Shakespeare's Authorial Voice
Xanthippe Yorick
Dear HM,
Herschel Browne wrote:
> There's a huge discussion waiting to happen in relation to this
> paragraph. Maybe we can have it? Shakespeare's authorial voice.
> Indeed, there is one there, but it is so recessive that it's hard
> to hear. Largely we experience it in his characteristic turns of
> phrase, his endless quibbles, the remarkably exploded syntax of
> his latest work. But the "point of view" one readily sniffs out in
> Marlowe, or in Dickens, Gissing, Orwell, or others I've mentioned
> before, isn't there, or is so far in the backgroundas to seem not
> to be there.
I have a keen interest in discussing the authorial voice of Shakespeare!
As an avid reader of Joyce, I think that such analysis and discussion is
invaluable. Unlike Bob, I'm not too busy, if you want to pursue this.
I'm afraid that you would need to get the ball rolling, because-
honestly- I think that Shakespeare's voice is muffled "dramatically,"
and I'm afraid that if I tried to find it, I'd get tangled up in a
morass of character's voices.
Here's two lines that I *think* might be the authorial voice of
Shakespeare: "Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing." and "All the world's a stage..." Forgive me if I've
misquoted, I can't remember wich plays these lines came from at the
moment!
I'm interpreting "authorial voice" to be a narrative device, or
self-conscious interjection, or editorialization on the author's part.
How do you interpret it, HM? You say something about "pont of view"
above. Would this be one of Peter Elbow's ideas?
Regards,
Xanthippe
Dogbrain
Xanthippe Yorick wrote in message <35989BE6...@home.com>...
>Dear HM,
>
>Herschel Browne wrote:
>
>> There's a huge discussion waiting to happen in relation to this
>> paragraph. Maybe we can have it? Shakespeare's authorial voice.
>> Indeed, there is one there, but it is so recessive that it's hard
>> to hear. Largely we experience it in his characteristic turns of
>> phrase, his endless quibbles, the remarkably exploded syntax of
>> his latest work. But the "point of view" one readily sniffs out in
>> Marlowe, or in Dickens, Gissing, Orwell, or others I've mentioned
>> before, isn't there, or is so far in the backgroundas to seem not
>> to be there.
>
>I have a keen interest in discussing the authorial voice of Shakespeare!
>As an avid reader of Joyce, I think that such analysis and discussion is
>invaluable. Unlike Bob, I'm not too busy, if you want to pursue this.
>I'm afraid that you would need to get the ball rolling, because-
>honestly- I think that Shakespeare's voice is muffled "dramatically,"
>and I'm afraid that if I tried to find it, I'd get tangled up in a
>morass of character's voices.
This is the problem in trying to define Shakespeare's authorial voice. I
once heard someone say that each great playwright writes for a given acting
company in his head. The idea is that each playwright has a given number of
characters that he writes over and over again with certain variations---all
roles could be played by a given set of actors. Tennessee Williams has a
company of 5 or 6, maybe 7 or 8. Wherever I heard this, it was suggested
that Shakespeare had maybe the largest ensemble of distinct characters
living within himself --- say 15 or 16, or maybe it was 18 or 19. The
numbers make it harder, and perhaps unrealistic, to pick out the author's
voice. This is not a judgement on the quality of the writer, but a
definition of certain givens and the predominant set of ground rules--- as
in, are we playing tennis, basketball, or football. Each game has a
different sized team. Even with Williams, also a great poet of the theatre,
it is hard to define the author's voice. Many choose to identify him with
Blanche Du Bois, the fragile imagination. He made it clear, however, that
there was as much Stanley Kowalski in him as Blanche.
>Here's two lines that I *think* might be the authorial voice of
>Shakespeare: "Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
>signifying nothing." and "All the world's a stage..." Forgive me if I've
>misquoted, I can't remember wich plays these lines came from at the
>moment!
Macbeth
As You Like it
>
>I'm interpreting "authorial voice" to be a narrative device, or
>self-conscious interjection, or editorialization on the author's part.
>How do you interpret it, HM? You say something about "pont of view"
>above. Would this be one of Peter Elbow's ideas?
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Xanthippe
With Shakespeare, we may have to go with the power of the poetry---if the
language is strong, perhaps that signals greater commitment from the poet.
However, we are not likely to get at a rationally stated "playwright's
point" from a great poet of the theatre. The truth seems to live in
suspension between the characters. Pulling out a point can undermine the
poetics of some of the greatest writers. Interpreting Ibsen as a writer of
social theory and action allowed the true power of his poetics, his
explorations of myth and consciousness, to go unnoticed for almost a
century. We can probably thank Shaw for that misunderstanding. Now, he was
a playwright who put a spokesman into almost every one of his plays.
If Shakespeare has a point, it is probably closer to a restatement of
Heraclitus. All is fire. All is change. (And all is rounded by a sleep.)
Even the speeches you have mentioned point in this direction. In another
thread, I proposed that Lear's "mad" statements about life---about the rich
and the poor--- may indicate the convictions of the author. They remind me,
in their simplicity and power, of the Jewish prophets.
Dogbrain
TheReveler
>Here's two lines that I *think* might be the authorial voice of
>Shakespeare: "Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
>signifying nothing." and "All the world's a stage..." Forgive me if I've
>misquoted, I can't remember wich plays these lines came from at the
>moment!
Xanthippe's Scottish Play examples are right on the money.
Most actors believe the speech in Hamlet (III,ii) is directly from
Shakespeare to them:
"Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to
you, trippingly on the tongue: but if you mouth it,
as many of your players do, I had as lief the
town-crier spoke my lines..."
Such is direction on how to best present the work that Hamlet provides the
player troupe, but many enthusiastic actors believe it was entered in for
posterity's sake, to be as you put it, the authorial voice.
There are other many other references to plays and acting throught the
works, some of which appear to be criticisms of previous presentations.
Others are merely self referential(if not self critical) statements, such as
Cassius' comments in Julius Caesar (III,i):
"How many ages hence
Shall this our lofty scene be acted over
In states unborn and accents yet unknown!"
I am sure that there are many other examples yet to be discovered.
volker multhopp
TheReveler wrote:
> Most actors believe the speech in Hamlet (III,ii) is directly from
> Shakespeare to them:
> "Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to
> you, trippingly on the tongue: but if you mouth it,
> as many of your players do, I had as lief the
> town-crier spoke my lines..."
> Such is direction on how to best present the work that Hamlet provides the
> player troupe, but many enthusiastic actors believe it was entered in for
> posterity's sake, to be as you put it, the authorial voice.
So, what do you think is the *authorial voice* here? Is it an
actor's voice; or one who believes he has the right, by intellect
and/or station, to command actors?
--Volker
Brinklow Pottery
Xanthippe Yorick wrote:
Here's two lines that I *think* might be the authorial voice of Shakespeare:
"Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,signifying nothing."
and "All the world's a stage..." Forgive me if I've misquoted, I can't
remember wich plays these lines came from at the moment!
I find this voice in Prospero, who, at the end of "The Tempest" turns to the audience and sums it up with .."what strength I have's mine own,/Which is most faint" and begs to be "relieved by prayer" or the putting together of "good hands" to celebrate the triumph of goodwill. I hear it in Paulina in ""The Winter's Tale"; for the miracle of the resurrection of Hermione, "..It is required/You do awake your faith, " - Hermione only lives if we suspend disbelief and believe she will - if the playwright has done his work well. We are reminded that it is a play because Man can only raise the dead through Art, ( Prospero's "rough magic," ) but Hermione, who has "preserved/Myself to see the issue" lives to see the miracle - the hope provided by the next generation (who will undoubtedly make their own patchwork of mistakes and errors.) I hear him in Portia's "good deed in a naughty world" and in Cleopatra's "Immortal longings".Hello Xanthippe,I think the "tale told by an idiot" might be modesty's allusion to the Scottish play's authorship, but I just can't go with the nihilism of "signifying nothing"as the authoritive "voice" of Shakespeare. For me, his essential "voice" is ultimately one of hope. It seems to me that in both the comedies and the tragedies, he shows us no absolutes of good or evil, but a human condition of weakness and excellence, of strength and vulnerability, forever tilting in a delicate balance, and always at the mercy of Nature and nature. There is a dark side to the comedies, and always a lingering possibilty of further disruption, and in the tragedies, there is always the potential for healing, or at least another bite of the cherry. Life goes on, one way or another.I find Shakespeare's voice often in fools but rarely in knaves - Feste, with his "virtue that transgresses is but patched with sin; and sin that amends is but patched with virtue" seems to be summing up the difficulty for we frail and vulnerable men and women, mortal, devoid of anything but instinct to guide our choices, at the mercy of calamity, but with imagination, wit and sometimes enough goodwill to cooperate in fear or pity or in laughter, to stave off the dark for a while and move onward.
I do hear Shakespeare in Hamlet, but more at the end of the play, when he has learned that "If it be now,'tis not to come. If it be not to come,it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come. Let be." I don't hear this voice in the character of Macbeth, whose heinous and most unforgivable crime is that he kills children, (and thereby the future) ,is damned by living by only the most patent of false hopes (" I bear a charmed life")and like Lady M. is sterile - not life affirming like Macduff, who even in despair is able to declare "the time is free" (to move on again, and life is motion.)
I know that hope is the Christian virtue, and lack of it would have been seen by Elizabethan theology as a sin, but I feel Shakespeare's constant theme is more than dogma, and for me at least, it's almost a philosophy for living.
Regards,
Diane
Xanthippe Yorick
Dear Volker,
I think this is a good question that you bring up. What is the authorial voice?
It's another one of those squiggly, hard-to-define terms, IMHO. Maybe TR is
talking about the author's editorializations? I like the examples he gave, but I
can't tell by your question if you do or not.
As an Oxfordian, do you get into those "authorial voice" theories, where you
find clues as to Oxford's secret identity buried in the text? I think this could
be seen as an example of "authorial voice"- where the author is interjecting
elements that are self-conscious and self relevatory?
I'm curious as to how an Oxfordian treats the question of "authorial voice."
I'll bet your historical theories give you an ear for voices in the text that
are very different from a Stratfordian's. Care to share your thoughts?
X-
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Volker, the man who wrote Hamlet's instructions to the actors concerning
the proper way "to speak the speech" was, first of all, a man who knew
how human beings (including, if you can believe this, commoners)
instructing other human beings would likely express themselves; if the
instructions represented Shakespeare's views, as many of us suspect, then
they could, as you suggest, be out of the authorial voice of "one who
believes he has the right, by intellect and/or station, to command
authorial voice of one who believes he has the right, by intellect and
experience in the art, to INSTRUCT actors.
--Bob G.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
TheReveler
>So, what do you think is the *authorial voice* here? Is it an
>actor's voice; or one who believes he has the right, by intellect
>and/or station, to command actors?
