2006

What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0457  Wednesday, 17 May 2006

[1] 	From: 	John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 11 May 2006 16:36:28 +0100
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0437 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

[2] 	From: 	Gregory McNamara <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 11 May 2006 13:33:32 -0400
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0437 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

[3] 	From: 	Cary Dean Barney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 11 May 2006 23:04:38 +0200
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0437 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 11 May 2006 16:36:28 +0100
Subject: 17.0437 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0437 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

This is an old chestnut that Shakespeare scholars have thrown around for 
some time.  I recall an RSC production in which Michael Gambon played 
Lear and Antony Sher played the Fool, and in the mock justice scene Lear 
accidentally stabs the Fool who sinks back dead into a barrel.  Lear of 
course, does not notice what he's done.

It's as good a theatrical solution as any to an intractable problem.

Cheers,
John Drakakis

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Gregory McNamara <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 11 May 2006 13:33:32 -0400
Subject: 17.0437 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0437 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

In reply to Noel Sloboda's question about Lear's Fool, I think that 
there is no need to insist that Lear refers to anyone but Cordelia when 
he laments, directly after finding Cordelia hanged, "my poor fool is 
hanged!"  Perhaps the Fool himself is simply long gone, having taken his 
own advice, given to Kent in 2.4: "Let go thy hold when a great wheel 
runs down, lest it break thy neck with the following."  Cordelia's 
condition by the end of 5.3 certainly underscores the Fool's point.

Greg McNamara

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Cary Dean Barney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 11 May 2006 23:04:38 +0200
Subject: 17.0437 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0437 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

One fairly common opinion holds that by IV.vi. Lear has effectively 
taken over the Fool's role.  But I've seen several productions now that 
keep the Fool alive, silently following Lear, too full of sorrow to 
speak.  It's pretty effective, though one would think being reunited 
with his beloved Cordelia might loosen his tongue.

I've always felt the "hanged" line refers to the Fool.  We seem to have 
a choice, either to believe that Shakespeare clumsily chose to tie up a 
loose end, or that "Fool" refers to Cordelia, is a term of endearment, 
and only possibly refers ALSO to the Fool, "marrying" the two in Lear's 
mangled consciousness.  I go with the former; for one thing, is "fool" 
used as a term of endearment anywhere else in the canon?  Wouldn't 
Shakespeare have chosen another such term so as to avoid confusion with 
another character in the play?

If Lear's mentioning the Fool in passing as he weeps over Cordelia seems 
bad timing on his and Shakespeare's part, clumsy plotting and bad timing 
are much of what this play, and particularly V.iii., are about.  Edgar 
chooses a bad moment to go on and on, with Edmund's (deliberate?) 
encouragement, about their father's death.  The King and Cordelia slip 
Albany's mind ("Great thing of us forgot!")  And Kent chooses a 
ridiculously wrong moment to reveal his identity to Lear.  Wouldn't it 
be in keeping with all this for the King, kneeling over Cordelia, to put 
in a word for the Fool?

(In fact-digression-it may be that the mortally wounded Edmund is the 
only one here who's still in control of his timing, stretching things 
out-"but speak you on"-until he knows it will be too late.  Time is 
really out of joint in this play, and Edmund disjoints it further.)

But who would have given the order to hang the Fool?  My candidate is 
Goneril, who has inveighed against him as "this your all-licensed fool" 
after being referred to as "one o' the parings" and who may also bear a 
grudge since the Fool's favorite, as well as Lear's, was Cordelia.  A 
bit of silent, upstage business would take care of this if an 
adventurous director wanted to try it out.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

A Roof on the Globe?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0456  Wednesday, 17 May 2006

[1] 	From: 	Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 10 May 2006 08:49:59 EDT
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0418 A Roof on the Globe?

[2] 	From: 	Todd Lidh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 11 May 2006 12:40:01 -0400
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0440 A Roof on the Globe?

[3] 	From: 	Peter Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 11 May 2006 13:04:39 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0440 A Roof on the Globe?

[4] 	From: 	Tony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 11 May 2006 13:23:07 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0440 A Roof on the Globe?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 10 May 2006 08:49:59 EDT
Subject: 17.0418 A Roof on the Globe?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0418 A Roof on the Globe?

