awaiting a guide to victorian shakespeare.

I finished reading Macbeth yesterday, and while reading I tried to underline all the references to magic and spirits as I could so I could go back to the text later when I find some more solid research to refer back to. And along those lines of research, I'm actually having a much harder time that I had anticipated finding reference to magic, spiritualism, and ritualism in Victorian productions of Macbeth and The Tempest. I may not be looking in the right area, but I haven't given up yet. Also, I used this site that is linked from the HBLL website, but I found it very confusing. I don't know if anyone else has used the Chadwyck collections resource to find anything Shakespeare, but I had a really hard time navigating the site.
Anyway, as I mentioned previously, I wanted to read Macbeth, and I have, and I also wanted to reread The Tempest, which I will start today. After I have a basic understanding of these two texts, I will delve more deeply into the magic of these plays and how it was received among Victorian readers and audiences.
Also, if anyone knows of any resource that could point me in the right direction, I would be very grateful to you!
Oh, and something that is sort of on topic, but not entirely, is that I've been watching the PBS version of Macbeth with Patrick Stewart, and the emphasis on the magic is hardly there. Anyway, I thought that was interesting...

hermione as an ideal victorian woman.

I read up on a few Victorian appropriations of The Winter's Tale and I came across an essay explaining an 1851 production done in New York. There were several changes from Shakespeare's original text, but one of note is that the character of Hermione was changed to fit into the ideal woman of the Victorian era. Instead of the Hermione who was the tragic queen Shakespeare intended her to be, the actress Amelia Warner interpreted Hermione's character to be "chaste, subdued and natural," and not at all like the strong-spoken queen who valiantly defended herself, her honor, and her daughter. The essay further states that this 1851 Hermione demonstrated all the appropriate traits of an upper middle class woman: " she was 'playful, graceful, dignified, and majestic."
As for the trial scene, a review from the New York Albion dated 27 September, 1851 stated that

 [Mrs. Warner's] pathos is of the genuine stamp...the trial scene cannot be surpassed. Its exhibition of physical weakness and moral power, of injured innocence and gentlest submission to the hard decrees of fate was as near perfection as it well could be (Bartholomeusz, 101-2).

Not from the 1851 NY production of TWT ,
but a Hermione nonetheless from an
1887 production.

After reading both the trial scene in TWT and the essay "The Winter's Tale in New York," I searched for what exactly the ideals of womanhood were during the Victorian era. Obviously, Queen Victoria was the ultimate icon of what a woman should be, so for middle-class women, that oftentimes meant pretending to be richer than they actually were, in order to fulfill that standard of the ideal woman. But even beyond that, the Victorian woman was expected to be pious, pure, submissive, and the "master" of domesticity. These ideals were the same both in Britain and in America. I came across a quaint little poem written to further the cause of the perfect woman:

Her eye of light is the diamond bright,
Her innocence the pearl.
And these are ever the bridal gems
Worn by the American girl. 

I couldn't find the source of this poem, but it was very popular in the Victorian era, and continued to be until the feminist movement of the 20s.
So, to sum it all up, Amelia Warner's interpretation of Hermione fit quite nicely into the Victorian ideals of what a woman should be. I'm sure because of Mrs. Warner's role that this 1851 production of TWT had such favorable reviews, which I'm guessing were written by men, and they liked that this Hermione was submissive and  pure in her personality.

And, just for fun, here is a quiz from the BBC to see how familiar you are with the ideal Victorian woman.


Sources Cited. 

Bartholomeusz, Dennis. The Winter's Tale in Performance in England and America, 1611-1976. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire: Cambridge UP, 1982. Print.

https://wikis.nyu.edu/ek6/modernamerica/index.php/Reform/TheRoaring20s

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/victorian_britain/women_home/ideals_womanhood_01.shtml

pandosto, a victim of time.

Before I got into my previous post's questions, I wanted to read the source from which Shakespeare drew on for The Winter's Tale, that being Robert Greene's Pandosto. The Triumph of Time. I found it to be wonderful prose, as would make sense since Greene was very popular during his time of the late 1500s. But my post here will be on what I noticed from the original to the "remake," and make connections from that.

