Christopher Harding has a PhD in English Literature and Language from Harvard University. His doctoral thesis was on "The Influence of Renaissance Drama on the Novels of Sir Walter Scott." Besides teaching at Harvard, Boston College, Tufts and UMass/Boston, he taught "Shakespeare Comes to the Slammer" for over 10 years at the Suffolk County House of Correction. He has performed in productions of Shakespeare's "Taming of the Shrew," "Troilus and Cressida" and "Twelfth Night." He has been teaching Shakespeare appreciation courses at UMass since 2006.
US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg speaks at an annual Women's History Month reception hosted by
Nancy Pelosi in the US Capitol building on Capitol Hill in Washington,
DC.Allison Shelley/Getty Images
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers," says the judge in the famous courtroom scene in The Merchant of Venice, William Shakespeare’s play about a Venetian Jewish moneylender.
They also sound like words that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would love to utter. She will be playing the role of the judge this summer in a production of The Merchant of Venice, marking the 500th anniversary of the Jewish ghetto in Venice.
The Merchant of Venice chronicles the persecution of a Jewish
moneylender who demands payment on a defaulted loan from his Christian
patron. Shylock is taken to trial, and the play concludes with him
converting to Christianity. It’s a fitting story for the celebration of
the Jewish ghetto, and for Ginsburg, whose Jewish identity plays a prominent role in her life outside the court.
But Ginsburg is no Shakespeare novice. She recently told Politico of her many onstage appearances in Shakespeare plays, most prominently as Dick the Butcher in Henry VI.
"I had Dick the butcher’s part, with the famous line, ‘First thing we
do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’ And then I asked if I could ad-lib an
addition, I checked this out in advance, and the addition was, ‘and next
the reporters,’" she said, chuckling.
Her love for opera recently gained attention after the death of her
close friend, Justice Antonin Scalia, with whom she frequented opera
performances. Last summer, a cast even performed a one-act opera about
the two justices, Scalia/Ginsburg, at a festival in Virginia.
As the title of this play suggests, there’s a lot of fuss over
nothing! Claudio and Hero fall in love and plan to get married, but the
villainous Don John slanders Hero with false evidence. The wedding is
ruined and Hero faints. Her family soon suspect slander and decide to
pretend that Hero died from shock. Don John’s evil plan is soon revealed
and Claudio mourns Hero’s death. Eventually, Hero is revealed to be
alive and the marriage goes ahead as planned. In the play’s closing
moments, it is reported that Don John has been captured for his crime.
Scene by Scene Breakdown:
Act 1
Scene 1:
Don Pedro, the Prince of Aragon, returns triumphant from battle and
seeks refuge in Messina. Leonato, the Governor of Messina, welcomes
Pedro and his soldiers with open arms, and the sudden influx of men into
the town soon stirs up some romance. Claudio instantly falls in love
with Hero, and Beatrice is reunited with her old flame, Benedick – the
man she loves to hate.
Scene 2: Leonato is busily preparing a great supper to
welcome the war heroes to Messina when his brother brings him news:
Antonio explains that he overheard Claudio confessing his love for Hero.
Scene 3:
The villainous Don John has also learned of Claudio’s love for Hero and
vows to thwart their happiness. Don John is the “bastard” brother of
Don Pedro – and he wants revenge for being defeated in battle.
Act 2
Scene 1:
After supper, Leonato invites his guests to a great masked ball where
Beatrice and Benedick continue to provide some light comedy – although
they love each other, they can’t stop mocking each other long enough to
admit it. Leonato gives permission for his daughter to marry Claudio in
seven days time. Don Pedro and Hero decide to play cupid and plan to
finally get Beatrice and Benedick to declare their love for each other.
Scene 2:
Hearing that they only have one week to ruin the wedding, Don John and
his henchmen soon devise a plan – they intend to trick Claudio with
false evidence into thinking that Hero has been unfaithful to him the
night before their wedding.
Scene 3: Meanwhile, Don Pedro
tricks Benedick into thinking that Beatrice is head-over-heals in love
with him, but dare not admit it in case Benedick mocks her. Benedick,
who overhears this staged conversation, is completely fooled and starts
musing on his love for Beatrice.
Act 3
Scene 1:
Hero keeps her end of the bargain and manages to fool Beatrice into
thinking that Benedick loves her, but dare not admit it to her. She,
too, overhears Hero’s staged conversation and starts musing on her love
for Benedick.
