PlayShakespeare.com Discussion Forum

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Janus

akfarrar — Wed, 14 May 2008 06:33:29 GMT

Author: akfarrar
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:33 pm (GMT -7)

"Theatre is doing"

An acquaintance of mine, who just happens to be a playwright (with an Oscar) refuses to allow his plays to be 'studied' - bit like Shakespeare I suspect.

'study' not study - grammar is descriptive not prescriptive - sorry to make such a 'nice' distinction.

Anyone reading the original post will notice I wrote 'study' and 'play' together - no qualms with other study areas and other 'studies' even.

I do hope you think but don't study when driving your car.

Still a failure to talk about the play.
_________________
You don't have to agree with me!

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: Two, not 3 or 1, Gentlemen

akfarrar — Wed, 14 May 2008 06:26:44 GMT

Author: akfarrar
Subject: Two, not 3 or 1, Gentlemen
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:26 pm (GMT -7)

From my blog:

Some insights flash upon one as in the Road to Damascus - others have a slow dawning... this is an example of the latter.

Twoiness (or two-i-ness, or two-y-ness?) is quite noticeable in

The Two Gentleman of Verona.

Let me make it plain from the start - not just obvious (i.e. you see it) but noticeable ... in performance.

(some things you get when you read over the text - very un-Shakespeare-idea-ian

- and for a development of that I refer you to Brook, not me).

When watching the BBC production - Spaniels hit me twice ... and Chameleons. I thought it odd at the time, was Shakey being a bit 'shakey'? Was he repeating himself like a school child who gets an idea and can't let go? Then I realised, a couple of days later - I noticed those words and ended up posting on them ... erm, interesting.

Then another dawning - I mentioned Speed's 'swinging' when I reviewed the production - and he actually gets two of them in the play.

Walking to work through the park another development of the two-y-ness (settle for that I think - pun on the 'y') : Two men, two women to go with the men, two servants, two suitors, too many twos to be accidental?

And that led on to thinking about the idea of pairs and two-ness (don't want it to sound like chewiness this time).

What first popped out of the cogitation was, of course, the 'famous' pair play - The Comedy of Errors. And what struck me was the difference.

There the pairs are twins - here they are not. You get the pair of a master and a servant, a man and a woman, a man and a dog ... united in a difference.

In fact it is the differences that make the two 'individuals'. So what unites them as a pair?

Love and duty.

'To love, honour and obey'

Is this a play about the break needed for marriage - a play about sorting out the difference between the play friend and the partner for life?

If so, there is a very strong religious vein running through the play which, although treated lightly by the text, is implicit - and obvious to an Elizabethan audience in a way it isn't to us.

Take the two servants - Speed is a boy - an intelligent, lively, beer drinking boy who gets treated like a boy. He is the model of youth who stays just that throughout the play.

Lance is on a threshold - he is contemplating marriage - and a move out of one type of service into another? His 'lament' over leaving the family, and the excessive emotions, reflect not just the parting of a servant to go with his master - they suggest a ritualised weeping: Was this typical of Elizabethan marriages? I have seen weddings where the leaving of the girl from the mother's home is in fact linked to such wailing.

I am not suggesting this as fact - it is speculation ... and that is what thinking about the play after viewing does - makes one think and speculate.

Which brings me to the final scene - and A Midsummer Nights Dream has the quotes that help ...

"Begin these wood birds but to couple now?"

The first word is begin ... Two Gentlemen shows the ending of one phase, and the beginning of the next - but there is a touch of reality here ( in what can be seen as a very unreal play):

"The course of true love never did run smooth."

None of the participants in this scene is going to 'happy-ever-after-dom' ... it is marriage they head for.
_________________
You don't have to agree with me!

Merchant of Venice :: RE: The Arden "Merchant"

Willshill — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:44:25 GMT

Author: Willshill
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 9:44 pm (GMT -7)

What is the opinion of the 1955 Arden by John Russell Brown?

Quote:

akfarrar Dated.

