Visit the HLAS FAQ

[Greg Reynolds]

Blood and revenge are hammering in my head.
- Aaron TA II, iii

http://www.shakespeare.handshake.de
- HLAS FAQ

[bookburn]

Some say TA is likely by another, who uses blood and revenge immoderately, especially in the end, too gross for Shakespeare.

[marc hanson]

1. i agree, this play stands out as different, for WS

2. could WS have been trying to get some attention, with all the gore,
as a relatively new playwright with this play? [current horror movie makers come to mind]

3. if i find the time, i'll have to go back and re-read TA;
sometimes you can get a feel for WS, the poetry, his use of non everyday words, etc

from Wikipedia:
John Heminges and Henry Condell felt sure enough of Shakespeare's authorship to include it in the First Folio in 1623

Gary Taylor has employed stylometry, particularly the study of contractions, colloquialisms, rare words and function words.
Taylor concludes that the entire play except Act 3, Scene 2 was written just after Henry VI, Part 2 and Henry VI, Part 3,
which he assigns to late 1591 or early 1592. As such, Taylor settles on a date of mid-1592 for Titus. He also argues that 3.2,
which is only found in the 1623 Folio text, was written contemporaneously with Romeo and Juliet, in late 1593.

also, George Peele is mentioned as a possible co-author, several times

marc

[John W Kennedy]

On 11/4/22 1:29 PM, marc hanson wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 10:09:27 PM UTC-4, bookburn wrote:
>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 9:32:19 PM UTC-8, gregoryd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Blood and revenge are hammering in my head.
>>> - Aaron TA II, iii
>>>
>>> http://www.shakespeare.handshake.de
>>> - HLAS FAQ
>> Some say TA is likely by another, who uses blood and revenge immoderately, especially in the end, too gross for Shakespeare.
>
> 1. i agree, this play stands out as different, for WS
>
> 2. could WS have been trying to get some attention, with all the gore,
> as a relatively new playwright with this play? [current horror movie makers come to mind]

That’s more than is needed. This was an age when Seneca was held up as
the tragedian par excellence.

> 3. if i find the time, i'll have to go back and re-read TA;
> sometimes you can get a feel for WS, the poetry, his use of non everyday words, etc

As usual, it’s best to see it done by professionals. The movie isn’t bad.

> from Wikipedia:
> John Heminges and Henry Condell felt sure enough of Shakespeare's authorship to include it in the First Folio in 1623
>
> Gary Taylor has employed stylometry, particularly the study of contractions, colloquialisms, rare words and function words.
> Taylor concludes that the entire play except Act 3, Scene 2 was written just after Henry VI, Part 2 and Henry VI, Part 3,
> which he assigns to late 1591 or early 1592. As such, Taylor settles on a date of mid-1592 for Titus. He also argues that 3.2,
> which is only found in the 1623 Folio text, was written contemporaneously with Romeo and Juliet, in late 1593.
>
> also, George Peele is mentioned as a possible co-author, several times
>
> marc

--
John W. Kennedy
Algernon Burbage, Lord Roderick, Father Martin, Bishop Baldwin,
King Pellinore, Captain Bailey, Merlin -- A Kingdom for a Stage!

[Margaret]

Very difficult to judge Titus Andronicus just by reading it. I was lucky enough to see the ground-breaking Deborah Warner production with Brian Cox in the Swan in Stratford-upon-Avon. TA had always been the short straw for directors, as it had to be done every so often. Warner embraced it, played without cuts, embraced the horror and the humour - men in the audience fainted on a regular basis. No one who saw it would write it off as an inferior play. One speech by Titus's brother had been written off as very weak - as played by Donald Sumpter it had us all in tears. I think there have been good productions since, but Warner showed them the way and rescued the play from four centuries of oblivion. Brian Cox called the role "Lear on roller skates" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yr4UV7nvGg
Succession's Logan Roy wouldn't be the same without it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUL3c4swqhQ

[bookburn]

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 10:40:21 AM UTC-8, john.w....@gmail.com wrote:
> On 11/4/22 1:29 PM, marc hanson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 10:09:27 PM UTC-4, bookburn wrote:
> >> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 9:32:19 PM UTC-8, gregoryd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Blood and revenge are hammering in my head.
> >>> - Aaron TA II, iii
> >>>
> >>> http://www.shakespeare.handshake.de
> >>> - HLAS FAQ
> >> Some say TA is likely by another, who uses blood and revenge immoderately, especially in the end, too gross for Shakespeare.
> >
> > 1. i agree, this play stands out as different, for WS
> >
> > 2. could WS have been trying to get some attention, with all the gore,
> > as a relatively new playwright with this play? [current horror movie makers come to mind]
> That’s more than is needed. This was an age when Seneca was held up as
> the tragedian par excellence.