Scene 2: It is the night before the wedding
and Don John prepares to execute his plan. He finds Claudio and tells
him of Hero’s impurity. At first disbelieving, Claudio eventually agrees
to go with Don John and see for himself.
Scene 3:
Dogberry, a bumbling constable, instructs his watchmen to be extra
vigilant because of the important wedding in the morning. The watchmen
later overhear Don John’s henchmen drunkenly bragging about how they
successfully tricked Claudio – they are promptly arrested.
Scene 4: It is the morning of the wedding and Hero is nervously preparing before the wedding party arrive and take her to church.
Scene 5:
Leonato is hastily making his way to the wedding, when he is stopped by
Dogberry. Dogberry is a bumbling idiot and fails to communicate what
his watch have discovered. Frustrated, Leonato tells him to interview
the suspects and speak to him after the wedding ceremony.
Act 4
Scene 1:
Claudio publicly reveals Hero’s infidelity halfway through the marriage
ceremony. Hero is stunned by the accusation and soon faints in the
chaos that follows. Once the wedding party disbands, the Friar becomes
suspicious and convinces Leonato, Beatrice and Benedick to pretend that
Hero died from shock until they discover who has slandered her –
Benedick immediately suspects Don John. Left alone, Beatrice and
Benedick finally declare their love for each other. Beatrice asks
Benedick to kill Claudio to avenge the shame he has brought on her
family.
Scene 2: The trail of Don John’s henchmen happens
after the wedding – too late to save the day. By now, the whole town
thinks that Hero has died and they go to inform Leonato that his
daughter died in vain.
Act 5
Scene 1: People are
beginning to turn against Claudio; both Leonato and Benedick accuse him
of wronging Hero, and then Dogberry reveals Don John’s henchmen. Claudio
realizes that he was tricked by Don John and tries to apologize to
Leonato. Leonato is surprisingly forgiving (because he knows that his
daughter didn’t actually die). He says that he will forgive Claudio if
he marries his cousin the following day
. Scene 2: Beatrice
and Benedick still can’t stop insulting each other. They soon talk
themselves out of having ever admitted love for one another at all
Scene 3: By night, Claudio visits Hero’s tomb to mourn and hangs an epitaph – as Leonato requested. Scene 4:
At the wedding, Claudio is amazed when Hero is revealed to be alive and
as virtuous as ever. Benedick and Beatrice finally admit their love for
each other in public. Moments before the celebrations begins, a
messenger arrives and reports that Don John has been captured.
Shakespeare's skull probably stolen by grave robbers, study finds
Radar scan of Bard’s grave for Channel 4 documentary shows his head appears to be missing – but it puts other myths to bed
Inscription on Shakespeare’s grave at Holy Trinity church in Stratford-on-Avon.
Photograph: Production Company/Channel 4
A story often dismissed as wild fiction, that 18th-century grave
robbers stole Shakespeare’s skull, appears to be true, archaeologists
have said.
The first archaeological investigation of Shakespeare’s grave at Holy Trinity church in Stratford-on-Avon has been carried out for a documentary to be broadcast by Channel 4 on Saturday.
The most striking conclusion is that Shakespeare’s head appears to be
missing and that the skull was probably stolen from what is a shallow
grave by trophy hunters.
Kevin Colls, the archaeologist who led the team, said the grave was
not as they had expected. “We came across this very odd, strange thing
at the head end. It was very obvious, within all the data we were
getting, that there was something different going on at that particular
spot. We have concluded it is signs of disturbance, of material being
dug out and put back again.”
Archaeologists conducting the survey of William Shakespeare’s grave at
Holy Trinity church. Photograph: Production Company/Arrow Media/Channel 4
There is also “a very strange brick structure” that cuts across the head end of the grave, he said.
All
of that gives credence, Colls said, to a story published in the Argosy
magazine in 1879 that Shakespeare’s skull was stolen from Holy Trinity
in 1794.
“Grave-robbing was a big thing in the 17th and 18th century,” said
Colls. “People wanted the skull of famous people so they could
potentially analyse it and see what made them a genius. It is no
surprise to me that Shakespeare’s remains were a target.”
Shakespeare’s grave is visited by hundreds of visitors each year, a number that may increase in 2016 – the 400th anniversary of his death.