So is History

Even though it might not be the latest 'popular' opinion, JR Brown's work is worth a look; if for nothing else but purposes of comparison.
He writes well, he's really quite thorough, and his willingness to re-think says a lot about him.
Of interest further--he updated his own work and thought in a chapter called Creating a Role: Shylock, in "Shakespeare's Plays in Performance", 1993, to take in performances by Anthony Sher and Dustin Hoffman.
I like him because he gives first consideration to the importance of Shakespeare's words and how they were written for the purposes of acting them. In his own words regarding his appendices: "...argues that a concern for the practicalities of the theatre must modify both the methods and intentions of literary critics." -and-"... contrasts an actors exploration of Shakespeare's text with the work of critics and semioticians;it also shows what can be learnt from attendance at performances and from the study of theatre history."

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Janus

Willshill — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:52:42 GMT

Author: Willshill
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:52 pm (GMT -7)

"Nit-picking"

QUOTE:If you equate 'study' with thinking, then I understand your confusion*** - I do not equate them.
________________________________________
Thanks for that condescending benefit of the doubt, but I'm not 'confused' about anything
***A Freudian might be interested in just who might be 'confused' here.
________________________________________
As to grammar lessons- 'study' this:
study : deliberate, meditate, reflect [on] (in other words-think about)
R2 V.v.i; AC V.ii.10; 2H6 I.i.88; LL V.ii.826; MM II.iv.7; Tem II.i.83
________________________________________
QUOTE: True theatre professionals do not 'study' texts, they prepare them for performance - there is a world of difference (as someone who has taught both theatre and Literature, I know the difference.) If you care to purchase the book I reference on Brook, you'll see a difference.
_______________________________________
Perhaps some day I'll rise to the level of a "true theatre professional"--maybe after I've 'studied' long enough to realize I've wasted my time 'studying' and teaching theatre-simultaneously 'Doing' It. (I do hope we can at least agree on what the word 'doing' means, without some immaterial homespun comparative overly-rationalized one-liner being offered as rebuttal.) I'll forgo the rest of the 'length-measuring contest' as to who might "know the difference" between what.
_______________________________________
QUOTE: Pathology - the study of disease - yep, if this thread is anything to go by, 'study' is the cause of disease in the minds of those doing it.

Still not talking about the play - anything more pathological than that?

I must admit, I wondered when someone would notice the marks ... although the failure to appreciate their implication suggests a 'pathology' in the minds of 'others' rather than myself.
__________________________________________
*** see 'confusion' above
More people should be interested in teaching careers; when you tell them you successfully became one without all that bothersome and 'nit-picking' 'study'.

Merchant of Venice :: RE: The Arden "Merchant"

ianfarthing — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:05:25 GMT

Author: ianfarthing
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:05 pm (GMT -7)

A great resource is Shylock by John Gross, a British theatre critic. Of course, it's mainly focused on the one character, but there are lots of useful sidelines which help with the play.

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Janus

akfarrar — Mon, 12 May 2008 10:20:49 GMT

Author: akfarrar
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 3:20 am (GMT -7)

Pathology - the study of disease - yep, if this thread is anything to go by, 'study' is the cause of disease in the minds of those doing it.

Still not talking about the play - anything more pathological than that?

I must admit, I wondered when someone would notice the marks ... although the failure to appreciate their implication suggests a 'pathology' in the minds of 'others' rather than myself.
_________________
You don't have to agree with me!

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Janus

sorensonian — Mon, 12 May 2008 07:50:24 GMT

Author: sorensonian
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 12:50 am (GMT -7)

The way you mention 'study' in citation marks (scoffingly implying the word "so-called" in front of it) reminds me of a Steve Martin sketch called "Drivel" - a woman artist complains to her friend: "But, Rod, if you view my painting of a toaster without irony, it's terrible!"

