February
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0125. Thursday, 17 February 1994. (1) From: Michael Dobson <U63495@UICVM> Date: Wednesday, 16 Feb 94 13:02:11 CST Subj: Re: SHK 5.0120 Re: Psychotic *Macbeth* (2) From: Robert Burke <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 16 Feb 1994 21:25:07 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 5.0120 Re: Psychotic *Macbeth* (3) From: William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 16 Feb 94 14:57 CST Subj: Re: SHK 5.0121 Qs: Kingship; The Duke in MM (4) From: William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH> Date: Wednesday, 16 Feb 1994 23:09:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 5.0121 Qs: Kingship; The Duke in MM (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Dobson <U63495@UICVM> Date: Wednesday, 16 Feb 94 13:02:11 CST Subject: 5.0120 Re: Psychotic *Macbeth* Comment: Re: SHK 5.0120 Re: Psychotic *Macbeth* Dear SHAKSPER -- Re: Friar Laurence, Vincentio, &c. With all due respect to Ron MacDonald, whose contribution on this subject I greatly admired, is Uncle Matthew *completely* wrong about Friar Laurence? I was cast in the role once years ago, and was of course determined to make sure no-one in the audience was in any doubt that the Friar was *the* crucial figure of the play -- and I was surprised at how much rope the text allowed me to hang myself with. Unlike that insignificant twit Romeo, for example, the Friar actually gets to *converse* with Juliet in the tomb, and it takes only a modicum of coarse acting to make this the emotional climax of the play -- the Friar gibbering in terror, Juliet resolutely taking charge, an embrace which grotesquely parodies Romeo's farewell, &c&c -- not a dry eye in the house. Not a placid critic, mind, but some sacrifices have to be made for Art. This brings me to the recent query about Duke Vincentio in M for M, holes & corners & all, another hooded role which only really seems to work when played by a wholly unself-critical actor who loves the sound of his own voice and genuinely thinks the Duke is the hero of the piece. The only Duke I ever saw who seemed absolutely made for the part was Daniel Massey (c.1984 at the RSC, with Juliet Stevenson as Isabella) -- minimum self-knowledge, maximum self-congratulation. Anyone contemplating a production in the Chicago area? Offers welcome. Michael Dobson (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Burke <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 16 Feb 1994 21:25:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: 5.0120 Re: Psychotic *Macbeth* Comment: Re: SHK 5.0120 Re: Psychotic *Macbeth* When Ron McDonald points to the Friar's bumbling, he strikes a responsive chord in me. Years ago I had the chance to play Friar Lawrence in a local Kansas City production. I had to worry about how to present his lines to Romeo, and later to Juliet. When I realized that he was clutching at straws, trying the first thing that came to mind, I felt I had found the clue. Is that why the nurse, who may be an R. C. bitch, stands in awe of the Friar's learning -- is Shakespeare having some fun here, and can we????? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 16 Feb 94 14:57 CST Subject: 5.0121 Qs: Kingship; The Duke in MM Comment: Re: SHK 5.0121 Qs: Kingship; The Duke in MM The two speeches in MM that Michael Sharpston mentions are treated at some length by Gary Taylor and John Jowett in their +Shakespeare Reshaped+ (I think that is the correct title?) (1993). William Proctor Williams Department of English Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL 60115This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH> Date: Wednesday, 16 Feb 1994 23:09:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: 5.0121 Qs: Kingship; The Duke in MM Comment: Re: SHK 5.0121 Qs: Kingship; The Duke in MM Chantal Payette and Michael Sharpston will perhaps get us back to talking about Shakespeare and the 16th/17th centuries. I'm not sure what you are up to, Chantal, but you might begin looking at studies of Shakespeare's history plays. Are you interested in how Shakespeare uses his historical sources, or how his plays seem to reflect contemporary (i.e., early modern) English or European history? Or both? Or none of the above? Now, the Duke in MEASURE FOR MEASURE (whose name is never spoken in the play), has he ever been satisfactorily explained? I used to think that I could explain him using the concepts of freedom and restraint (1.2.117ff.). The Duke begins in restraint: "I'll privily away. I love the people,/But do not like to stage me to their eyes" (67-68). To begin, he watches. About the middle of the play, he begins to act, and by the end he is staging himself - and