It carries no name, only a slightly disturbing warning: “Good
friend, for Jesus’ sake forbear, / To dig the dust enclosed here. /
Blessed be the man that spares these stones, / And cursed be he that
moves my bones.”
The archaeological team used non-invasive ground-penetrating radar
(GPR) to examine the grave and were able to put to bed a few myths about
Shakespeare’s burial.
GPR image showing rectangular feature at the head end of the grave, with
apparent brick repair outlined in red. Photograph: Production
Company/Arrow Media/Channel 4
For example, one story suggests he was buried standing up, as his friend and fellow writer Ben Jonson is in Westminster Abbey. Another claims that he was buried 17ft deep to avoid being disturbed, while one says he was buried in a family tomb.
None of those stories are true, the team has concluded. Instead he is
buried about 3ft deep and had been wrapped simply in a shroud rather
than placed in a coffin.
Their conviction that Shakespeare’s skull was stolen led the team to
investigate another story – that the real skull is in fact 15 miles away
in the crypt of St Leonard’s church in the village of Beoley,
Worcestershire.
The team scanned the skull and carried out a forensic anthropological
analysis and the results revealed it could not be Shakespeare. “It was
an unknown woman in her 70s,” said Colls, whose team even did a facial
reconstruction to hammer the point home.
Colls said he is convinced Shakespeare’s skull was removed from his
grave but accepts the evidence is not conclusive. However, the vicar of
Holy Trinity, the Rev Patrick Taylor, is not so certain.
“We now know much more about how Shakespeare was buried and the
structure that lies underneath his ledger stone,” he said. “We are not
convinced, however, that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that
his skull has been taken.
“We intend to continue to respect the sanctity of his grave, in
accordance with Shakespeare’s wishes, and not allow it to be disturbed.
We shall have to live with the mystery of not knowing fully what lies
beneath the stone.” • Secret History: Shakespeare’s Tomb is on 26 March 8pm on Chan
Shakespeare's skull: New chapter in hunt for missing head
By Rebecca WoodsBroadcast Journalist BBC News Online
27 March 2016
It's a mystery that
has gripped historians and Shakespeare experts for generations - and
one archaeologists believe they could have finally found an answer to.
After a hi-tech investigation concluded the legendary playwright's skull was probably taken by trophy hunters more than 200 years ago, which direction should the search for his missing bones now take?
As a Channel 4 documentary
reveals his Stratford resting place has been disturbed at the head end,
and proves a mystery skull thought to be his is actually that of a
woman, new theories about what happened to Shakespeare's head are
beginning to emerge.
Here, experts and enthusiasts give their
opinions on where the hunt for the elusive part of his skeleton should
go - or, as we approach the 400th anniversary of his death, whether it
is finally time to let him rest in peace. y
'It's not quite back to square one - but we need to look at the legends of other churches to see if they hold the key'
Kevin Colls
is the Staffordshire University archaeologist who led the investigation
into Shakespeare's grave at Holy Trinity Church, Stratford.
He
firmly believes the findings of a disturbance of, and repair to, the
tomb are too similar to the trophy-hunting allegations printed in 1879
to dismiss them - and plans to keep looking for the skull.
"Our
research will continue - we're going to try and do as much as we can to
locate it," he said. "Because we had two possible locations - Holy
Trinity and St Leonard's in Beoley - and we've ruled out those, we now
need to look through documents again to help us find where it could be.
"It's
not quite back to square one. We need to look at the myths and legends
surrounding other churches in Stratford and the West Midlands to see if
any of those could hold the key.
"It
is of course possible that the skull was removed before the burial, and
what our research has done is open a whole can of worms.
"But
the fact is that our findings correlate so well with the documented
theft in 1879 - particularly the reference to the grave being shallow.
If it was going to be made up, the story would be entirely different.
"The evidence of disturbance to the grave and repair to the chancel floor leads us to this conclusion."
'It's possible the skull was removed by a relative and reburied'
Chris Laoutaris, of the University of Birmingham's Shakespeare Institute, is a Renaissance burial customs expert
- and wonders whether a loved one is responsible for the disappearance
of the playwright's skull, which he thinks could lie in a relative's
tomb.
"Of course, it's possible that his head was looted in 1794,
as the Argosy Magazine had claimed somewhat controversially in 1879," he
said.
