2006

A Roof on the Globe?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0532  Monday, 5 June 2006

From: 		David Crystal <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Sunday, 4 Jun 2006 22:14:03 +0100
Subject: 17.0520 A Roof on the Globe?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0520 A Roof on the Globe?

Doubtless the technical debate will run a while, but SHAKSPERians may in 
the meantime like to see a compilation of critics' comments about the 
Globe roof following press night last Monday. Of the ten reviews I've 
read, eight were positive, most extremely so.

Paul Taylor, The Independent, 31 May: 'probably the best production I've 
seen at Shakespeare's Globe in the 10 years of its existence. ... Bill 
Dudley's striking design, which wraps the pillars, the ornate stage 
decoration and the musicians' galley in funereal black, conjures up a 
creepy claustrophobic Rome ("a wilderness of tigers"), with echoes of 
the Pantheon and a gladiatorial arena. This ritualistic space is 
constantly energised by mobile platforms pushed through the crowed 
bearing bickering factions and by baleful ceremonials.'

Michael Billington, The Guardian, 1 June: 'The transformation of the 
Globe continues. Designer William Dudley has given the building an 
astonishing makeover: it is covered by a canvas awning, the pillars and 
back wall are swathed in black, caverenous exits seem to lead to the 
mouth of hell. The result is to lend the space a glowering intimacy 
entirely appropriate for Lucy Bailey's excellent production of 
Shakespeare's earliest tragedy. ... the joy lies in seeing a 
once-derided play done with such gusto, and the Globe itself acquiring 
the hermetic darkness of a tragic venue.'

The production was 'The choice' in the Daily Telegraph, 3 June, and also 
the 'Critics choice' in The Sunday Telegraph, 4 June. Of the design: 
'The Globe has been covered with a dark canopy, the highly decorated 
stage shrouded in black fabric to create a "temple of death".'

Susannah Clapp, The Observer, 4 June: 'Much speculated about before 
Titus Andronicus opened, William Dudley's design is the first really to 
impose itself on the Globe. Dudley wraps the mottled purple pillars in 
black cloth, makes a cave of dark fabric at the back of the stage, and 
for the first time shelters the whole theatre under a roof: gauzy grey 
swathes of material shadow the stage, without protecting the audience 
from rain or wind. It encloses, subdues, threatens: it effectively 
announces the mood that the play will expound, but in a production as 
strong as this, that hardly needs emphasising.'

Sam Marlow in The Times, June 1: 'The designer William Dudley drapes the 
stage in black fabric and adds a canopy that blocks out the sky. This 
increased intensity, along with showers of dark confetti, emphasises the 
sense of an uneasy alliance between the funereal and the celebratory as 
Douglas Hodge's Titus Andronicus appears, fresh from defeating the Goths.'

Nicholas de Jongh in The Evening Standard, 31 May: 'The effect of 
Dudley's design "is liberating and exciting ... [as] the Globe, true to 
Titus Andronicus' dark spirit, becomes a timeless, claustrophobic arena.'

Maxwell Cooter in whatsonstage.com, 1 June: 'William Dudley's 
black-themed set... adds an imposing grandeur to the action.'

Alastair Maculay in the Financial Times, 31 May: 'Lucy Bailey directs: 
she has so much of the play happening in the central auditorium arena 
that she makes it a promenade performance for the groundlings. A shame 
she makes no use of the Globe stage's upper galleries (Jonathan Bate's 
brilliant 1995 Arden introduction to the play makes much of the bold 
innovations of Shakespeare's use of his theatre's space), but her 
staging is constantly lively, with gas ascending, confetti falling, 
towers travelling.'

The rave reviews were slightly tempered by two negative reactions in the 
Sundays. Christopher Hart in The Sunday Times (June 4) called it an 
'uneven production' and was critical of the design: 'William Dudley's 
set is a bit of a letdown, however. Swagging the stage in funereal 
drapes from top to bottom works a treat, but the much-anticipated 
velarium, a kind of awning covering the roof of the Globe for the first 
time, is disappointing. Instead of some heavy-duty black canvas trapping 
audience and players alike in a suffocating gladiatorial arena, these 
strips of rather floaty PVC are just too lightweight to have the 
desired, louring effect.'

Kate Bassett in the Independent on Sunday (4 June) is the only really 
negative review I've seen of the play, but she doesn't mention the roof 
at all.

