The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0399 Monday, 11 October 2010
[1] From: Paul Barry <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: October 4, 2010 2:36:37 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0391 Actor Doubling
[2] From: William Blanton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: October 4, 2010 3:46:55 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0391 Actor Doubling
[3] From: Alan Dessen <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: October 4, 2010 4:07:00 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0391 Actor Doubling
[4] From: John Briggs <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: October 4, 2010 9:21:15 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0391 Actor Doubling
[5] From: Joseph Egert <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: October 6, 2010 6:32:27 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0391 Actor Doubling
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Barry <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: October 4, 2010 2:36:37 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0391 Actor Doubling
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0391 Actor Doubling
What possible advantage would there be in doubling Shylock and Morocco, unless you
were sending out a minimalist company as ACTER did several years ago?
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: William Blanton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: October 4, 2010 3:46:55 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0391 Actor Doubling
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0391 Actor Doubling
John Drakakis stated:
>There is a much stronger case (though it is still speculative) for the
>doubling of Shylock and Morocco, since this would give a literal gloss
>to the dialogue between Salanio, Salarino and Shylock at 3.1. where the
>Jew's 'flesh' is described as 'jet' compared to Jessica's 'ivory'. This
>doubling is just possible since Shylock has some 7 lines in which to
>change costume between 1.3. and 2.1. Gabriel Egan, in an earlier posting
>suggested that it was possible to remove black-face makeup very quickly,
>although if my speculation is correct, then that may not have been necessary.<
Problem is, Shakespeare's stage direction for the beginning of Act 2 describes
Morochus as a tawnie Moore. According to David and Ben Crystal, in Shakespeare's
Words, tawny means (1) brown-skinned; (2) yellowish brown.
Why then did Shakespeare use the word Jet (capitalization his, at least in the First
Folio) near the beginning of Act 3?
There is a great deal of sexual banter in this scene (indeed, throughout the play).
I respectfully submit that Shakespeare was using the word in its sexual sense: an
erect penis; the sexual spasm (Frankie Rubinstein, A Dictionary of Shakespeare's
Sexual Puns and their Significance, Second Edition [1989]).
Bill
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Dessen <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: October 4, 2010 4:07:00 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0391 Actor Doubling
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0391 Actor Doubling
Anyone speculating about the removal of black-face make-up during the course of a
performance should consult Andrea Stevens, "'Assisted by a Barber:' The Court
Apothecary, Special Effects, and Ben Jonson's The Gypsies Metamorphosed." Theatre
Notebook 61.1 (2007): 2-11. Examples of figures who disguise themselves as Moors or
gypsies and then shed the disguise can be found after the early 1620s, but I know of
no such instances before then.
Alan Dessen
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Briggs <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: October 4, 2010 9:21:15 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0391 Actor Doubling
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0391 Actor Doubling
Has anyone mentioned that there was almost certainly no doubling of major roles in
Shakespeare's day? There are doubling charts in the latest Arden3 editions, and one
can go quietly mad studying them! Take "Twelfth Night," for example. All the major
characters -- except Maria, and I can't see her doubling anyone -- are onstage at
the same time in the last act. The only one missing with more than a handful of
lines is the Captain, who could have doubled as the Priest. Valentine is AWOL, but
he had fewer lines than the First Officer who he could double. But that's about it.
John Briggs
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Egert <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: October 6, 2010 6:32:27 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0391 Actor Doubling
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0391 Actor Doubling
John Drakakis writes:
>"I find Bill Blanton's claim that Shakespeare played the role of Shylock
>one that has little evidence to support it.
>
>"There is a much stronger case (though it is still speculative) for the doubling of
>Shylock and Morocco, since this would give a literal gloss to the dialogue between
>Salanio, Salarino and Shylock at 3.1. where the Jew's 'flesh' is described as 'jet'
>compared to Jessica's 'ivory'. This doubling is just possible since Shylock has
some
>7 lines in which to change costume between 1.3. and 2.1. Gabriel Egan, in an
earlier
>posting suggested that it was possible to remove black-face makeup very quickly,
>although if my speculation is correct, then that may not have been necessary. I
>provide a full casting list for the play in my forthcoming Arden 3 edition."
Fascinating!
John, do you agree with your predecessor Brown that the 'red wine' in III.1 applies
to Jessica and the 'rhenish' to Shylock?
I've often pondered the thematic implications of a dark-complected Shylock, as
opposed to his fair Jessica. Had Shylock been cuckolded? Was lusty Launcelet her
true sire? Or was Leah imagining/picturing a white sire (or totally 'pill'd wand'),
during her 'deed of kind' with Shylock--a form of prenatal impression or influence?
The discussion in III.5 between IESsica and Launcelet on her possible illegitimacy
is also reminiscent of the bastard suspicions surrounding IESus' own birth. Are we
meant to think of IESsica as a white unstreak'd Lamb of God--the 'work of
generation' having ended in a spotless Virgin birth? How ironic that Lorenzo's
salvation may have come through his wife, and not vice versa. Has she, per Paul,
made him a true Christian?
Curious,
Joe Egert
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail 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.
|