"But then another question occurred to me: what if
Shakespeare's skull was disinterred not long after his burial and
reburied with another family member or loved one?
"In an age in
which high mortality rates meant that death was a far more vivid and
ever-present reality than today, reacquainting oneself with the relics
of the dearly departed in this manner may have seemed less strange, and
was not in fact unheard of.
"The most well known example is that
of Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor under Henry VIII and England's
greatest humanist scholar, whose head was believed to have been lovingly
preserved after his execution in 1534 by his devoted daughter Margaret
More Roper.
"In 1978 archaeologists opened the Roper family
burial vault in the Church of St Dunstan in Canterbury and discovered a
mysterious niche behind which were remnants of a skull, almost certainly
belonging to More.
"Could the mystery of Shakespeare's own skull,
if indeed it is missing from his grave, owe something to a loved one's
desire to be reunited with him in death? Perhaps we will never know.
"The
other significant area that the archaeological investigations may shed
some light on is the religious underpinnings of Shakespeare's burial.
There is much controversy surrounding the possibility that Shakespeare
may have been a crypto-Catholic.
"The recent archaeological
investigation indicates that he was not buried in a coffin but was
instead wrapped in a simple burial shroud. The plainness of the
interment, without elaborate ritual trappings, suggests that this was a
burial in keeping with Protestant custom.
"There is something
touching about the simplicity of his burial which still speaks to us
across the centuries, reminding us of the humanity of the man behind the
legend."
'All we want to know is - who does our mystery skull belong to?'
re. Detailed
archaeological investigations have now disproved that theory, finally
determining the skull belongs to a unknown woman in her 70s.
"It
would have been really, really nice, to have a link with Shakespeare
and it is unfortunate that we don't - but we still have an intriguing
mystery about who the Beoley skull belongs to," said Mr Clark.
"The
bone sits alone in a room inside the vault and will remain there until
somebody wants to try and obtain permission for further testing to
determine who it belongs to.
"We've discovered that the story of
the removal of his skull and reburial at St Leonard's is rubbish - so
what I'm interested in now is who does our skull belong to?
"We'd love to find out, but we haven't got the money.
"I'm
a Shakespeare enthusiast myself, and obviously there's always going to
interest in historic mysteries and getting to the truth.
"But I wouldn't want to violate his wishes."
'It's time to let Shakespeare rest in peace'
IJohn Hogg, who has run Stratford
Town Walk with his wife Helen since 2002, said the discovery was
"fascinating" for them both and for the 15 guides with whom they work.
But
while he's delighted the archaeological probe has put the global
spotlight on to Stratford, he believes the search for the truth should
end here.
"We don't know for certain that the skull is missing - it's important to remember that," said 71-year-old Mr Hogg.
"It is my personal feeling that he should be left alone now.
"He's laid there for 400 years. It's time to allow the mystery to remain just that."
a Scholars can’t agree about what exactly is meant by the proverb “old maids leading apes in hell.” Some
say it gained popularity as a Protestant attack on the Catholic Church
insistence that the unmarried refrain for sexual activity.
The following scholarly comments ( which often blatantly
contradict one another) gives us a glimpse of what Shakespearean nitpicking is
like.
Said to be the fate of women who die old maids, an
afterlife punishment for their failure to go forth and multiply. As far as I can tell,
the exact origins of the saying are unknown, though the first usage listed by
the OED dates to the 16th
century. Readers may have encountered the phrase before in the works of William Shakespeare. Both The Taming of the Shrew and Much Ado About Nothing make reference to
leading apes into hell
(not surprising given the subject matter of those plays).
H.W. Jansen suggests a somewhat different meaning for the phrase in his Apes
and Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. According to Jansen,
leading apes into hell is not a punishment for old maids; it is a description
of the dire consequences of female celibacy. By
the time of the Renaissance, the ape was already well-established as a
symbol for fornication. Women, by refusing to marry, forced men to
seek sex outside of the marriage union, thus making them fornicators
or apes. What the saying suggests is that old maids lead otherwise good men to sin, placing their
immortal souls in jeopardy. Thus, a woman who does not marry leads apes into
hell. ___________________________ Q What are we meant to understand by the phrase
“Leading apes in hell” ?