In addition, the production motivated two dailies to devote laudatory 
editorial third leaders to the Globe - something I've never seen before. 
The Guardian's was headed 'In praise of... the Globe Theatre' (1 June) 
and The Daily Telegraph was headed 'Die laughing' (3 June). However, 
neither mentioned the design specifically.

Professor David Crystal
Akaroa
Gors Avenue
Holyhead LL65 1PB, UK

_______________________________________________________________
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 "Small Latin and Less Greek"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0531  Monday, 5 June 2006

[1] 	From: 	David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 2 Jun 2006 14:19:14 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0527 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"

[2] 	From: 	Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 2 Jun 2006 21:13:28 -0400 (EDT)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0527 Shakespeare's 'Small Latin and Less Greek'

[3] 	From: 	Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Saturday, 3 Jun 2006 10:32:53 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0527 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"

[4] 	From: 	John Crowley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Saturday, 03 Jun 2006 08:18:20 -0400
	Subj: 	Shakespeare's Latin

[5] 	From: 	David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Saturday, 3 Jun 2006 16:40:52 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0514 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"

[6] 	From: 	Jim Carroll <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Sunday, 04 Jun 2006 02:06:25 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0527 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"

[7] 	From: 	Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 5 Jun 2006 02:17:07 -0400
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0527 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 2 Jun 2006 14:19:14 -0400
Subject: 17.0527 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0527 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"

Abigail Quart needs to have a look at J. W. Binns, *Intellectual Culture 
in Elizabethan and Jacobean England: the Latin Writings of the Age,* for 
a lively and deeply learned effort to restore the actual balance between 
the relative values assigned to Latin and vernacular texts in 
Shakespeare's England.

David Evett

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 2 Jun 2006 21:13:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 17.0527 Shakespeare's 'Small Latin and Less Greek'
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0527 Shakespeare's 'Small Latin and Less Greek'

At the risk of extending a thread which has probably been exhausted . . 
.  I wouldn't take for granted that workers in the theater had no use 
for Latin. We have extended Latin passages in plays by Marlowe, Jonson, 
and Middleton, and for those who want to assert that Latin was primarily 
used by Catholics-that would not explain Middleton's use of the language.

Jack Heller

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 3 Jun 2006 10:32:53 +0100
Subject: 17.0527 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0527 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"

Carol Barton writes ...

 >The likelihood that Shakespeare would have written private
 >correspondence in Latin is little, however, since (as you
 >correctly point out) there would have been few people in
 >Shakespeare's sphere of influence who could have read
 >it--assuming he could write it.

Another strange statement.  SHAKSPERians seem to be unaware that English 
grammar schools taught Latin grammar, not English grammar.  If anyone in 
Shakespeare's 'sphere of influence' was lucky enough to have had an 
education, that education was in Latin.

Peter Bridgman

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Crowley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 03 Jun 2006 08:18:20 -0400
Subject: 	Shakespeare's Latin

 >But say he had the effrontery to correspond in Latin. Would he be
 >completely unafraid to appear as one who preferred the language of
 >Catholicism? Because Latin was the language of the Catholic Church.
 >Nobody else had any use for it at all.

As I'm sure many correspondents will note, this is entirely wrong. Latin 
was then and would remain until the 18th century the international 
language of scholarship, jurisprudence, and what we now call science. 
Until late in the 17th century much of the correspondence of the Royal 
Society was in Latin.  Strong anti-Catholics from Bruno to Newton used 
Latin for every purpose.  Bacon wrote his "casuals" in English, but his 
works intended to last in Latin.  In the late 20th century one of the 
unfortunate rock-dropping miners in Beyond the Fringe says he once 
thought he'd rather have been a judge, but he "never had the Latin for 
it." For all that, I'm also of the opinion that Shakespeare didn't, and 
had no reason to, write many personal letters in Latin. The Paston 
family a century earlier, a rising gentry family like Shakespeare's, 
didn't.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 3 Jun 2006 16:40:52 -0400
Subject: 17.0514 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0514 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"

A propos dismissal of Shakespeare on grounds of inadequate education I 
am surprised that nobody has so far pointed to the well-documented and 
widely discussed contempt of university-educated writers (e.g. Greene, 
Peele, Nashe) for mere theatrical hacks like Shakespeare--expressed in 
some of the plays of the War of the Theaters, in pamphlets, and in the 
two parts of *The Return from Parnassus"* (though in Part II Burbage and 
Kempe are given a chance to state their preference for the work of 
Shakespeare and Jonson over that of their university-educated rivals, 
and to recruit a pair of university wits as possible actors and 
playwrights, the two wits immediately express their unwillingness to 
stoop so low, and prefer to try their fortune first as mere musicians, 
and then as shepherds).

