February
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0292 Monday, 14 February 2005 [1] From: Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 10:19:35 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0281 Date of King John [2] From: Michael Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 05:43:36 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0281 Date of King John [3] From: Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 12:24:33 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0281 Date of King John [4] From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 18:17:29 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0281 Date of King John [5] From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 18:17:29 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0281 Date of King John [6] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 13 Feb 2005 23:22:30 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0268 Date of King John [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 10:19:35 -0500 Subject: 16.0281 Date of King John Comment: Re: SHK 16.0281 Date of King John Michael Egan writes: >There are other features of John F1 suggesting an >unperformed/unfinished text (i.e., it is not 'complete' as Grumman >claims). For instance, at III.ii.59-68 the King tells Hubert to kill >Arthur, but when the assassin comes to do it he carries instructions >only to blind the prince (IV.i.37-42). The discrepancy is never >explained (it seems to have been a careless carry- over from TR--another >detail confirming that play's priority). Isn't it likely that if KJ were >ever staged the actors would have pointed out the problem to >Shakespeare, who would then have made the correction? First off, I meant "complete enough." Probably no play is "really" complete. Other plays of Shakespeare's have loose ends, as Bill Godshalk points out. Also, I didn't realize the discussion was only about whether this particular version of King John was performed or not, so I was merely arguing that some version of this play was performed. --Bob G. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 05:43:36 -1000 Subject: 16.0281 Date of King John Comment: Re: SHK 16.0281 Date of King John I'm glad Bill Godshalk likes King John; so do I. To say that it is interesting but not quite successful is not the same as calling it a disaster. In many ways it is a seminal work. As Harold Bloom notes of the Bastard in The Invention of Human: '...no one before in a Shakespearean play is so persuasive a representation as a person. It is not too much to say that the Bastard in King John inaugurates Shakespeare's invention of the human, which is the subject of this book.' Inter alia, this claim shows the importance of getting the play's chronology right-uncritically accepting Honigmann, Bloom dates it before 1591, which makes a nonsense of what we know of Shakespeare's evolution as a writer. Another sign of the KJ's experimental nature is the scene in which Arthur leaps from the walls to his death. It's theatrically powerful but notoriously difficult to stage-the jump must be credibly fatal but not from a point so high as actually to hurt the actor. On the other hand Rich
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0291 Monday, 14 February 2005 [1] From: R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 08:43:03 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production [2] From: Thomas M. Lahey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 08:36:24 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production [3] From: David Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 15:28:36 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production [4] From: Paul Swanson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 18:38:59 EST Subj: Re: SHK 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production [5] From: John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 12 Feb 2005 04:14:26 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production [6] From: M Yawney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 07:17:30 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 08:43:03 -0600 Subject: 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production Comment: Re: SHK 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production >I haven't seen the Chicago production, but my experiences seeing Measure >for Measure performed have not been good. I'm thinking about seeing the >play at Stratford, ON this coming season, but I wonder whether the play >can be successfully performed. Has anyone seen a Measure that left a >positive impression? > >Heller Yes, about 15 or 20 years back, Kevin Kline played the Duke in a Central Park production that was very enjoyable. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas M. Lahey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 08:36:24 -0800 Subject: 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production Comment: Re: SHK 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production >Has anyone seen a Measure that left a positive impression? Yes. I've only seen one Measure, early eighties. I can't remember whether it was a Long Beach State or Dominguez Hills State (both L.A. area universities) production. We probably discussed the play in class, but it's the production I recall. Because of the production, Measure became a drama I would like to see again; well done. I apologize for not remembering my instructor's, the director, probably the producer's, name. Stay healthy, Tom [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 15:28:36 -0600 Subject: 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production Comment: RE: SHK 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production Jack Heller asks, >Has anyone seen a Measure that left a positive impression? At the Stratford Festival in about 1985, I saw a very powerful and moving performance. It was set in a vaguely Eastern European totalitarian state, where the Duke and Antonio were surrounded by underlings dressed like members of the politburo, and where the monumental architecture was reminiscent of Mussolini's Italy. Announcements of public decrees were made over echoing microphones on a festival stage resembling Red Square. And yet, the prison where Barnardine was housed, and into which Claudio is thrust, resembled a medieval dungeon down in the stage trap, and Barnardine was dressed in the rags of a medieval beggar. In the scene where he reluctantly emerges from the dungeon, he turns his back on the audience to take a piss back into the trap, establishing his vulgarity in an emphatic way. It was the opening of the play that most likely resembled what has been said about the Chicago production. When we entered the theater, the stage was already occupied by actors acting out a kind of Hollywood fantasy of the Weimar Republic's decadent cabarets. Lots of leather and whips, liquor being swilled, raunchy music playing as the cast enticed arriving members of the audience onto the stage to participate in the lewd and lascivious foreplay, confirming the suggestion that the Duke's failure to enforce the morality laws had let the city descend into sexual anarchy. In summary, it was a very eclectic production, pulling resources from a variety of places and times, and yet my experience of it then (and my memory of it now) was that it worked wonderfully. More remarkably, my mother and my mother-in-law (both 70-ish Midwestern housewives with limited experience of theater, especially Shakespeare) sat quietly in their seats, their attention never wavering from the stage, and declared at the end (to my great relief) that the production "certainly was quite a good show." I also saw a very satisfactory and much more traditional staging at the Utah Shakespearean Festival that raised many pertinent issues about male-female relationships, and played fairly well even in Mormon country. Regards, David Crosby [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Swanson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 18:38:59 EST Subject: 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production Comment: Re: SHK 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production The Alabama Shakespeare Festival did a really good Measure some time ago -- maybe five years or so ago. The sexuality and coarseness of the play were understated but hardly ignored, and the lasting image that I remember is from the production's end. In it, the Duke holds out his hand to Isabella, an invitation -- or perhaps even a royal edit -- to accept his proposal in marriage. Isabella looked at Claudio, and after a moment's pause, she reluctantly extends her hand and walks with the Duke. Claudio takes a step forward to protest, but with her free hand, Isabella holds her palm up, gesturing for him to be silent and not protest her submission to the Duke. It was evident that her acquiescence to the Duke was not joyful. I am very much looking forward to the Stratford Festival's production this summer. One of the Festival's most legendary productions, though I did not see it, was a Measure for Measure somewhere in the mid to late 70's. The production starred Brian Bedford as Angelo, William Hutt as the Duke, and Martha Henry. From what I understand, it was extraordinary. Paul Swanson [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 12 Feb 2005 04:14:26 -0500 Subject: 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production Comment: Re: SHK 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production >I haven't seen the Chicago production, but my experiences seeing Measure >for Measure performed have not been good. I'm thinking about seeing the >play at Stratford, ON this coming season, but I wonder whether the play >can be successfully performed. Has anyone seen a Measure that left a >positive impression? > >Heller Did you see the Stratford ON production about 20 years ago? My son, then in his teens, and I both thought it was well staged. Don't see why Stratford ON can't do another well staged production. John R. [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: M Yawney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 07:17:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production Comment: Re: SHK 16.0279 Measure for Measure Production Measure for Measure is so rich and complex a work that I doubt any production will ever completely encompass it. (Winter's Tale and King Lear are I think equally elusive.) Also, in key scenes the action turns on such subtle points of language and ideas, that the director and actors must have a particular kind of sensitivity and