So it would appear you have an ironic attitude to 'study', which begs the question what exactly you mean by 'study', if not the thing itself. In any case, it seems you have a pathological aversion to 'study' - whatever it is.
_________________
My father is gone wild into his grave,
And with his spirit sadly I survive,
To mock the expectation of the world,
To frustrate prophecies and to raze out
Rotten opinion, who hath writ me down
After my seeming.
- 2 Henry IV, a5s2

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Problematic issues in Two Gents

akfarrar — Mon, 12 May 2008 05:14:46 GMT

Author: akfarrar
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 10:14 pm (GMT -7)

Another 'quick' thought - having just 'read-through' the play: An awful lot is left to the production.
The end seems very rushed, quick scene after quick scene.
I was also strongly reminded of two other plays - A Midsummer Nights Dream - where magic solves the problem of quick changes - and Henry IV (part 2) where Hal changes to Henry - an 'act of God' in a way.
There certainly are problems for the director and actors - but a successful production should overcome them?
_________________
You don't have to agree with me!

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Janus

akfarrar — Mon, 12 May 2008 05:06:01 GMT

Author: akfarrar
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 10:06 pm (GMT -7)

Deny the lot - everything written there is a response to a performance, rather than a 'read' through: It is thinking about something I have watched, not 'studied'.

If you equate 'study' with thinking, then I understand your confusion - I do not equate them.

Children learn language, genre, and everything else without 'study' -

Shakespeare worked as an actor - he didn't need to 'study' the work he used, he acted in it.

I've never 'studied' Lyly - just read a couple of his plays (too few chances to see them).

True theatre professionals do not 'study' texts, they prepare them for performance - there is a world of difference (as someone who has taught both theatre and Literature, I know the difference.) If you care to purchase the book I reference on Brook, you'll see a difference.

I've known some very witty people who have never 'studied' wit. By the time they are 11 years old children can spot a joke.

I've known people who can spot a cowboy film at a thousand paces who have never 'studied' cinema and its genres.

The emboldened text is a 'lament' that we will never be able to reach the pleasure of the witty exchange - so maybe a cut is necessary rather than dry boring studious exercise.

We are still not talking about the play - which I think illustrates beautifully the dangers of 'study' and its nit-picking-ness (now, that WAS a hot button).
_________________
You don't have to agree with me!

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Protean Pre-echoes?

sorensonian — Sun, 11 May 2008 14:44:57 GMT

Author: sorensonian
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 7:44 am (GMT -7)

Divinity, no - Bardolatry, sure! Shakespeare is the most brilliant guy who ever lived. Do you most certainly deny that, too?
_________________
My father is gone wild into his grave,
And with his spirit sadly I survive,
To mock the expectation of the world,
To frustrate prophecies and to raze out
Rotten opinion, who hath writ me down
After my seeming.
- 2 Henry IV, a5s2

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Janus

Willshill — Sun, 11 May 2008 14:19:27 GMT

Author: Willshill
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 7:19 am (GMT -7)

Quotes from "Janus/Two Gentlemen..."

But it's more than just action and incident, word and phrase - there is a usage of language and a usage of theatre that makes this a very Shakespearean play.

This is Shakespeare digging into the works of other stage professionals - there is a strong link, I think, to Lyly - I couldn't stop thinking of the 'courtly' actions and the word play found in the older man's work and attempts to satisfy for Elizabeth's taste.

But it is not the 'borrowed clothes' plagiarism of A Groatsworth of Wit, which would suggest an insecurity - for this is quite a confident play - it is an early exploration of the power of the theatre to self reference - and to deepen and even create meaning through such reference. It is a shorthand - why waste time going over the same ground already covered. It is a playing with the audience - spot the quote (remember, education was mainly about quoting the right authority when you are debate).

It is also very much a genre play, with a set of conventions to guide both the performance and the watching - and I suspect part of its unpopularity is due much more to the genre being out of fashion than with any quality of the play itself.

This is a play of wit - and therein lies another difficulty: Wit frequently requires a knowledge of and easy flexibility with language - and we are just too distant to take the 'set-piece' exchanges without a degree of study beforehand. [/u]

Whether it is a play to be 'studied' is a different question - but then, I very much doubt whether any of the plays should really be studied - death by academia.
________________________________

The majority of your comments on the play are concerned with reference points only study will lead to. You even point that out (what I bolded) in what suspiciously looks for all the world like a summation of what has come before. Yet, you say the piece has nothing to do with it? How is it you read something other than what you yourself wrote? What did you do BUT study it? Why the attempt to dismiss that in your final "throw away" statement?
You know this already: Everything I underlined has everything to do with and is unobtainable without study, and is absolutely germane to being informed theatrically when it comes to Shakespeare's work.