MW
A Very few people seem to know that “lead” in Tudor
English means to have sexual intercourse. The proverb means that women who take
no part in the sexual activity of society for whatever reason will be punished
by being served by apes in hell. This is not a punishment for chastity (a
faithful spouse is chaste) but for failing to spread joy in the world by
healthy activity.
When Shakespeare mentions “leading apes into hell”, he is being allusive, as
he so often is when the real matter is coarse. His audience would have
recognised the allusion immediately. There is also a madrigal verse about
Messalina, going up and down the house very upset because her monkey lies
a-dying. “O Death thou art too cruel to take her only jewel”, and “If her
monkey die, she shall sit and cry“ Fie, fie, fie fie!”.
The Elizabethan audience would immediately have understood going “up and down”,
the loss of her only jewel, and the orgasmic cries of “fie” as being a classic
tudor dirty joke. Her pet ape is dying because she has deprived him of the
opportunity of serving her in hell by the time-honoured method.
Benjamin Britten failed to realise this
when he set this verse very piously in Our Hunting Fathers. The words
for this cycle were chosen by WH Auden, who could certainly recognise a sexual
allusion when he saw it. James Bowman tells me that he thinks that Auden did
tell Britten, but that Britten simply thought he was being disgusting and
ignored the advice.
Not the first time that a dirty joke has got past in a more innocent age
.
Among
other wedding customs alluded to by Shakespeare we may mention one referred to
in "Taming of the Shrew" (ii. 1), where Katharine, speaking of
Bianca, says to her father—
"She
is your treasure, she must have a husband:
I must dance bare-foot on the wedding-day,
And, for your love to her, lead apes in hell,"
it
being a popular notion that unless the elder sisters danced barefoot at the
marriage of a younger one, they would inevitably become old maids, and be
condemned "to lead apes in hell."
The expression "to lead apes
in hell," applied above to old maids, has given rise to much discussion,
and the phrase has not yet been satisfactorily explained. Steevens suggests
that it might be considered an act of posthumous retribution for women who
refused to bear children, to be condemned to the care of apes in leading
strings after death.
Malone says that "to lead apes" was in
Shakespeare's time one of the employments of a bear-ward, who often carried
about one of these animals with his bear." Nares explains the expression
by reference to the word ape as denoting a fool, it probably meaning that those
coquettes who made fools of men, and led them about without real intention of
marriage, would have them still to lead against their will hereafter.
In
"Much Ado about Nothing" (ii. 1), Beatrice says, "Therefore I
will even take sixpence in earnest of the bear-ward, and lead his apes into
hell." Douce 1 tells us that
homicides and adulterers were in ancient times compelled, by way of punishment,
to lead an ape by the neck, with their mouths affixed in a very unseemly manner
to the animal's tail.
Much Ado About Nothing Performed by the MIT Shakespeare Ensemble Directed by Damon Krometis Runs March 17, 19 at 8 p.m. and March 13 at 4 p.m. Tickets can be reserved online. MIT, Harvard, and Wellesley students: $5 Other students and MIT Community: $9 General admission: $12
Taking a theatrical journey to Messina, the traditional setting of Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing,
was exactly what I needed by the end of this past week. It turned out
to be a rather unexpected kind of Messina — a gaming lounge rather than a
small Italian town. But hey, “all the world’s a stage,” and the
Shakespeare Ensemble does a fantastic job of adapting one of the Bard’s
most beloved comedies to ours.
The story to unfold is one of youthful love and
camaraderie and the power of hearsay, rumor, and aspersions cast
against honor. Young Claudio (Raine K. Hasskew ’17), enamored of the
fair Hero (Lillian McKinley ’15), enlists Pedro (Peter A. Duerst ’18),
his popular (gaming wizard) friend, to help him woo the daughter of
Leonato (Robert A. Thorpe II, ’18). Pedro’s brother, John (Victor F.
Gutierrez ’17), has other ideas and hatches a plot to break the two
apart.
Another pair, Benedick (Colin C. Aitken ’17) and Beatrice (Amelia
M. Smith ’17), play out a duel of wits and scorn. Their friends try to
make something out of nothing, and hence, bring the unlikely couple
together.
The level of acting was impressive across the board. As I have found in most productions of Much Ado About Nothing,
Beatrice and Benedick steal the stage with their witty repartees and
exaggerated displays of contempt for each other. Aitken, a lanky
Cumberbatch-like figure, was a master of facial contortion and body
language. When alone on stage, he was skilled at filling the space with
his presence and engaging the audience.