intelligence to be clear. However, I have seen good productions of Measure (and bad ones). The bad ones all took roughly the same approach, playing at degeneracy without actually getting dirty. The good ones all took wildly different approaches but had two things in common. First, each took Isabella seriously and questioned her choices without belittling her concerns. Second, each made a strong choice about the world of the play. Vienna was variously portrayed as an Eastern European bureaucratic society, a stinking cesspool, a moral battleground, a repressive theocracy with a vibrant underground, and sexually repressed bourgeois city. Mark Lamos production at Lincoln Center in the early 1990s is especially memorable for me since it made explicit something about the structure of Shakespearean drama. The production demonstrated how Measure is built on a repeated situation: Character A pleads to character B on behalf of character C. This action recurred many times throughout with different characters filling the A, B, and C roles. Lamos skill in comparing/contrasting each recurrence was so striking that ever since I have looked for repeated situations in other Shakespearean plays. This exercise has enriched my understanding of these works, so I can say that the Lincoln Center production of Measure taught me something important about how to read Shakespeare. _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0290 Monday, 14 February 2005 [1] From: Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 12:28:32 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0272 A Claudius Question [2] From: Greg McSweeney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 16:35:07 -0500 Subj: Replies to Claudius Question [3] From: Janet Costa <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 15:40:54 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 16.0272 A Claudius Question [4] From: John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 12 Feb 2005 04:14:49 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0272 A Claudius Question [5] From: Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 12 Feb 2005 14:21:34 -0000 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0272 A Claudius Question [6] From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 12 Feb 2005 13:46:22 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0272 A Claudius Question [7] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 13 Feb 2005 23:42:33 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0272 A Claudius Question [8] From: Bruce Brandt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 14 Feb 2005 12:34:46 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0272 A Claudius Question [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 12:28:32 -0500 Subject: 16.0272 A Claudius Question Comment: RE: SHK 16.0272 A Claudius Question It was an aethling system, wasn't it? The nobles (rich guys) got together and decided which one of them would be the leader. The nice thing about the system, as opposed to primogeniture, is that it assured that the king would have majority support going in, and that no infant or idiot would be king. Historically, the real motive for Duncan's murder in Macbeth is that Duncan abolished the aethling system, in which Macbeth had a fair chance of becoming king at Duncan's death, when he appointed his son, Malcolm, Prince of Cumberland, making it the position of royal heir, like the Prince of Wales in Britain. So, yeah, Claudius could have been older. Could have been a twin, too. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg McSweeney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 16:35:07 -0500 Subject: Replies to Claudius Question I just wanted to thank the people who responded off-list to my question about King Hamlet and Claudius, their ages, and primogeniture. They were very helpful. Several respondents mentioned the elections, which I was aware of-especially when the Prince talks about Claudius "popping" between them and him. So does this sound right? Eligibility for the monarchy depends on one's status as a royal, and from that eligible pool of candidates, the population elects a suitable king? Do we think that Claudius would have been a defeated candidate in the election won by King Hamlet? In his inaugural speech (1.2) Claudius seems to believe he has the support of the population; is this just an example of his smoothing things over with his brilliant rhetoric? Or has he genuinely won over the rabble by marrying Gertrude? And why aren't other characters as outraged as Hamlet is at the haste of his mother's remarriage? Or am I being anachronistic? Thanks again - Greg McSweeney Montreal [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Janet Costa <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 15:40:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: 16.0272 A Claudius Question Comment: Re: SHK 16.0272 A Claudius Question Greg McSweeney: "a student has asked me why Hamlet's father had been king instead of Claudius in the first place." Greg: Primogeniture was not an issue in Denmark in this period. The earliest recorded date for an elected monarch is 958 ACE, and Denmark remained an elective monarchy until 1660-1661. In 1849, Denmark became a constitutional monarchy. Now, in this elected monarchy, succession