Philomusically,
David Evett

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Jim Carroll <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Sunday, 04 Jun 2006 02:06:25 -0400
Subject: 17.0527 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0527 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"

I gave the html address of page 71 of Baldwin's book, but it looks like 
I'll have to be more explicit for Ed Taft. Here is part of a paragraph 
from that page:

 >"[Richard Quiney's brother-in-law] Mr. Abraham Sturley,
 >who was also an alderman, frequently intermixed long
 >Latin paragraphs in his letters to him, several of
 >which I have read: nay, on one occasion I have found
 >an entire Latin letter addressed to him; and Mr. Sturley
 >certainly would not have written what his brother could
 >not understand."

(http://durer.press.uiuc.edu/baldwin/vol.1/html/71.html)

So, we have two adults communicating by letter in Latin, not just a 
child writing an exercise. The obvious reasons to write in Latin are 1. 
to practice Latin and 2. for privacy, since most of the hands through 
which the letters would pass on their way to the recipient would not be 
able to read Latin, if they could read at all. So for Stanley Welles to 
comment to the effect that Shakespeare "may" have written a letter in 
Latin does not seem strange or surprising to me at all, unless I'm 
missing something obvious. It's not as if Welles had said "Shakespeare 
certainly MUST have written letters in Latin."

Jim Carroll

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 5 Jun 2006 02:17:07 -0400
Subject: 17.0527 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0527 Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek"

I stand corrected. I was embarrassingly wrong. For nearly forty years 
I've had a one-way impression of the Renaissance as a time when classic 
works were busily translated out of Latin into vernacular and it never 
occurred to me how shallow and incomplete that was. Since I'm always 
happier knowing more than less, I'm grateful for the correction, despite 
the well-earned personal humiliation.

That said, getting back to the original topic of this thread, William 
Shakespeare was a hard-working commercial playwright specializing in the 
English vernacular, not a scholar, not a university man. If human beings 
were the same then as now, I have to wonder what might have been said if 
William had had the "effrontery" to even attempt a correspondence in 
Latin.  "Small Latin and less Greek"?

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Sotheby's to Auction First Folio (1623)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0529  Monday, 5 June 2006

[1] 	From: 	Jeffrey Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 2 Jun 2006 13:41:04 -0400
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0524 Sotheby's to Auction First Folio (1623)

[2] 	From: 	Clay Shevlin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 2 Jun 2006 11:11:32 -0700
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0524 Sotheby's to Auction First Folio (1623)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Jeffrey Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 2 Jun 2006 13:41:04 -0400
Subject: 17.0524 Sotheby's to Auction First Folio (1623)
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0524 Sotheby's to Auction First Folio (1623)

I find that price difficult to believe.  It was my understanding that 
first folios weren't even that rare.

Jeff Myers

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Clay Shevlin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 2 Jun 2006 11:11:32 -0700
Subject: 17.0524 Sotheby's to Auction First Folio (1623)
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0524 Sotheby's to Auction First Folio (1623)

Carol Barton's announcement was welcome news, but I have to say that, in 
the most amicable manner, I do not share what may be her institutional 
bias.  How many first folios does the Folger already have?  Do they 
really need another copy?  Is there anything "wrong" with a well-heeled 
private collector obtaining said copy?

To be sure, there are distinct bibliographical advantages to having 
multiple copies of an important work in one location.  Being able to 
examine such copies side by side permits the kind of bibliographical 
examination and analysis generally not available if individual copies 
were examined at different times and places.

The trend towards the institutionalization of rare and important works 
of literature has its advantages, but let's not forget the important 
role that private collectors have played over the centuries.  We should 
not automatically regard institutions as the "best location" for such works.

If there is any point to my message, it is that we should not assume 
that places like the Folger are the best locations for newly available 
copies of important books, and in fairness to Carol, I have used her 
comment more as a jumping off point rather than concluding that she 
truly believes the Folger is the ideal location for such books.  Being a 
newbie here, I don't know if this subject holds any interest to this 
group, but it is an issue close to my heart and I raise it in case there 
are others who find it worthy of discussion.

Finally, my thanks to those who responded to my query re conjuring 
("jugglers") in the Elizabethan and Stuart eras.

