Tate's Motives and Audiences Today

After reading and discussing Tate's adaptation of King Lear, I became fixed on Tate's intentions and reasons for changing the things he changed. Tate's adaptation is obviously clearer and easier to read. Tate certainly viewed the ambiguities in Shakespeare's King Lear as flaws and set out to fix or clarify what Shakespeare left unexplained. His reasons for forming a romance between Edgar and Cordelia were mainly to provide a motive for Cordelia's indifference or reluctance to share her love for her father and also to give reason behind Edgar's disguise as a mad man. He viewed Edgar's disguise in Shakespeare's original as "a poor shift to save his life". In my opinion, I find ambiguities (such as Cordelia's unstated motives) to provide for a much more complex and thought provoking piece (specifically for textual pieces). Tate's decision to clarify Cordelia's motives almost becomes a cop out or a simple conclusion to the play. It does not demand anything or challenge the readers to think for themselves. I view it as a the easiest way to answer a difficult question.

 The fact that Tate felt a need to clean up the ambiguities in the play was also interesting because I feel that this want or need for clarifications and explanations are existent in many audiences today (at least in relation to films). For example, Inception was an incredibly popular movie that left so many people frustrated and even annoyed that the most important question was left unanswered. Audiences today want so desperately to know the answer to every question and want to be able to fill in the pieces to the puzzle. Another example would be Shutter Island. It is different from Inception in the fact that everything was explained at the end of the movie. The audience finds out exactly why characters behaved in the way that they did and there really aren't any gaps for the audience to fill in by themselves.

The Tempest and The Olympics

To my recollection buff Olympians and Shakespeare share nothing in common; however, evidently the Oscar winner, Danny Boyle believes they do. Boyle, the creative director for the 2012 Olympics in London, cites The Tempest as his inspiration for the athletic mecca. What do you guys think?

For specific information read the article link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9045785/London-2012-Shakespeare-provides-the-inspiration-for-wondrous-Olympic-Games-opening-ceremony.html

Adaptations and Additions

           As I said in my first post I would look into various adaptations of King Lear in both literary works and film. In 1985 there was a major screen adaptation of the play called Ran directed by Akira Kurosawa. It is about Hidetora, a 16th century Japanese warlord who divided his kingdom among his three sons leading to a rift with his youngest and most loyal. Eventually a civil war also sparked. The film just like King Lear had contrasting victims, those who were able to forgive and the vengeful ones. The film also incorporated a supporting actress with the same personality as Lady Macbeth. 
            Major elements from the play's plot have also been frequently used in other works such as Broken Lance where a cattle baron creates a separation with his three sons and of course, once again, the youngest remains loyal. In Where the Heart Is a father disinherits his three spoilt children. Francis Ford Coppola deliberately incorporated elements of Lear in The Godfather Part III, where Michael Corleone's attempt to retire from crime throws his domain into anarchy, and most obviously the death of his daughter in his arms. A Thousand Acres, based on Jane Smiley's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, is told from the viewpoint of the elder two daughters, Ginny and Rose. They were sexually abused by their father as teenagers. Their younger sister Caroline, had managed to escape this fate and is ultimately the only one to remain loyal. Parallels in all of the above just goes to show that regardless of the setting and specific details, King Lear's plot is universal and can be applied anywhere and it will still hold the same meaning.

"Romance" Plots

So I am not sure how everyone else reacted when they started Act 4 of Tate's King Lear, but I have to say I just laughed out loud.  The reason being the stage directions: "Edmund and Regan amorously Seated, Listening to Musik".  First of all, I would like to know what being seated amorously looks like, and second of all I am a bit surprised that Tate choose to expand upon this other "romance" plot.  I understand that he believes that by introducing a "love betwixt Edgard and Cordelia" he will polish the former heap of jewels into his kind of play.  But seriously, were audiences really begging for more of the creepy Edmund, Regan, Goneril love triangle?  This play has enough drama (no pun intended) with Tate's decision to insert a love story into an already lengthy (for the stage) play about an aging monarch.  This brings me to my problems with these "romance" plots.  