Well, since Shakespeare both acted in and directed his plays, the answer
would be yes on both counts. At the time, actors were regarded as little
more than thieves, so troupes often times found themselves working with
inexperienced performers. By the time Hamlet was written, I'm sure the bard
had some idea that his work might be produced elsewhere, and by other
troupes, so including some direction and advice for future actors probably
seemed like a wise idea.
It is important to remember (and seems to be overlooked) during these
authorship discussions that Shakespeare was a playwright, and that he
produced, directed and performed in his plays. Yes, the work is poetic
literature, but it was still written specifically for the stage.
volker multhopp
TheReveler wrote:
> >So, what do you think is the *authorial voice* here? Is it an
> >actor's voice; or one who believes he has the right, by intellect
> >and/or station, to command actors?
> Well, since Shakespeare both acted in and directed his plays, the answer
> would be yes on both counts.
Where do you get this information that he directed his plays?
>At the time, actors were regarded as little
> more than thieves, so troupes often times found themselves working with
> inexperienced performers.
Again-- where this information? Each company would have had its boy
actors. Obviously these boys would constantly be graduating into
adults, but no company could keep absorbing all these actors. Many of
those actors would thus have to seek other employment-- it would have
been a tough field for an inexperienced to crack.
>By the time Hamlet was written, I'm sure the bard
> had some idea that his work might be produced elsewhere, and by other
> troupes, so including some direction and advice for future actors probably
> seemed like a wise idea.
I believe WS/Hamlet had a clear idea how to most effectively inject
ideas into an audience, and he was training the player-actors to do
that; he was concerned with the transmission of ideas-- of
propagandizing. He was not primarily worried about how other troupes
might mis-play his work. But his superior attitude to the actors is
important-- you're the one who spontaneously offered this as the
authorial voice.
--Volker
Dogbrain
volker multhopp wrote in message <359A511E...@erols.com>...
>TheReveler wrote:
>
>> >So, what do you think is the *authorial voice* here? Is it an
>> >actor's voice; or one who believes he has the right, by intellect
>> >and/or station, to command actors?
>
>> Well, since Shakespeare both acted in and directed his plays, the answer
>> would be yes on both counts.
>
> Where do you get this information that he directed his plays?
>
>>At the time, actors were regarded as little
>> more than thieves, so troupes often times found themselves working with
>> inexperienced performers.
>
> Again-- where this information?
In Glynne Wickham's A HISTORY OF THE THEATRE, his prologue begins with a
summary of how suspect theatre and its artists have been throughout history
and throughout the world. "In oriental countries, as in the West, while some
actors and actresses could be welcomed into temple precincts and into
princely households and amass private fortunes, the majority have always
been required to reside in the red-light districts of the towns in which
they sought to work."
>Each company would have had its boy
>actors. Obviously these boys would constantly be graduating into
>adults, but no company could keep absorbing all these actors. Many of
>those actors would thus have to seek other employment-- it would have
>been a tough field for an inexperienced to crack.
This is an excellent point, and it may hint at why they might have lived,
perhaps partially by choice, within the red light districts.
>>By the time Hamlet was written, I'm sure the bard
>> had some idea that his work might be produced elsewhere, and by other
>> troupes, so including some direction and advice for future actors
probably
>> seemed like a wise idea.
>
> I believe WS/Hamlet had a clear idea how to most effectively inject
>ideas into an audience, and he was training the player-actors to do
>that; he was concerned with the transmission of ideas-- of
>propagandizing. He was not primarily worried about how other troupes
>might mis-play his work. But his superior attitude to the actors is
>important-- you're the one who spontaneously offered this as the
>authorial voice.
>
> --Volker
This is a fruitful line of thought. However, it does cut both ways.
Shakespeare could be writing a parody of theatre patrons. Many funders feel
the need to lecture artists about their art. In Hamlet, the patron seems to
know something, but there is some reason to believe he is preaching to the
converted, or he is lecturing them on lessons he may have learned from them.
The reactions of the players are sparse and polite---appropriate responses
to a moneyed and talkative producer.
I like the idea that Oxford was Hamlet, but I think that raises the question
of whether one can both be Hamlet and write Hamlet. Hamlet is drawn to be a
student, and something of a dabbler and a dilettante---although a very
talented and knowledgeable dabbler. It is hard for me to believe that
Oxford/Hamlet's disdain for the crowd would allow him to write plays that
catered so well to their tastes. However, that would make for a more
interesting dramatic character than Hamlet---an aristocrat slumming in the
theatre and red light districts, writing popular plays for an audience he
hates---a kind of Lord Byron without artistic integrity. In that case, I
would think Oxford would have been notorious for his massive theatrical
indiscretions. It is easier to believe that Oxford commissioned plays from
Shakespeare, and that Shakespeare may have even inserted some of Oxford's
writings into his plays. This finds its parallel today in how some regional
theatres auction off appearances on stage to their wealthy patrons. Hamlet
doctors The Murder of Gonzago. If you are wealthy and/or powerful enough,
you can always find theatre people who will let you be "one of them."
Dogbrain
volker multhopp
Dogbrain wrote:
> >>At the time, actors were regarded as little
> >> more than thieves, so troupes often times found themselves working with
> >> inexperienced performers.
> > Again-- where this information?
> In Glynne Wickham's A HISTORY OF THE THEATRE, his prologue begins with a
> summary of how suspect theatre and its artists have been throughout history
> and throughout the world. "In oriental countries, as in the West, while some
> actors and actresses could be welcomed into temple precincts and into
> princely households and amass private fortunes, the majority have always
> been required to reside in the red-light districts of the towns in which
> they sought to work."
Ummm... I expressed myself poorly again. My question went not to the
low repute of actors, but that troupes (esp Shakespeare's) would have
had to put up with inexperienced performers.
> > I believe WS/Hamlet had a clear idea how to most effectively inject
> >ideas into an audience, and he was training the player-actors to do
> >that; he was concerned with the transmission of ideas-- of
> >propagandizing. He was not primarily worried about how other troupes
> >might mis-play his work.
> This is a fruitful line of thought. However, it does cut both ways.
> Shakespeare could be writing a parody of theatre patrons. Many funders feel
> the need to lecture artists about their art. In Hamlet, the patron seems to
> know something, but there is some reason to believe he is preaching to the
> converted, or he is lecturing them on lessons he may have learned from them.
> The reactions of the players are sparse and polite---appropriate responses
> to a moneyed and talkative producer.
Hamlet's advice is sound and natural, not bombastic and Poloniustic.
The actors accepted his instructions like revelations from above.
> I like the idea that Oxford was Hamlet, but I think that raises the question
> of whether one can both be Hamlet and write Hamlet.
Despite your handle, your posts are often refreshingly undogmatic.
I'm not sure that's appropriate for this ng.
>Hamlet is drawn to be a
> student, and something of a dabbler and a dilettante---although a very
> talented and knowledgeable dabbler. It is hard for me to believe that
> Oxford/Hamlet's disdain for the crowd would allow him to write plays that
> catered so well to their tastes.
But the main sources of the plays were nicely self-indulgent for
Oxford:
1) Italianate comedies, which built on his fine classical education,
and his long stay in his beloved Italy;
2) Histories, again reflecting on his education and, more
importantly, his pride in his family, and thus explaining the canon's
Lancastrian bias;
3) Tragedies, where his mature capabilities create
grab-you-by-the-privates realistic protrayals of people caught in the
rush of the quest for power. He understood that atmosphere first
hand.
Of course, one could take this even further, and speculate that a
late piece like the *Tempest* is subconsciously an allegory of his own
life, ship-wrecked on the shoals of disappointed ambition-- but still
he hoped for final absolution:
And my ending is despair
Unless I be reliev'd by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself, and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardon'd be,
Let your indulgence set me free.
>However, that would make for a more
> interesting dramatic character than Hamlet---an aristocrat slumming in the
> theatre and red light districts, writing popular plays for an audience he
> hates---a kind of Lord Byron without artistic integrity. In that case, I
> would think Oxford would have been notorious for his massive theatrical
> indiscretions.
Right, unless he is slumming in the persona of an anonymous
"Shake-speare". Of course, this theory won't work, unless we are
willing to believe that the people who knew who he was, would have
been willing not to reveal that knowledge, for the purpose of
protecting him.
>It is easier to believe that Oxford commissioned plays from
> Shakespeare, and that Shakespeare may have even inserted some of Oxford's
> writings into his plays.
Then we have to believe that this strangely disembodied Shakspere was
capable of writing the canon in complete denial of his own background,
and he then retired to Stratford without a trace of his monumental
London theatrical/literary past appearing until he was dead.
>This finds its parallel today in how some regional
> theatres auction off appearances on stage to their wealthy patrons. Hamlet
> doctors The Murder of Gonzago. If you are wealthy and/or powerful enough,
> you can always find theatre people who will let you be "one of them."
Right, and I don't see Oxford as having been disciplined enough to be
full-time actor. He probably could pick which plays he took part in,
and kiss off the rest. Of course, the acting company in turn had
access to the finest plays ever available.
--Volker
Dogbrain
volker multhopp wrote in message <359AEB78...@erols.com>...
>Dogbrain wrote:
>
>> >>At the time, actors were regarded as little
>> >> more than thieves, so troupes often times found themselves working
with
>> >> inexperienced performers.
>
>> > Again-- where this information?
>
>> In Glynne Wickham's A HISTORY OF THE THEATRE, his prologue begins with a
>> summary of how suspect theatre and its artists have been throughout
history
>> and throughout the world. "In oriental countries, as in the West, while
some
>> actors and actresses could be welcomed into temple precincts and into
>> princely households and amass private fortunes, the majority have always
>> been required to reside in the red-light districts of the towns in which
>> they sought to work."
>
> Ummm... I expressed myself poorly again. My question went not to the
>low repute of actors, but that troupes (esp Shakespeare's) would have
>had to put up with inexperienced performers.
O000ooo... We are agreed on that. I think the competition was deadly. I
don't think there would have been much patience with inexperienced
performers.
>> > I believe WS/Hamlet had a clear idea how to most effectively inject
>> >ideas into an audience, and he was training the player-actors to do
>> >that; he was concerned with the transmission of ideas-- of
>> >propagandizing. He was not primarily worried about how other troupes
>> >might mis-play his work.
>
>> This is a fruitful line of thought. However, it does cut both ways.
>> Shakespeare could be writing a parody of theatre patrons. Many funders
feel
>> the need to lecture artists about their art. In Hamlet, the patron seems
to
>> know something, but there is some reason to believe he is preaching to
the
>> converted, or he is lecturing them on lessons he may have learned from
them.
>> The reactions of the players are sparse and polite---appropriate
responses
>> to a moneyed and talkative producer.
>
> Hamlet's advice is sound and natural, not bombastic and Poloniustic.
>The actors accepted his instructions like revelations from above.
As Zero Mostel says in The Producers when Gene Wilder says actors are
human--- "Have you ever eaten lunch with one?" (I'm sure I have the line
wrong, but it is from memory.)
