May
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0507 Friday, 26 May 2006 [1] From: Bob Lapides <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 25 May 2006 11:36:34 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 17.0499 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek" [2] From: Jim Carroll <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 25 May 2006 11:53:52 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0499 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Lapides <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 25 May 2006 11:36:34 EDT Subject: 17.0499 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek" Comment: Re: SHK 17.0499 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek" I've read Baldwin, and I understand how one careless statement eventually led to bigger mistakes in this regard, but I don't get why so many of Shakespeare's contemporaries and near-contemporaries (who knew enough to know better) would claim he had but "small Latin" and was relatively uneducated in other matters as well. In the 19C, something similar happened with Charles Dickens, who was attacked by certain of his critics for being uneducated. This claim was to some degree true, but it was often irrelevant to his great achievement, and it was put forward by those with a particular bias, that is, by those who thought the mass appeal of such a powerful writer threatened their own literary, social or political values. What I'm wondering about is this: Were those who criticized Shakespeare's supposed want of education motivated by some political agenda? Was the question of his knowledge of the accepted rules of drama and of classical literature really an argument about social background, one that became increasingly important in the class conflicts of the 17C and later? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Bob Lapides [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Carroll <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 25 May 2006 11:53:52 -0400 Subject: 17.0499 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek" Comment: Re: SHK 17.0499 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek" I don't know why there are so many doubts concerning Shakespeare's knowledge of Latin, but he surely knew at least as much as his middle-class neighbors (and in-laws), the Quineys. Baldwin discusses the evidence from their letters here: http://durer.press.uiuc.edu/baldwin/vol.1/html/71.html Jim Carroll _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0506 Friday, 26 May 2006 From: Philip Eagle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 25 May 2006 11:34:58 -0400 Subject: 17.0498 A Roof on the Globe? Comment: Re: SHK 17.0498 A Roof on the Globe? Hi all, To clarify the nature of the Globe "roof": It certainly isn't a solid roof of the type that many commenters seem to be assuming. It's a set of semi-transparent gauzy black cloths stretched across the centre of the theatre in a segmented circle, with large gaps in between the segments - scenic decoration rather than structure used only for Titus Andronicus, one of six productions this year. I volunteered on a severely rain-affected performance of Titus last night and can reassure Gabriel Egan that it does absolutely nothing to keep the groundlings dry. Indeed, when the wind gusts on a rainy evening, it delivers spectacular torrents of accumulated rain from the edges. Likewise, the Globe has never been *exclusively* a reconstruction of early modern theatre in playing style, costumes or scenery. For every "original practices" production (many of which have breached "original practices" by having mixed-sex casts, and when they don't have had mature men rather than adolescent boys play the female roles) there has been one with a freely "timeless", modern-dress or fanciful style. My actual judgement of the effectiveness of this Titus will have to wait until I've seen it under better conditions, but many of the condemnations on this thread have been well over the top and seemingly based on misconceptions about the ethos of the Globe and its past productions. Phil _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0505 Friday, 26 May 2006 [1] From: Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 25 May 2006 10:46:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 17.0497 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_ [2] From: Scott Sharplin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 25 May 2006 17:48:31 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0497 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 25 May 2006 10:46:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 17.0497 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_? Comment: Re: SHK 17.0497 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_? Noel, I like Hardy's (ague) solution. I think also that if we recognize the Fool as Lear's first advisor (a fool leading a madman who hasn't yet made his madness obvious) it's possible to cast him as extraneous personnel, simply wandering off (like Lear's mind) without any particular motive--"banished" benignly because he, like Lear's other two best advisors (Kent and Cordelia--who will suffer more violent dismissals) is no longer useful to the king in Lear's own misjudging mind. I think if I were playing the Fool, I would adopt an expression of extreme sadness, maybe even an obvious tear, and walk backwards, away. Best to all, Carol Barton [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Sharplin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 25 May 2006 17:48:31 -0600 Subject: 17.0497 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_? Comment: Re: SHK 17.0497 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_? In the production of Lear I recently directed, the actress playing the Fool acquired a shiver and a cough during the storm scenes, leading informed members of the audience to suspect that she would be too weak to follow Lear upon his exit in 3.6. Indeed, this was the case, and she lingered upstage during Edgar's soliloquy, fighting for breath. However, just before Edgar exited (and the intermission began), he paused and went to collect the Fool in his arms, carrying her off with him. I felt this was a nice action to support his spoken discovery, i.e. that he had recently learned to empathize with others. The Fool then disappeared (convalescing somewhere, presumably) until the very final moments of the play. At this point, Lear has died, and Albany, Edgar etc. proceed offstage, leaving the bodies. Kent lingers this time, and grabs a knife (the "smoking" one the Gentleman brought in). He clearly intends to kill himself, following up on the implication of suicide in "I have a journey, sir, shortly to go." Re-enter the Fool, first noticing Lear (and Cordelia's) death, and then stepping downstage to intercede with Kent's suicide. By sharing their pain, the two of them find the strength to carry on, and exit the stage together. It sounds a bit trite when I write it out, but I think it made for a very potent final image. Audiences were pleased to see the Fool again one more time, especially after the uncertainty of the line, "And my poor Fool is hanged." (As I've said before, I don't think it's worth giving Lear much credence when he speaks this line. It comes just after he has declared Kent "dead and rotten," so it's fair to say the king has thoroughly lost track of who is dead and who's alive.) Scott Sharplin _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0504 Thursday, 25 May 2006 From: Dan Decker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 25 May 2006 09:58:41 EDT Subject: 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" Comment: Re: SHK 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" WS bluntly states in 144 that he has two loves, one man, one woman, 144 goes on to suggest that if that man and that woman ever get together with each other, the bad one (the woman) will fire the good one out. That's Elizabethan slang for giving someone syphilis. WS, then, could not have been a physical lover of both. WS was clearly a lover of the woman in other sonnets. Therefore WS was not the man's lover. (All bluntness in service to brevity.) _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0503 Thursday, 25 May 2006 From: Kila Kitu <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 23 May 2006 18:10:22 -0700 Subject: 17.0493 Seattle All-Female Hamlet Comment: Re: SHK 17.0493 Seattle All-Female Hamlet I, a girl, played a male, bloody, sword carrying Menteith - and scared the crap out of a bunch of insolent, high school boys. Also, over the years, I've found that casting young girls as old men works fairly well. However, are we talking about the suspension needed to believe that characters believe girls are guys? Or was that just a rant? Kila Kitu _______________________________________________________________ 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.