Unless of course we take Brook at his word.
Wanna play Hamlet?--just imagine you're speaking (coining yet) the words of the greatest wordsmith that ever walked a stage, and forget--better yet, assiduously shun-- learning about any pertinent references that might help you understand in the slightest what the hell you might be talking about--ridiculous.

There--I addressed the majority of what you wrote.

Quote:

If people persist in challenging what I post with new material, I reserve the right to reply - although not the duty.

I heartily agree.

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Janus

akfarrar — Sun, 11 May 2008 08:09:38 GMT

Author: akfarrar
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:09 am (GMT -7)

Quote:

I apologize for not being privy to all the BBC posts. I thought this was "Play Shakespeare.com". I comment directly and on the spot to what I read here.

They are on Play Shakespeare - Janus was the second thread I started in 'Two Gentlemen' after writing the BBC Production thread and is a development on it.

As to the rest of your post - quite frankly, I don't understand much of what you are saying.

I say again - 'hot button issue' was totally new to me as a term - and the meaning obscure.

The end to my post was intended as a 'throw away' - whether anyone chooses to take it that way or not, is their problem. I clearly point out it is another question - which indicates, to me at least, that this issue is not what this post is about.

The Brook quote stands alone anyway - but I took the trouble to reference it in the shortest way possible, hyper-linking to a review of the article which it appears in. Agreeing or disagreeing with Brook is one thing, denying a context given is another.

If people persist in challenging what I post with new material, I reserve the right to reply - although not the duty.

I say again, it is a pity no one has taken up the idea of Two Gentlemen being 'Janus'-like.
_________________
You don't have to agree with me!

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Janus

Willshill — Sun, 11 May 2008 07:40:43 GMT

Author: Willshill
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 12:40 am (GMT -7)

--It's clearly a hot button issue for you--or do you take up the majority of a page on your weblog with "throw away comment" subject matter?
The comment--ostensibly tacked on as "throw away"--seems to be an important enough point to include after "...how many words (?)"

--I apologize for not being privy to all the BBC posts. I thought this was "Play Shakespeare.com". I comment directly and on the spot to what I read here.

--Should I stay mum about the "Context for Brook..." given, or might I claim that the link was not the click that satisfies? I happen to disagree in a big way--where might I voice that disagreement, for all of those who, without any other link to click on, might take what's
there as gospel without another equally informed but conflicting viewpoint?

--I agreed, early on, that this possibly wasn't the ideal place to carry on the discussion, and my part in it would have ended there. But despite protests to the contrary, you displayed a need to carry it on with one-line exclamation-ended rejoinders-- to which no one dare respond?-- relevant to their finality, I guess? That's precisely why I had to, you see.

--Can't have your cake--and eat it too.

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Protean Pre-echoes?

akfarrar — Sun, 11 May 2008 05:13:29 GMT

Author: akfarrar
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:13 pm (GMT -7)

Now you take Shakespeare into the realms of divinity - and Bardolation.

Something I most certainly deny.

I used the word edit - intentionally.
_________________
You don't have to agree with me!

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Janus

akfarrar — Sun, 11 May 2008 05:09:50 GMT

Author: akfarrar
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:09 pm (GMT -7)

1) I didn't understand 'Hot Button" - since looked it up and now do; Deny it too. If, on a post of how many words (?), after posting how many more in the BBC threads (?) the only thing picked up on is that last, throw away comment, my lamentations are justified.

2) Context for Brook was given in the link.

3) Pudding proof posted, in performances, for a better thread location for this discussion.
_________________
You don't have to agree with me!