I understand Tate’s desire to create a play with a happy ending, which surely is guaranteed by the two virtuous characters falling in love.  However, in my opinion, Tate gets a little heavy handed with the romance.  He condenses several of the scenes involving the titular character’s personal struggles to focus more on both Cordelia and Edgar and the love triangle.  So for example, in Act V Scene II, Edmund has a monologue where he weighs the pros and cons of each sister, discussing how he's already "enjoy'd" Regan but that Gonerill is of yet "untasted".  This brings me to a question really, about the morality of the period.  If Shakespeare was being rewritten in one sense to appease public standards, would this have not been controversial?  Especially considering one is married, the other a widow (but also adulterer), and the final member a bastard?  I find this rather scandalous for the period seeing as women would have been acting these scenarios on stage (and that is not even mentioning the addition of the rape scene with Cordelia having to be rescued by Edgar).

This triangle’s embellishments (because obviously it existed in the original, though it was less “in your face”) adds nothing to the play for me, though I suppose it is to serve as the foil for what “good” or “moral love” should be—that of Cordelia and Edgar’s.  Ultimately, Tate ends with this moral, deciding to end with Edgar talking about how his love for Cordelia is all he wants, and that he prefers that to the "Empire".  Of course the cliché ending is really what kills me, "That Truth and Vertue shall at last succeed".  Instead of lingering on King Lear, whom I thought was the subject of the play; Tate instead turns to his young lovers as beacons of morality.  Overall, this “romance” really did nothing for me, except make me laugh and question Tate’s ideas of love. 

Information on 1985 performance of Tate's Lear

http://tech.mit.edu/V105/N16/lear.16a.html

Tempest performance at Theatre School

Hi all,
Just to remind you, too, our very own Theatre School is performing The Tempest as part of the MFA spring repertory--and it starts February 4. Performances at the Scene Dock Theatre.   I'm going to email the director to ask him a bit about the production, so watch this space for more information.

Hamlet Performance

Hey Everyone,

I thought some of you guys may like to know there is a performance of Hamlet going on for a few more weeks in Glendale by the Independent Shakespeare Company. It has been very well received and is relatively inexpensive at only $20 a ticket. Here's the link to the website: http://www.iscla.org/

Have a nice weekend!

I was thinking about the whole idea of certain art being too difficult to bear, and I thought of the movie Requiem for a Dream. It is the only movie I've seen to date that I absolutely loved, but will most likely not be able to watch again for several years.

Sorry this post is a bit off topic, I just wanted to share, and find out what things you all have found "too difficult to bear".

Sources for King Lear

 The story of Lear had circulated for a very long time before Shakespeare’s time and was a popular story that anyone during his time would have been familiar with. I found it interesting to learn which sources Shakespeare chose to use and how and what he chose to change in them. Most scholars agree that The True Chronicle History of King Leir and his three daughters Gonorill, Ragan, and Cordella was the main source from which Shakespeare was influenced by. Leir was published anonymously about 12 years before the first performance of King Lear. Shakespeare took the main points from the play and basically added or changed characters and sub-plots. One of the major changes was the ending, which was originally a happy one and, as we all know, Shakespeare’s King Lear is perhaps the greatest tragedy ever written. Leir has been criticized by many scholars to be a failure and not worth studying, while others believe that it is worth merit, although the poetry is  not on par with that of Shakespeare’s.

Some small changes that I came across I found to be critical to the development of Shakespeare’s characters and plot are the following:

King Lear

Cordelia: {Aside} Love and be silent

Leir

Cordella: Oh how I do abhor this flattery!

King Lear

Cordelia: {aside} And yet not so; since, I am sure, my love's
More richer than my tongue

Leir

Cordella: Did never a flatterer tell so false a tale.

 I think these were key changes that Shakespeare made in the development of Cordelia’s character. The Cordella in Leir is far clearer in her intentions for not professing to the king her love. Her intentions/motivations are clear because she bluntly states how she is against the flattery.  Shakespeare leaves Cordelia’s intentions far more ambiguous. First of all, Cordelia’s statements are asides and are in and of themselves not revealing of her reasons.  Shakespeare also adds something which is critical to his King Lear, which is the notion that “nothing can come of nothing”. In the Leir version, Cordella answers right away that she cannot put her love into words, where as in Shakespeare’s version, Cordelia first responds with “nothing”. The notion of nothing comes up many times in King Lear and is rejected by the king who is convinced that “nothing can come of nothing”.