• First off, Bohemia, in Greene's text, is still a coastal country. The history of Bohemia suggests that it only was ever a coastal country for four years, during the reign of Ottokar II from 1269 to 1273 (Asimov, 157). Very interesting. I wonder if either Greene or Shakespeare thought about this, or if they were just going for the fantastical side of things by making Bohemia a coastal country in what appears to be a pre-Christian era, which is suggested by the oracle at Delphi, which was utilized before the time of Christ. Odd mesh of time periods, wouldn't you say?
• The characters of Greene's prose are: Pandosto, King of Bohemia; Bellaria, wife to Pandosto; Egistus, King of Sicilia; Franion, servant to Pandosto; Garinter, son of Bellaria and Pandosto; Fawnia, lost daughter of Pandosto and Bellaria; Porrus, adoptive father to Fawnia; Mopsa, wife to Porrus; Dorastus / Meleangrus, son of Egistus; Capnio, servant to Egistus. So, if you've read the Shakespearean version, you'll be able to notice that he swapped places of the unfortunate king from Greene's original.
• Bellaria and Egistus are indeed very friendly, but Bellaria is only showing him affection for the sake of her husband, Pandosto, who wishes for his wife and his best friend to get along. The two would often talk late in to the night, because the queen thought she was doing what her husband wanted her to do, but there was never any inappropriate conduct between the two. 
• Pandosto is more methodical than maniacal; he thinks over the consequences if he were to poison his bff, Egistus, as well as his wife, Bellaria.
• Franion is very conflicted about what Pandosto has asked of him. Either he can be a loyal servant and poison Egistus and Bellaria, or he can remain moral and tell Egistus about the plot against his life.  Franion, while contemplating, says, "Where eagles build, falcons may prey; where lions hunt, foxes may steal." So pretty much, no matter what he does, there will be conflict and problems.
• Franion is justifying that if he does go through with poisoning Egistus, that he shouldn't feel bad because he is doing it for the king, and the king will protect his actions. But he decides to flee with Egistus in the end.
• Because Egistus is no longer in court, Pandosto has no one else to take his anger out on other than his wife, Bellaria.
• The jailor is the one that informs the king that his queen is pregnant. 
• Pandosto's nobles ALL try to persuade him not to kill his wife and his newly-born daughter.
• Bellaria is the one that puts the chain that would later identify her daughter around her neck.
• The baby was sent out to the merciless sea to be laid in the hand of fortune, just as the king has ordered to be done. The seafarers felt pity for the baby, so they built a shelter on the boat so the babe would have some chance against the sea.
• It was the queen who had requested that the oracle be inquired of Bellaria's innocence. The oracle's reply was "Suspicion is no proof: Jealousy is an unequal judge: Bellaria is chaste: Egistus blameless: Franion a true subject: Pandosto treacherous: His babe and innocent, and the king shall live without an heir: if that which is lost be not found." This is nearly word for word what Shakespeare's oracle prophesied, except for the names of course.
• After this indictment was read, the king asked his noblemen to ask his wife fir forgiveness, and he confessed all his folly, then the report came that his son dies, and upon that report his wife fell and died.
• The king then thought of taking his own life, but his courtiers stayed with him to make sure he wouldn't go through with it, and to persuade him that it wouldn't be worth it.
• The epitaph that Pandosto had on his wife's grave read:  "Here lyes entombde Bellaria faire, falsly accused to be unchaste: Cleared by Apollos sacred doome, yet slaine by jealousie at last. What eve thou be that passest by, cursse him, that causde this queene to die."
• A shepherd from Sicilia found the baby. He considered taking the baby to the king so it could be raised in the upbringing it would have deserved, but he wanted to keep the gold and money, so to justify keeping the gold and riches, he decided to just take the baby home to his wife so they could raise it. When Porrus, the shepherd, brought the baby home, his wife was furious, thinking it was a bastard child her husband had made with another woman. Then Mopsa, his wife, decided it was a blessing because they were both poor and did not have the ability to have a child. 
• Sixteen years later, Dorastus, Egistus' son, is betrothed to Euphrania, the princess of Denmark. Dorastus talks about how he will never marry, and he and his father get in quite a tiff. 
• Dorastus meets Fawnia, much the same way they met in Shakespeare's version by flying his falcon nearby Fawnia's farm, then over the next several months, or weeks, or so, they get in to many arguments of why and why not they cannot love each other, let alone marry. Then after all this debate, they decide to hit the sails and flee to Italy. In this scenario, Capnio takes the place of Shakespeare's Autolycus in tricking Porrus to not request audience with the king. Capnio then tricks Porrus on to the same ship that Dorastus and Fawnia are setting sail on, then they all have a grumpy trip, and a tempest rages and sets them off course and they land at Sicilia. Dorastus knew that the king of Sicilia, Pandosto, was not in favor with his own father, and had heard Pandosto was an awful man. So Capnio convinces Dorastus to change his name, as well as Fawnia's birthplace. Dorastus is now Meleagrus and Fawnia is from Padua.
• After a short audience with Pandosto, he realizes who Meleagrus is, and sends him, along with the seafarers, to prison. He then tries to seduce Fawnia in becoming one of his concubines and tells her he would set Dorastus free if she agreed to be his concubine. She of course cannot be persuaded.
• Word was sent to Egistus that Pandosto was keeping his son in prison, so he leaves immediately to Sicilia to retrieve his son and to send Fawnia and Porrus to death for tainting his princely son.
• All is then revealed by Porrus, because he wanted to confess before being put to death so he could have a clear conscience, then everything is lovely and happy, and The Bohemians, with their new princess Fawnia, go back. Then word is sent that because of Pandosto's tormenting guilt, he kills himself. 