In Act II sc. 2, with Rosencrantz, Hamlet seems to express great admiration
for this company, and no sooner does he meet them, but he demands a speech
and listens reverently, appalled at Polonius' silly commentary. The advice
to the players is brilliant, but it still reminds me of a nervous producer +
playwright + director on opening night. This is a backstage speech given
just before the actors go on. Have you ever tried to giving notes to
professional actors after their half-hour show call? According to union
rules, it is illegal to give notes during the half hour before curtain, and
that half hour must be preceded by a one and a half hour break. I suspect
these rules were established to avoid bloodshed, or resignations just before
curtain. Certain big producers and directors might get away with it, but
the actors, with few exceptions, would be feigning courtesy.
>> I like the idea that Oxford was Hamlet, but I think that raises the
question
>> of whether one can both be Hamlet and write Hamlet.
>
> Despite your handle, your posts are often refreshingly undogmatic.
>I'm not sure that's appropriate for this ng.
Damn. I'll work on it.
Theatre is a culture of gossip and constantly shifting alliances. This, in
my mind, is a big "unless we are willing". Theatre is based on a willing
suspension of disbelief, but authorship issues??
>>It is easier to believe that Oxford commissioned plays from
>> Shakespeare, and that Shakespeare may have even inserted some of Oxford's
>> writings into his plays.
>
> Then we have to believe that this strangely disembodied Shakspere was
>capable of writing the canon in complete denial of his own background,
>and he then retired to Stratford without a trace of his monumental
>London theatrical/literary past appearing until he was dead.
I honestly don't see the problem here. Or, should I say, this last sentence
jumps around too much for me to know how best to tackle it. History and
recent speculation made him "strangely disembodied." However, a lot of
talented writers I have met are very reclusive and strangely disembodied.
This is where I don't see a problem. Solitude and great output seem to go
hand in hand.
I can't help feeling that Anti-Strats are arguing from a vacuum of
information as if it gives strength to their positions. 0 X 1 = 0 but
then again 0 X 100 = 0.
I don't have a problem with some of this issues because I have come to
believe that groundbreaking verbal and musical innovation often come from
the lower "uneducated" classes, and that training can sometimes be an
inhibition. Just look at the composers over the centuries who have
ransacked rural music for their inspiration. It continues today---
"civilized" composers are still ransacking third world musical traditions
because they're own training has dried up their inventiveness. In the end,
to get the authenticity they need, they have to hire the musicians from the
third world to play their "original" compositions. The arts feed off of
each other in unpredictable ways. I see nothing unusually strange in
Shaksper being able to write Shakespeare. That anyone could write
Shakespeare---now that's strange. Creativity is strange and essentially a
mystery---just as the fact of Life itself is strange. Once I get beyond the
strangeness of existence itself, that essential mystery of life and
being---just exactly why does anything exist? Well, once that basic
question is brushed aside, it seems easy to explain how a peasant could grow
up to be the greatest writer in the world. What's the problem? That's the
easy one. The whole explosion of Elizabethan literature is a bigger mystery
than Shaksper/Shakespeare --- especially when you consider that it came out
of that upstart tribal nation of Angles, Brits, Picts, Celts, Scots,
sailors, peasants, merchants and pirates. What exactly happened to the
English language to turn it into a global force? It didn't begin and end
with Shakespeare, and it isn't explained by Oxford getting a good classical
education and travelling to Italy. Plenty of mediocre writers have had
better educations and been able to travel much more.
Yeats said that the more you write about your own roots, the more you speak
to the world. And that is one of the perverse reasons why talented,
educated, but imitative artists pillage the work of more rooted and rural
cultures ---for a sense of place, an integrity of the soul. Robert
Frost---"The land was ours, before we were the land's." (We may own the
land without being of the land.) Frost revealed a New Englander's longing
for authenticity and a sense of place, knowing he is, after centuries,
still an immigrant. Shakespeare seems to speak from the Earth, more
specifically, from the Earth of England. Why visit Italy, when the Eagle of
Empire has already flown North to Britain (Cymbeline). Shakespeare may have
visited Italy---that's not my point---but he could also have picked up most
of it from THE BOOK OF THE COURTIER by Castiglione, a best-seller of Italian
behvior, very popular among the Elizabethans.
Oxfordians love to attack the cult of genius. Genius is derived from words
that mean the Guardian spirit(s) of a place. This is what Yeats was talking
about. It is hard to imagine great literature without it.
BTW, O'Neill lived in complete seclusion at the end of his life---completely
disgusted with the American Theatre. Interestingly enough, it was only
after he swore off the theatre that he was able to find the solitude to
write his truly great works --- A LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT, and THE
ICEMAN COMETH. No one saw these plays until after his death.
>>This finds its parallel today in how some regional
>> theatres auction off appearances on stage to their wealthy patrons.
Hamlet
>> doctors The Murder of Gonzago. If you are wealthy and/or powerful
enough,
>> you can always find theatre people who will let you be "one of them."
>
> Right, and I don't see Oxford as having been disciplined enough to be
>full-time actor.
How could he have the discipline to be a writer of such theatrically
masterful plays?
>He probably could pick which plays he took part in,
>and kiss off the rest. Of course, the acting company in turn had
>access to the finest plays ever available.
> --Volker
I personally think Oxfordian theory would make a better screenplay than
history. However, a good screenplay might "make history." Shakespeare
managed to tweak history to serve his own dramatic purposes. He destroyed
the reputation of many historical figures. Maybe it is a perverse form of
karmic/poetic justice.
Gotta go. I can't agree with your authorship conclusions, but you're a good
reader of the sonnets and plays. Thanks.
Dogbrain
TheReveler
"O, there has been much throwing about of brains" Hamlet, II.ii.356
This is the first discussion on this group that I've decided to really take
part in and there's no FAQ for this group that I'm aware of, so forgive my
ignorance. I have a few questions:
It is expected that every statement be annotated with a source?
Does the "who really wrote it?" question come into consideration on every
discussion, even those that are strictly content-oriented??
Are there any givens for ease of conversation?
In any event, to address the topic of where in the plays is Shakespeare
(whomever he or she may be) speaking as him/herself through his/her
characters?
I offered Hamlet as an example of Shakespeare's direction to actors. To my
surprise, I was immediately questioned as to the source of my claim that
Shakespeare directed many his plays.
According to Oscar Brockett's History of the Theatre, from c.1570 to 1642,
the standard practice was that a playwright would sell the rights to perform
a play to a company, which would later have to be licensed for performance
by the Master of Revels (who, incidentally, kept extensive records of
authorship, content, performances, etc.). At which point, the playwright was
expected to attend rehearsals and "aid" one of the shareholders in
rehearsing the play.
Now, according to Francois Laroque, in 1594 William Shakespeare, along with
William Kemp, Richard Burbage and three others formed the Chamberlain's Men,
in which WS was a shareholder. WS never changed companies after that, and
that company had exclusive rights for the production of WS's work. Moreover,
in 1596, WS became the part owner of the Globe, further solidifying his
interests and authority in the company.
Therefore, a reasonable person may conclude that what was generally regarded
as "direction" for the day was performed either inwhole or in part by WS as
both playwright and shareholder.
To get back to the topic, the speech to the actors in Hamlet is not the only
criticism of acting methods (or should I say, overacting methods) present in
the play. Another relevant example is when Hamlet is speaking to R&G:
"I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is
southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw." II.ii.375
A handsaw being a term for an actor that frequently flails his arms about,
according to RSC's Mark Rylance.
I'm sure there are hundreds of examples of WS expressing is
opinions/discontent an a variety of issues, the Hamlet criticizing the
actors is merely one of many.
TheReveler
>> Ummm... I expressed myself poorly again. My question went not to the
>>low repute of actors, but that troupes (esp Shakespeare's) would have
>>had to put up with inexperienced performers.
>
>O000ooo... We are agreed on that. I think the competition was deadly. I
>don't think there would have been much patience with inexperienced
>performers.
There were however many young boys, usually cast in the female roles,
aspiring to be full fledged company actors once their voices broke. There
were also many part-time and amateur actors (a la Bottom & Co.), especially
since an order passed in 1572 made actors that were not in the company of a
prominent figure suspect vagrants, and therefore liable to prison. If your
were an artisan in another field however, you had no worries.
>In Act II sc. 2, with Rosencrantz, Hamlet seems to express great admiration
>for this company, and no sooner does he meet them, but he demands a speech
>and listens reverently, appalled at Polonius' silly commentary. The advice
>to the players is brilliant, but it still reminds me of a nervous producer
+
>playwright + director on opening night. This is a backstage speech given
>just before the actors go on. Have you ever tried to giving notes to
>professional actors after their half-hour show call?
This point is well made, and I have no doubts that it was equally tres
gauche in Shakespeare's day. All the more reason to believe that it was
actually put in for the benefit of the real actors, present and future, or
perhaps for those aspiring to be actors. But the actors in the play itself
seem to be above the need for such advice.
TheReveler
Does anyone have another example?? An new direction may shed more light on
the Hamlet debate.
TheReveler
Brinklow Pottery <diane....@virgin.net> wrote:
> I think the "tale told by an idiot" might be modesty's allusion to the
> Scottish play's authorship, but I just can't go with the nihilism of
> "signifying nothing"as the authoritive "voice" of Shakespeare. For me,
> his essential "voice" is ultimately one of hope. It seems to me that
> in both the comedies and the tragedies, he shows us no absolutes of good
> or evil, but a human condition of weakness and excellence, of strength
> and vulnerability, forever tilting in a delicate balance, and always at
> the mercy of Nature and nature.
I have to agree. For the most part, Shakespeare's voice is very hopeful and
life affirming. It's important to remember though, that the man was a
working artist and that there were other events in his life that affected
his work. I'm sure that the grief over the death of his only son, Hamnet, in
1596 shaped many a scene. As for the scottish play, it premiered c.1607.
Four years earlier, his queen, friend and most promininet patron, Elizabeth
I, died. The same year, about 30,000 Londoners died in the plague. Then a
year after that, Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Parliament. I'm sure these
events had an enourmous emotional impact on the man and his art.
So while his voice, as a rule, is the voice of optimism and balance, there
were ubdoubtedly times that his writing reflected his personal pain and
struggles with tragedy. From time to time, even the most cheerful of us feel
nihilistic or depressed, even if only for a moment, and those feelings paint
whatever creative endeavours we happen to be embarking on at the time.
The proposition that he was no different, IMO, only strengthens your point,
making his the voice of humanity.
Isabella
There's another line in the scottish play that seems to reflect his changing
times (Elizabeth dying, plague, etc.)
"I have liv'd long enough; my way of life has fall'n into the sere"
Perhaps that's also a comment by the author himself on how it feels to have
been left behind by one's society.
TheReveler wrote
Xanthippe Yorick
TheReveler wrote:
> Brinklow Pottery <diane....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > I think the "tale told by an idiot" might be modesty's allusion to the
> > Scottish play's authorship, but I just can't go with the nihilism of
> > "signifying nothing"as the authoritive "voice" of Shakespeare. For me,
> > his essential "voice" is ultimately one of hope. It seems to me that
> > in both the comedies and the tragedies, he shows us no absolutes of good
> > or evil, but a human condition of weakness and excellence, of strength
> > and vulnerability, forever tilting in a delicate balance, and always at
> > the mercy of Nature and nature.