Clay Shevlin

_______________________________________________________________
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 17.0530  Monday, 5 June 2006

[1] 	From: 	Scot Zarela <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 02 Jun 2006 13:06:22 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: "Big Question"

[2] 	From: 	Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 2 Jun 2006 15:53:12 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0525 The Big Question

[3] 	From: 	John Crowley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Saturday, 03 Jun 2006 08:18:09 -0400
	Subj: 	Fwd: Moralist

[4] 	From: 	Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Saturday, 03 Jun 2006 13:29:31 -0400
	Subj: 	The Big Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Scot Zarela <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 02 Jun 2006 13:06:22 -0400
Subject: 	Re: "Big Question"

Sam Small's question which began this topic makes an assumption about 
the purpose of moralizing -- that it aims to reform other people, make 
them stop doing the bad that they're doing, straighten up and fly right. 
   Then moralizing can be judged a success or failure by the results.

But is this the aim of moralizing?  (It may be the hope, but is it the 
aim?)  Historically, the aim of the moralist has been to arrive at a 
right judgment of actions.  Some would think, with Shaw perhaps, that 
Shakespeare gave too much to the free play of his imagination, and to a 
gloomy (Catholic?) apprehension of human nature -- disabling his art 
thereby of the clarity necessary for right judgment.  Others would think 
that the imaginative freedom, and the gloom as well, were themselves 
necessary to complexify the represented actions:  Shakespeare, in this 
view, created a true grounds for right judgment -- by making judgment 
uneasy.

-- Scot

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 2 Jun 2006 15:53:12 -0400
Subject: 17.0525 The Big Question
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0525 The Big Question

 >Bob Grumman writes,
 >
 >>If you define an artist as one who constructs works
 >>intended to appeal to our aesthetic sense PRIMARILY,
 >>and a moralist as one who tells people how to behave
 >>PRIMARILY, there's no problem.
 >>
 >>I have no problem with making artworks a subject of
 >>moral study, incidentally--but that doesn't make their
 >>makers moralists.
 >
 >Any writer who creates characters who make choices creates a moral 
dimension, a moral philosophy, whether he intended that or not.
 >
 >L. Swilley

I suppose so, but does that make every narrative writer a moralist? 
Does his having characters who act and thus create a psychological 
dimension make him a psychologist?  Does the fact that his characters 
can be politically or theologically analyzed make him a political 
theorist and theologian?  Does the fact that it is impossible to write 
something that does not have an aesthetic dimension make every writer an 
artist, including one caring about nothing other than your voting for a 
certain political candidate?  Are all writers composers because words 
have an auditory component?  Etc.

Another problem: should we not distinguish the sort of writer Upton 
Sinclair was from the kind P. G. Wodehouse was?  Just what is the point 
in claiming that all writers are moralists?  (And here I'm ignoring 
poets and writers who don't write about people.)

I have a dopey question for you, too: what about a narrative writer 
whose characters do not make choices?  (If one exists.)  How is not 
making a choice outside the "moral dimension" you speak of?

All this is important to me because of the fairly complex taxonomy of 
verbal expression I've worked out.  It begins by dividing forms of 
verbal expression into informrature, advocature and literature, or 
verbal expression whose main function is to inform, verbal expression 
whose main function is to advocate (the work, that is, of moralists), 
and verbal expression whose main function is to give pleasure.  I am 
also an anti-Puritan, intolerant of those who seem unable to take 
literature seriously unless it instructs us morally--as I take most of 
those who claim all literature is moral to be.

--Bob G.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Crowley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 03 Jun 2006 08:18:09 -0400
Subject: 	Fwd: Moralist

 >Donald Bloom writes:
 >
 >To combine two puzzlements in a single post:
 >
 >As it baffles me how we can distinguish autobiography from fiction, so
 >it baffles me how an artist can avoid being a moralist.
 >
 >Unless they're dead artists have to be moralists, and the dead don't
 >write much. Or are they moralists only if we dislike the moral content
 >of what they write?