 >The text of Titus
 >as we have it was not made for indoor playing

Although the early performances of Titus Andronicus were probably most 
often staged at the open-air Theatre or Rose, it doesn't seem quite 
accurate to say that it [or any other professional play] was intended 
only for outdoor amphitheatre playing. At the very least, Titus would 
have been played indoors if staged at Court, as well as in halls on 
tour. James Burbage apparently intended to replace the lease-expiring 
Theatre with an indoor playhouse in the Blackfriars, and the Globe was 
built only because this ambition was frustrated. No doubt Burbage did 
not intend to jettison his accumulated repertory because "it was not 
made for indoor playing".

Bill Lloyd

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Todd Lidh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 11 May 2006 12:40:01 -0400
Subject: 17.0440 A Roof on the Globe?
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0440 A Roof on the Globe?

Greetings.

As I read online just yesterday, the notion of "original practices" as 
envisioned and practiced on the Globe stage for the past ten years will 
not be the same under the new leadership. I quote below part of the 
"Meet the Globe's new Artistic Director" (Dominic Dromgoole) from the 
Shakespeare's Globe Theatre website:

"Original Practices, one of the methods of production set up under Mark 
Rylance, will be morphed slightly. I think the principle is an excellent 
one and this place was in part set up to explore Elizabethan stage 
practice. I think Original Practices is something that belongs to Mark, 
Jenny [Tirimani] and Claire [van Kampen] and I very much hope that they 
come back en masse to do something in 2007 or 2008 in that way. But I 
think it's something they own and I feel very peculiar or very dishonest 
in just taking it off them and saying 'Oh your thing works so I'll copy 
it' - you can't really do that as an artist, you can't just go in and 
nab what someone else does.

"When we do shows that are going to be done in Elizabethan style we will 
follow a lot of the principles of Original Practices and we will have a 
complete discipline of resources. We'll use Elizabethan costumes, 
Elizabethan music and Elizabethan tunes, but with those resources we 
might jazz around a little further and work in a style that's rougher 
and looser than Original Practices. We might take the rule that we only 
have Elizabethan instruments and we source Elizabethan tunes but then 
play about with that a bit and go as far as we like. The same with the 
costumes which will be a grab-bag of the Elizabethan and the 
Elizabethan's idea of the Romans. We'll see how far we can play about 
with that in creative and wonderful ways.

"This season I have chosen Coriolanus and Titus Andronicus to be 
productions that employ Jacobean and Elizabethan staging, clothing and 
music. It's the first time these two plays will be performed at the 
Globe. It makes sense to 'birth' a play here through that sort of 
discipline and then if people want to look at them again in the future 
then they'll have the freedom to say 'Oh no, I'll reset it here' or 
'I'll do that with it' but because it's the first time it feels good to 
stick to those sort of principles."

http://www.shakespeares-globe.org/globelink/frameset.htm and click on Edges
of Rome in the menu bar for the full information.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Peter Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 11 May 2006 13:04:39 -0400
Subject: 17.0440 A Roof on the Globe?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0440 A Roof on the Globe?

Elliott Stone writes "There are many plays within the play in the 
Shakespeare Canon and they all were performed indoors. The most famous, 
of course, is the Hamlet Mousetrap performed in a castle. The "rude 
mechanicals" might have rehearsed outdoors but even they performed their 
Thisbe before the Court in a palace!"

But what evidence is there in either case that the scenes are imagined 
as set indoors? At the castle is not the same as inside the castle: it 
could be a courtyard, still requiring cushions, seats, a call for 
lights, etc. And the play within the play in LLL, the Nine Worthies, 
seems fairly clearly outdoors (unless within a tent) since it is 
explicitly not at Navarre's court.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Tony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 11 May 2006 13:23:07 -0400
Subject: 17.0440 A Roof on the Globe?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0440 A Roof on the Globe?

Wasn't the original purpose of the Globe project to recreate that 
particular theater with the utmost authenticity, and to see and 
experience Shakespeare's plays in very nearly their original setting? 
Isn't that what all the sponsors-many not now alive to express their 
views-were invited to support?  And didn't the best scholars in the 
world come up with a roofless Globe as the fulfillment of that purpose? 
  Jeremy Fiebig hits the nail on the head in saying that, in proposing a 
roof, the incumbent family of Globe managers are denying the Glove 
itself.  If they find it unacceptably confining, let them build a giant 
arena, and also a portable indoor theater for occasional use, and then 
"explore the dramatic potential of the space," as David Crystal 
enthusiastically suggests.