Smith, as Beatrice, is a worthy
adversary whose tongue un-trippingly rolls out Shakespeare’s best
comebacks and yet, she girlishly succumbs to the calls of love — a juicy
contradiction. Rather than being a leader by title, as in the original
play, Pedro garners his support organically, partly through his gaming
prowess, but also by the clear strength of spirit and loyalty that is
conveyed so well by Duerst. Claudio and Hero are the picture of teenage
passion, and you can imagine what that means. Leonato, Hero’s father,
expertly projects both his lines and the cutting pain and betrayal he
feels.
The staging of the production, barring minor
technical difficulties, was well executed and demonstrated a creative
use of space. The actors played their parts in front of a backdrop of
computer monitors mounted in the rear, which alternately showed scenes
from video games and Skype calls that were happening between characters.
In interludes between dialogues, as a manner of exposition, or to show a
character’s pent-up frustration, the actors would take on the identity
of their gaming world counterparts: a whip-bearing maiden, a wizard, a
king. Not only were these interludes amusing, but they provided
breathing room between scenes. This style of engagement also served as a
brilliant substitute for the masked ball in the original play, during
which the wooing of Hero takes place. And when you consider it, what are
these virtual gaming characters if not masks?
This production seemed like it was trying to
raise some interesting questions about the nature of communication and
rumor in our digital world but does so only obliquely, partly because it
opts instead to remain faithful to the original script. There are some
aspects that are rather strange in this gamer’s lounge but not
implausible, like Hero’s father playing video games alongside her and
hanging around the lounge all day.
Several times during the play, I had the
flickering thought, “Wow, these are MIT students?” and the thought was
not related to the caliber of their performance, which was high, but to
the fact that I was so immersed in the experience, it seemed strange to
imagine them in any other context. It is sure to lift your spirits and
warm your heart. But in the words of Claudio, “Let every eye negotiate
for itself, and trust no agent,” so don’t trust my word for it, go see
it for yourself!
Why there's still much ado about Shakespeare, 450 years later (+video)
Latest News
Los Angeles — It’s Shakespeare’s birthday – the big four-five-o; First, shall we sing praises in iambic? Then, let us talk to people in the know, And publish what they say, to seem more chic.
Fans
and scholars around the world are holding a week-long celebration of
the Bard’s birth, which was purportedly 450 years ago as of sometime
this week. The milestone has brought on an explosion of creative
celebrations around the globe. And it’s presented literati with a fresh
opportunity to chime in on the question: Why is William Shakespeare
still important today?
Some have gone so far as to tease their
thoughts into the quintessential form of iambic pentameter. Writes Manon
Spadaro, founding director of the nonprofit Chicago Youth Shakespeare:
Addressing life’s big questions old and new, The Bard leaves judgment out and doesn’t preach. Through characters that share their point of view We learn the cherished lessons that they teach.
On Wednesday the Globe Theatre,
Shakespeare’s home stage in London, launched yet another production of
“Hamlet,” and it plans to tour the play across the globe over the next
two years. Also on Wednesday, the Shakespeare Festival St. Louis opened
Shake 38, a five-day festival in which 38 Shakespeare plays will be
performed.
The week of celebration could be just a prologue to
what’s shaping up to be a global orgy in 2016, when Britain plans to
honor the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death with a year-long
party. Tourism officials hope the national festivities rival the 2012
Olympic Games in sheer scale.
Shakespeare is so much a part of our
culture today, and his influence so widespread, that even those who do
not read his works are touched by his talent in the very language we
use, “which still bears the marks of his genius,” points out James
Bednarz, an English professor at Long Island University in New York.
His
works – the 38 plays (although scholars still debate the final count),
as well as 154 sonnets – have been translated into more than 80
languages. They’re included in the curriculums of more than 65 percent
of the planet’s schools, reaching some 64 million schoolchildren
globally.
Theater audiences know that Shakespeare is worth
encountering. Each year in America, his works are produced at a rate
easily triple the one for any other playwright, according to American
Theatre magazine.
Curtain Call in Stamford, Conn., is one of the
small US ensembles producing a Shakespeare work this year. The troupe
will mount “Twelfth Night” in a town park this summer.