The puzzlement seems to me to turn on what is meant by a "moralist", 
which to me implies a professional philosopher, cleric, or other person 
who is either regarded as or puts himself forward as an authority on 
morals or a critic or analyst of morals.  It's true that Johnson (a 
moralist) regarded Shakespeare, and all writers he most admired, as 
doing that. Those who like their plays and stories to pronounce on or 
illustrate morals as their chief raison d'etre were sometimes attracted 
to Bacon as the possible real Shakespeare because he was indeed a 
moralist.  Many persons in Shakespeare ponder what is right or wrong, 
who has sinned against whom, what duties are owed to others, etc., but 
though Shakespeare gives great force to all or most of them, a lot of 
them are quite contradictory, because they belong as much to the 
characters speaking them as to the author.  As much and not more.  I had 
an argument with my Shakespeare teacher in college (Georges Edelen), who 
insisted that Shakespeare was a brilliant constructor of characters, and 
unerringly came up with sentiments such characters would express, but 
didn't himself hold those sentiments.  I said that no one could have 
conceived the line As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods, they kill 
us for their sport unless he believed it -- at least for as long as he 
wrote it.  Shakespeare was not a moralist:  He did not at one and the 
same time "believe" or promote the idea that the quality of mercy is not 
strained, and that the gods kill us for their sport, and that life is a 
tale told by an idiot signifying nothing, and that there is a special 
providence in the fall of a sparrow. Or he believed it all.  Shakespeare 
had morals (probably), he thought about morals, his characters speak of 
morals in many different ways, they surely speak thoughts that 
Shakespeare felt the force of in his life (so I believe), but 
Shakespeare was not a moralist.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 03 Jun 2006 13:29:31 -0400
Subject: 	The Big Question

L. Swilley writes, "Any writer who creates characters who make choices 
creates a moral dimension, a moral philosophy, whether he intended that 
or not."

Quite true. (As long as the work is substantial enough to accommodate "a 
moral philosophy.") But doesn't your observation contradict your own 
theory of formalism?

Isn't your position that the author consciously and intentionally 
creates a miniature world in a work of art? Thus, it follows ineluctably 
that the structures and patterns in a work reveal the author's fully 
conscious and fully articulated intentions.

Right?

Ed Taft

_______________________________________________________________
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 Third Shakespeare's Globe Theatre History Seminar

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.052  Monday, 5 June 2006

From: 		Kevin De Ornellas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 05 Jun 2006 20:06:24 +0100
Subject: 	The Third Shakespeare's Globe Theatre History Seminar

Dear All,

Lucy Munro asked me to forward details of this splendid-sounding event 
to this mailing list.

Kevin De Ornellas
University of Ulster


*The Third Shakespeare's Globe Theatre History Seminar: Stage Blood 
Roundtable*

Shakespeare's Globe

10.00am - 1.00pm
Thursday 13 July 2006

Enter in skirmish with bloody Pates
(Shakespeare, 1 Henry VI)

Sertorio brings in the flesh with a skull all bloody, they all wonder
(T.B., The Bloody Banquet)

Enter Virginius with his knife, that and his arms stript up to the 
elbowes all bloudy
(John Webster, Appius and Virginia)

Seest thou this goare that cleaveth to my face?
 From hence nere will I wash this bloody staine,
Til Ardens hart be panting in my hand
(Arden of Faversham)

Alas, a crimson river of warm blood,
Like to a bubbling fountain stirred with wind,
Doth rise and fall between thy rosed lips,
Coming and going with thy honey breath
(Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus)

Globe Education invites you to a Stage Blood Roundtable organised by the 
Shakespeare's Globe Theatre History Seminar.

The staging of bloody spectacle still poses many questions for scholars. 
Was stage blood used on the early modern stage?  If so, in what form 
would it have appeared? Reading stage directions such as those in 1 
Henry VI, The Bloody Banquet and Appius and Virginia tells us something 
about practice, but they tell us nothing about the materials used to 
construct stage blood. Was it indeed pig's blood as some have suggested? 
  Could they have used more stylised options, such as red ribbons?  Are 
plays like Macbeth and Titus Andronicus perhaps laden with blood imagery 
because it wasn't practical to use "real" blood on the stage?

The participants - two scholars and two theatre artists - will address 
these questions and others; they will propose theories and discuss their 
practical experience in using blood on the Renaissance stage.

For further information about this seminar please contact Farah 
Karim-Cooper (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) or Lucy Munro 
(This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).

Places are free to bone fide scholars, researchers and theatre 
practitioners, but must be booked in advance by emailing Susie Walker 
(Events Officer, Globe Education) at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

A performance of Coriolanus will follow the seminar at 2.00pm. Tickets 
must be purchased from the Globe Box Office on 020 7401 9919.

Lucy Munro
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


_______________________________________________________________
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.