Performances :: Puddings

akfarrar — Sun, 11 May 2008 04:59:51 GMT

Author: akfarrar
Subject: Puddings
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 9:59 pm (GMT -7)

and proof thereof.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people judge plays.

I mentioned that I enjoyed 'The Two Gentlemen of Verona' more than I've enjoyed 'Hamlet' for a long time - and someone suggested my wits were crumbling.

Then I remembered me - of course, his is a judgement based on the book, not the performance.

How many people actually sit through a performance of Hamlet and come out of it able to say, 'I enjoyed that'?

As an imaginary percentage, if one were to compare the 'enjoyment' in a a performance of 'A Midsummer Nights Dream' to 'Hamlet', which would win?

Puddings are judged in the mouth, not the recipe book - plays should be judged in the theatre, not the script.

(After all - some very odd looking recipes work remarkably well - try a little fresh ground pepper on you strawberries.)

_________________
You don't have to agree with me!

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Janus

Willshill — Sun, 11 May 2008 04:23:03 GMT

Author: Willshill
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 9:23 pm (GMT -7)

sorensonian writes:

Quote:

I think Peter Brook's quote is as spectacularly wrong as it can possibly be.

I find it rather strange that someone who spent so much energy on analyzing and interpreting would regard what he did as something separate from 'study'. Otherwise, how would he ever have seen the Forest for the Trapezes?
But the quote, as it stands out of context, may not be as uncategorized or sweeping as it appears to be.

Quote:

Shakespeare made his works difficult precisely so that we would keep looking at them and trying to divine their underlying meaning.

I don't know that I can so so far as to agree with the hugeness of the idea of intentional difficulty being his overarching aim (although a mind that learned so much from glancing back would certainly have projected forward with the same philosophical keenness.) I don't discount...I'm just not sure.
But simply through the act and product of its own exercise, his kind of genius is difficult enough to grasp in itself. Whatever his personal and practical reasons were (it was a dangerous time for free thinkers) for appearing to be the obvious Cryptic we can, in many ways, justifiably discern him to be, multi-talented genius can also seem cryptic when it really is very clear. I believe the overriding cause to be, more simply, the nature that expression will take when it comes from the mind of a truly inspired Natural and Universal Philosopher. And it's clear that he chose to accept the mantle. Then how large must have been his philosophical vision?--you might be prompted to retort. You see--? Soon I'll write myself into agreeing word for word with you--only to have to explore it from the other side AGAIN.
This is what it's all about.
In short, figuring out this guy takes a little bit of study --from every approachable angle--as he approached what he saw. A true philosopher can do that--I believe he asks us to learn how to do the same.
Not that this hasn't occurred to you--his "written embassage" you speak of--I think it has more to do with how we think than it does with what we think.

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Janus

sorensonian — Sat, 10 May 2008 19:19:11 GMT

Author: sorensonian
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 12:19 pm (GMT -7)

But I won't.

I think Peter Brook's quote is as spectacularly wrong as it can possibly be. Shakespeare made his works difficult precisely so that we would keep looking at them and trying to divine their underlying meaning. Only someone supremely intelligent can do that, and so his underlying meanings will also be supremely intelligent. The kind of stuff that was much too radical (and so advanced that it would have been futile) to say clearly in his own day - and perhaps even in ours as well.

I use the sonnets to justify this view. I think he talks about his works when he says that he is presenting a "written embassage" to us; a message for all humanity that we will eventually, with "the bettering of the times", be able to unlock. When this happens the world is going to have its collective mind blown. Shakespeare's work is probably the only definite and revelatory explanation of the secret knowledge hidden in art and culture on the edge of humanity's collective consciousness, and once we find out how to transmit that knowledge from his texts and into "true plain words", it will make all of us much wiser, and many elements in other art and culture will suddenly make sense to us as well. That's what I believe.
_________________
My father is gone wild into his grave,
And with his spirit sadly I survive,
To mock the expectation of the world,
To frustrate prophecies and to raze out
Rotten opinion, who hath writ me down
After my seeming.
- 2 Henry IV, a5s2

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Janus

Willshill — Sat, 10 May 2008 18:10:17 GMT

Author: Willshill
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 11:10 am (GMT -7)

Surely no offense was intended. --simply to point out that at the very end of your initial post you broached a subject:

Quote:

Whether it is a play to be 'studied' is a different question - but then, I very much doubt whether any of the plays should really be studied - death by academia.