Wikipedia, on "Senecan Tragedy," says that:

"Seneca's tragedies were probably written to be recited at elite gatherings, due to their extensive narrative accounts of action, dwelling on reports of horrible deeds, and employing long reflective soliloquies."

Usually, the Senecan tragedy focuses heavily on supernatural elements. The gods rarely appear, but ghosts and witches abound.

[Margaret]

People talk about the blood and guts plays as somehow out of ordinary or less artistic. But that's like when a history of cinema ignores horror movies. Which have been there from the very beginning, and all the way through. Imagine the joy when they realised they could do this in Hamlet - and imagine the audience reaction! youtube.com/watch?v=sB2iHl01iB0

[John W Kennedy]

On 11/5/22 10:46 PM, bookburn wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 10:40:21 AM UTC-8, john.w....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 11/4/22 1:29 PM, marc hanson wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 10:09:27 PM UTC-4, bookburn wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 9:32:19 PM UTC-8, gregoryd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Blood and revenge are hammering in my head.
>>>>> - Aaron TA II, iii
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.shakespeare.handshake.de
>>>>> - HLAS FAQ
>>>> Some say TA is likely by another, who uses blood and revenge immoderately, especially in the end, too gross for Shakespeare.
>>>
>>> 1. i agree, this play stands out as different, for WS
>>>
>>> 2. could WS have been trying to get some attention, with all the gore,
>>> as a relatively new playwright with this play? [current horror movie makers come to mind]
>> That’s more than is needed. This was an age when Seneca was held up as
>> the tragedian par excellence.
>
> Wikipedia, on "Senecan Tragedy," says that:
>
> "Seneca's tragedies were probably written to be recited at elite gatherings, due to their extensive narrative accounts of action, dwelling on reports of horrible deeds, and employing long reflective soliloquies."

That’s my point. There is no need to posit that Shakespeare, in writing
“Titus Andronicus”, was trying to seduce the groundlings. He was writing
what the educated few (that includes himself) had been taught to accept
as high-brow (remember, in that age, Athens’ golden trio, Æschylus,
Sophocles, and Euripides were gathering dust, God knows where).

[bookburn]

----
Interesting to factor into the development of tragedy from Greeek Golden Age such as:
1) the medieval practice of jousting and trial by field of honor;
2) practice among nobility of throwing down glove to defend honor;
3) dueling among even middle class, like Ben Jonson killed an actor in a duel;
4) continued practice of adhering to a code of honor, even as Mafia and Japan does today;
5) chaos of revenge and terrorism as developed in public today.

I read of how Queen Elizabeth in about 1594 protested against dueling and killing for revenge, which was shortly before Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, and that Hamlet has a lot in it about defending honor, revenge, and dueling. Evidently Laertes refused to accept Hamlet's apology and prompted the duel in the conclusion.

So Shakespeare seems to have used the motif of honor and revenge instructively, supposedly using Hamlet's mask of madness to sort out the "rotten" in Denmark that assassinated his father, but falling victim to madness, or something, maybe Greek concept of fatal nemesis. Not sure if Machiavellianism is revealed.

[John W Kennedy]

So did the medieval church.

> which was shortly before Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, and that Hamlet has a lot in it about defending honor, revenge, and dueling. Evidently Laertes refused to accept Hamlet's apology and prompted the duel in the conclusion.

> So Shakespeare seems to have used the motif of honor and revenge instructively, supposedly using Hamlet's mask of madness to sort out the "rotten" in Denmark that assassinated his father, but falling victim to madness, or something, maybe Greek concept of fatal nemesis. Not sure if Machiavellianism is revealed.

Thurber didn’t say, but should have:

“Let him be feathered and then tarred
Who’d make an Aesop* of the Bard.”

* Or Wilhelm Busch or Heinrich Hoffmann.