was limited to the royal house, but not to just the male line. It was possible for nephews, cousins, and women to gain the crown. Vague reference is made to these circumstances in two places of which I am aware. When Hamlet returns from England, he tells Horatio: He that hath killed my king, and whored my mother; Popped in between the election and my hopes... (4.2) Further on, when Claudius explains to Laertes why he has not taken action with Hamlet, Claudius offers him two reasons, one of which is Gertrude and the other: The other motive, Why to a public count I might not go, Is the great love the general gender bear him; Who, dipping all his faults in their affection, Would, like the spring that turneth wood to stone, Convert his gyves to graces; so that my arrows, Too slightly timbered for so loud a wind, Would have reverted to my bow again, And not where I had aimed them. (4.7.18-26) I teach Hamlet quite often, and the family structure and the elected monarchy are sometimes difficult concepts to understand. I hope this helps. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 12 Feb 2005 04:14:49 -0500 Subject: 16.0272 A Claudius Question Comment: Re: SHK 16.0272 A Claudius Question >I've looked around for the answer to this probably-stupid question, and >can't find anything definitive. Perhaps someone here could help me out. > >I'm teaching Hamlet and Lear this semester, and a student has asked me >why Hamlet's father had been king instead of Claudius in the first >place. If I'd ever thought about it, which I hadn't, I probably would >have assumed that Claudius was the younger brother, and that Hamlet was >king through primogeniture. I don't recall textual reference to this in >the play, nor can I find the question addressed in critical material. > >Primogeniture will come up in the discussion of Edmund and Edgar, of >course, but I don't want to jump the gun and make a similar statement >about Hamlet and Claudius if I'm just speculating. > >Am I right or wrong? > >Thanks - > >Greg McSweeney >Montreal Look in the text. It's clear that 'election' rather than primogeniture applied in Denmark at that time. If it did not historically then WS was employing dramatic license. Something he was rather good at -:) John Ramsay [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 12 Feb 2005 14:21:34 -0000 Subject: 16.0272 A Claudius Question Comment: Re: SHK 16.0272 A Claudius Question Greg: >I'm teaching Hamlet and Lear this semester, and a student has asked me >why Hamlet's father had been king instead of Claudius in the first >place. If I'd ever thought about it, which I hadn't, I probably would >have assumed that Claudius was the younger brother, and that Hamlet was >king through primogeniture. I don't recall textual reference to this in >the play, nor can I find the question addressed in critical material. Someone else will probably be able to give a better answer than this, but . . . The default audience-assumption for those watching _Hamlet_ would be that title came with (male) primogeniture, thus Old Hamlet as the elder brother trumped Claudius. But at points Shakespeare plays with the idea of an elective Danish monarchy, with the constituency drawn from those close to the throne, which is why Claudius, rather than Young Hamlet, can succeed Old Hamlet. >Primogeniture will come up in the discussion of Edmund and Edgar, of >course, but I don't want to jump the gun and make a similar statement >about Hamlet and Claudius if I'm just speculating. Edmund is ruled-out on two counts -- not only (which he makes a big thing about) is he illegitimate, but even if he *were* legitimate, he'd be the younger brother. Robin Hamilton [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 12 Feb 2005 13:46:22 -0600 Subject: 16.0272 A Claudius Question Comment: RE: SHK 16.0272 A Claudius Question You can't find anything definitive because the play is operating in three worlds at once: the Renaissance (or Late Medieval) world in which primogeniture is institutionalized; the early Medieval world of the semi-legendary Amlethus in which kingship is elective within the royal family (so that King Hamlet was elected ahead of Claudius, Claudius ahead of Prince Hamlet, and Fortinbras (apparently a cousin) ahead of some non-royal Dane); and the never-never-land of the stage (or Shakespeare's imagination, whichever you prefer). The play makes clear that the early Medieval world is primary since the election is referred to several times. But Shakespeare and his audience would have believed firmly that primogeniture was best. I have long assumed a bias against Claudius even before the Ghost's revelations because he took advantage of the situation (the existence of the election and the absence of Hamlet in Wittenberg) to gain a crown that should rightly have gone to the son, even if custom allowed him to do so. The Edgar / Edmund business, since it has to do with legitimacy rather than primacy, is connected to Hamlet / Claudius / Hamlet business only in the jealousy and viciousness of the usurper. Cheers, don [7]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 13 Feb 2005 23:42:33 -0500 Subject: 16.0272 A Claudius Question Comment: Re: SHK 16.0272 A Claudius Question Primogeniture is probably a likely assumption, but it is not a necessary one. Denmark's kings were elected, as WS reflected in the play. If Claudius was in fact the older brother, that would add an interesting dimension to the council's selection of Old Hamlet and an additional reason for Claudius to be resentful, especially as he was almost certainly the abler leader. But there is no reason to believe he was older. [8]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Brandt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 14 Feb 2005 12:34:46 -0600 Subject: 16.0272 A Claudius Question Comment: RE: SHK 16.0272 A Claudius Question Primogeniture is the wrong assumption. Here are two notes from Harold Jenkins Arden edition: 1. "Hamlet our dear brother] On the succession. The succession by a king's brother rather than his son was permitted by the system of an elective monarchy, which Denmark in fact had. See G. Sj
