Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
AWTEW reading thread
Matthew wrote: The only reason Bertram provides for his hostility toward Helena is her lowly birth. There is every indication that they have known each other through his mother for ages and have gotten along splendidly. While that does not make for romantic love, it also does not equal the kind of vitriol Bertram exudes at the time of the marriage order.Quite! I'm nominating B. for the Upper Class Twit of the Year award. Those of you siding with Bertram, doctor, lawyer, or truck driver, won't be invited to dinner at my place.
Further, I don't see how we can pin the responsibility for Bertram's behaviour on Parolles. So, horrid knave, perhaps, but no evil genius.
Well, you guys, I think this is an extemely harsh judgement. Based on Acts I and II (and not on subsequent devlopments, mind), I would say that Bertram behaves like any young man. He rejects Helena through pride, marries her for necessity, and escapes out of exasperation. His complaint of her humble birth is made because he sees that as the best argument to win over the King. When the King says he will ennoble her, he gives his true reason,
I cannot love her.
This must be the true reason, else a new nobility for Helena would have made Bertram accept Helena. And in Shakespeare lack of love that is a sufficient reason for rejection. Compare Olivia's similar rejection of Orsino
Your lord does know my mind, I cannot love him etc
Otherwise Bertram is decent enough. He defends Parolles to Lafew and Lafew to Parolles, refusing to side. There is a sense that he was free at Rosillion and his freedom is lost at court. The recovery of the King makes things worse for him! Beyond that we cannot judge Helena's love since we learn so little about Bertram himself. He is as silent as Mr Darcy, and Helena tells us about her love, but not its object.
You could make Bertram handsome. All well and good! Should you make Helena plain to further explain Bertram's rejection? I think not. I believe it is not Bertram who needs to be handsome, but Helena who needs to exude much glamour, so the audience can feel that although Bertram's rejection is excusable, it does not look like his best choice.
Martin, I cannot agree. At least based on what I have read thus far, "I cannot love her" sounds like a continuation on a theme, not a replacement of the first protest.I am a big believer in pride but not arrogance. It is one thing to be proud, another to be high and mighty. Are we to imagine that the other lords in the scene lack pride? They all acknowledge Helena's charm and say they would accept her if asked. Are we to imagine that these men have all the self-respect of earthworms? A conceited nature should not be mistaken for pride.
As for the king's offer to ennoble Helena, this is not sufficient for anyone who believe that class is determined by blood rather than conduct. Helena's actions have shown her to be as noble as any proud husband might desire her but those who believe that birth is the only ennobler will not be swayed even by royal fiat. To see an example of how this attitude remains common, take a look at the classic Warner Bros. movie, Mildred Pierce and note the condescending speech Ann Blyth inflicts upon her mother.
Regardless of whether this interpretation is accepted, it makes the handsome glamor of Bertram all the more important. As you say, we know little about him and, therefore, we have nothing to latch onto, no way to share Helena's passion. There is no need to make her exude glamor because she already does. The character is fascinating, admirable, and glorious enough without directing an actor to play up that which is already obvious. The same cannot be said of Bertram.
By the way, in the Stratford rehearsals shown in that youtube clip, I felt the fellow who played Lavache was too thin. He did a fine job but much is made of his being "well fed" and I took this to suggest that he should be played by a man of heftier build.
Well this is amusing. Matthew, the American, thinks Bertram is high and mighty for not obeying his King, while I (a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II), applaud his rebellion.
All I can say is, I would have done the same as Bertram. I would protest against marrying a woman I was not interested in, but would do so if threatened with death!
(We need a feminist slant on this. Where have the women readers gone?)
Actually there is one additional thing I can say. Matthew, you wrote, "the other lords ... acknowledge Helena's charm and say they would accept her if asked". But I find this part of the scene very puzzling and ambiguous.
Helena's questions are very riddling, and the Lords answers not easy to understand. The first Lord gives a positive answer, the second says nothing, the third says "No better, if you please", and the fourth "Fair one I think not so". The fourth Lord may be talking about his own virility (he could give her a son) rather than his desire to marry.
While this is going on, Lafew actually says that they are rejecting her:
"Do they all deny her?"
and deserve whipping or castration. And,
"The boys are boys of ice, They'll none have her."
The BBC version (the only production I've ever seen) fails to make sense at this point. Something must happen on stage to make Lafew interpret events in this way. Perhaps the Lords back away from Helena as she approaches them.