>
> I have to agree. For the most part, Shakespeare's voice is very hopeful and
> life affirming. It's important to remember though, that the man was a
> working artist and that there were other events in his life that affected
> his work. I'm sure that the grief over the death of his only son, Hamnet, in
> 1596 shaped many a scene. As for the scottish play, it premiered c.1607.
> Four years earlier, his queen, friend and most promininet patron, Elizabeth
> I, died. The same year, about 30,000 Londoners died in the plague. Then a
> year after that, Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Parliament. I'm sure these
> events had an enourmous emotional impact on the man and his art.
>
> So while his voice, as a rule, is the voice of optimism and balance, there
> were ubdoubtedly times that his writing reflected his personal pain and
> struggles with tragedy. From time to time, even the most cheerful of us feel
> nihilistic or depressed, even if only for a moment, and those feelings paint
> whatever creative endeavours we happen to be embarking on at the time.
>
> The proposition that he was no different, IMO, only strengthens your point,
> making his the voice of humanity.
I think that you are making a good point, here TR. It brings me to something I
wanted to say to Diane, but only got around to, today. Note that Diane pointed
out that the comedies are darker, and she excepted them from her statement (as I
understand it) that Shakespeare was not a nihilist.
I don' think you can except the comedies, though. There is some dark and
confusing stuff gong on that is just too important to shrug off, (presumably!)
because it is antithetical to your cenception that Shakespeare was an apologist
for humanity, and a voice of hope. I haven't read enough of the works to
articulate this idea as well as Diane's, but here goes.
I think that there is a progression in the plays, where the author not only
increases his technical skills- compare Hamlet to Titius Andronicus, (it's
harder to stage, isn't it?) but his worldview progress as well. The comedies
become less and less conventional- it seems to me. More and more nihilism seems
to be creeping into the works. Examples of this I find in the "exploded syntax"
that Mr. Browne also noticed, in the elaborate word play, and in the odd
juxtaposition and development of characters.
I'm working on this, and maybe in the next few days I can come up with some
examples of the progression of nihilism I hear in Shakespeare's authorial voice.
In the mean time, maybe y'all can tell me what's wrong or right about this idea.
Sorry this post is so sketchy, but I'm overwhelmed with visiting relatives at
the moment!
Later!
X-
PS: great thread, eh?
Joe Conlon
I've really been enjoying this thread. I'd like to add a couple of points.
In Hamlet there is also some good "jabs" at the boy actor companies that
were causing competition and trouble in the theater world at the time that
are almost certainly Shakespeare's "authorial voice". Secondly, a good
counterpoint to the lines of Hamlet's instructions to the players occurs in
a humorous way in the Mechanicals' scenes in Midsummer Night's Dream as they
prepare to produce their version of Pyramus and Thisbe. These scenes poke
fun at their noble audiences, the world of the theater, and the rustics all
at the same time. Marvelous satire.
Joe Conlon
Brinklow Pottery
>
>
> Xanthippe and The Reveller
Great stuff!No no no, Xanthippe, I don't except the comedies, I think the darkness
weaves through them in sometimes an even more powerful way. I don't dispute either
for a minute that he had severe moments of nihilistic misery - what thinking person
doesn't? The sere and yellow leaf is always threatening if you think or if you have
any kind of imaginative grasp on life.I don't however see S. as an apologist, as
some kind of Pollyanna, always chipping up by the end of a play with something to be
glad about - Angelo, Malvolio, Shylock, even contained are hardly anything to be
complacent about. However, I think anyone who has been to the edge of the pit,
stared in and found nothing, almost certainly has to retreat into something. - the
soundest option, and perhaps the only one is to hope (or trust) things may get
better, otherwise how on earth would we get up in the mornings.? Hope was also a
Christian ethic, almost a sin to abandon.
I agree about a progression, but I think the reason he goes through the comedies,
and the really dark tragedies and out into the "problem plays" is a personal
exploration of how to cope with existing as an indiviual in a largely sullied,
often hostile and invariably bewildering world.Diane
Xanthippe Yorick
Hi Diane!
OK- I'm gonna focus on this for some more discussion...
Brinklow Pottery wrote:
> However, I think anyone who has been to the edge of the pit,
> stared in and found nothing, almost certainly has to retreat into something.
Ah, the void! Are you thinking of Kierkegaard, or Byron, perhaps? I love the oxymoron
(!) of "almost certainly" in what you said. It sums up my view on this stuff pretty
succinctly. Let me tell you why.
Here's my slant on nihilism. The individual gains knowledge- either from existential
crisis, an epistemological crisis, or something else altogether, and comes to face the
empty center of the uiverse. Let's borrow from Nietszche for a moment; Zarathustra seeks
God. The whole universe tends toward a center, but when the individual gets there, he
finds NOTHING. God, who may have once been there, indeed, there is much eveidence that
"He" was there, is now gone. Zarathustra concludes that God is dead, and now man must
construct his own meanings.
From my readings, "create your own meanings" seems to be the answer Nietzche proposes to
the extension he gives to Kierkegaard's void. Kierkegaard says that a leap of faith is
necessary to face the void (that might be that Christianity thing you were talking
about...but it can be a lover's leap, as well...) Neitzche seems to say it takes an act
of creation to fill the void. This is a little different from "retreating into
something", I guess. To me, both of these philosophers take you right into the water,
and you don't retreat from the void, at all, but set up house in it.
Nihilism, for me, and from my reading of Neitzche, isn't dark, depressing, or bleak at
all. Instead, it opens up a colorful, multifarious world of freedom, choices, and
creativity. Maddening, it "almost certainly" may be, if you don't have the ability to
choose and focus, however!!
Let's see what you think of this idea of language (the second time I mention it):
It is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
It's the "signifying nothing" idea that gets me. I had to look to Jung for a good
explanation of the symbolic nature of language. Words, just as symbols, only mean what
we agree that they mean. A word isn't meaningful on it's own. An example? Haven't you
ever noticed that a foreign word seems to be meaningless until you are informed as to
what it means?
Here's some examples from Shakespeare (off the top of my head):
"A rose by any other name, still smells the same."
This is from Romeo and Juliet. (pardon the misquoting and lack of references, I'm on a
roll, and I'm quoting from memory) On one level, it is a comment about the identity of
the lover- that the person's name is unimportant, the love stays the same. Extend this
idea to names,and ultimately to language itself, and what you get isn't the simplistic
"essentialist" argument that Fr.John (my college prof.) told me is taking place, but a
comment on the ambiguous nature of names, and language. Roses can be called anything; it
doesn't *matter* what name is applied, but/ because the name itself is meaningless.
Is this dark, or bleak- "nihilistic misery?" Naw! It's just about the free nature of
language, in my estimation.Why do so many people freak out about nihilism? Well, Milan
Kundera came up with a phrase, "Unbearable Lightness of Being" which is also the title
of a book- that describes why some people, once they flee an oprressive regime, will
CHOOSE to return! They can't deal with all of the freedom and choices they are faced
with, so they retreat to something which may have been oppressive, but it is at least
familiar. I think this idea can be applied to people who go along the existentialist
highway, only to make black treadmarks fleeing back to parts familiar when they bump up
against the void in the highway of life and philosophy. A life without God is too
fabulous and frightening to bear.
HEY! Don't look at me like that! If Dogbrain can get by with talking like this, why
can't I?
Here's something a little heavier, from Henry IV pt 2, V, V
Falstaff: "Sir, I will be as good as my word. This that you heard is but a color.
[pretense]"
Falstaff's word means nothing, because he didn't repay the debt he owed, but he said he
would, because he was as "good as his word.". He is as good as "nothing."
Come roundly, and look at Falstaff in the Epilogue speech:
"First my fear, then my curs'y, last my speech. My fear your displeasure, my curs'y my
duty, and my speech to beg your pardons. If you look for a good speech now, you undo me,
for what I have to say is of my own making, and what indeed (I should say) will (I
doubt) prove mine own marring..."
My ears prick up when he says, "my speech is of my own making..." Literally, Falstaff
makes it up as he goes along, doesn't he? (He is quite the liar, telling tales of his
doings to Hal, where the number of the enemy keeps going up and up.Hen. IV pt I, II, iv)
The use of parenthetical expressions is striking also. It seems as if Falstaff's
meaning, once bracketed, changes somehow, and is inverted, creating a subervisive form
of syntax through this punctuation. (Falstaff's sentence deconstructs itself.)
Shakespeare = Deconstructionist = Falstaff? No, I don't think so... I don't think you
can tell if Sh. is a nihilist either- except as far as being dynamically creative, and
subeversive when it comes to words and structure. Maybe he's closer the a
"deconstructionist" than a "nihilist," but can you be one without being the other, I
wonder? Derrida seems to think not... I think I need to read those later plays before I
can even begin to really make up my mind about this...
Anyway, maybe *Falstaff* is a nihilist. Does this mean that the author is using him as a
puppet to speak for him? Maybe. Let's look at some more stuff that Falstaff says.
Ganing a little more weight, now:
King Henry IV, Part 1
Act 5, Scene 1
FALSTAFF 'Tis not due yet; I would be loath to pay him before
his day. What need I be so forward with him that
calls not on me? Well, 'tis no matter; honour pricks
me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I
come on? how then? Can honour set to a leg? no: or
an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no.
Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. What is
honour? a word. What is in that word honour? what
is that honour? air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it?
he that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no.
Doth he hear it? no. 'Tis insensible, then. Yea,
to the dead. But will it not live with the living?
no. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore
I'll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon: and so
ends my catechism.
"What is honour? A word...What is that honour? Air..."
Here's a diagram of Falstaff's circular morality expressed in this speech:
Word = Air
Word = Nothing
Honour =Word
Honour = Nothing
For Falstaff, there is no real morality in the world, nothing has any real weight for
him. If "honour" means nothing becasue it is a word, then maybe it's safe to extend this
thesis to other terms, like "truth" or "justice." Ex: Falstaff thinks he'd be a rare
hangin' judge, indeed, if he manages to escape the noose for his past mis-deeds.
So, Falstaff = nihhilist?
Let's make sure that Falstaff thinks that honour has no value for the world, not just
applied to his own existence. (That would only make him an existentialist, not a
card-carrying nihilist. Nihilists, in the footsteps of Neitzche, think that nothing for
them extends to the world, also.)
Let's look at Falstaff some more:
The Merry Wives of Windsor
Act 2, Scene 2
FALSTAFF Reason, you rogue, reason: thinkest thou I'll
endanger my soul gratis? At a word, hang no more
about me, I am no gibbet for you. Go. A short knife
and a throng! To your manor of Pickt-hatch! Go.
