November
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0746 Tuesday, 6 November 2007 [1] From: Sean B. Palmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Nov 2007 17:05:45 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 18.0736 Shakespeare as Falstaff [2] From: Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 3 Nov 2007 15:37:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 18.0736 Shakespeare as Falstaff [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean B. Palmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Nov 2007 17:05:45 +0000 Subject: 18.0736 Shakespeare as Falstaff Comment: Re: SHK 18.0736 Shakespeare as Falstaff John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >wrote: >Thoughts, anyone? Given that the part was originally Oldcastle, it would be strange to base your claim at all on evidence from the name Falstaff. Furthermore, it's a leading role which most have presumed would call for the leading clown, Kemp, though Malone said it was Heminges. Of course, Falstaff was alive in Henry IV, dead in Henry V, and alive "again" as Fastolf in Henry VI which was actually the earliest to be written. It may be that Shakespeare played the relatively minor part of Fastolf in 1 Henry VI, then. The combined role in the two parts of Henry IV, however, give Falstaff more lines than any other character besides Hamlet, and yet we hear from Rowe that "tho' I have inquir'd, I could never meet with any further Account of him this way, than that the top of his Performance was the Ghost in his own /Hamlet/." The marginalia in the Glasgow first folio quite plausibly supports this. Documentary evidence, then, does weigh against Shakespeare taking on such a major part himself. If Kemp were the player, I refer you to James Shaprio's elucidation (in his _1599_) of the Kemp <->company dynamic and his theory that Shakespeare wanted to segue away from the bawdy characters into the melancholy of Jaques and Hamlet, and that only Kemp really prevented him from doing this earlier or at least provided the impetus. Lukewarm is what you got before, and I'd be very surprised if you get anything different this time I'm afraid! -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/ [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 3 Nov 2007 15:37:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 18.0736 Shakespeare as Falstaff Comment: Re: SHK 18.0736 Shakespeare as Falstaff John Briggs did mean to say John Oldcastle, didn't he? Is there any early textual evidence for suggestion that Shakespeare played Falstaff? We do have evidence some roles, such as when the folio of MUCH ADO starts using actors' names for speech designations where we would put characters' names. Another problem particularly for this idea about Falstaff is that he appears in three plays, once as the lead character. Do we ever hear of Shakespeare taking a lead role? Jack Heller _______________________________________________________________ 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 18.0745 Tuesday, 6 November 2007 From: David Schalkwyk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 04 Nov 2007 15:11:18 +0200 Subject: Portia and Shylock as "Others" I seem to recall a discussion some years ago of an essay that argued that Portia is as much an "other" as Shylock is in _The Merchant of Venice_. I'm afraid that search as I can, I can find neither the original SHAKSPER discussion nor the essay. Could anyone help me out? Thanks, David _______________________________________________________________ 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 18.0744 Tuesday, 6 November 2007 From: Greg Hanthorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Nov 2007 16:41:45 EDT Subject: _King John_ at Atlanta Shakespeare Company Every Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday from November 3 through December 2, 2007, the rarely performed "King John" will be on stage at the New American Shakespeare Tavern at 499 Peachtree Street in Atlanta, Georgia. The New American Shakespeare Tavern features performances by the Atlanta Shakespeare Company, a repertory company including "equity" performers. For more information on show dates and tickets, see the website at _www.shakespearetavern.com_ (http://www.shakespearetavern.com/) Greg Hanthorn _______________________________________________________________ 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 18.0743 Thursday, 1 November 2007 [1] From: Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 30 Oct 2007 18:31:26 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 18.0731 Problem Shrews [2] From: Anna Kamaralli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 31 Oct 2007 21:46:21 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 18.0731 Problem Shrews [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 30 Oct 2007 18:31:26 -0400 Subject: 18.0731 Problem Shrews Comment: Re: SHK 18.0731 Problem Shrews I can't think of a single instance of Shakespearean reinforcement of an obnoxious status quo--particularly when that status quo denigrates women (I'm sure that most readers will have as little difficulty as I in coming up with comedies as well as tragedies that illustrate this point, so I will not enumerate the many examples here). I never said or implied that (either) Kate or Petruchio lived happily ever after because she learned to accept her place (with her hand beneath her husband's foot). On the contrary: I don't believe she *ever* accepts that as her place, and neither do I think that her final speech has any credibility for her *or* for Petruchio--any more than either of them believes that the sun is the moon (and vice versa). The point is that, no matter what they profess, *neither do any of the others*: those who married "docile" women have learned that their wives are anything but, as the last scene demonstrates, and though Petruchio has seemingly made the worst bargain of the lot, he has made the best match. They have come to the dinner expecting to ridicule him for his imprudence, but it is he who has the last laugh. As he himself has learned in private, the "shrew" makes a far better friend than she does an enemy, and once she decides to ally her strengths with his as his equal, they are an indomitable pair. The hyperbole of her "submissive female" pose mocks the foolishness of the men who believe (as Petruchio did) that they can dominate their wives--and the duplicity of the passive-aggressive females who are no less strong-willed than Kate, but conceal their autonomy until after the wedding. I agree with Larry Weiss that the Sly frame is integrally tied to the outcome of the main