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0289 Monday, 14 February 2005 From: Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 09:07:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: 16.0276 Gambon Falstaff Comment: Re: SHK 16.0276 Gambon Falstaff >Michael Gambon is to play Falstaff for the NTC in both Hi and ii from >May-August. Nicholas Hytner director. May I ask what or where NTC is? 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 16.0288 Monday, 14 February 2005 [1] From: Jeffrey Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 08:55:00 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? [2] From: Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 09:05:56 EST Subj: Re: SHK 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? [3] From: Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 11:14:46 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? [4] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 12 Feb 2005 22:58:14 -0000 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? [5] From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 13 Feb 2005 15:09:02 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeffrey Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 08:55:00 -0500 Subject: 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? Comment: RE: SHK 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? >Shakespeare's wife signed her name with an "X" so the >assumption is that she was not able to read. > >Louis W. Thompson So, Shakespeare's father would also have been illiterate under that criterion? Jeff Myers [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 09:05:56 EST Subject: 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? Comment: Re: SHK 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? Dear Friends, If one carefully tracks the careers of women who can read in Shakespeare's plays I think that one must come to the conclusion that the bard regarded female literacy as a socially destabilizing force. It was certainly recognized by his male-centered society that literacy empowered women while illiteracy was a form of bondage and tended to reinforce women's subservience. Shakespeare had no hand in Anne Hathaway's early education. A more relevant question is whether Shakespeare's daughter Susannah could read. I'd be glad to learn of opinions on this. Hope this helps. Steve Sohmer [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 11 Feb 2005 11:14:46 -0600 Subject: 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? Comment: Re: SHK 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? >Shakespeare's wife signed her name with an "X" so the assumption is that >she was not able to read This is an unwarranted assumption. As has been pointed out by a number of medieval scholars, the techniques of reading and of writing are quite different from each other, and for centuries, ability to read did not imply ability to write. (See, for instance, M. Clanchy, _From Memory to Written Record_). The number of people who could read was much larger in the Middle Ages than was previously thought -- the ability to write was not. (After all, one could hire a scribe.) So we can't assume anything about Shakespeare's wife's ability to read. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 12 Feb 2005 22:58:14 -0000 Subject: 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? Comment: Re: SHK 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? Louis W. Thompson wrote: >Shakespeare's wife signed her name with an "X" so the assumption is >that she was not able to read. That is NOT a safe assumption. Certainly, it has been noted that more women than men signed with a mark, and it has been suggested that girls were usually taught to read but not to write. Alternatively, it has also been noted that people who are known to have been able to read and write perfectly well sometimes signed with a mark. It may well be that the preparers of legal documents were reluctant to allow people unused to signing their name to make a mess of it! John Briggs [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 13 Feb 2005 15:09:02 -0600 Subject: 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? Comment: RE: SHK 16.0273 Was Shakespeare's Wife Literate? I remember reading somewhere -- perhaps on this list -- that it was not uncommon even for literate people to sign their name with an X. Is this true? don _______________________________________________________________ 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.