Works Cited

Shakespeare’s Sources for King Lear - Holinshed’s Chronicles and The Faerie Queen. (n.d.). Retrieved January 25, 2012, from http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sources/kinglearsources.html

The True Chronicle History of King Leir. (n.d.). Retrieved January 25, 2012, from http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/kinglear/kingleir.html

On Sources of William Shakespeare’s King Lear. (n.d.). Retrieved January 25, 2012, from http://www.poetsforum.com/papers/444_1.html

Roots and Stems of King Lear

For centuries, scholars and critics have questioned the inspiration and originality of Shakespeare's plays. Rumor has it that he did not write them at all and others say it is all his work because even though he copied from others he made it uniquely his own. In a PBS documentary summary researchers claim, "Shakespeare borrowed plots and ideas from other materials for the bulk of his writing...Such practice was commonplace in English Renaissance, whose 'rebirth' was often realized by imitating classical work or borrowing from more contemporaneous work....His [Shakespeare's] imitations often turned into things entirely new..." and thus he deserves to earn credit for them. When talking about authorship and influence T.S. Eliot says, "one of the surest test is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good ones make it into something better, (that) welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different from that from which it was torn." So we shall set out of prove that Shakespeare is a mastermind and not just a petty thief.

            Shakespeare wrote King Lear between 1603 and 1606. Many say "the most proximate sources" for the play came from Geoffrey of Monmouth written around 1136, Holinshed's Chronicles, and Philip Sidney's Arcadia published in 1590. These texts and Shakespeare's piece "implicitly raises some of the same issues (royal succession, class, disguise, connection between domestic and civic turmoil, aging, loyalty, and the vagaries of written word)." But instead of the "religious, burlesque, and bawdy overtones" Shakespeare tuned the story in a more sophisticated fashion by creating fools out of Kent and Edgar instead. Nonetheless, everything was written for entertainment and profit.

            It is also believed that Shakespeare was also inspired by The Mirror for Magistrates published in 1559.  Another publication is The Faerie Queen written by Edmund Spenser. Shakespeare researcher, Amanda Mabillard asserts that "the primary source for King Lear was The True Chronicle History of King Leir and his three daughters, Gonoril, Ragan, and Cordella published in 1605 but acted and performed since 1594. For the sub-plot of King Lear, Shakespeare relied on Arcadia, which is evident when analyzing the characters of Edgar and Gloucester and how Sidney's take of the king of Paphlagonia and his two sons sparked the Bard's own imagination."

            Upon further reading, I discovered a detailed list of Shakespeare's sources and what Shakespeare used or changed from them in order to sculpt his complete version that we know today. Upon the alterations that Shakespeare made to these preceding works I believe it is what makes him a true artist. He was able to extract the best from each and compile them in a way that is not plagiarism but he made them better. He was able to take bits and pieces and put them together into something that is whole and remarkable. 

• The True Chronicle History of King Leir, and His Three Daughters (1605). This play, presumably that staged by the Queen’s Men and the Earl of Sussex’s Men as early as April 1594, was Shakespeare’s major source for his King Lear. He probably used the printed version rather than recalling earlier performances.
• Raphael Holinshed, The First and Second Volumes of Chronicles (1587). Shakespeare used Holinshed’s account of the Lear story, taking such details as the titles Duke of Albany and Duke of Cornwall (married to Lear’s daughters Goneril and Regan respectively in the play).
• John Higgins, The First Parte of the Mirour for Magistrates (1574). Shakespeare drew on Higgins for Goneril’s marriage to the Duke of Albany, and Cordelia’s to the King of France, as well as such details as the successive reductions in Lear’s retinue by Goneril and Regan.
• Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene (1596). Spenser’s work provided Shakespeare with the name Cordelia, and the manner of her death (by hanging).
• Sir Philip Sidney, The Countesse of Pembrokes Arcadia (1590). Book 2, chapter 10 of Sidney’s work influenced the scene in which the blinded Earl of Gloucester asks the help of his son Edgar (in disguise as Poor Tom) to commit suicide.
• Samuel Harsnett, A Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures (1603). Harsnett’s work not only influenced Shakespeare’s language in King Lear, but also his characterization of Edgar as Poor Tom.
• Michel de Montaigne, translated by John Florio, The Essayes or Morall, Politike and Millitarie Discourses (1603). Florio’s translation of Montaigne influenced Shakespeare’s language in King Lear.

