July
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0317 Monday, 26 July 2010 From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: July 24, 2010 7:38:02 AM EDT Subject: 21.0308 Pacino as Shylock in the Park Comment: RE: SHK 21.0308 Pacino as Shylock in the Park John Kennedy makes an interesting point: What if Shylock and Morocco were to 'trade places'? In my forthcoming Arden 3 edition of the play I speculate that the parts may have been doubled, making Salanio and Salarino's comments at 3.1. more than simply metaphorical. On Portia's 'merchant/Jew' comment, this is much more complicated than it seems, and I suspect has its roots in an oblique cultural reference. In the England of the late 16th century usurers were Christians and not Jews -- a standard complaint that appears in a number of usury tracts of the period. Of course Portia is pretending to be a lawyer here, and this may simply be a 'realism effect' since she is not supposed to know what has been going on between the Jew and Antonio / Bassanio. We know that the Jew habitually wears a 'gaberdine' (a loose fitting robe that could easily cover the change of costume that would be required if the actor did double as Morocco, but the one thing that he would have difficulty in changing quickly was his facial colour). The Jew's flesh is 'jet', we are told, compared to the 'ivory' of his daughter. Metaphorical, yes, but also possibly literal. Cheers, John Drakakis _______________________________________________________________ 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 21.0316 Monday, 26 July 2010 From: Clara Giebel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: July 23, 2010 2:26:05 PM EDT Subject: 21.0283 Hermione? Comment: Re: SHK 21.0283 Hermione? Although it is true that Hermione does not speak to Leontes, the words Shakespeare gives to the other characters indicate a mutual reconciliation. Paulina tells Leontes to take Hermione's offered hand, Polixenes says "she embraces him" and Camillo agrees saying "she hangs about his neck." I suppose it would be possible for the play to be produced where all these statements are sarcastic, and not actually reflecting Hermione's actions, but that seems to be fighting the text. Furthermore, one of the reasons the end of Winters Tale is so striking is that unlike Pericles we don't get two scenes of reconciliation, (overkill to my taste, I get all emotionally involved in Pericles' reunion with his daughter and when he gets back together with his wife, I think, "oh yeah, her too.") In Winter's Tale, the first reunion and forgiveness happens offstage, and the lords of the court tell the audience of the wonder of it, so that the one grand miracle on stage is Hermione's statue come to life. How strange to have so much build up to the reconciliation and then have it be only a half hearted one. Leontes still rejected, only Perdita received into her mother's arms? The beauty of the play is its grace. Hermione talks again and again about grace, about people getting what they could never deserve. It would be a shame to throw out that grace to let Hermione "get even" with Leontes. Clara Giebel Mary Baldwin College _______________________________________________________________ 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 21.0315 Monday, 26 July 2010 From: Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: July 23, 2010 2:22:26 PM EDT Subject: 21.0306 SBReviews on the Internet Comment: Re: SHK 21.0306 SBReviews on the Internet Paul Barry wrote: > We don't need to search for ways of doing them differently. >We only need to try to do them in keeping with the >Playwright's intent. Ah but now you are opening an entirely different can of wriggly grey things! Your statement presumes that somewhere we have *the* Playwright's intent. But that we do not have. So we are immediately thrust again into the realms of interpretation :) Mari Bonomi _______________________________________________________________ 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 21.0314 Monday, 26 July 2010 From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: July 24, 2010 3:24:33 PM EDT Subject: 21.0295 Two Gents at Stratford Festival Comment: Re: SHK 21.0295 Two Gents at Stratford Festival Abigail Quart wrote: >I don't think it is the custom to use a live bear onstage in WT. Although there was a slightly bonkers article in the TLS a few years ago which claimed that the original bear had been one of the two polar bear cubs presented to James I... John Briggs _______________________________________________________________ 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 21.0313 Monday, 26 July 2010 [1] From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: July 23, 2010 1:07:32 PM EDT Subj: Re: SHK 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin [2] From: Mario A. DiCesare <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: July 23, 2010 1:11:02 PM EDT Subj: ShakesPalin [3] From: Aaron Azlant <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: July 23, 2010 1:27:27 PM EDT Subj: Re: SHK 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin [4] From: John W Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: July 23, 2010 2:08:03 PM EDT Subj: Re: SHK 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: July 23, 2010 1:07:32 PM EDT Subject: 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin Comment: Re: SHK 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin I'm curious to know if Elliott and Valenza attend to meter as a factor in Shakespearean (or other verse) coinage. Need an extra syllable? Why not "casted" rather than "cast"? (Nowadays, of course, the astonishingly rapid disappearance of irregular verbs even from former bastions of tradition like the New York Times robs the discussion of any point. I don't know what I'd do about that if I were still marking student papers. Or, indeed, about that subjunctive I just used.) Dave Evett [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mario A. DiCesare <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: July 23, 2010 1:11:02 PM EDT Subject: ShakesPalin In their politically-charged discussion of Shakespeare's language, Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza suggest that some recent studies may well "dislodge the myth of Shakespeare's outsized inventory of words and coinages." I suggest that political zeal has carried them away. Nothing in their piece argues, by any stretch of the imagination, that Shakespeare's "inventory of words and coinages" is not outsized. Certainly not the "inventory of words." I guess they have some grounds to erect a PalinDefense; that whole subject seems to me sophomoric. Mario A. DiCesare [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Aaron Azlant <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: July 23, 2010 1:27:27 PM EDT Subject: 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin Comment: Re: SHK 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin ref. Ward E. Y. Elliott and Robert J. Valenza's quasi-defense of George W. and Sarah Palin: It strikes me as perfectly legitimate to hold politicians and playwrights to differing tolerances for word-coinage. Additionally, intent matters. Nobody ever confuses Dogberry for Falstaff. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John W Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: July 23, 2010 2:08:03 PM EDT Subject: 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin Comment: Re: SHK 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin Ward Elliott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > writes, >When Bush comes up with "Bushisms" like subsidation, analyzation, >hopefuller, more few, and explorationists, we suppose that he is >struggling to follow accepted rules of word formation but has >gotten in over his head. Everyone sniffs at such gaffes, and no >one praises them as additions to the language >(http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/). If Bush gave us words like >insultment, omittance, opulency, revengive, thoughten, more better, >or casted, these would likewise be gathered and laughed at as >"Bushisms." But it was not Bush who gave us the second set, it was >Shakespeare -- and his gaffes are hailed as brilliant landmarks of >"linguistic daring," fresh evidence of his peerless mastery of the >language, 24-carat coinages for Shakespeare that would be dismissed >as pot-metal if they came from Bush, Palin, or anyone else. It >seems like a double standard to us. The difference between Shakespeare and Bush is that Shakespeare was a great poet, writing in a time of linguistic flux, whereas Bush is merely a fool who, when he can't remember the right word, makes one up, sometimes with some small justification ("analyzation"), sometimes with less ("misunderestimate"). Palin, however, does not even live up to Bush's standard. "Refudiate" is not a credible English word at all. (The media do not seem to have noticed her subsequent abuse of the word "refute", possibly because half of them have been guilty of the same act of verbicide within the last six months.) John W Kennedy _______________________________________________________________ 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.