The discussion on this list, which considers why it might be a good, 
defensible, or interesting thing to import a Coliseum-style covering 
seems designed to advance different agendas entirely.  Any space may be 
converted to some use for which it was not intended.  The cathedral of 
St. John the Divine in NY might be gutted and converted into a 
bungee-jumpers' paradise, or Yankee Stadium into a farmers' market.  But 
not in the interests of their intended purposes, no matter how 
enthusiastic one feels about the brave new world the alteration makes 
possible.

Tony

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Baseball/Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0454  Wednesday, 17 May 2006

[1] 	From: 	Peter Kanelos <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 11 May 2006 11:29:42 -0700
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0433 Baseball/Shakespeare

[2] 	From: 	Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 12 May 2006 02:51:38 +0800
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0433 Baseball/Shakespeare

[3] 	From: 	John-Paul Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 12 May 2006 15:11:20 -0400
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0433 Baseball/Shakespeare

[4] 	From: 	Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 12 May 2006 14:27:24 -0700
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0433 Baseball/Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Peter Kanelos <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 11 May 2006 11:29:42 -0700
Subject: 17.0433 Baseball/Shakespeare
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0433 Baseball/Shakespeare

The Glass Menagerie comes to mind.  Jim O'Connor teasingly calls Tom 
Wingfield "Shakespeare" at work, aware of Tom's literary aspirations. 
While not exactly a term of derogation, the undertone is 
similar--"regular guys" are meant to show disdain for the pretension of 
writers.

Peter Kanelos
Assistant Professor of English
University of San Diego

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 12 May 2006 02:51:38 +0800
Subject: 17.0433 Baseball/Shakespeare
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0433 Baseball/Shakespeare

Unintentional derogation: 'Shakespeare' is what the Gentleman Caller in 
The Glass Menagerie calls the protagonist because that's the only name 
of a writer that he's aware of.

Arthur

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John-Paul Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 12 May 2006 15:11:20 -0400
Subject: 17.0433 Baseball/Shakespeare
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0433 Baseball/Shakespeare

E Pearlman asks, "Are there other instances in which the epithet 
'Shakespeare' has been employed as a term of derogation?

I reply: "Shakespeare" can simply mean "writer."  I can think of two 
examples from the movies: In "Grease 2" (1982), the rowdy T-Birds, led 
by the curiously-too-old-for-high-school Adrian Zmed, repeatedly refer 
to the hero of the film, Michael Carrington, as "Shakespeare." 
Carrington is English, but more importantly, he writes essays for the 
T-Birds in exchange for money; they only call him "Shakespeare" in this 
capacity.  Another example is related to the remake of "Ocean's 11" 
(2001), though not in the film itself.  The film's producer, the 
legendary Jerry Weintraub (who also appears in the film in a bit part), 
apparently insisted on referring to the screenwriter, Ted Griffin, as 
"Shakespeare" throughout production, often asking, "Hey Shakespeare, 
where's my scene?"

"Shakespeare" can also be a term of derision, with the connotation, "Oh, 
so you think you're some kinda writer?!"  I think Pete Rose was using it 
in this sense.  In the 1980s, "Nice play, Shakespeare" became a popular 
saying, meaning, "Nice try" or "You really screwed up."  (See 
http://www.inthe80s.com/glossary.shtml.)  The phrase "Nice play" can 
also have baseball connotations, of course.  See "Hey Shakespeare, Kiss 
My Ass!" from the blog "Yankee Pot Roast" 
(http://www.yankeepotroast.org/daily/030624.html) which ends with "Nice 
play, Shakespeare."

John-Paul Spiro

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 12 May 2006 14:27:24 -0700
Subject: 17.0433 Baseball/Shakespeare
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0433 Baseball/Shakespeare

Elihu Pearlman quoted baseball player/memoirist Jim Bouton and wondered, 
"Are there other instances in which the epithet 'Shakespeare' has been 
employed as a term of derogation?"

Internet Movie Database (http://imdb.com/Lookup) has dozens of movie 
quotes using "Shakespeare" in a derogatory manner, and most are as 
intellectual as, say, the Three Stooges.  Gems:

--Gangs of New York (2002):
     Walter 'Monk' McGinn: "Well that was bloody Shakespearian. Do you 
know who Shakespeare is? He wrote the King James bible."

