "The Merchant of Venice" and having archived an understanding 
as to what the characters are about and their natures, I have attempted 
to read the text for Hebrew. I may not have gotten it right yet, but 
this is my initial result:

has hindered me half a million

ha-sh'hi neder ed m'halef  emi l'elion

Translation: Let the vow remain until there is an exchange with me to a 
higher plane.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Rehearsing Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0196  Wednesday, 22 March 2006

From: 		Cary Mazer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006 10:08:02 -0500
Subject: 	Rehearsing Shakespeare

For a proposed anthology of articles and book excerpts of eye-witnesses' 
(and/or participants') accounts of actors and directors rehearsing 
productions of Shakespeare, I am eager for suggestions about the following:

1)  Your favorite accounts:  e.g. Charles Marowitz on Peter Brook's 1962 
King Lear, Richard Sterne or William Redfield on the John 
Gielgud-Richard Burton 1964 Hamlet, David Selbourne on Brook's 1970 A 
Midsummer Night's Dream, the rehearsal sections of Anthony Sher's book 
on Bill Alexander's 1984 Richard III, etc.  I am more interested in 
accounts that log rehearsals as they are happening--regardless of their 
accuracy or the prejudices of the eyewitness (or especially because of 
their inaccuracy and the prejudices of the eyewitnesses)--than in 
general recollections.

2)  Published articles that I may not know about.

3)  Your own experiences witnessing directors and actors at 
work--published or unpublished; or that you may have kept 
contemporaneous notes about but which you have not yet turned into 
narrative--that might be included.  I am as interested in accounts of 
productions that might not have been famous or noteworthy, but typified 
artists at work under those particular working conditions, as I am in 
accounts of productions that were famous in their own right.

Please respond to me DIRECTLY (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) and not to the 
group.

Thanks.
Cary

_______________________________________________________________
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.