June
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1030 Saturday, 31 May 2003 From: Charlie Mitchell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 24 May 2003 11:54:48 -0400 Subject: Troubles of the Marriage-Bed Here is a line that has always given me trouble and in production, I felt that we never found an adequate gloss in relation to the scene. From The Comedy of Errors: ADRIANA This servitude makes you to keep unwed. LUCIANA Not this, but troubles of the marriage-bed. ADRIANA But, were you wedded, you would bear some sway. LUCIANA Ere I learn love, I'll practise to obey. What does Luciana mean, "troubles of the marriage bed"? Our director used "inability to find a husband" assuming that "this" is the servitude that Adriana criticizes although I know the actress used "fear of the physical act." Any thoughts? Charlie Mitchell _______________________________________________________________ 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 14.1029 Saturday, 31 May 2003 From: Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 24 May 2003 15:31:26 +0000 Subject: Art Tickles Further to two dying strains on SHAKSPER, the June 2003 issue of BBC History Magazine has an article by historian and broadcaster Michael Wood on John Shakespeare's part in the (reluctant) removal of Stratford's catholic guild chapel religious imagery in 1563 (lecture at the Shakespeare Centre 7 June) and young Emma Smith of Hertford continues to establish herself as a leading Harry 5 buff with an article pointing to the continued relevance of the play in a changing world and how the changing world manipulates the play. (I'd forgotten Bogdanov's "F**k the Frogs" and "Gotcha" posters in his production. My how we laughed !). And it sounded like Nicholas Hytner this morning on the wireless discussing his production at the National, and the contrast between the play's rhetoric and its events. I notice that the advertising tag line - casting an eye to Adrian Lester I presume - is TLN 1991-3. Silence so far from the PC gang on this. ( www.bbchistorymagazine.com and www.shakespeare.org.uk and www.nationaltheatre.org.uk and Hinman's Folio for the perplexed.) _______________________________________________________________ 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 14.1028 Saturday, 31 May 2003 From: John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 24 May 2003 11:30:40 -0400 Subject: Lorne Elliot on Shakespeare Canadian comedian Lorne Elliot has composed the following abridgements. John Ramsay THE PLOT OF HAMLET Hamlet's Mom, she married the bum who killed his Dad, so he faked being mad Drove his would-be bride to suicide which made him madder; then he, After much pandemanium, chatted to a cranium, Put on a play, commenced to slay All his enemies who fin'ly killed him too To Be Or Not To Be. ROMEO AND JULIETTE IN TWO LIMERICKS Romeo and Juliette got all sappy which made their families unhappy So they thought up a plan To help this out and Sure enough things turned out crappy He faked taking poison one night Julliette, upon seeing this sight killed HERself. He came to Did Likewise. Boo hoo Teenagers were NEVER that bright. _______________________________________________________________ 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 14.1027 Saturday, 31 May 2003 [1] From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 23 May 2003 21:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 14.0991 Re: Hirsh and "To Be" [Coleridge and Grebanier?] [2] From: Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 25 May 2003 20:01:28 +0800 Subj: Re: SHK 14.1004 Re: Hirsh and "To Be" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 23 May 2003 21:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 14.0991 Re: Hirsh and "To Be" [Coleridge and Comment: Re: SHK 14.0991 Re: Hirsh and "To Be" [Coleridge and Grebanier?] Harry Keyishian writes, "Followers of the recent discussion of soliloquies on the Shakespeare Electronic Conference may want to know of the publication this week of the following book: James Hirsh, Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies (Madison NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson Press, 2003). 470 pp. This volume provides the first systematic and comprehensive account of the conventions governing soliloquies in Western drama from antiquity to the twentieth century. For details, check www.aupresses.com or call 609-655-4770. Harry Keyishian, Director, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press." Does Hirsh cite Grebanier and, ergo, Coleridge on Hamlet's "To Be" soliloquy? Grebanier devotes no less than a full query-and-answer paper within his book The Heart of Hamlet: The Play Shakespeare Wrote on the famous soliloquy question, pages 203-12, perforce adding elaboration of the preceding dramatic scene and subsequent dramatic scene [adding even more pages to his analysis and presentation] as part-and-parcel of his extensive and prescient exegesis! To Doubting Thomases of Grebanier's take on Hamlet's sanity and reasons for delay, how can anyone, let alone me, summarize Grebanier and not omit his extensive scholarship on the way to explication? If, indeed, Hirsch's exegesis is an elaboration of Coleridge and Grebanier, I would be much interested in his thoughts and would consider purchase. Might you consult his Index, Footnotes or Bib.? Bill Arnold http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 25 May 2003 20:01:28 +0800 Subject: 14.1004 Re: Hirsh and "To Be" Comment: Re: SHK 14.1004 Re: Hirsh and "To Be" Here are some points which, I feel, argues against Hirsh's contention that the "To Be" speech is a feigned soliloquy. A major basis for Hirsh's argument that Hamlet was aware of being spied upon, at this time, is the statement by Claudius: "We have closely sent for Hamlet hither." From this, Hirsh concludes that Hamlet would certainly suspect a set-up upon finding Ophelia at the appointed place instead of the King. And so, Hamlet decides on a feigned soliloquy to mislead Claudius. The problem with this argument is that we have now to accept that Claudius, with all his Machiavellian cunning, had made such an elementary blunder as to plant Ophelia at exactly the place where he himself is to meet Hamlet. This, I feel, is rather unrealistic. So the line "We have closely sent for Hamlet hither" should really be understood as Hamlet having been sent for in this direction. It would be far more logical to assume that Claudius would plant Ophelia somewhere along the route that Hamlet