You'll not bear a letter for me, you rogue! you
stand upon your honour! Why, thou unconfinable
baseness, it is as much as I can do to keep the
terms of my honour precise: I, I, I myself
sometimes, leaving the fear of God on the left hand
and hiding mine honour in my necessity, am fain to
shuffle, to hedge and to lurch; and yet you, rogue,
will ensconce your rags, your cat-a-mountain
looks, your red-lattice phrases, and your
bold-beating oaths, under the shelter of your
honour! You will not do it, you!
Um, it seems to me that Falstaff has no respect for the honour of others, either. I see
the Neizchean cult of the individual seeping through, as well, in the lines, "I, I, I
myself..." Nihilism is a peculiarly narcissitic affair, and Falstaff does seem to be a
self-centered fellow (as well as a thief , a coward, and an incorrigible liar).
So, maybe morality, as well as reality, is just a matter of "words, words, words"
(Hamlet) for Falstaff. This would closely parallel him to the Neitzchean "superman,"
ironically. Hmm. Not a very satisfying idea... Maybe Shakespeare gives us a more
positive example of a Neitzchean superman in Harry. FWIW, Hal constructs his own
morality- look at that flimsy excuse he puffs up out of nothing to go lay claim to all
of France, for example. He's also a manipulator of appearance vs. reality (of
Falstaffian proportions) in his own right. Here's a look at Hal's view on deeds,
morality, and honour:
Henry IV, part 1, Act 3, sc.2
PRINCE HENRY
I shall hereafter, my thrice-gracious lord, Be more myself...
(and)
Do not think so; you shall not find it so:
And God forgive them that so much have sway'd
Your majesty's good thoughts away from me!
I will redeem all this on Percy's head
And in the closing of some glorious day
Be bold to tell you that I am your son;
When I will wear a garment all of blood
And stain my favours in a bloody mask,
Which, wash'd away, shall scour my shame with it:
And that shall be the day, whene'er it lights,
That this same child of *honour* and renown,
This gallant Hotspur, this all-praised knight,
And your unthought-of Harry chance to meet.
For every honour sitting on his helm,
Would they were multitudes, and on my head
My shames redoubled! for the time will come,
That I shall make this northern youth exchange
His glorious deeds for my indignities.
Percy is but my factor, good my lord,
To engross up glorious deeds on my behalf;
And I will call him to so strict account,
That he shall render every glory up,
Yea, even the slightest worship of his time,
Or I will tear the reckoning from his heart.
This, in the name of God, I promise here:
The which if He be pleased I shall perform,
I do beseech your majesty may salve
The long-grown wounds of my intemperance:
If not, the end of life cancels all bands;
And I will die a hundred thousand deaths
Ere break the smallest parcel of this vow.
Is it just me, or is Hal saying- "I have a bad rep, and all I need to do to fix it is go
out and kill a good man?" This is the way to gain honour? You kill somone with honours
and scoop them up, like some sort of muderous thief? I guess that's the way it works for
Hal... Of course,this just makes him a Machiavel- a little more proof is needed, if
Hal is a bona-fide nihilist.
In Henry IV, pt. I, sc II, act iv, Hal promises to turn Falstaff in to the sheriff, and
lies (?) about Falstaff's whereabouts. I don't think Hal ever actually turns Falstaff
in, but only _says_ that he intends to "pay the money back." Maybe this occurs
off-stage, but I don't think Hal follows up on this. Is he honest only when it is
convenient? Harry has "heard the clock strike at midnight" with his theiving friends as
well. His transformation into a responsible ruler, after a mis-spent youth seems too
easy, and too convenient to be genuine. Maybe Hal is some sort of shape-shifter,
instead.
Look at what he says about his image in
King Henry IV, Part 1
Act 1, Scene 2
PRINCE HENRY I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyoked humour of your idleness:
Yet herein will I imitate the sun,
Who doth permit the base contagious clouds
To smother up his beauty from the world,
That, when he please again to be himself,
Being wanted, he may be more wonder'd at,
By breaking through the foul and ugly mists
Of vapours that did seem to strangle him.
If all the year were playing holidays,
To sport would be as tedious as to work;
But when they seldom come, they wish'd for come,
And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.
So, when this loose behavior I throw off
And pay the debt I never promised,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men's hopes;
And like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glittering o'er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
I'll so offend, to make offence a skill;
Redeeming time when men think least I will.
Maybe Hal isn't mad, but he sure is "bad and dangerous to know!" Even his offenses
aren't real! A Machiavel would *really* be bad, for its own sake, but a nihilist like
Hal is bad, but not intentionally, or "for real."
Not only that, Hal only "imitates the sun"... Falstaff is no *better* than his word, and
here we see that Hal is going to "falsify men's hopes" so that he will (seem) to be
"much better than my word..." Apparently, Hal doesn't believe in anything, and is seen
here creating his own image, his own reality, just like a Niezchean superman. (Friedrich
would be so proud, I'm sure! ;-)
So, we see, in the treatment that Falstaff, and to some extent, Harry, give to words
like "honour." and "word" we can see Shakespeare subverting language in a way that
exposes it's inherent meaninglessness, thereby exposing the author's view that language
is full of sound and fury, but it signifies nothing. (Sorry for this snotty
"conclusion!" Scholarly habits are hard to break!)
Now, the larger question remains, is Shakespeare a nihilist? I think I found (at least)
one nihilistic character, so far, maybe two (Falstaff and Hal.) I also found some other
"nihilistic" quotes regarding the nature of language. Along these lines, there's
certainly a large amount of wordplay in the plays, isn't there? Several "cunning"
examples come to mind when Hamlet insists on placing his head in Ophelia's lap during
"The Mousetrap." (Lady may I lie in your lap...)
How about other nihilistic approaches? Look at all the genderbending in As You Like
It... Reality certainly seems to be getting shaken up and twisted a bit. I'm working on
it, but I'm not ready to articualte this into a parallel to Nietzchean nihilism- yet.
Let's just say: It seems to me, that if there are layers of meaning built on layers of
(subverted) structure, then ultimately, there are no real meanings- only the ones you
choose, in plays like AYLI, or MND. As You Like It = your choice of realities?
As Dogbrain bayed at us earlier, it's always "dangerous" to examinine an antique text
for modern ideas, and its an especially bad idea to attribute them to the author's point
of view, but I can't help myself! I'll just be a mad, bad, little smuggler of the
present into the past, I guess!
(still looking at later plays...)
Xanthippe
PS- you mentioned some characters- I guess they're examples of nihilism for you, Diane.
The only one I know fromt he three is Shylock, and I don't think he's a nihilist. He's
more of a materialist haveing a financial/existential crisis to me... He does use the
word "nothing" rather poigniantly, though, doesn't he?
Brinklow Pottery
Xanthippe Yorick wrote:
Hi Diane!
OK- I'm gonna focus on this for some more discussion..
Right - I've mulled this over all day whilst cooking dinner for Aged Parent, with many a sneaky peep in a gravy-stained book or two:
Brinklow Pottery wrote:
> However, I think anyone who has been to the edge of the pit,
> stared in and found nothing, almost certainly has to retreat into something.Ah, the void! Are you thinking of Kierkegaard, or Byron, perhaps?
Now there you have me. Sorry, don't know K or N very well. Byron certainly, but Rochester(see previous post - I got it wrong, the poem I was thinking of was Troades) , or Milton's Satan, or even Dr Faustus. Mostly I was thinking of my various "eureka" moments with Shakespeare - Hamlet mostly, but lots of TWT and MacB. The void I was thinking of was the intellectual inevitability when after a long journey of the mind, one reaches for meaning, can't find it, and retreats into "something" known. Hamlet's "bourne from which no traveller returns", or Malvolio's "dark house" for instance.
Let's see what you think of this idea of language (the second time I mention it):
It is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
It's the "signifying nothing" idea that gets me. I had to look to Jung for a good
explanation of the symbolic nature of language. Words, just as symbols, only mean what we agree that they mean. A word isn't meaningful on it's own. An example? Haven't you ever noticed that a foreign word seems to be meaningless until you are informed as to what it means?
Agreed. The experience is all - I think (in whatever language or even without it, even if I think "oh s..t what a mess I've made of my life" ) therefore I am. "Signifying nothing" is philosophically impossible (like my "almost certainly"). If it signifies at all, it must signify "some thing". Macbeth, however, has himself removed meaning from his world - everything about him has atrophied, love, honour, even self-preservation. Except, perhaps the lasy bastion of humanity, the imagination. To me, the irony of this speech is that as he progresses from his dreary vision of endless tomorrows, he ends with something that however meaningless his life has become for him, to us, the approaching end of it reverberates with meaning - how can you hear "a tale told by and idiot, full of sound and fury" and not know exactly what Macbeth's ambitious, mad, crazy, passionate,fear and guilt-ridden descent into unnaturalness (the arch enemy of natural order) and not understand how he has destroyed himself, and threatened the cosmos.
Here's a diagram of Falstaff's circular morality expressed in this speech:
Word = Air
Word = Nothing
Honour =Word
Honour = Nothing
Yes.. the equivocator! The porter, who like some guardian of the abyss, plays with words making equivocation resonant with meaning:" Knock, knock, who's there in the other devil's name? Faith, here's an equivocator who could swear in both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God's sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven.."For Falstaff, there is no real morality in the world, nothing has any real weight forhim. If "honour" means nothing becasue it is a word, then maybe it's safe to extend this thesis to other terms, like "truth" or "justice." Ex: Falstaff thinks he'd be a rare hangin' judge, indeed, if he manages to escape the noose for his past mis-deeds.
and
"this place is too cold for hell....I'll devil perter it no longer"
Is Faith the other devil's name? Is God dead in this place where we have just witnessed the most unnatural of acts, that has made everything that binds us into the cosmos - love, kinship, honour, even hospitality - merely a form of words. It must be too cold even for hell, because everything that warms us into life has died.
As Dogbrain bayed at us earlier, it's always "dangerous" to examinine an antique text for modern ideas, and its an especially bad idea to attribute them to the author's point of view, but I can't help myself! I'll just be a mad, bad, little smuggler of the present into the past, I guess!
I enjoyed the "eureka" quotient in this immensely, but I'm going
to have to think some more about Hal. I agree he constructed his
own morality, and we're back to those words in King John "expediency"
or "commodity". The world sullies us. We sully ourselves by having things
like ambition, greed, jealousy. We construct the best we can, ( or
what we think might be best for the state which may or not be the same
thing.) We're back with Feste :"Bid the dishonest man mend himself; if
he mend, he is no longer dishonest; if he cannot, let the botcher mend
him".
From time to time, individual wills rock the social order boat.
One option is to laugh them out of existence. Another is to carry
the offender's head round on a pole. Either way, tomorrow and tomorrow
and tomorrow will sort it out. The botcher'll get 'em.
PS- you mentioned some characters- I guess they're examples of nihilism for you, Diane. The only one I know fromt he three is Shylock, and I don't think he's a nihilist. He's more of a materialist haveing a financial/existential crisis to me... He does use the word "nothing" rather poigniantly, though, doesn't he?