Work Cited

Mabillard, Amanda. Shakespeare's Sources for King Lear. Shakespeare Online. (day/month/year you accessed the information) < http://www.shakespeare-online.com/playanalysis/kinglearsources.html >

"King Lear - Shakespeare in Quarto." THE BRITISH LIBRARY - The World's Knowledge. Web. 23 Jan. 2012. <http://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/kinglear.html>.

"King Lear ~ Summary | Great Performances | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 23 Jan. 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/episodes/king-lear/background-on-king-lear/sources-for-king-lear/summary/636/>.

Shakespeare's Research

Critic Esther Jackson suggests that: “It seems clear that an important aspect of Shakespeare's dramatic form was its dependence upon a kind of iconographical system borrowed in part from Renaissance painting, sculpture, literature, liturgy, and music. This symbolic fabric-both religious and pagan in its sources-became increasingly evident in Shakespeare's later plays: in the romances as well as in the tragedies. The result of its particular use in King Lear is that many situations are not given rational explication of the kind established by Greek tragedy; on the contrary, Shakespeare, like Wagner and the contemporary writers used the method of music and the plastic arts in giving major realities figuration” (Jackson 27).  I came across this discussion of the language in King Lear and find it to express my opinion on Shakespeare utilizing or as some critics may label it “plagarizing” from the sources listed below.  

Here’s a brief overview of potential sources that most scholars repeated in my research:

1. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Brittaniae (c. 1135)

A history of the Kings of Britain to the date, this text is considered a fairly accurate account and most likely would have been a text that influenced the following literature.  

2. John Higgin’s Mirour for Magistrates (15th c)

A collection of poetry focusing on the tragic ends of historical figures.  

3. Holinshed’s Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (c. 1577)

This collaborative text would have been the most current chronology of British history during Shakespeare’s time.  

4. Philip Sidney’s Arcadia (c. 1580’s)

It is possible that Shakespeare borrowed the sub-plot of Gloucester from this text.  

5. Edmund Spenser’s The Faerie Queene (c. 1590)

An epic poem, based off Monmouth’s work and the history of Britain.  

6. The anonymous play “The Chronicle History of King Leir” (1594)

Contemporary to Shakespeare, a play performed most likely at the Rose Theatre by a competing theatrical troupe.  
This list, while no doubt incomplete and possibly inaccurate, demonstrates to me the context in which playwrights created plays.  Working backwards chronologically several things become evident.  The first, that Shakespeare, like his peers, would have rewritten plays that were fiscally successful for a competing theatre.  The second, that popular literature and historical accounts of Britain were referenced as sources of inspiration.  This was not considered plagiarism, but flattery.  In the period rewriting “classics” was encouraged, after all it was the renaissance, and thus the rebirth of classical texts for contemporary audiences.  Finally, there is a clear history of the sources Shakespeare used citing one another, or rewriting their predecessors’ text.  Thus, Shakespeare was merely participating in this culture.  

Yes, Shakespeare seemingly used or copied directly from many of these sources.  However, as Esther Jackson points out in the citation I’ve quoted, the importance is that Shakespeare made the material entirely his own.  The language was his, the style was his, the performance itself was uniquely his.   Ultimately Shakespeare’s work, especially in this case, is about a historical figure.  One would then find it more “realistic” or at least more based in history by determining that Shakespeare took the time to read his contemporaries and predecessors materials on the subject.  The more material, the more potential there is to craft a play that the audiences will appreciate, not only because they may recognize a familiar subject, but also that there can be a fresh perspective of that subject.  

Works Cited

Jackson, Esther M. "The Grammar of Tragedy." Shakespeare Quaterly Winter 17.1 (1966): 25-40. Print.

Kahan, Jeffrey. King Lear: New Critical Essays. New York: Routledge, 2008. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and Jay L. Halio. The Tragedy of King Lear. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. Print.

King Lear Bloggers: Prompt for Week 2

Hi King Lear bloggers,
For your next post, I'd like you to look into some of Shakespeare's sources for King Lear and post your discoveries for your classmates.  What have scholars (past and present) said about Shakespeare's sources for this play?  What changes did Shakespeare make to his source material?  What do you make of these changes?

A Thousand Acres and King Lear

I have never read King Lear before (minus the first 3 acts I have just read and a prose/summary of the play). I decided to read the folio version mainly because I found it to be more detailed and easier to understand--in way. After briefly discussing the concept of adaptations and authenticity in class, I decided that I would discuss in this blog post Jane Smiley's book adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear---A Thousand Acres and the film adaptation of the book. I have not read the book, but I did watch the movie and it was intriguing to experience the limitations and capacities of adaptations.