--and continue to offer support for your stand on it, thereby continuing the discussion. The ending statement was part of your post--did you expect a return on everything else in your post, but not on something you categorically and obviously related to it? Judging by the "hot button" you used to button it (quoted above) and your willingness to continue to rebut (though not 'discuss') any comments made re: it, to shout "non sequitur" on the part of someone else, merely answering what you continue to post serially afterward, seems at conflict.

Quote:

akfarrar: If I understood that, I'd possibly be offended!

--The Brook quote doesn't "end it"--I have a response--but at the risk of "possibly offending!" you further, I'll end it here.

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Protean Pre-echoes?

sorensonian — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:52:31 GMT

Author: sorensonian
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:52 am (GMT -7)

akfarrar wrote:

I toyed with the idea of knowledge mapping and in the end decided against it - it suggests a degree of deliberation and pre-planning Shakespeare couldn't have put in.

I say he could. And did. Everything in all of Shakespeare's work is interconnected, and it's planned that way from the beginning. Names and places acquire additional meaning when cross-referenced with each other; definitions of exotic terms manifest themselves when the other instances of Shakespearean usage are consulted, etc. It's as if he's laying out an entire world view for us to marvel at and attempt to penetrate.
_________________
My father is gone wild into his grave,
And with his spirit sadly I survive,
To mock the expectation of the world,
To frustrate prophecies and to raze out
Rotten opinion, who hath writ me down
After my seeming.
- 2 Henry IV, a5s2

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Protean Pre-echoes?

akfarrar — Sat, 10 May 2008 06:04:44 GMT

Author: akfarrar
Subject: Chameleons
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 11:04 pm (GMT -7)

This fascinating animal gets dragged up twice in Two Gentlemen:

SIL. What, angry, Sir Thurio? do you change colour?

VAL. Give him leave, madam, he is a kind of chameleon.

THU. That hath more mind to feed on your blood than live in your air.

II, 4

Usually associated with love ...

SPEED. Ay, but hearken, sir; though the chameleon Love can feed on the air, I am one that am nourish'd by my victuals, and would fain have meat.

II, 1

But, published around the time of the play's writing, I came across this fascinating little snippit:

But herein they rather disgrace than adorn their persons, as by their niceness in apparel, for which I say most nations do not unjustly deride us, as also for that we do seem to imitate all nations round about us, wherein we be like to the polypus or chameleon; and thereunto bestow most cost upon our arses, and much more than upon all the rest of our bodies,

It's in a description of England by one Mr William Harrison - part of Holinshed's Chronicles. What I like is the connection with clothes - which is the context it pops up in with Thurio ... killing two birds with one stone.

Do you also notice the 'polypus'? Now, searching high and low I eventually got a 'none-medical' connection ... the cuttlefish. What on earth is Proteus? Well a sea creature ...who changes shape in order not to be captured. I admit, I am stretching it a bit, but I can just hear this sort of conversation going on after the play - all very 'witty' all very 'intellectual' and schoolbookish.

We've also got the poor thing popping up in Lyly:

Love is a chameleon, which draweth nothing
into the mouth but air and nourisheth nothing in the body
but lungs.

(Endimion)

So linking in the theatrical hyperspace too.

Am I getting into tangled webs here? Most likely, but I get the impression that this is the way this play works ... sparks of ideas fly around and 'conceits' abound.

_________________
You don't have to agree with me!

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Protean Pre-echoes?

akfarrar — Sat, 10 May 2008 05:01:44 GMT

Author: akfarrar
Subject: Walnuts!
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 10:01 pm (GMT -7)

The woman, spaniel, the walnut tree,
The more you beat them, the better they be.

Stanley Wells digs this one up in his Shakespeare and Co. It's origins are 'folk wisdom' its particular form here, care of John Taylor, ferry-boat man - who was a published author.