chasing Isabella. That's a quick sketch of my youthful description. Now I'd say there's much more to him. Lucio does get under his skin, and strangely the Duke seems tohave to ask Escalus about himself. As a kind of reality check? Ego boost? And later he (the Duke) asks the provost why he (the Duke) didn't take care of the Barnardine problem. Shouldn't the Duke know why? What's going on here? In other words, I think there are many questions about the Duke and his actions. What about Mariana for example? When she sees him coming dressed as the friar, she says, "Here comes a man of comfort, whose advice/Hath often stilled by brawling discontent" (4.1.8-9, Wells and Taylor, ed.). So, he dresses up like a friar fairly often and sneaks out to the moated grange, where he offers comfort to Mariana. And now he wants to get her into bed with Angelo and marry her off. Now, when I dress up in my friar's habit to visit young ladies, I'm up to no good; I admit it. And so I'm suspicious of this Duke who likes to dress up (and watch, too)! (My wife just asked, "It's all a fake. You aren't a friar?") Is Mariana pregnant? Is the shy Duke the father? Does Mariana really love Angelo inspite of her torrid affair with the Friar/Duke? And will the Duke be able to win the love of the very moral little nun, better known as Isabella? What's really going on in Vienna? I'll answer these questions and more in my next iunstallment of "The Underside of the Duke, or Steaming on the Danube." Yours, Bill Godshalk (PS I am not an idealist. I'm a relativist. Humans are relative to evolution on this planet, in this solar system. And humans make culture; culture does NOT make humans. I'm also an atheist. I do not believe that Culture is God.) PPS Hey, Al Cacicedo! Did I fake you out?
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0163. Monday, 28 February 1994. From: James McKenna <MCKENNJI@UCBEH> Date: Sunday, 27 Feb 1994 18:54:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: macpsychbeth and th'expense of spirit Thanks Mr. McKay for the reminder of classical ideas of tragedy: right! I'm off the beam to present Macbeth as Everyman. With Willy Loman 350 years in the future, Shakespeare is not writing from a modern perspective but from a modified classical one. But even that aside, does classical tragedy present characters who are truly other than ourselves? One of the blessed byproducts of psychoanalysis is the discovery that these high characters often reside within us. We say that explicitly now, but might it be that the Renaissance was aware that extreme behaviors are not so much other than normal as extremes, normality stretched by obsession and circumstance? I ask that as a real question. In reading comedies of humors, I can see types constructed that are clearly just what they are; not distortions but oddities. Yet such oddities are the staple of television today. Comedy of humors is more alive now than it was then. The existence of truly unhuman characters is not evidence that there is no awareness of the link between godlike ambition and human frailty. You are right to call me on the Everyman slant: that's taking the point too far. But Renaissance writing demonstrates that writers, at least, if not most people, were interested in the question of whether enormities were the actions of a bizarre few or the acting out of common passions by unfortunates. Finally, on Sonnet 129: Why do you pick this one as an example of outlandish behavior? Do I reveal too much about myself? It seems to me that this very hyperbole is the core of the Renaissance megalomaniac: a familiar passion, commonly unacted or mostly suppressed or acted in a very small sphere, expanded onto a stage of nations and kings. What thinkest'ou? James McKenna University of CincinnatiThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0162. Monday, 28 February 1994. From: William Robinson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 27 Feb 1994 12:15:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Anthony Bacon is Shakespeare According to the Greek legend, the Phoenix is a lone beautiful bird, the only one of its kind. It is said to live for nearly five hundred years where it then begins to build a nest of dry sticks and twigs while at the same time singing a melodious dirge. When completed it then flaps its wings furiously setting the nest on fire. Resting on top of the burning pile it slowly consumes itself into ashes. It then rises from the ashes a new bird equally alone and unique to live for another five hundred years. The bird not only represents immortality but also an individual who stands apart from the rest, a person of rare qualities. In the play Cymbeline we find that Shakespeare was truly aware of this when he