So, obviously, Greene's original text has much darker elements than Shakespeare's take on the famous tragic prose. It has been interesting to ponder on the differences and wonder why Shakespeare made the changes he did. It is well worth to read the sources that inspired Shakespeare, and to see the same level of craft Shakespeare must've seen in these texts...otherwise, why would he use them to create his own works?

the slaves of chance and flies of every wind that blows.

I have been reading The Winter's Tale this week, and I absolutely love it. I went in to this play not knowing anything about it, which, i think, aided my imagination and I was really able to get in to the minds and actions of the characters, as well as really visualize the setting of the different acts and scenes.

There are a few things I noticed right off that I wanted to pursue further, so I'll just list them off here, and get to them later, either in this post or another.

• First off, TWT was mentioned by Bevington as being the best example of Shakespeare's genre tragicomedy. After reading the whole play, I was able to see why it was named so: the first half was definitely tragic, while the second half was full of love and forgiveness. What's interesting is that the play was set up in a very stark contrast between the two emotions, rather than mixing the two, as is done very frequently in even Shakespeare's tragedies and comedies, they will mix all sorts of emotions without a very clear-cut scene for each emotion. Example, Hamlet; you get wit and comedy swirled in here and there even though the whole over-arching theme is very traumatic and disturbing.
• TWT boasts to have the most unique stage direction of any Shakespeare play, that being "Exit, pursued by a bear." This made me wonder how many productions of this play really did stage a live bear, as the Bevington intro indicates. That certainly would cause a scene.
• TWT has a significant amount of prose, more so than any other Shakespeare play I've read, other than The Tempest, which I wonder, and know, there has to be some reason Shakespeare turned toward the more natural speech of man during his last years. 
• TWT is obviously set in a pre-Christian world. The play is very consistent in referring to the Roman gods that were so highly favoured, as well as the oracle at Delphi. However, I did notice one reference of a chapel in act 3, scene 2. In my mind, chapel refers to Christianity, so I'm very curious...was this word ever used in describing temples of the Roman gods? Or did Shakespeare use chapel because he knew his audience would be more familiar with that term? I could just be fixating on a small detail, but it did made me wonder enough to note it here.
• There is a fair deal of mentioning the improbability of such stories as TWT within the play. It's almost like Shakespeare is making a commentary of the silliness of fantastical tales that he himself is so expert at weaving. 
• In act 4, scene 4 there is a reference to BOWLING! I was curious about how the game has changed since Shakespeare's time.
• And finally, Queen Hermione...why did Shakespeare fool the audience in to thinking she had died? Or did she really die and Paulina was a sorceress who brought the statue of Hermione to life at the end of the play so she could offer a blessing to her daughter and forgive her husband Leontes? Either way, Bevington, once again, was right in saying that Shakespeare used "a kind of trickery found in no other Shakespearean play." 

Hopefully, during this three-day weekend, I can address most of these questions I have brought up to myself.

musings on lear.

My mom has always mentioned to me how much she loves King Lear, so after reading the play, thinking about it, and watching a film adaptation on it, I wanted to get her interpretations of Lear. So here is a brief interview!

King Lear is a pretty heavy text. Do you have any suggestions for first time readers?

Yeah, I think the best suggestion is to have children and enter your senior years. It’s amazing how much more that life experience in those particular areas affects your reading of the play, and you have much greater sympathy with him as a character and with the situations that he’s finding himself in and with this progressive decent into an apparent madness. But you start to wonder if really the world around him is mad.

So when was the first time you read King Lear?

I think the very first time I tried to read it was after I did a production of Macbeth under the direction of my fifth grade teacher and I pulled out a large volume of the complete works of William Shakespeare that we had somewhere in the house and tried to go straight through it and remembered feeling totally lost, that somehow this was like the Bible; it was one of those things that you had to read, so I tried to plow through it but it didn’t mean much. And then I read it as an undergraduate, then as a graduate. I had a class in San Diego and had a teacher who was very big on formalist criticism and we read it very thoroughly, and by that time I had children and life experience, so it was a very different kind of thing that when I had read it as an undergraduate, young student.

So what were the different impressions you had reading it as an undergrad as opposed to when you were a little bit older, reading it as a grad student? What did you take differently from the text?

I think as an undergrad it was rather confusing to me to keep things straight, or to understand this idea of appearances, and the metaphor of the clothing and the nakedness, and it just all seemed like a contrived thing that this man was getting worked up over nothing, I guess there wasn’t the pathos in it that I felt when I read it as an older adult, and when I read it and really went through some of the major themes, I was much more sympathetic to Lear as a character, and that his motivations for doing things, even when they are not completely understood, but at least the outward symptoms of what would seem to be his motivations, started having much more relevance and meaning for me.