I mentioned Angelo, Malvolio and Shylock, not because I think they're particularly
nihilistic, (although yes, perhaps Angelo, who is just impelled by lust
and provokes little pity) but because at the end of the plays, these three
are "left over", their destructive capacity contained for the moment by
our corporate goodwill, but those things that motivated them have not,
cannot be cured - lust, malice and envy will surface again. All
we can do is to learn to recognise it earlier, and hope for the best for
"tomorrow" Mostly, all we can come up with is yet another compromise,
given our flawed nature.I don't think the Christian ethic was in itself
a great motivator for Shakespeare, but like anyone with a brain, he pondered
over the basics, playing around with the ideas and reformulated them
to his own satisfaction. The thing about the Christian ethic is that
philosophically, it makes sense. So did Karl Marx.
(I am agnostic BTW!)
I hope this makes sense. I know what I mean!!!!!!
Diane
Xanthippe Yorick
Dear Volker,
I followed much of what you said, and it's interesting, but could you flesh out
one of your points, please?
volker multhopp wrote:
(Dogbrain wrote:)
>Creativity is strange and essentially a
> mystery---just as the fact of Life itself is strange. Once I get beyond the
strangeness of existence itself, that essential mystery of life and> being---just
exactly why does anything exist? Well, once that basic> question is brushed
aside, it seems easy to explain how a peasant could grow> up to be the greatest
writer in the world. What's the problem?
(this point I actually understand...)
(Volker)
> The problem is that Shakespeare pretty much denies everything about
> Shakspere-- his dreams, his hard work will not find reward in the
> canon. That is against nature-- life is about self-affirmation.
(me)Is this a point about the plays and poems? Are they not self-affirming? What
*are* you talking about?
X-
volker multhopp
Xanthippe Yorick wrote:
> > The problem is that Shakespeare pretty much denies everything about
> > Shakspere-- his dreams, his hard work will not find reward in the
> > canon. That is against nature-- life is about self-affirmation.
> (me)Is this a point about the plays and poems? Are they not self-affirming? What
> *are* you talking about?
Great literature has to affirm the life of the author. Life is about
survival, writing is a means to survive, the writing exists within the
domain of the author's life. The heroes and heroines of the canon do
not achieve their reward through hard work (organized compensated
activity); they achieve it through the elbowing, flattery and deceit
in the sea of personal interaction in the noble class.
--Volker
John W Kennedy
Xanthippe Yorick wrote:
>
> I think that you are making a good point, here TR. It brings me to something I
> wanted to say to Diane, but only got around to, today. Note that Diane pointed
> out that the comedies are darker, and she excepted them from her statement (as I
> understand it) that Shakespeare was not a nihilist.
>
> I don' think you can except the comedies, though. There is some dark and
> confusing stuff gong on that is just too important to shrug off, (presumably!)
> because it is antithetical to your cenception that Shakespeare was an apologist
> for humanity, and a voice of hope. I haven't read enough of the works to
> articulate this idea as well as Diane's, but here goes.
>
> I think that there is a progression in the plays, where the author not only
> increases his technical skills- compare Hamlet to Titius Andronicus, (it's
> harder to stage, isn't it?) but his worldview progress as well. The comedies
> become less and less conventional- it seems to me. More and more nihilism seems
> to be creeping into the works. Examples of this I find in the "exploded syntax"
> that Mr. Browne also noticed, in the elaborate word play, and in the odd
> juxtaposition and development of characters.
>
> I'm working on this, and maybe in the next few days I can come up with some
> examples of the progression of nihilism I hear in Shakespeare's authorial voice.
> In the mean time, maybe y'all can tell me what's wrong or right about this idea.
> Sorry this post is so sketchy, but I'm overwhelmed with visiting relatives at
> the moment!
But what, then, is to be said of the final plays, which tend on the
whole toward an almost seraphic gaiety?
I recommend on this point Charles Williams' "The English Poetic Mind".
It has been out of print for ages, but can be found in, or via, most
decent university libraries.
KQKnave
Gary Kosinsky said (in another thread):
>In another thread there is a discussion about Shakespeare's 'voice' in the
>plays. It seems to me this idea that the stability and prosperity
>of England depends on loyalty to the rightful king is a re-occurring
>theme in his works
I agree. The part of the Bastard also struck me as being
a window into the voice of Shakespeare, particulary the
section in Act I, sc.i, lines 180 ff (Riverside). I can easily
see how Shakespeare, a self-made man from country
origins, could place himself in the part of the outsider
at court, and put his own words in the mouth of the
bastard:
"But this is worshipful society
And fits the mounting spirit like myself;
For he is but a bastard to the time
That doth not smack of observation -
And so am I, whether I smack or no;
And not alone in habit and device,
Exterior form, outward accoutrement,
But from the inward motion to deliver
Sweet, sweet, sweet poison for the age's tooth,
Which though I will not practice to deceive,
Yet to avoid deceit I mean to learn;"
And the fact that the bastard, of all the characters
in KJ, is the most alive, lends credence to the
idea that it is Shakespeare himself speaking.
Jim
TheReveler
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
>Great literature has to affirm the life of the author. Life is about
>survival, writing is a means to survive, the writing exists within the
>domain of the author's life. The heroes and heroines of the canon do
>not achieve their reward through hard work (organized compensated
>activity); they achieve it through the elbowing, flattery and deceit
>in the sea of personal interaction in the noble class.
That doesn't leave much room for creativity, does it?? By your reckoning, we
would never have any works of science fiction. Jules Verne surely didn't
have a crystal ball in which to glimpse when he wrote of the Nautilus, did
he?
It is a common argument of the Oxfordians that Shakespeare of Stratford had
no first hand experience from which to draw his stories. But there have been
may great authors before and after him that have churned out masterpieces
with content that was far and away from their own experiences. Homer did not
sail with oceans and Milton did not participate in the Outcast. On the other
end of the spectrum, Dickens was not a memebr of an oppressed segment of
society, nor was Kipling raised by wolves.
History is replete with literary greats that had no first hand knowledge of
the stories they told. In fact, I challenge you to name five well known
literary classics that are undisputed true accounts based on first hand
experiences (bonus points if you can do it off the top of your head!).
CaptWorf
>Dickens was not a memebr of an oppressed >segment of society.
He certainly had been when he was young.
-Me
Brian Allard
Capt...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/4750
Xanthippe Yorick
Dear John,
Your point on the later plays is well taken. It's something we haven't gotten to, yet.
Since your book is out of print- and many of us- well, ok, Me, myself, and I, don't
have access to a university library, why don't you get the ball rolling with some
quotes and analysis?
As valuable as book recommendations are, your OWN insights are actually more
interesting, not to mention a great deal more immediate!
John W Kennedy wrote:
> But what, then, is to be said of the final plays, which tend on the
> whole toward an almost seraphic gaiety?
I'm very curious as to what you mean by this! Could you explain? MIT has a good
electronic collection of the canon that you can easily cut and paste from. Do you need
the link?
> I recommend on this point Charles Williams' "The English Poetic Mind".
> It has been out of print for ages, but can be found in, or via, most
> decent university libraries.
(sigh) Do you HAVE to leave me out? :-(
Regards,
X-
Xanthippe Yorick
Dear Jim,
Your cutting and pasting is interesting, but I need more information to see
what your analysis is about. Could you explain your point about this passage?
Also, I have some questions below:
KQKnave wrote:
> I agree. The part of the Bastard also struck me as being
> a window into the voice of Shakespeare, particulary the
> section in Act I, sc.i, lines 180 ff (Riverside). I can easily
> see how Shakespeare, a self-made man from country
> origins, could place himself in the part of the outsider
> at court, and put his own words in the mouth of the
> bastard:
>
> "But this is worshipful society
> And fits the mounting spirit like myself;
> For he is but a bastard to the time
> That doth not smack of observation -
> And so am I, whether I smack or no;
> And not alone in habit and device,
> Exterior form, outward accoutrement,
> But from the inward motion to deliver
> Sweet, sweet, sweet poison for the age's tooth,
> Which though I will not practice to deceive,
> Yet to avoid deceit I mean to learn;"
>
> And the fact that the bastard, of all the characters
> in KJ, is the most alive, lends credence to the
> idea that it is Shakespeare himself speaking.
>
> Jim
I know you hate my questions, but I don't care- I'm curious- what do you
think Shakespeare means by the last lines, if he is talking about himself?
But from the inward motion to deliver
Sweet, sweet, sweet poison for the age's tooth,
Which though I will not practice to deceive,
Yet to avoid deceit I mean to learn;"
What deceit is the Stratford man practising? It's tempting to give these lines
an Anti-Strat reading, you know?
Also, who is Shakespeare keeping company with, when he says,
And so am I, whether I smack or no;
And not alone in habit and device,
Is he talking about other poets, like Marlowe, or Kyd?
Bracing for an unnecessarily nasty response,
Mark/Xanthippe
Isabella
TheReveler wrote in message
>History is replete with literary greats that had no first hand knowledge of
>the stories they told. In fact, I challenge you to name five well known
>literary classics that are undisputed true accounts based on first hand
>experiences (bonus points if you can do it off the top of your head!).
Kon-Tiki by Thor Heyerdahl
The "Little House" books by Laura Ingalls Wilder
Teacher by Helen Keller
All Creatures Great and Small by James Herriot
Life on the Mississippi by Mark Twain
That said, I agree with you that it is totally possible for an author to
write truthful and evocative literature about events, situations, characters
and circumstances of which they have little or no first-hand knowledge. As
proof, I'll hold up the other 80-90% of classic literature, with special
notice going to the Bronte sisters, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Mary
Shelley.
As an actor, I am frequently called upon to portray characters and
situations that I have never experienced first-hand. While I have failed
miserably on occaision, I have noticed that one's ability to play, for
example, a drunk does not require one to have been a drunk, or be currently
drunk. I put that it then follows that one could write a scene about a duke
without having been one, either.
Allison Williams
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Volker (I assume) says "that Shakespeare pretty much denies everything
about Shakspere-- his dreams, his hard work will not find reward in the
goes on to say, "Great literature has to affirm the life of the author.
Life is about survival, writing is a means to survive, the writing exists
within the domain of the author's life. The heroes and heroines of
the canon do not achieve their reward through hard work (organized
compensated activity); they achieve it through the elbowing, flattery
and deceit in the sea of personal interaction in the noble class."
(1) You know next to nothing about "Shakspere," Volker, so how can you
possibly tell us that Shakespeare denies just about everything about
him?
(2) Certainly the heroes and heroines of Shakespeare's plays do not
achieve success only through "elbowing, flattery and deceit in the
sea of personal interaction in the noble class." Othello and Macbeth
both work their way up. Cordelia achieves moral success through loyalty
and honesty. Romeo is courageous and dedicated to his feelings. Henry V
wins out through his talent, courage, and eventual single-mindedness.
Falstaff achieves moral success (in my immoral view) through his
dedication to self-love--and self-knowledge, and lack of hypocrisy.