compared Imogen with the Phoenix: If she be furnished with a mind so rare, She is alone the Arabian bird. I,vi. Not only was Shakespeare aware of the symbolism behind the bird but throughout Europe the comparison and significants comes up in the literature of the time. There is an interesting comparison made in a poem written to Anthony Bacon anonymously by some European. It has survived the centuries by being packed away in a bundle of correspondence written by and to Anthony Bacon and is now safely housed at Lambeth Library in London: A. anglais phenix de celeste origine, (English phoenix of celestrial origin) N. Ne pour orner et la terre et les cieus: (Born to adorn the earth and the heavens) T. Ton renom bruit jusques aux envieux: (Thy renown clamours down even to the jealous) H. Honneur te sert, et vertu te domine: (Honorable you serve and virtually you dominate) O. Ornement seul de sagesse et doctrine, (Ornament of wisdom and doctrine) I. Jour, et clairte de tout coeur genereux: (light and clarity to all generous hearts) N. Nous ne scaurions regarder de nos yeux (When we no longer look at you with our eyes) E. Eternite qui devant toi chemine. (you will still walk though eternity) B. Bacon fior di virtu, raro e perfetto A. Animo pronto, angelico intelletto, C. Chiaro lume d'honor e caritade, O. Ornamento e belta di nostra etade, N. Natural real di fidelta pieno E. Essempio d'ogni bon sempre sereno. So this anonymous European thought Mr Bacon was a man who like the Phoenix, had a mind so rare and perfect, that there was no other like him. O Anthony! O thou Arabian bird! Anthony and Cleoprata III,ii. The above is an excerpt from one of several unpublished articles that I have written centering around the life of Anthony Bacon. I am submitting it to this forum for possible discussion in the hopes of getting more information. So far the only sources loaded with information on the subject have consisted of several books: du Maurier, Daphne, Golden Lads (which opened the door) Strachey, Lytton, Elizabeth and Essex Birch, Thomas, Memoirs of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Spedding, James, The Life and Letters of Francis Bacon By far the most important discovery for me has been Anthony Bacon's correspondence, which is housed in 16 volumes in the Lambeth Palace Library in London. Luckily someone saw fit to put the entire contents on microfilm in distribute it to several libraries throughout the United States. This information has provided me with some interesting parallelisms with the Shakespeare plays and has stimulated me to proceed further. Unfortunately much of the correspondence is written in old english, latin, french, spanish and in some instances in cipher. Anthony Bacon was well versed in several languages having spent 12 years of his life living in Europe gathering intelligence for Sir Francis Walsingham, Secretary of State under Queen Elizabeth. Hooking up to Shaksper I hope will be a godsend to me and anybody who has any information on Anthony Bacon please contact me. Equally so anybody that wants to add pro or con to this discussion, come on in the waters fine. Until next time William A Robinson
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0161. Monday, 28 February 1994. (1) From: Jerald Bangham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 26 Feb 1994 19:16:34 Subj: Re: SHK 5.0156 *Tempest* Problem (2) From: Cary M. Mazer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 27 Feb 94 11:31:34 EST Subj: Re: SHK 5.0156 Staging The Tempest (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerald Bangham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 26 Feb 1994 19:16:34 Subject: 5.0156 *Tempest* Problem Comment: Re: SHK 5.0156 *Tempest* Problem >I've been reading through the Tempest and I want to do it for the Fall >production at my university. However, the vanishing banquet scene has got me >boggled. I want to do the play in the round and I am curious if any one has >seen this play done in the round and if so how was this scene done. I saw the scene at Stratford Ont, but don't remember how it was staged. One possibility would be a platform that could be carried on stage that had some kind of a flip top and a flash box. You might just have "spirits" come in and whisk the stuff away, again with lights, smoke etc. Jerry BanghamThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary M. Mazer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 27 Feb 94 11:31:34 EST Subject: 5.0156 Staging The Tempest Comment: Re: SHK 5.0156 Staging The Tempest To Chris Daigle, Before you get tied up in the logistics of blocking, you might ask some more fundamental questions about magic and theatre and audiences in the play. What--to borrow a concept from Alan Dessen--does it mean to see or not to see something? What can Prospero see that the other Italians can't (e.g. Ariel)? What does he see that we in the audience can or cannot? Find a theatre conventon that helps you to establish how seeing works vis-a-vis magic, and you can throw away the strobe lights, blackouts, fairy dust and trap doors. Have fun. Cary M. Mazer