What do you think are the basic themes of Lear?

Well, you know it’s easy with Shakespeare to just say the same trite things of parental relationships, or growing old, or loss of control and power, or feeling like your losing those, but those are really so many of the things of our lives. And so they take on layered nuances, you know to see children quarreling about things, which every parent hates to see their children contending for things or resenting each other, that’s just very hurtful as a parent. And then also for someone with that kind of power, it doesn’t matter whatever your little domain is, whether it is around your home, or at work, or relationships with other people, that it’s very threatening to a person’s identity to start sensing power shifts and that somehow you’re being dismissed; that your role, your identity are being challenged. So that was something that really touched me, but also this idea of someone who had been a well-respected, and again a powerful individual, but the appearance or manifesting the appearance of things going out of control, and so manifesting, or exhibiting some of these characteristics are being interpreted by others simply as madness, but to know that there is so much else going on. And the relationship with the fool, that sometimes that inner voice that’s trying to get you to behave, or act, or perceive something a certain way, really is soul-stirring, is troubling, is just so very poignant with Lear that it kind of brings together this idea of family, of growing old, of personal hurt, and not quite knowing how to deal with change.

Do you think that Lear is one of the more relatable plays of Shakespeare? That people can take it into their own lives and relate it to their own experiences?

I think if they choose to. If you have any desire to sympathize with Lear and you don’t just put it off as something too grand, too big, but you find that common element that you might relate to. I think it is difficult because there are so many layers, the metaphors are this range from very complex to kind of simple, overt, but I think that it is definitely one that’s worth exploring, and when people get afraid of taking it on, I think it’s because they’ve had some preconceived notion of it being difficult. I actually loved the fact that I had this teacher who was very much formalist take us through it because seeing those pieces and then stepping back away from that into my own life experience made it one of the most richly rewarding, and if I can say, without being trite, easily understood because it does reflect so many of those things that have become part of my life.

I, like you, was very sympathetic to Lear, although I don’t have children yet, but do you think that there are those who read in to the play being unsympathetic to Lear, and just see him as a mad man? And if so, why would they take that sort of view?

Sure, because he’s not exactly likeable. I mean, you get a sense that his history has been one that has been full of a power struggle, this ascent, that the people around him are responding to. So through their response you kind of get a sense of a man who was probably not easily likeable, and I think that’s entirely believable. That he’s not this person that you want to identify with, because in many ways he doesn’t drive you to be want to be nobler or greater, but I think that’s the very thing that being able to get over that and get some insight. It’s interesting that reading this book, “What the Dog Saw” by Malcom Gladwell, to consider  that things are not just puzzles to be solved; there’s not just one bit of information that you need when you’re studying a Shakespearean play, they are mysteries, there are so many levels and layers, and if you look at them just as puzzles, well, yes, Lear does things that I don’t like, that I really can’t be sympathetic with, but it goes back to those broader, maybe even universal themes, that if you’re willing to take that chance, or give the play a chance, you may not find many things about Lear that you like, but there certainly may be things that you identify with.

Have you read any other version of King Lear?

I have read Faerie Queen, but it’s been a long time. I actually read it the same semester that I was reading Lear, and it’s been long enough that I don’t actually recall anything like that. But the Lear story shows up in all kinds of ways. In fact I do remember reading Death of a Salesman, and talking about the sons and this salesman as being someone that you kind of want to be sympathetic with, but again you see that are you just being sympathetic because you start identifying with him. And yeah, the sons had been done wrong, but I’m trying to think of anything else specifically. The Lear idea does come to mind a lot, when you see how other artists have incorporated that idea of filial contention, or growing old, or even when films show patients, even now Alzheimer’s patients, or those descending into madness, I think they’re all drawing on a Learesque theme or character.

I even thought about Pearl S. Buck’s The Good Earth.

Yeah, and you know a lot of fairy tales and things, this idea of the child wanting the throne, or the sons being sent out on their own, and how they respond to that. So I think that any time you see that you kind of wonder how much of that is within this collective imagination.

Good. Anything else you would like to add?

Yeah, Lear, the whole play to me, seems very gray. If you were to ask for a metaphor, and I’ve been, in my work, trying to come up with an identifiable metaphor in working with an exhibition on a work of art or something, I’m trying to think if I were to do something with Lear, it’s just everything about it is gray, from the color of the skin, from the interaction, from the gray hair, from the stripping of the clothes,  and a kind of a sallow body, to a gray, lifeless court relationship and family relationship, and it’s interesting to think about that. And yet I have always loved gray, windy days, and so, for me, there’s a bit of romanticism, I guess, in that. But there’s also something that’s very powerful, that’s not just black or white, its somewhere in the middle.