Most of the heroes and heroines in the comedies win out through their
plain decency. Portia achieves success through right-mindedness, as--in
fact--most of those who succeed in Shakespeare's plays do.
The above seems sophomoric to me, but adequate to refute your even
more sophomoric, and amazingly narrow over-simplification.
(3) You also seem not to know much about writers' often complicated and
confused motives. Those motives can't be reduced to literal-minded
self-justification. Wish-fulfillment can count a great deal, too. For
example, it's quite plausible to me that Shakespeare, who worked hard to
get where he got, would have preferred not to have worked at all, and
composed daydreams of a life in which wit and talent won out without a
lot of hard work. Writers also write to convey a world view, and that
world-view need not be egocentric--though I will agree that most writers
do show characters representing what they deem their own strengths
coming out ahead, and those representing "evils" losing, or tragically
winning. But there's no reason that a playwright might not mainly be
concerned with creating a story that works, and not, or only slightly,
concerned to represent a stand-in for himself making good. A writer may
also write to build an artwork--that is, be concerned mainly with the
beauty of his structure and style. There are all kinds of other factors.
And they all interweave in the real world.
Once again you have decided over-exactly what "Shakspere" must have
been like, and over-exactly what Shakespeare must have been like--and
what play-writing must be like. Stratfordians admit (most of them) to
not knowing too exactly what kind of man the Stratford man was, or what
the authorial voice behind the plays reveals of the man who wrote them;
anti-Stratfordians know the answers to both these problems.
Symposium1
In article <35A132C7...@home.com>, Xanthippe Yorick <yor...@home.com>
writes:
>> I recommend on this point Charles Williams' "The English Poetic Mind".
>> It has been out of print for ages, but can be found in, or via, most
>> decent university libraries.
>
>(sigh) Do you HAVE to leave me out? :-(
>Regards,
>
>X-
Dear Xanthippe and others,
Even if one is, like me, a humble working class lout, through the wonders of
inter-library loan every public library should provide some second-hand access
to university collections. Through my public library I was able to get access
even to a master's thesis from the university to which it was submitted.
Kiss up to your librarian. The public library system is one of the most truly
benevolent institutions.
Peace,
Ann
"Cry, Troyans, cry! A Helen and a woe;
Troy burns! Or else let Helen go."
Cassandra, Shakespeare's _Troilus and Cressida_
Soothsayers are usually mad and usually quite right.
volker multhopp
> This is the first discussion on this group that I've decided to really take
> part in and there's no FAQ for this group that I'm aware of, so forgive my
> ignorance. I have a few questions:
> It is expected that every statement be annotated with a source?
Certainly not. But if you throw in wonderful bits of information,
like Shakespeare having been a director, that were otherwise unknown
to most readers here, you can expect interest where that knowledge
came from.
> Does the "who really wrote it?" question come into consideration on every
> discussion, even those that are strictly content-oriented??
No. But often discussion of content leads back to the author, and
then the identity of the author is important.
> I offered Hamlet as an example of Shakespeare's direction to actors. To my
> surprise, I was immediately questioned as to the source of my claim that
> Shakespeare directed many his plays.
> According to Oscar Brockett's History of the Theatre, from c.1570 to 1642,
> the standard practice was that a playwright would sell the rights to perform
> a play to a company, which would later have to be licensed for performance
> by the Master of Revels (who, incidentally, kept extensive records of
> authorship, content, performances, etc.). At which point, the playwright was
> expected to attend rehearsals and "aid" one of the shareholders in
> rehearsing the play.
The difference between "aiding" and "directing" is significant.
> Now, according to Francois Laroque, in 1594 William Shakespeare, along with
> William Kemp, Richard Burbage and three others formed the Chamberlain's Men,
> in which WS was a shareholder. WS never changed companies after that, and
> that company had exclusive rights for the production of WS's work. Moreover,
> in 1596, WS became the part owner of the Globe, further solidifying his
> interests and authority in the company.
>
> Therefore, a reasonable person may conclude that what was generally regarded
> as "direction" for the day was performed either inwhole or in part by WS as
> both playwright and shareholder.
You're waffling. You used "direction" in the modern sense (ie,
Hamlet did to the players), now you're trying to redefine "direction"
to cover a shareholder's function. Imo, the troupes were run
cooperatively by the senior players/ shareholders. If some of those
assumed singular lead, ie directorial, functions, I have no evidence
that Shakespeare was one of them. That's why I asked-- to see if you
knew something I didn't.
--Volker
Richard Nathan
>
> Great literature has to affirm the life of the author. Life is about
>survival, writing is a means to survive, the writing exists within the
>domain of the author's life. The heroes and heroines of the canon do
>not achieve their reward through hard work (organized compensated
>activity); they achieve it through the elbowing, flattery and deceit
>in the sea of personal interaction in the noble class.
>
Please explain how "JULIUS CAESAR" and "ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA" and
"CORIOLANUS" affirm the life of the Earl of Oxford.
Richard Nathan
John W Kennedy
>
> Dear John,
>
> Your point on the later plays is well taken. It's something we haven't gotten to, yet.
> Since your book is out of print- and many of us- well, ok, Me, myself, and I, don't
> have access to a university library, why don't you get the ball rolling with some
> quotes and analysis?
"The English Poetic Mind" is a book written by a working poet and
playwright (and Christian mystic) and it is not easy to summarize. The
essential contention is that Troilus's words in the eavesdropping scene
represent a theme that is important to the understanding of Shakespeare
and of other English poets, representing a moment when the mind is faced
with something it can neither accept nor deny. The parallel in
Wordsworth (for whom, of course, we have full biographical data) is the
moment when England declared war on republican France. From "Troilus"
on, the plays grow darker and darker, until it almost seems that
Shakespeare is deliberately trying to create the greatest possible
catastrophe from the most trivial possible cause -- the handkerchief in
"Othello", "nothing" in "Lear". (I suppose it is impossible at present
not to think of "Seinfeld" at this juncture.) Then something else
happens, the storm breaks, and the plays turn into something they had
never been before, with a fluidity and grace of verse not seen earlier,
and an almost childish delight in a fully achieved mastery. The older
Shakespeare gleefully gives us "Exit, pursued by a bear," the statue
scene, the Gordian-knotted intrigues surrounding the court of Cymbeline
like a juggler picking up yet another ball just because he can....
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> > Great literature has to affirm the life of the author. Life is about
> >survival, writing is a means to survive, the writing exists within the
> >domain of the author's life. The heroes and heroines of the canon do
> >not achieve their reward through hard work (organized compensated
> >activity); they achieve it through the elbowing, flattery and deceit
> >in the sea of personal interaction in the noble class.
> "CORIOLANUS" affirm the life of the Earl of Oxford.
They all deal with the acquisition and maintenance of power, achieved
through the interplay of the highest aristocracy. That was Oxford's
domain-- he had dreams of becoming Edward 7 of England. Nothing of
those plays was from Shakspere's world.
--Volker
Richard Nathan
But these plays don't AFFIRM Oxford's aristocratic life style, they
condemn it. They may reflect the arisocracy of Elizabethan England - but
they hardly affirm it, which was the point you were trying to make.
Furthermore, I'd love to hear you argue how TIMON OF ATHENS affirms
Oxford's life style. I don't think it would possible for a play to give a
harsher judgement of the lifestyle of the Earl of Oxford.
volker multhopp
> > They all deal with the acquisition and maintenance of power, achieved
> >through the interplay of the highest aristocracy. That was Oxford's
> >domain-- he had dreams of becoming Edward 7 of England. Nothing of
> >those plays was from Shakspere's world.
> condemn it. They may reflect the arisocracy of Elizabethan England - but
> they hardly affirm it, which was the point you were trying to make.
They affirm his world in the weak sense that they affirm its reality.
> Furthermore, I'd love to hear you argue how TIMON OF ATHENS affirms
> Oxford's life style. I don't think it would possible for a play to give a
> harsher judgement of the lifestyle of the Earl of Oxford.
I'll have to pass, as I haven't seen/read *Timon*.
--Volker
volker multhopp
> As an actor, I am frequently called upon to portray characters and
> situations that I have never experienced first-hand. While I have failed
> miserably on occaision, I have noticed that one's ability to play, for
> example, a drunk does not require one to have been a drunk, or be currently
> drunk. I put that it then follows that one could write a scene about a duke
> without having been one, either.
It's not a matter about being able to write about nobles; it's a
matter of constantly espousing the pov of the nobles, and constantly
denigrating, being totally unsympathic to the lower classes, that
causes one to wonder to which class Shakespeare belonged.
--Volker
Caius Marcius
writes:
>
>John W Kennedy wrote:
>
>> But what, then, is to be said of the final plays, which tend on the
>> whole toward an almost seraphic gaiety?
>
has a good
>electronic collection of the canon that you can easily cut and paste
from. Do you need
>the link?
>
Mind".
>> It has been out of print for ages, but can be found in, or via, most
>> decent university libraries.
>
Is this Charles Williams the gothic-Christian-horror novelist? All
Hollows' Eve written iirc in the late 40s is one of the creepiest
things I've ever read (and reread)......
- CMC
Dogbrain
volker multhopp wrote in message <35A09D7C...@erols.com>...
>
>The heroes and heroines of the canon do
>not achieve their reward through hard work (organized compensated
>activity); they achieve it through the elbowing, flattery and deceit
>in the sea of personal interaction in the noble class.
>
True, but they also lose everything by the same means, usually because the
nobles are not acting with much nobility. There is usually some coalition
at the end that restores a more human order.
Dogbrain
Dogbrain
CaptWorf wrote in message
<199807061829...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>Dickens was not a memebr of an oppressed >segment of society.
>
>He certainly had been when he was young.
>
Dickens' family was very proper, middle-class. He temporarily descended
into the working class when his father fell into debt. This marked him for
life with a concern for the poor. But he actually writes about the poor in
fairly general terms, with great sympathy, and with considerable verity of
detail, but not really from their perspective. His portraits of the
nobility, while not as emotionally powerful as his portraits of the poor,
seem to contain a greater sense of how they actually lived. The poor carry
the moral and emotional weight, but they become symbols, almost fairy tale
characters, in the process. He writes of the poor from the perspective of
the middle class, and their obligation to do something about the poor, to
open their hearts to those below them "as if they really were fellow
passengers to the grave."
Shakespeare and Dickens have a somewhat similar vision. They question the
behavior of all classes, but are not revolutionaries. They seem to want
people to behave as good Christians, with open hearts, and with a clear
sense of their freedoms and responsibilities. They want the system to run
better. They are not questioning the basic system. Dickens had clearer
ideas about legislation that would modify and correct that system, but he
was not out to overthrow it. As a result of his clearer social vision, I
think his art verges (more than Shakespeare's) toward rhetoric, persuasion,
even propaganda. Shakespeare assumes the propriety of the system itself,
while questioning the behavior of its members. Of course, that too, could
be seen as a less overtly stated form propaganda that reinforces the status
quo, even as it purges the emotions of pity and fear---a kind of
social/theatrical safety valve that defuses any pressure toward real change.