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0160. Monday, 28 February 1994. (1) From: William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH> Date: Saturday, 26 Feb 1994 21:24:50 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 5.0156 Third Man in *Mac.* (2) From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 27 Feb 1994 11:46:21 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 5.0156 Third Man in *Mac.* (3) From: Milla Riggio <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 28 Feb 1994 08:18:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 5.0156 Third Man in *Mac.* (4) From: Luc Borot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 28 Feb 1994 14:33:59 -0500 Subj: 3rd murderer in *Macbeth* (5) From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, February 28, 1994 Subj: The Third Murderer (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH> Date: Saturday, 26 Feb 1994 21:24:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: 5.0156 Third Man in *Mac.* Comment: Re: SHK 5.0156 Third Man in *Mac.* The Three murderers Herb, It just popped into my head (again) that the three murderers are the three witches; I mean the same actors. I've heard the idea of Macbeth as the third murderer debated, and the refutation seemed good. If Macbeth had been at the murder scene, he would know that Fleance had escaped. He wouldn't be surprised when he is told at the banquet scene. For me, that rules out Macbeth. I like the addition of the third murderer because we don't know why Macbeth sent him (or her?). I'm sure that some textual scholars will argue that in the "original, long version" this is all accounted for. I have argued, and I think I will still argue, that MACBETH is not a play revised by what's his face. I forgot Middleton's name for a moment. The play is structurally perfect as it is. OTHELLO also lacks a subplot of any great status. And, Jim McKenna, here we have another example of off stage scheming that is not explained to the audience. We auditors remained puzzled and quarrel over what's going on. We remain ignorant. Was the third murderer Seyton - as is sometimes suggested? The insidious Rosse? Malcolm who has sneaked back to get rid of a potential competitor? Perhaps Lady sneaks out for a little fun? Does Shakespeare always tell his audience what's going on? What about the Paulina/Hermione plot? Paranoid Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 27 Feb 1994 11:46:21 -0400 Subject: 5.0156 Third Man in *Mac.* Comment: Re: SHK 5.0156 Third Man in *Mac.* Hi, It seems a little unnecessary to suggest that the third murderer is Macbeth himself. Wouldn't the other two recognize him? Granted, of course, there are any number of disguises in Shakespeare that baffle credulity, and it was night . . . By the way, the BBC production has the third murderer off the other two before walking off stage (or off camera). I think they used Seyton as third murderer. Good luck, Sean LawrenceThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 28 Feb 1994 08:18:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: 5.0156 Third Man in *Mac.* Comment: Re: SHK 5.0156 Third Man in *Mac.* On the third murderer in Macboth: One filmmaker (is it Polanski?) brings a sinsiter Ross in as the third murderer, in a role he carries throughout the play. Milla Riggio (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Luc Borot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 28 Feb 1994 14:33:59 -0500 Subject: 3rd murderer in *Macbeth* Herb, I can refer you to the excellent analysis of Polanski's film treatment of this question, by two of my Montpellier colleagues, Patricia Dorval and Jean-Marie Maguin, in their paper "Playing on Things as well as Words: Antanaclasis on Screen and Stage", which they read at the first conference of the European Society for the Study of English in 1991, and which was published in *Cahiers Elisabethains* nb42 (Oct 92), pp.57-63 (esp. see 59-60). It is a very subtle and close analysis of the devices and semantic structures involved. hope it helps Luc (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, February 28, 1994 Subject: The Third Murderer In the Plummer-Jackson *Macbeth* of several years back (as with a number of other productions I've seen) the Third Man (strains of Reed-Welles film) is the conflated, omnipresent henchman -- Seyton.