A Thousand Acres does not stick closely to the original Shakespeare, which makes for an interesting and insightful adaptation. The setting is changed to a small farm town in Iowa during the 1980s and the break or downfall of the family occurs when the father (Larry Cook) decides that he is getting old and needs to divide and equally distribute his farm amongst his three daughters (Ginny, Rose, and Caroline). Ginny (Goneril) and Rose (Regan) are excited to hear the news, while Caroline is reluctant and doubtful. This hesitancy angers the father and he quickly disowns Caroline.

There are major differences in the novel that I think were interesting decisions made by the author. First of all, the story is narrated and told from the perspective of Goneril. In Shakespeare’s original play, Goneril is the first to turn against the king and is basically made to be cruel and villainous, while in the novel, the reader listens to the unexplained side of the daughters and the king is made to be cruel, tempered, and cold-hearted.

Smiley won a Pulitzer prize for this novel, but she has also received a lot of criticism—the main attack being that she attempted to “fix” what Shakespeare did not do well or at all. She explains, “Tyranny went unexplored [in King Lear]. In fact, tyranny seemed to be embraced, and for no reason that I could discern. Was I supposed to pity Lear because he was a father? Because he was the king? Because he was foolish and/or senile?”

I think Smiley asked questions that had not been asked before and offered an imaginative and thought-provoking adaptation of King Lear. She was especially bothered by the fact that the women were not excused for being cruel (or given no background to their reasoning) while the King’s actions go unquestioned and even pitied. As a separate entity, I appreciate that the women are given the voice of reason and clarity, while the traditional misogynistic father/king is allowed no sympathy.

Lastly, after reading numerous reviews on both the book and the film, it was surprising and interesting to see how even the film adaptation of A Thousand Acres strayed or failed in capturing what the book succeeded in. The fact that the film did not capture the essence of the novel really made me think about theatre adaptation today, but especially in Shakespeare’s time. Each performance could not have been the same because actors changed, and even if they didn’t their performance could not be identical for every single showing. The director of a film has a tremendous influence on the direction of the film, just like directors of Shakespeare’s plays have the power to influence how the audience will interpret or experience the play.

Below are links to the trailer of A Thousand Acres as well as a few reviews on the book and film.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/40685?page=all

http://www.scwu.com/bookreviews/h/SmileyJaneThousandAcresA.shtml

Main Characters and Main Ideas

            Shakespeare is a master at what he does because not only are his characters complex but his plots are woven and entangled with copious themes. In King Lear it is obvious that the character of Gloucester and the subplot surrounding him parallel the tragedies that King Lear suffered to a fair extent. They were both betrayed by their children whom they mistakenly trusted, stripped of everything they possess and left to their own destruction out in the cold. Through this mirror of events comes the theme of "blindness." Both well-aged men were so foolish in their years that their judgment was clouded and they fell for simple euphemisms. Only when they were both impaired physically and mentally did they finally realize that they have been horribly wrong. But by then it was already too late.

            What is remarkable about Shakespeare's character and theme in my opinion is its ability to transcend time and form. His characters are memorable because they endure so much but in the end they still cannot escape a heartrending demise. Even today we can still relate to the message embedded in his plays. The concept of "blindness" does not necessarily have to be applied to father and children relationships only but it is also evident in love relationships we have either heard about or experienced ourselves. When we love someone we do not see any of their flaws and even if we did notice any shortcomings we found them to be unique and special, something that makes the other person who they are. But once the love is gone we nitpick at every little imperfection and pull at every string of nuisance we can find. Thus "blindness" presents itself in an array of forms but Shakespeare gives it his own personal touch of authenticity.

            The twists and spins that Shakespeare place in his work makes it unique and therefore unforgettably praised. Shakespeare is an artist and what he produces can never truly be replicated. Adaptations place a different and ambitious perspective on the original pieces by Shakespeare but different is not always better. Presenting a new angle and shedding light on something that was out of focus provides an interesting interpretation to Shakespeare's style but it will forever only come in second place. I honestly look forward to reading a full revision to King Lear and comparing it to Shakespeare's. That shall be the focus of my next blog.