“Shakespeare
is not really meant to be read,” sonnets aside, says Lou Ursone,
Curtain Call’s executive director. “The plays were written for a mass
audience, and they were done on the fly and were meant to entertain –
not to become somber literature to be studied and forced down students’
throats.”
To answer the question of why Shakespeare is important
today, it helps to realize this was not always so, says Maggie Vinter,
an assistant professor of English at Case Western Reserve University in
Cleveland.
Many of the earliest references that Shakespeare’s
contemporaries made to his work were negative, she says. “People like
Robert Greene and Ben Jonson claimed that he stole from others, that he
wrote too fast and that his plots were ridiculous,” she adds via e-mail.
The
cult of the Bard as it exists today took off in the 18th century,
Professor Vinter notes, as much to help promote the careers of famous
actors as for the virtues of his work.
“So, there are good reasons to be suspicious of the claim that Shakespeare is ageless,” she says.
American
pioneers traveled in covered wagons with only two books, the Bible and
collected works by Shakespeare. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Shakespeare
must be singled out by one who wishes to learn the full powers of the
English language."
Love him or hate him, Shakespeare is now
inescapable. Understanding Shakespeare enriches the lives of some and
oppresses the experience of others – but knowing his work is essential
in the way that knowing the Bible is, says Richard Finkelstein, dean of
the College of Arts and Sciences at University of Mary Washington in
Fredericksburg, Va.
“Politicians, artists, military men and women,
captains of industry, all borrow words from these texts to make
arguments that further their causes,” he says via e-mail.
Shakespeare
was the first “psychiatrist,” says Carole Lieberman, herself a
psychiatrist in Beverly Hills, Calif. She adds via e-mail, “His plays
still reverberate with psychological conundrums that people experience
today – from unrequited love to betrayal to suicide.”
Indeed,
Shakespeare’s power lies in his psychological insight into human nature,
says Peter Sander, a professor of drama and dance at Hofstra University
in Hempstead, N.Y.
“Shall I compare thee to a modern playwright?” writes Professor Sander, echoing the iconic Sonnet 18. N.Y. He continues:
Thou hast more pertinence and much more scope, Beckett, Pinter, Shaw may shed some daylight Upon benighted states through which we grope, But they can’t hold a candle to your skill, In turning eyes into our very souls.
Shakespeare’s
Much Ado About Nothing gets a contemporary African twist when it stages
at the Durban University of Technology (DUT)’s Courtyard Theatre this
week, before heading off to Germany.
In an interview with Tonight,
designer and director, Professor Debbie Lutge, explained that this is
part of a global exchange and research programme to honour the 400th
anniversary of Shakespeare’s death.
“The Folkwang Shakespeare
Festival is a special festival as it features only invited global
directors. All participants direct the same Shakespearean production as
individual directors and then redirect collaboratively with all the
global partners and casts. The festival is only held every two years and
the Folkwang Shakespeare Festival 2016 is the eighth festival, with all
shows mounted in Essen-Werden, Germany, at the Folkwang Universität der
Künste.
“The DUT is honoured that we are among the selected few
to participate, particularly as this year pays tribute as a 400-year
commemoration since Shakespeare’s death. We are the first to represent
Africa on so auspicious an occasion and are doubly honoured for the
acknowledgement this brings to our institution and continent.”
Commenting
on their interpretation of the play, she said: “The conceptual design
and interpretation of Much Ado About Nothing rests firmly in the notion
that ‘I am an African’. We all form part of an African diaspora
dislodged in part by our colonial history, entrenched in roots of
varying degrees of traditionalism, negotiating global media and digital
modernisation, in a delicate democracy essentially clinging hopefully to
ubuntu-invested values. Hence the work evolved to own the Shakespearean
text in our own African manner. This is what I enjoy most about
directing: stretching artistic boundaries and flexing society through
confronting in ourselves the unexpected choices, the renegotiated
presence, the reaffirmation of our humanity, our conscience, our
dignity.”
She added that reinterpreting the shifts in flow, meter,
rhythm in a linguistic text with contemporary signifiers that live,
means expressing these elements diversely: “In drums that signify the
seat of things; in a quasi-Ndebele cardboard box set and floor design
that demarcates the central acting space of the Acts and scenes; in the
slow motion storytelling of the background that moves in another time
dimension, in the contemporary costume design reflecting African beads
and fluorescent incantations; in returning soldiers in gumboots who
dance their march through time, in the collaborative power and the
fusion of traditional and new African-inspired songs (with harmonies
perfected by Richardt Wissink and Senzo Mabanga).”