It's the spaniel that gets me ... hyper-linking in Elizabethan England.

This particular case is after 'The Two Gentlemen of Verona' but I think it illustrates nicely both an attitude (one assumable as common, if not provocative, even in Elizabethan England) and a process - the interlinking of images and ideas across the 'hyper-space' of the Elizabethan mindset.

nux, asinus, mulier verbere opus habent
_________________
You don't have to agree with me!

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Protean Pre-echoes?

akfarrar — Sat, 10 May 2008 04:20:00 GMT

Author: akfarrar
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 9:20 pm (GMT -7)

I toyed with the idea of knowledge mapping and in the end decided against it - it suggests a degree of deliberation and pre-planning Shakespeare couldn't have put in. I am using 'Compendium' to map my activities with the Complete Works at the moment, and am very aware that it is a tool I can only use on Shakespeare with 'hindsight'.
What the 'mapping idea' does convey very nicely is the interconnectivity of the play - both backwards and forwards - if you put the Janus post together with this you'll see I think Shakespeare is linking and responding to the agenda of his time much more than any one of his own ...
_________________
You don't have to agree with me!

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: RE: Protean Pre-echoes?

sorensonian — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:40:56 GMT

Author: sorensonian
Subject: Re: Protean Pre-echoes?
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 10:40 am (GMT -7)

akfarrar wrote:

What is it that is going on here? Is Shakespeare just recycling a good idea � like the costumes and props of the Theatre Company? Or is it something else?

[snip]

What Shakespeare seems to be doing here is �hyper-texting� � downright naughty of him so early in the history of the internet. These links do precisely what the little under-linings in this blog do � make you leap across a world of experiences to a specific point.

However, if �The Two Gentlemen of Verona� is the first play, then this implies something very interesting: It is a foundation other plays build on. The other plays are referencing this play.

I�ll say it again � I enjoyed watching this play last week � I enjoyed it more than I�ve enjoyed a Hamlet in many a year. For me, at this time, this is better than Hamlet.

The fact that Shakespeare has deliberately linked to this play would suggest he had a degree of respect for it � and that the audience of his time would have seen enough performances to be able to make the connections. This is not saying the play is a prototype � something tried and discarded, but that is an active ingredient in the repertory.

I have noticed the same thing. Here's a paragraph from my IMDb user comment on the BBC version:

"And as for the story; yes, well, we all agree that it is not Shakespeare's best. Nor his second or third best, and so on. However, is it not a preliminary study to the rest of his works!? Two Gentlemen of Verona practically overflows with thematic references to a dozen or more of the later plays! To wit: We have four lovers running afoul of each other as in A Midsummer Night's Dream. We have a woman disguised as a man, as in several later plays (well, it was a common Elizabethan theme, and would have helped the boy actors to play female parts without having to act like women all the time). We have a band of forest outlaws, almost as the Arden Forest refugees in As You Like It. We have a Friar Laurence like in Romeo and Juliet, and Julia herself is surely an early version of Juliet. We have references to Milan, Mantua and Verona, all of which recur in later plays. I dare suggest that The Two Gentlemen of Verona is not so much a play as a list of ideas for Shakespeare's subsequent comedies, possibly even written down for the express purpose of serving as cues via the which he would remember what to put into his more mature plays years later. Shakespeare was no fluke; he knew what he was doing."

However, where you say that the other plays are referencing this play, as if they all pay homage to this play, I say instead that The Two Gentlemen of Verona was made as a mind-map for Shakespeare to remember which ideas he was going to put into his later plays. I believe Shakespeare had specific things to say, right from the start and up to The Tempest, and in order to remember the details, he put a good deal of them into this early play, so that he had them for future reference.

akfarrar wrote:

I enjoyed it more than I�ve enjoyed a Hamlet in many a year. For me, at this time, this is better than Hamlet.