An Aging King

Having read King Lear before I decided I wanted to find a performance to watch, especially since this class is focused on adaptations and I find it necessary to both watch and read plays to fully appreciate them.  So I stumbled across the 2008 "film" adaptation starring Ian McKellen as King Lear, directed by Trevor Nunn.  Here's a clip from the recorded version* of the same stage production produced by PBS (the full version is on instant Netflix): 

*From interviews I watched, the film version was not intended to be a "film" but rather a recording of the stage production, and thus "lacks" what one might find in a film adaptation in terms of scenery and such. 

Alan Riding of The New York Times reviewed the stage production in 2007. His article can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/theater/02ridi.html?pagewanted=all .  Riding's article begins with an issue that I have never considered when reading this play before--the age of Lear in the play versus the age of the person performing the role.  

"I am a very foolish fond old man, / Fourscore and upward, not an hour more nor less; / And, to deal plainly, / I fear I am not in my perfect mind" (Act IV.7, 62-65). This passage summarizes this central theme of age in the play.  Lear at 80 years old, recognizes his own humanity.  He is losing his mind and more importantly control over his own life. 

What I find interesting however is not this idea of aging, but Shakespeare's portrayal of Lear as an octogenarian.  In an age where the average life expectancy was about 35 years old, Shakespeare wrote this play with what I believe is one of his oldest characters.  Making Lear upwards of 80 seems almost excessive.  Surely audiences would have found Lear just as old had he been two or threescore in years.  By this standard, the majority of the characters, especially Goneril and Regan would be themselves "old".  

Of course I'm not going to argue that a play, especially a tragedy such as this, must conform to any standards of realism.  Yet, I would be interested to know how the play would have been staged in terms of Lear's appearance by Shakespeare.  As Riding and other writers mention, the actor that the role was most likely written for would have been half of Lear's age.  I find it fascinating that Shakespeare would have made a character so specifically aged when it was unlikely any actor reaching that age (or really anyone still living at that age). 

Interestingly, as the centuries go by, the actors portraying Lear have become nearer to the age of the character themselves.   Ian McKellan was only 67 when he began this production of Lear, making him still 13 plus years younger than Shakespeare designed, and yet he is far closer than many of his predecessors age-wise.  The role of King Lear has become this capstone performance piece for older, established actors.  This year, for example, another film version of the play starring Al Pacino (now 71 years old) as Lear is set to be released.  

I wonder then if modern performances of Lear more aptly portray the thematic of time and aging since the performers are so much closer in age to the titular character.  

The Authentic Lear?

QUARTO version

LEAR:

Meantime we will express our darker purposes.

The map there; know we have divided

In three, our kingdom; and tis our first intent,

To shake all cares and business of our state,

Confirming them on younger years.

The two great Princes France and Burgundy,

Great rivals in our youngest daughter’s love,

Long in our Court have made their amorous sojourn,

And here are to be answered.  Tell me my daughters,

Which of you shall we say doth love us most,

That we our largest bounty may extend,

Where merit doth most challenge it?

Goneril our eldest borne, speake first?

FOLIO version

LEAR:

Meantime we shall express our darker purpose.

Give me the Map there. Know, that we have divided

In three our Kingdom: and 'tis our fast intent,

To shake all Cares and Business from our Age,

Conferring them on younger strengths, while we

Unburthen'd crawl toward death. Our son of Cornwall,

And you our no less loving Son of Albany,

We have this hour a constant will to publish

Our daughters several Dowers, that future strife

May be prevented now. The Princes, France & Burgundy,

Great Rivals in our youngest daughters love,

Long in our Court, have made their amorous sojourn,

And here are to be answer'd. Tell me my daughters

(Since now we will divest us both of Rule,

Interest of Territory, Cares of State)

Which of you shall we say doth love us most,

That we, our largest bounty may extend

Where Nature doth with merit challenge. Gonerill,

Our eldest borne, speak first.

