July
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0384 Thursday, 16 July 2009 [1] From: S. L Kasten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Jul 2009 16:03:30 +0300 Subj: Re: SHK 20.0378 When Researching in London [2] From: Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Jul 2009 08:13:34 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 20.0378 When Researching in London [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: S. L Kasten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Jul 2009 16:03:30 +0300 Subject: 20.0378 When Researching in London Comment: Re: SHK 20.0378 When Researching in London >Amen to Arthur's and Louis' posts. Endsleigh Court is a >wonderful place to stay -- though I do my food shopping >in the Waitrose in the Brunswick shopping center (off the >Tavistock side) when I'm there. Endsleigh is a short walk from the Russell Square Station of the Piccadilly Line which originates at Heathrow and from Euston Station which has a train-bus return ticket to Stratford-on-Avon. As short term tourists we have found the Tavistock Hotel to offer basic amenities at a reasonable price. The walk to Tottenham Road is problematic because it takes one past Dillon's Book store and one is in serious danger of becoming lost therein. To whom it may concern: the Waitrose in the Brunswick Mall has a Kosher corner. London Is Great! Best wishes, Syd Kasten [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Jul 2009 08:13:34 -0400 Subject: 20.0378 When Researching in London Comment: Re: SHK 20.0378 When Researching in London I've had several replies to my inquiry about places to stay in London while doing research, all of them helpful. I'd welcome others, but the ones so far are enough for working on plans. Many thanks. 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 20.0383 Thursday, 16 July 2009 [1] From: Mike Shapiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 15 Jul 2009 12:08:11 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 20.0379 Othello's Handkerchief [2] From: Stephen Rojcewicz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 15 Jul 2009 20:06:50 +0000 (UTC) Subj: re Othello's handkerchief [3] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 15 Jul 2009 17:06:14 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 20.0379 Othello's Handkerchief [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Shapiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 15 Jul 2009 12:08:11 -0700 Subject: 20.0379 Othello's Handkerchief Comment: RE: SHK 20.0379 Othello's Handkerchief Othello's Egyptian Mystic story serves the purpose of intensifying Desdemona's sense of guilt. Othello's subtext could be, "The Egyptian Oracle has decreed that if you have the handkerchief you live, if not, you die." As such, Othello does not have to take responsibility for "such perdition" because Desdemona has sentenced herself. Mike Shapiro [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Rojcewicz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 15 Jul 2009 20:06:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: re Othello's handkerchief I thought Othello's handkerchief is a prophecy of Hardy's use of the internet for Shaksper: Tis true: there's magic in the web of it. Othello III.iv.69 Stephen Rojcewicz [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 15 Jul 2009 17:06:14 -0400 Subject: 20.0379 Othello's Handkerchief Comment: Re: SHK 20.0379 Othello's Handkerchief Since the handkerchief has strawberries embroidered on it, is it a strawberry trifle? _______________________________________________________________ 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 20.0382 Thursday, 16 July 2009 From: Hannibal Hamlin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 15 Jul 2009 16:42:28 -0400 Subject: 20.0377 Hamlet without Hamlet Comment: Re: SHK 20.0377 Hamlet without Hamlet I certainly wouldn't argue that scholarly arguments aren't sometimes far-fetched, but the point about "adamah" may not be. Of course, Shakespeare had even less Hebrew than Greek, but he could easily have known a few key words from easily accessible biblical commentaries, some of which I'm certain he read. I'd have to hunt around more to make a specific case for "adamah," but Raleigh explains the Hebrew pun on "Adam" and "adamah" in his History of the World, and he was no Hebrew scholar either. He no doubt found this in one of the learned works he consulted (in English or Latin), perhaps a work Shakespeare could also have read. So much is made in Hamlet of man being made of dust (the English biblical phrase "dust to dust" would have been ingrained from the funeral liturgy), and biblical allusions hearken back to Genesis (Claudius as Cain), so it's not unreasonable that Shakespeare would have had in mind the original biblical pun on the substance out of which humanity is made and to which it returns. Hannibal Hamlin Associate Professor of English The Ohio State UniversityThis 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0381 Thursday, 16 July 2009 From: Hannibal Hamlin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 15 Jul 2009 15:45:28 -0400 Subject: Re: King Lear at the Shakespeare Theatre, Washington, DC Dear Hardy, My response to the Shakespeare Theater King Lear was much the same as yours. Keach and Gero were both very good, especially in their scenes together. The actresses playing the daughters were, alas, not so. Like you, though, my strongest criticism was of the production, which seemed sophomoric and self-indulgent. The best part of the production was in the middle, when the concept was largely abandoned, and Lear and Gloucester appeared in a kind of existential junkyard as homeless rejects. This was powerful stuff. The set was stunning, and the actors were left alone to do their work, which they did superbly. But it made me all the more irritated with the stupidity of Falls's idea to set the play in Yugoslavia/Bosnia. So Lear is a fascist dictator, but in a country where the dictatorship is determined by primogeniture? And instead of the soldiers of English and French armies, we have a motley assembly of Russian-Mafia-style thugs? At one point, the stage is littered with bodybags, suggesting the Killing Fields of Cambodia, but it's hard to know how this has anything remotely to do with Shakespeare's play, with its more orderly (?) war between nations. The dead Cordelia appears bruised and mostly naked at the end, seeming to have been raped as well as hanged. It's nice that Lear killed the man who hanged her, but why did he wait until after she was raped!? How nice would it be if this kind of facile "updating" of Shakespeare could be dispatched with! And it's not even new!! Nothing is more tired and rehashed than the "period" updating of Shakespeare, especially if jackboots and fascist banners are involved. In fact, much of Falls's production seemed derivative of more famous (and not necessarily successful) Shakespeare productions. I would have yawned if I hadn't been gnashing my teeth. My wife and I went out for tapas after the show and were delighted to see Keach and Gero at the next table. I imagined the two of them grumbling about inadequate directors just as they had about venal Justices earlier on stage. Ah well. Hannibal Hamlin Associate Professor of English The Ohio State UniversityThis 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0380 Thursday, 16 July 2009 From: Louis Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 15 Jul 2009 21:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: What is Hamlet's flaw? "Thus the hamartia, or shortcoming, in a tragic person may refer to something within the man, or to an outward act, a particular shortcoming or case of misjudgment, which brings about his downfall." -- Lane Cooper. Aristotle on the Art of Poetry. Cooper offers that Hamlet's flaw is his delay of action -- then his sudden, rash deeds. But is it [also?] his failure to make use of friends about him (Does that account for Horatio?) . . . Or is it his failing to understand that, having presented himself as mad, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (and Polonius?) naturally believe him deranged -- as he intended all should -- and are kindly trying to bring him to his senses -- although he interprets their conduct as betrayal, as siding with Claudius against him? And does he ever realize what he has done to bring this disaster on himself? And does he blame himself for that? I cannot see that Aristotle requires the tragic figure to finally realize and regret his error, yet it seems best that he should -- otherwise is he not somewhat innocent of it? (Lear certainly realizes his error ["Take physic, pomp, etc."] and regrets it.). Yet, William Arrowsmith, I believe, made the point that the tragic figure is "deaf" and remains so. Yet that such a figure should NOT realize his error makes his demise less justified, less dramatically effective. Your thoughts on all this, please. L. Swilley _______________________________________________________________ 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.