Now, this is where your cookie starts to crumble...
_________________
My father is gone wild into his grave,
And with his spirit sadly I survive,
To mock the expectation of the world,
To frustrate prophecies and to raze out
Rotten opinion, who hath writ me down
After my seeming.
- 2 Henry IV, a5s2

Two Gentlemen of Verona :: Protean Pre-echoes?

akfarrar — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:32:09 GMT

Author: akfarrar
Subject: Protean Pre-echoes?
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:32 am (GMT -7)

(Been Blogging Again)

Look at this:

O, how this spring of love resembleth
The uncertain glory of an April day,
Which now shows all the beauty of the sun,
And by and by a cloud takes all away.
(I, 2)

And �compare� it to this, Summer�s Day:

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date;
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd,

(Sonnet 18 )

I bet you know the second, but the first?

Both Shakespeare, both written in his early career � one a sonnet, the other from The Two Gentlemen of Verona.

I�m reminded of what Brook said about how Shakespeare had a memory � and used everything that came his way. My only question is which came first � the play or the sonnet?

A couple more:

O, but I love his lady too too much,
And that's the reason I love him so little.
How shall I dote on her with more advice,
(II, 4)

And, Friar Laurence to Romeo:

And art thou chang'd? Pronounce this sentence then:
Women may fall, when there's no strength in men.
ROM.
Thou chidst me oft for loving Rosaline.
FRI. L.
For doting, not for loving, pupil mine.

(Romeo and Juliet, II, 3)

And �

Yet (Spaniel like) the more she spurnes my loue,
The more it growes, and fawneth on her still;
(IV, 2)

with -

And even for that do I love you the more;
I am your spaniel; and, Demetrius,
The more you beat me, I will fawn on you.
Use me but as your spaniel; spurn me, strike me,
Neglect me, lose me; only give me leave,
Unworthy as I am, to follow you.
What worser place can I beg in your love
(And yet a place of high respect with me)
Than to be used as you use your dog?

( A Midsummer Nights Dream, II, 1)

What is it that is going on here? Is Shakespeare just recycling a good idea � like the costumes and props of the Theatre Company? Or is it something else?

One thing I think worth mentioning at this point is that I �heard� these connections when watching the BBC production � they are not the product of reading the play closely or searching � although I have since �confirmed� by digging them out (and am in the process of a read through).

They are memorable images in terms of sound.

Shakespeare�s audience, much more tuned than I am to listening, must also have picked out connections � maybe not for the Sonnet, which circulated in writing privately, but for the other plays � and several other instances I could quote.

What Shakespeare seems to be doing here is �hyper-texting� � downright naughty of him so early in the history of the internet. These links do precisely what the little under-linings in this blog do � make you leap across a world of experiences to a specific point.

However, if �The Two Gentlemen of Verona� is the first play, then this implies something very interesting: It is a foundation other plays build on. The other plays are referencing this play.

Even if it isn�t the actual �first�, it is certainly early, so part of the foundations of the whole Shakespeare Experience.

This is recognized in the Oxford Shakespeare, where the play is printed first � and therein lies a problem: We read linear � first suggests earlier, suggests less mature, suggests less good.

I�ll say it again � I enjoyed watching this play last week � I enjoyed it more than I�ve enjoyed a Hamlet in many a year. For me, at this time, this is better than Hamlet.

Now, maybe I�m just stupid. And maybe not (chorus of assembled acolytes, �No, Enlightener of the World, never!�).

The fact that Shakespeare has deliberately linked to this play would suggest he had a degree of respect for it � and that the audience of his time would have seen enough performances to be able to make the connections. This is not saying the play is a prototype � something tried and discarded, but that is an active ingredient in the repertory.

Of course, strange things happen with hyperlinks � you can go back and change a text to add an extra reference or delete one (it�s called editing) � so, did Shakespeare � or anyone else, like Middleton � interfere with the text and add a link here, swap a link there?

Most likely: The text we have is from the first folio of 1623 � which Wells suggests is a snapshot of the version actually last performed. And that would suggest Shakespeare could and would have changed anything he didn�t like � and also that the other company members would have thrown in their three penny worth �
_________________
You don't have to agree with me!