--Blackadder II (1986):
     Blackadder: "Shut up, Balders. You'd laugh at a Shakespeare comedy."

--My Parents Are Aliens (1999):
     Brian Johnson [reading the book's spine]:  "Shakespeare, by Romeo 
and Juliet."

--Play for Today (1970) {Abigail's Party (#8.3)}:
     Laurence [putting the Shakespeare play back on the bookshelf]: 
"Our nation's culture. Not something you can actually read of course."

--Third Watch (1999):
     Yokas: "What, are you quoting Shakespeare now?"

--Just Shoot Me! (1997):
     Dennis: "Intellectual and stimulating? Hmmm... I could read 
Shakespeare while you spank me."

--10 Things I Hate About You (1999):
     Mr. Morgan [after reading Shakespearean sonnet]:  "Now. I know 
Shakespeare's a dead white guy, but he knows his shit, so we can 
overlook that. I want you all to write your own version of this sonnet."

--Get Over It (2001):
     Dr. Desmond Forest Oates: "Bill Shakespeare was a wonderful poet. 
But Burt Bacharach he ain't."

--Bullets Over Broadway (1994):
     Sheldon Flender: "Let's say there was a burning building and you 
could rush in and you could save only one thing: either the last known 
copy of Shakespeare's plays or some anonymous human being. What would 
you do?"

--
Anyone know what the answer to that last question was?

Cheers,
Al Magary

PS. A quote for an epilogue:
--Farscape (1999):
     John Crichton: "I hate it when villains quote Shakespeare."

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Regional Accents

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0455  Wednesday, 17 May 2006

[1] 	From: 	John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 11 May 2006 16:15:45 +0100
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0436 Regional Accents

[2] 	From: 	Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 11 May 2006 10:41:38 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0436 Regional Accents

[3] 	From: 	Mary Coy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 11 May 2006 11:55:49 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0436 Regional Accents

[4] 	From: 	John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 12 May 2006 01:10:41 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0436 Regional Accents

[5] 	From: 	Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 12 May 2006 09:34:08 +0100
	Subj: 	Regional Accents

[6] 	From: 	Megan McDonough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 12 May 2006 11:12:21 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0436 Regional Accents


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 11 May 2006 16:15:45 +0100
Subject: 17.0436 Regional Accents
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0436 Regional Accents

Donald Bloom asks an interesting question.  I think I'm right in saying 
that there was no such thing in the late 16th or early 17th centuries as 
'received pronunciation', not even for aristocrats.  But a look again at 
Holofernes' and Sir Nathaniel's comments on pronunciation in LLL might 
take us a littler further.

Cheers,
John Drakakis

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 11 May 2006 10:41:38 -0500
Subject: 17.0436 Regional Accents
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0436 Regional Accents

It's hard to know what to make of its relevance to daily practice, but 
there is certainly data on regional speech in what George Puttenham says 
(in 2.04) about how poets should write (and perhaps speak):

This part in our maker or poet must be heedily looked unto, that it be 
natural, pure, and the most usual of all his country; and for the same 
purpose rather that which is spoken in the king's court or in the good 
towns and cities within the land, than in the marches and frontiers, or 
in port towns, where strangers haunt for traffic's sake; or yet in 
universities, where scholars use much peevish affectation of words out 
of the primitive languages; or finally, in any uplandish  village or 
corner of a realm, where is no resort but of poor, rustical, or uncivil 
people. Neither shall he follow the speech of a craftsman or carter or 
other of the inferior sort, though he be inhabitant or bred in the best 
town and city in this realm, for such persons do abuse good speeches by 
strange accents or ill-shaped sounds and false orthography. But he shall 
follow generally the better-brought-up sort, such as the Greeks call 
charientes: men civil and graciously behaviored and bred.