plot, and believe that to read the play as an exercise in abuse (a la _The Winter's Tale_) is misguided. Comedies have happy endings--and an ending that sees Kate--the heroine, if the play has any at all--as beaten and abused into abject submission fails to resolve its central conflict in a positive way. The implicit question is "how do you tame a shrew?" The answer--as ladies of literature going back to Dame Alisoun know only too well--is "you love her, and accept her as your peer." Best to all, Carol Barton [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Kamaralli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 31 Oct 2007 21:46:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: 18.0731 Problem Shrews Comment: Re: SHK 18.0731 Problem Shrews I think Donald Bloom's analysis has got us all the way back to square one. People who think it's the height of comedy to watch an "obnoxious bitch" get "what she deserves" have never had a problem with the play in the first place. The problem arises for those who hope that the play might have more to offer than castration anxiety-propelled wish-fulfilment. Shakespeare's plays are almost always sympathetic to being read in a way that supports the status quo, or in a way that subverts it. If _Shrew_ can only make sense when read as supporting the status quo, then it is well below par as an example of this writer's work. All that playing Petruchio as an awfully nice chap does is tell us how the guys who have all the power like to see themselves. The audience members having a good time watching this version are only those who are comfortable with the idea of a man controlling how much a woman sleeps, what she eats, wears and says. It is an ancient strategy for a person from the group holding the power to comfort any niggling guilt by assuring themselves that the person who has no rights is happier when they know their place, and a better person for it; that the oppression is "of great benefit" to the oppressed. On the evidence of his other plays, Shakespeare seems considerably more sophisticated than this. Regards, Anna _______________________________________________________________ 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 18.0742 Thursday, 1 November 2007 [1] From: Alberto Cacicedo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 30 Oct 2007 21:07:05 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 18.0730 Soliloquies - Truth or Lie [2] From: Nicole Coonradt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 31 Oct 2007 03:38:10 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 18.0730 Soliloquies - Truth or Lie [3] From: Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Nov 2007 09:44:42 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 18.0730 Soliloquies - Truth or Lie [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alberto Cacicedo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 30 Oct 2007 21:07:05 -0400 Subject: 18.0730 Soliloquies - Truth or Lie Comment: Re: SHK 18.0730 Soliloquies - Truth or Lie I don't think all speeches delivered by a lone character have the same valence. What do you all think about Henry V's prayer before the battle of Agincourt in 4.1.? Is any prayer a soliloquy, or does prayer imply an interlocutor? Or Puck's "What fools these mortals be"-- soliloquy or exuberance, like a child crying out "Oh boy!" when she gets an ice cream cone? Hamlet's soliloquies strike me as being self-dramatizing, not so much that he's stepping in and out of the play, as R. A. Cantrell says (although there seems to me some of that as well), but rather that he's observing himself as actor--most evidently in the "What a rogue and peasant slave" speech, but in others as well. Then there's Richard III's opening soliloquy, which seems to me addressed directly to the audience, as if we were his interlocutors. The same seems to me true of Hal's wonderful speech at the end of 1.2 in _H IV, part 1_--the "I know you all" speech, where the meaning of "you" strikes me as highly ambiguous ("you" = Falstaff, Poins, and the others; "you" = the audience, wasting time in the theater as much as Falstall et al. are wasting time in the tavern). Bottom's soliloquy when he wakes up on the morning after the night before does seem to me to serve in the way that Carol Morley says, presenting "the character unmediated by the need to perform to any other on stage intruders." Nonetheless, almost every time I come across a soliloquy I ask myself what the character wants me to think about him or her--thought bubbles with a purpose, so to speak. Al Cacicedo [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicole Coonradt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 31 Oct 2007 03:38:10 +0000 Subject: 18.0730 Soliloquies - Truth or Lie Comment: Re: SHK 18.0730 Soliloquies - Truth or Lie RE: RA Cantrell's post today: can you explain further, please? I'm not sure what you mean when you say Hamlet "deliver[s] his soliloquies directly to those who have shared his view of the action." I don't have a problem with that when we actually do share his view; however, in the scene I mentioned by way of example, it is Hamlet who has not shared *our* views, ergo we are privy to knowledge denied him. In light of that, what does your comment mean in terms of the thread? Is there an example of a different moment you can cite to illustrate what you mean? Thanks! Best, Nicole [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Nov 2007 09:44:42 +0000 Subject: 18.0730 Soliloquies - Truth or Lie Comment: Re: SHK 18.0730 Soliloquies - Truth or Lie I suspect that what this student has been told about the truth of soliloquies can be traced back to Bertrand Evans who taught a version of the proposition in his Shakespeare classes at Berkeley in the '60s and used it in his two best-known books: *Shakespeare's Tragic Practice* and *Sh's Comic Practice.* Evans was particularly interested in situations of deception and thus in the ways soliloquy could be used to communicate matters of fact to allow the audience-in most cases-to share the point of view of the deceiver. If Iago professes love of Othello in dialogue and hatred in soliloquy, the latter is 'true'. That does not, of course, imply that Iago understands his feelings and motives or Othello's character. Antony tells us what he can't tell his followers: that his return to Egypt is motivated at least as much be fear of Octavius as by love of Cleopatra. How consistently he understands this point is very much open to question, of course. Arthur Lindley _______________________________________________________________ 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.