Dogbrain
Dogbrain
Dogbrain
volker multhopp wrote in message <35A3691D...@erols.com>...
>
> It's not a matter about being able to write about nobles; it's a
>matter of constantly espousing the pov of the nobles, and constantly
>denigrating, being totally unsympathic to the lower classes, that
>causes one to wonder to which class Shakespeare belonged.
>
> --Volker
Where do you get this constant denigration of the lower classes? LEAR is
rife with statements of sympathy with the poor. Most of the tragedies show
them as victims of greater forces, with the rare exception of the
rabble-rousers in Henry VI and some of the Roman plays. And we are clearly
meant to identify with the servant that kills Cornwall during the blinding
of Gloucester. He even gives up his life in the process. This servant is
perhaps the noblest small roles in the canon. As for his comic
condescension toward the rural and lower classes? The sophisticated poets
and urban dwellers tend to idealize the country, and write poems about
picturesque shepherds. Shakespeare's humor seems to be more rounded, and to
be the humor of someone sending up his own class---his own roots.
Shakespeare seems to set a high value on country life, but he doesn't
oversimplify and idealize it into a charming subject for a courtly masque.
Dogbrain
volker multhopp
> >Great literature has to affirm the life of the author. Life is about
> >survival, writing is a means to survive, the writing exists within the
> >not achieve their reward through hard work (organized compensated
> >activity); they achieve it through the elbowing, flattery and deceit
> >in the sea of personal interaction in the noble class.
> would never have any works of science fiction. Jules Verne surely didn't
> have a crystal ball in which to glimpse when he wrote of the Nautilus, did
> he?
An author can write about anything he likes. He is not likely to
betray his own ethics, however, and they are largely determined by his
the circumstances of his life. Verne displays fairly consistent
supernational peace-through-strength and technologically optimistic
viewpoints, which, were I more knowledgeable and this HLAV, we might
explore more deeply, but, I am fairly confident, we would not find
inconsistent for a 19th c middle class Frenchman. *Great literature*
requires a deep comitment by the author-- that's hard to do without
unless he's immersed in his subject. I like Verne, but I think his
place in literature is based more on his developmental role for sf
than literary quality.
--Volker
John W Kennedy
Yes. Seven novels, quite a few plays, a few volumes of poetry, some
extraordinary works of criticism, plus historical biographies to keep
the pot boiling. An extraordinary man, too. He could easily have
become a cult leader, if he hadn't been so determinedly an orthodox
(small-o) Christian.
Not quite the "late 40's," though; he died in 1945. "All Hallow's Eve"
was his last.
C.S.Lewis remarks of him that it isn't just CW's answers that affect the
reader -- it's how you realize that until you read him, you never
understood the questions before.
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp wrote in message <35A3691D...@erols.com>...
> > It's not a matter about being able to write about nobles; it's a
> >matter of constantly espousing the pov of the nobles, and constantly
> >denigrating, being totally unsympathic to the lower classes, that
> >causes one to wonder to which class Shakespeare belonged.
> rife with statements of sympathy with the poor.
I am guilty of over-stating my case. But look at this sympathy from
Lear:
Poor naked wretches, wheresoe'er you are,
That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm,
How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides,
Your loop'd and window'd raggedness, defend you
From seasons such as these? O, I have ta'en
Too little care of this! Take physic, pomp;
Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,
That thou mayst shake the superflux to them
And show the heavens more just.
This is not a voice from the bottom, or even from the middle-class,
this is the totally normally peering-down on the wretches by those on
top. The writer has not experienced "houseless heads and unfed sides,
/Your loop'd and window'd raggedness".
>Most of the tragedies show
> them as victims of greater forces, with the rare exception of the
> rabble-rousers in Henry VI and some of the Roman plays.
Right. This is strictly the aristocrat's pov.
--Volker
Dogbrain
volker multhopp wrote in message <35A9D753...@erols.com>...
>ogDbrain wrote:
>
>> volker multhopp wrote in message <35A3691D...@erols.com>...
>
>> > It's not a matter about being able to write about nobles; it's a
>> >matter of constantly espousing the pov of the nobles, and constantly
>> >denigrating, being totally unsympathic to the lower classes, that
>> >causes one to wonder to which class Shakespeare belonged.
>
>> Where do you get this constant denigration of the lower classes? LEAR is
>> rife with statements of sympathy with the poor.
>
> I am guilty of over-stating my case. But look at this sympathy from
>Lear:
>
> Poor naked wretches, wheresoe'er you are,
> That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm,
> How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides,
> Your loop'd and window'd raggedness, defend you
> From seasons such as these? O, I have ta'en
> Too little care of this! Take physic, pomp;
> Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,
> That thou mayst shake the superflux to them
> And show the heavens more just.
>
>This is not a voice from the bottom, or even from the middle-class,
>this is the totally normally peering-down on the wretches by those on
>top. The writer has not experienced "houseless heads and unfed sides,
>/Your loop'd and window'd raggedness".
To my mind, the writer has experienced houseless heads and unfed sides.
On the other hand, this is also an ancient literary and spiritual motif,
the king who travels his country in disguise and discovers horrible things
about his kingdom. This is popular in Sufic traditions and in fairy tales.
I believe this poetic lore was available to all classes. Even going back to
Oedipus At Colonus, when Oedipus gives his body to Athens as an act of
blessing, there is something profound that happens between Oedipus and
Theseus and it sets the pattern for the passing on of true power to the
rightful heir. Most translations seem to point toward a meritocracy, the
Athenian ideal of passing on power, rather than a royal bloodline.
BTW You have passed over my point about the servant teaching morality to his
"betters" (in the scene where Cornwall blinds Gloucester and is killed by
his servant, and he is killed in turn by Regan.
>
>>Most of the tragedies show
>> them as victims of greater forces, with the rare exception of the
>> rabble-rousers in Henry VI and some of the Roman plays.
>
> Right. This is strictly the aristocrat's pov.
I'm not sure what you are saying here? What is strictly the aristocrat's
view? It has been a fairly common view of all classes that the people die
for the often silly actions of their superiors. This idea is much more
common, however, among the lower and middle classes than it is among the
upper class. Also, the middle class is often extremely terrified of what
the rabble might do to destroy their hard earned gains.
I believe ideas and sentiments, thanks to the printing press, moved much
more freely between classes than you seem to think. I also believe British
concepts of class and bureaucracy were probably much more pragmatic than
what they eventually became. I also believe that certain secret
organizations, either political, spiritual, or poetic, probably reinforced
a blurring of the lines. The roots of it go back at least as far as Oedipus
at Colonus. My problem with the authorship debate is that it doesn't allow
us to see what some of the nobles and some of the middle class shared in
common. That vasts members of Elizabethan society would have hated both
Oxford and the Man from Stratford. The dynamics of the debate tends to pit
them at opposite extremes of their society, which is simply not the case.
The rabble portrayed in the plays would have found them both equally corrupt
and useless. The miracle of the Elizabethan Stage was that it appealed to a
wide range of classes in a very diverse culture. To assume that only a man
from the upper classes could write these plays seems to ignore the
complexity of the forces at work within Elizabethan society that created a
significant body of great writers.
Dogbrain
volker multhopp
> > Poor naked wretches, wheresoe'er you are,
> > That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm,
> > How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides,
> > Your loop'd and window'd raggedness, defend you
> >This is not a voice from the bottom, or even from the middle-class,
> >this is the totally normally peering-down on the wretches by those on
> >top. The writer has not experienced "houseless heads and unfed sides,
> >/Your loop'd and window'd raggedness".
> To my mind, the writer has experienced houseless heads and unfed sides.
But that's only your personal sense-- it's not based on citable
evidence, I guess.
> On the other hand, this is also an ancient literary and spiritual motif,
> the king who travels his country in disguise and discovers horrible things
> about his kingdom.
Oh, definitely the Shakespearean hero could "slum" with the lower
classes. Hal with his bad company, or later as king sounding his
troops before battle; or Hamlet talking trash with the gravediggers.
But spending a night listening to people is not the same as actually
living the life. What we see in Lear is pity, not co-experience.
> BTW You have passed over my point about the servant teaching morality to his
> "betters" (in the scene where Cornwall blinds Gloucester and is killed by
> his servant, and he is killed in turn by Regan.
Yes, because my reading of the scene is too weak for comment.
> >>Most of the tragedies show
> >> them as victims of greater forces, with the rare exception of the
> >> rabble-rousers in Henry VI and some of the Roman plays.
> > Right. This is strictly the aristocrat's pov.
> I'm not sure what you are saying here? What is strictly the aristocrat's
> view?
The poor are poor because of greater forces. Rabble-rousers are
always bad.
>It has been a fairly common view of all classes that the people die
> for the often silly actions of their superiors. This idea is much more
> common, however, among the lower and middle classes than it is among the
> upper class. Also, the middle class is often extremely terrified of what
> the rabble might do to destroy their hard earned gains.
Agreed.
> I believe ideas and sentiments, thanks to the printing press, moved much
> more freely between classes than you seem to think. I also believe British
> concepts of class and bureaucracy were probably much more pragmatic than
> what they eventually became. I also believe that certain secret
> organizations, either political, spiritual, or poetic, probably reinforced
> a blurring of the lines.
I too believe the class lines were more permeable than some would
have us believe. However, a person is unlikely, imo, to give up the
natural prejudices and values of his class.
>The roots of it go back at least as far as Oedipus
> at Colonus. My problem with the authorship debate is that it doesn't allow
> us to see what some of the nobles and some of the middle class shared in
> common. That vasts members of Elizabethan society would have hated both
> Oxford and the Man from Stratford.
"Hate" is too strong, imo. Most people would see things as an
expression of the natural order.
>The dynamics of the debate tends to pit
> them at opposite extremes of their society, which is simply not the case.
> The rabble portrayed in the plays would have found them both equally corrupt
> and useless. The miracle of the Elizabethan Stage was that it appealed to a
> wide range of classes in a very diverse culture. To assume that only a man
> from the upper classes could write these plays seems to ignore the
> complexity of the forces at work within Elizabethan society that created a
> significant body of great writers.
If the middle-class man wrote the plays, I want to see an instance
where he affirms the middle-class way of life.
--Volker
THopeB
<<<<From: "TheReveler" <t...@hands-on.mv.com>>>>>
<<<<<Dickens was not a memebr of an oppressed segment of
society>>>>>
Dickens' family was genteely poor and constantly struggling. Dickens'
experience as a boy in a boot-blacking factory was a traumatic event that
stayed with him his entire life. That, along with his family's poverty, is
reflected in "David Copperfield", as well as other novels. If I remember
correctly, he had to earn his own way from the factory time onward.
In addition to personal experience with poverty, he did first-hand research,
such as his trip to the north to check out the prototype for Dotheboys Hall in
"Nicholas Nickleby".
Tracey