Our maker therefore at these days shall not follow Piers Plowman nor 
Gower nor Lydgate nor yet Chaucer, for their language is now out of use 
with us; neither shall he take the terms of northern men such as they 
use in daily talk -- whether they be noblemen or gentlemen or of their 
best clerks, all is a matter -- nor in effect any speech used beyond the 
river of Trent: though no man can deny but that theirs is the purer 
English Saxon at this day, yet it is not so courtly nor so current as 
our southern English is; no more is the far western man's speech. Ye 
shall therefore take the usual speech of the court and that of London 
and the shires lying about London within sixty miles, and not much 
above. I say not this but that in every shire of England there be 
gentlemen and others that speak, but especially write, as good southern 
as we of Middlesex or Surrey do, but not the common people of every 
shire, to whom the gentlemen and also their learned clerks do for the 
most part condescend;  but herein we are already ruled by the English 
dictionaries and other books written by learned men, and therefore it 
needeth none other direction in that behalf.

Albeit peradventure some small admonition be not impertinent, for we 
find in our English writers many words and speeches amendable, and ye 
shall see in some many inkhorn terms so ill-affected, brought in by men 
of learning, as preachers and schoolmasters, and many strange terms of 
other languages by secretaries and merchants and travelers, and many 
dark words and not usual nor well-sounding, though they be daily spoken 
in court.  Wherefore great heed must be taken by our maker in this 
point, that his choice be good.

~Frank Whigham

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Mary Coy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 11 May 2006 11:55:49 -0400
Subject: 17.0436 Regional Accents
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0436 Regional Accents

I, too, am interested in your question. I have done some research into 
Elizabethan pronunciation and found nothing regarding differences in 
pronunciation due to class. I did, however, find evidence of differences 
due to geographical origin and also to the age of the speakers.  I used 
the generational differences when staging the Closet Scene from Hamlet. 
The Queen, Polonius, and the Ghost pronounced certain words differently 
than did Hamlet (recently educated at Wittenburg).

The lack of differences due to class underscores for me the fact that 
that Shakespeare must differentiate between his kings, queens, and 
servants (and all those in between) with his rhetoric. Not only prose 
and verse but in his choices around imagery, and the interplay of 
schemes, and tropes. This idea is a cornerstone in the Mary Baldwin 
College graduate program in Shakespeare and Renaissance Literature in 
Performance affiliated with the American Shakespeare Center and the 
Blackfriars Playhouse.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 12 May 2006 01:10:41 +0100
Subject: 17.0436 Regional Accents
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0436 Regional Accents

I would suggest that Don Bloom first reads:

E.J. Dobson, English Pronunciation, 1500-1700 (Clarendon Press, 1957/1968).

John Briggs

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 12 May 2006 09:34:08 +0100
Subject: 	Regional Accents

Donald Bloom wonders if readers have noted 'any regional accents beyond 
a few Welshmen . . .' A touch quaint. How about Henry V for a start?

T. Hawkes

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Megan McDonough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 12 May 2006 11:12:21 -0400
Subject: 17.0436 Regional Accents
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0436 Regional Accents

Relating to accents/dialects... I have a good friend who played Horatio 
in Hamlet a few years ago and found that Horatio seemed to have a very 
different manner of speaking - word order, rhythm, vocabulary - as an 
actor he chose for this to signify Horatio's foreignness in the Danish 
court, that Danish (English) was not his native language. He did not 
choose, however, to play the role with a noticeable accent, but rather 
to play Horatio as someone who must choose his words a little more 
purposefully than a native speaker might, someone who physically 
embodies Hamlet's life at Wittenberg, and always seems a little out of 
place in Denmark. (This particular production costumed Hamlet and 
Horatio in stark almost Amish-looking clothing to represent the severe 
"Lutheran" education they would have been receiving. This choice helped 
make Horatio stand apart as an outsider.)

Has anyone written on Horatio's different manner of speaking? I would 
love to explore the question further and see if it holds any water...

Megan McDonough

_______________________________________________________________
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 Big Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0453  Wednesday, 17 May 2006

From: 		Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 13:31:38 +0100
Subject: 	The Big Question

It may well be the biggest Shakespeare question of all time - certainly 
as far as Shakespeare himself was concerned.  If, indeed, he was at root 
a moralist before a poet before a playwright then what difference has he 
made?  Has "Macbeth" decreased the murder rate?  Are politicians less 
ambitious since "Julius Caesar" and "Richard III"?  Has jealously been 
better controlled since "Othello"?  Has the world become a better place 
since Shakespeare's plays?  If so, is it due to the steady erosion of 
social injustice by countless reformers and representational 
governments?  Or not?

SAM SMALL

_______________________________________________________________
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.