She added that
Shakespeare wrote for his contemporary audiences and that they perform
for theirs, so the inclusion of Zulu was a natural transition.
“Predominantly the text is in English with a few translated words or
phrases to assist us to own Shakespeare in our own way, yet allow the
transcribed Shakespeare to be accessible to all here at home, as well as
across the continent, and abroad. Tackling the language meant unpacking
meaning and finding signifying points of cultural reference. We have
added two imbongi Zulu orators… we opted for a predominantly
English-based text infused with African costumes and contexts.”
Lutge
said the context marries multiple cultural stimuli and represents a
modern South Africa inscribed with merged intra-cultural influences
negotiating unique social environments and circumstances driven by
progress, economics and global interaction.
Much Ado About
Nothing, until Friday at the Courtyard Theatre at 7pm nightly. R40
adults, R20 students, groups larger than 10, R10. Info: 031 373 2194.
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Wealth, status, and currency in Shakespeare’s world [infographic]
Illuminating Shakespeare
Illuminating Shakespeare brings together the very best
Shakespeare resources old and new from across Oxford University Press.
Explore a new theme every month, with free content for every level from
school to scholarly research.
In 1623, one kilogram of tobacco was roughly five times more
expensive than Shakespeare’s newly published First Folio. The entire
collection, which cost only £1, contained thirty-six of his works, many
of which incorporate 16th- and 17th-century notions of status, wealth,
and money. Most of his characters are garbed in colors and fabrics
befitting their social standing, and he frequently presents foreign
currencies alongside English coins. So how do the rich and poor fare in
Elizabethan England? Explore the infographic below to discover the
coins, dress, and literacy of Shakespeare’s world.
Download the infographic as a PDF or JPG.
English actor Robert Donat, second from right, as
'Benedick' in a production at the Aldwych Theatre, London in 1946 GettyPlot: Claudio and Hero are engaged to be
wed. Benedick, a witty bachelor, and Beatrice, Hero’s cousin, hate each
other, but are tricked into falling in love. Claudio is told (falsely)
that Hero has been unfaithful to him, and calls off the wedding. She
faints; her family is persuaded to pretend that she dies. When Claudio
realises he has been lied to, he agrees to marry someone else, even
though he can’t see her face. Surprise! It’s the late Hero. They marry.
Benedick and Beatrice declare their love for one another, and the play
closes with her acceptance of his proposal.
Themes: Love, deep and shallow; flirtation; denial; the thrill of communication.
Background: Written around 1598, and popular from
its earliest years, Much Ado is one of the few Shakespeare plays written
almost entirely in prose. Notable modern versions include Kenneth
Branagh’s 1993 film, whose star-studded cast included Emma Thompson as
Beatrice and Branagh himself as Benedick.
Key characters
Benedick: witty bachelor, determined not to marry, who nonetheless ends up doing so.
Beatrice: strong-willed bachelorette, also set against marrying, who also ends up doing so – to Benedick.
Claudio -- callow young count, who falls in and out of love too easily
Hero - object of Claudio's affection. She has to pretend to be dead for much of the play.
Top lines
“There’s a skirmish of wit between them.” Leonato describes the “merry war” between Benedick and Beatrice, Act 1, Scene 1
“She speaks poniards, and every word stabs.” Benedick describes Beatrice, Act 2, Scene 1
“Some Cupid kills with arrows, some with traps.” Hero tricks Beatrice into loving Benedick, Act 3, Scene 1
“Everyone can master a grief but he that has it.” Benedick on sorrow, Act 3, Scene 2
“I love you with so much of my heart that none is left to protest.”
Beatrice finally admits her love for Benedick, Act 4, Scene 1
“Done to death by slanderous tongues.” Claudio regrets his jealousy, Act 5 Scene 3
Echoes
Hector Berlioz used it as the basis of an opera, Béatrice et
Bénédict. Films loosely based on it include Viel Lärm um nichts (East
German, 1964) and Dil Chahta Hai (Indian, 2001). A 2005 retelling in the
BBC’s ShakespeaRe-Told series (starring Damian Lewis and Sarah Parish)
set the story in the studios of a regional news programme. Lines from
the play feature in the Mumford & Sons song “Sigh No More”.