Class Blog Groups

King Lear:
Michelle
Amy
Gerri

Tempest:
Sarah C.
Kyle
Allison
Jessica

Winter's Tale:
K.
Sarah H.
Sari

Hamlet:
Jasmine
Tammy
Gene
Lauren

If you do not see your name on this list, please see me to be assigned to a group.

something to ponder...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/7450874/Shakespeare-18th-Century-work-Double-Falsehood-is-his-lost-play.html

THE CRITICS ON SHAKESPEARE

Early Eighteenth-Century Commentary on Shakespeare

Nahum Tate, Preface to King Lear, 1681

Commenting on Shakespeare’s Lear:

“I found the whole…a heap of jewels, unstrung and unpolished, yet so dazzling in their disorder, that I soon perceived I had seized a treasure.  ‘Twas my good fortune to light on one expedient to rectify what was wanting in the regularity and probability of the tale, which was to run through the whole a love betwixt Edgar and Cordelia, that never changed word with each other in the original.”

Thomas Rymer, from A Short View of Tragedy, 1693

“Many, peradventure, of the Tragical Scenes in Shakespeare cry’d up for the Action, might do yet better without words.  Words are a sort of heavy baggage, that were better out of the way at the push of Action; especially in his bombast Circumstance, where the Words and Action are seldom akin…”

“Othello is made a Venetian General.  We see nothing done by him nor related concerning him that comports with the condition of a General—or, indeed, of a Man…His Love and his Jealousie are no part of a Souldiers Character, unless for a Comedy.”

Jeremy Collier, A Short View of the Immorality, and Profaneness of the English Stage, 1698

“For Modesty…is the Character of Women.  To represent them without this Quality is to make Monsters of them…Has Shakespeare secur’d this point for his young virgin Ophelia that Play had been better contriv’d.  Since he was resolv’d to drown the Lady like a Kitten he should have set her swimming a little sooner.  To keep her alive only to sully her Reputation, and discover the Rankness of her Breath, was very cruel.”

Charles Gildon, from A Collection of Miscellaneous Letters, 1719

“There are two Crimes which are never to be admitted in Tragedy, Cowardice in the Man, and want of Chastity in the Woman; in the last of which many of our Play-writers are abandonly guilty. Nor must there be any Iagos, Villains; they shock us too much, and seem really out of the character of Humankind.  But the success of Iago in Shakespeare has made our other Writers run mad after such-like characters….”

Francis Atterbury (in a letter to Alexander Pope), 2 August 1721

“I have found time to read some parts of Shakespeare which I was least acquainted with.  I protest to you, in a hundred places I cannot construe him, I don’t understand him.  The hardest part of Chaucer is more intelligible to me than some of those Scenes, not merely thro the faults of the Edition, but the Obscurity of the Writer: for Obscure he is, & a little (not a little) enclin’d now and then to Bombast, whatever Apology you may have contrived on that head for him.” 

Alexander Pope, Preface to his edition of Shakespeare, 1725

“It is not my design to enter into a Criticism upon this Author; tho' to do it effectually and not superficially would be the best occasion that any just Writer could take, to form the judgment and taste of our nation. For of all English Poets Shakespear must be confessed to be the fairest and fullest subject for Criticism, and to afford the most numerous as well as most conspicuous instances, both of Beauties and Faults of all sorts…

It must be allowed that Stage-Poetry of all other is more particularly levell'd to please the Populace, and its success more immediately depending upon the Common Suffrage. One cannot therefore wonder, if Shakespear, having at his first appearance no other aim in his writings than to procure a subsistance, directed his endeavours solely to hit the taste and humour that then prevailed…

To judge therefore of Shakespear by Aristotle's rules, is like trying a man by the Laws of one Country, who acted under those of another. He writ to the People; and writ at first without patronage from the better sort, and therefore without aims of pleasing them: without assistance or advice from the Learned, as without the advantage of education or acquaintance among them: without that knowledge of the best models, the Ancients, to inspire him with an emulation of them; in a word, without any views of Reputation, and of what Poets are pleas'd to call Immortality: Some or all of which have encourag'd the vanity, or animated the ambition, of other writers…

I will conclude by saying of Shakespear, that with all his faults, and with all the irregularity of his Drama, one may look upon his works, in comparison of those that are more finish'd and regular, as upon an ancient majestick piece of Gothtck Architecture, compar'd with a neat Modern building:  The latter is more elegant and glaring, but the former is more strong and more solemn. It must be allow'd that in one of these there are materials enough to make many of the other. It has much the greater variety, and much the nobler apartments; tho' we are often conducted to them by dark, odd, and uncouth passages. Nor does the Whole fail to strike us with greater reverence, tho' many of the Parts are childish, ill-plac'd, and unequal to its grandeur.”