would have to take, and not at the actual appointed destination. If this is so, there is then no reason to assume that Hamlet was aware of being spied upon at the time of his "To Be" soliloquy. Another point against this soliloquy being feigned, lies in Hamlet's later statement to Ophelia: "Those that are married already, all but one, shall live". If Hamlet's soliloquy and dialogue, at this time, was aimed at misleading Claudius, he would surely not make this statement, since it would practically unravel all his previous efforts at fooling Claudius. It is unlikely that Claudius would miss this statement as a possible veiled threat. Thus, it is far more likely that Hamlet was not actually aware of being spied upon at this time. He is not concerned about making this statement to Ophelia, since Ophelia would not have a clue as to its meaning. On top of all this, we must remember that Shakespeare never gave any clear indication that Hamlet was aware of being spied upon. Why would Shakespeare not do so, if that was his intention? This would have been so easy for Shakespeare - a single line would have sufficed. But there is no such line. It is far safer then to work on the basis that that was not Shakespeare's intent at all. Kenneth Chan _______________________________________________________________ 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 14.1026 Saturday, 31 May 2003 [1] From: Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 23 May 2003 13:44:21 -0400 Subj: Actors vs Scholars [2] From: Mary Rosenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 23 May 2003 17:18:35 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 14.1015 Re: Actors v Scholars [3] From: Whitt Brantley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 25 May 2003 09:26:10 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 14.1015 Re: Actors v Scholars [4] From: Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 30 May 2003 14:57:59 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 14.1015 Re: Actors v Scholars [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 23 May 2003 13:44:21 -0400 Subject: Actors vs Scholars Brian Willis writes: "I agree that the very best actors all have a certain level of intelligence." Without doubt. But what I don't understand is: How can an actor play the part of a character who is MORE intelligent than the actor him- or herself? Actors do it: J. Robert Oppenheimer, Edward Teller, and Hamlet have all been played by actors who, while intelligent, probably were not as intelligent as the characters they portrayed. Are there techniques for playing someone super-smart? I understand playing a character who is dumber than the actor, but one who is smarter? How is it done? --Ed Taft [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Rosenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 23 May 2003 17:18:35 -0700 Subject: 14.1015 Re: Actors v Scholars Comment: Re: SHK 14.1015 Re: Actors v Scholars May 23, 2003 About the discussion concerning actors and scholars: when I started teaching, half a lifetime ago (at the University of Lancaster, England), my great ideal was Harley Granville Barker: who seemed, in his "Prefaces to Shakespeare," to combine the attributes and insights of a scholar and a man of theatre. I was myself trained in the purely academic tradition: but I already recognized that Shakespeare's plays demanded to be interpreted on the stage as well as the page (not as common a point of view then as it is now!) and an element of reading aloud and stage performance was a required part of my courses. Then I met Marvin Rosenberg - and the rest, as they say, is history! I should also add - in light of your current discussion of the best editions for students - that I (like several of your correspondents) favored the Signet paperback editions of individual plays. These volumes seemed to me to carry enough notes to make the text clear for reading, and I especially admired their selected essays at the end of each edition (I think particularly of Maynard Mack's "The World of Hamlet", which I wished I had written myself!). Then, too, the books were cheap enough not to strain student resources unduly. (For more scholarly notes and insights I recommended the New Arden.) But when it came to a recommended Complete Shakespeare, I was less decided: and there are many more editions available now than there were then!. Any ideas on the best - most useful - edition of Shakespeare's Complete Works would be most welcome. Thanks. Mary Rosenberg [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Whitt Brantley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 25 May 2003 09:26:10 EDT Subject: 14.1015 Re: Actors v Scholars Comment: Re: SHK 14.1015 Re: Actors v Scholars Good thread. Baconians, Oxordians. Stratfordians, Marlovians, and the other Ian's aside...I say to you an actor wrote these plays. How do I know? Because I am an actor. How do you know Jesus is real? Because you're a Baptist. Some lawyers think Shakespeare was a lawyer. Some scholars think Shakespeare was a scholar. Some gardeners think Shakespeare was a gardener. Some French think Shakespeare was French. It's all perspective. John Gielgud and Lawrence Olivier will serve nicely...one thought with his head, the other with his heart. This is the difference between scholars and actors. One must ultimately rule with either respectively. Gielgud most likely struggled to give order to chaos. Olivier embraced chaos. Shakespeare embraced chaos. Now, going to Church did not change Darwin, and I'm pretty sure that taking an acting class will not change a scholar when it comes to his approach to the text. Whitt Brantley KEEP YOUR HAND ON THE PLOW A Cinematic Outdoor Drama July 24-August 16 2003 cityofcumming.net (to find out more) [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 30 May 2003 14:57:59 +0100 Subject: 14.1015 Re: Actors v Scholars Comment: Re: SHK 14.1015 Re: Actors v Scholars I think Brian Willis and others are still square dancing around this problem. Academics choose to be academics - actors choose acting. The lifestyles are so totally opposed that there must be a deeper reason for this radical difference with regard to the relationship with Shakespeare. But to further compound the problem it is almost impossible to stereotype a typical professor or player. Perhaps the best we can do is ask players why they are players and not professors - and vise versa. SAM SMALL http://www.passioninpieces.co.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.