I must say, I find II.3 (one could call it the rejection scene) very amusing, especially as done by Jonathan Miller in the BBC production. Parolles echoing Lafew's words, Lafew's excitement, the King, capering in like a happy boy, the astonishment at his recovery, and then his rising anger as he sees his promise to Helena frustrated, and then Parolles being demolished by Lafew, but getting back a bit of his dignity as he reasserts his influence over Bertram.
Mod
I am so pleased to have found such an enthusuastic group of fellow Shakspeare readers.
I am behind in this thread...have read the play fairly regulairliy over the weekend...was trying to take a break from being online.
Silly me...now I've got masses of content to catch up on!
I say WELL DONE Matthew, William and Martin...and all...really some meaty stuff to digest.
This is great stuff and if we all agreed Shakespeare wouldn't have been dong his job so well giving us much to consider about the human condition.
Okay..down to work Candy!
Mod
but I would say off the top of my head that Bertram sounds like a typical guy. He's contrary to a woman making a choice, making the first advance, and he is right out of a screwball comedy where the man rejects the woman because she represents "the other". (how is THAT for suggesting a pretentious contemporary theory of literary criticism? hee he...but I think I may be correct on this...)
The other in this play is ...quite handy for disagreements..."all of the above"
Helena is the "other" by being female, by being of lower social ordrer...
more in a bit...
Mod
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other
Yes, I think Bertram is part of that comic tradition where what you want is right under your nose and you don't see it. Like Marlow in She Stoops to Conquer, or the Meg Ryan character in You've got Mail, which is based on the Jimmy Stewart film The Shop around the Corner, which is based on a Hungarian stage play, which I suppose might be based on something else ...And talking of origins, when I was about 11, I read some modernisations of the Arthurian tales. The one I remember was about an ugly old hag who comes to the King's Court, and renders some service in exchange for marriage with one of the knights. I don't recall if she chooses the knight, or if the knight volunteers, but she gets her man and they are married. After the ceremony she demands one kiss. He kisses her, and she is transformed into a beautiful woman, who explains that she has been under a spell, and that what has happened was the only way to break it. But she then says that she can only be beautiful half the time, either by day or by night (this idea is used in Shrek), and the knight must choose which. But when he then leaves the choice to her the spell is completely broken, and she is permanently beautiful. (The joke in Shrek being that they make the opposite choice.)
I know very little about the Arthurian legends, can't at the moment trace this story. Does anyone else know it? I imagine it (or something similar) would have been familiar to Shakespeare's audience, and it adds something to the moment when, after their marriage, Bertram does not (so I take it) kiss Helena,
Helena: Something; and scarce so much:--nothing, indeed.--
I would not tell you what I would, my lord:--Faith, yes;--
Strangers and foes do sunder and not kiss.
Bertram: I pray you, stay not, but in haste to horse.
The "spell" is in Bertram's mind, and you feel if he could have kissed her it would have been broken.
-----------
Something Lafew said I like,
we have our philosophical persons to make modern and familiar, things [which are:] supernatural and causeless.
So like Richard Dawkins today.
(I regard as "supernatural and causeless" the colon which miraculously appears before any closing square bracket you type in this wretchedly small post box.)
With respect to the position of Bertram and others who, as minor heirs to titled positions, were made wards of the king or other powerful men, Stephen Greenblatt writes as follows in Will in the World:...the whole wardship system was rotten to the core. Its most sinister feature was the guardian's legal right to negotiate a marriage for his ward. If, upon turning twenty-one, the ward declined the match, he could be liable for substantial damages, to be paid to the family of the rejected party.
Of course, were Bertram to have rejected Helena, the damages referred to would be payable to Helena's family, which I take it would be the Countess, that is, Bertram's family. It was, therefore, just as well that Helena extracted her pledge from the king before effecting her cure.
That is very interesting William. It shows how knowing the social background adds to an undertanding of Shakespeare.Incidentally, I have tried every hack in the book to suppress the unwanted colon when you use square brackets,
[square brackets:]
But without success. It even appears when I stand on my head and type upside down,
[sbnɐɹǝ qɹɐɔʞǝʇs:]
For those keeping track, we're supposed to be at Act 3 scene 1.Some random thoughts on this short scene (3.1):
It is cut in the Jonathan Miller BBC version. But it acts as a bridge between France and Italy, and prepares the change of location.
I often wonder if I'm the only one who struggles with the sense of Shakespeare at the simple level of basic grammar. For example,
. . . a common and an outward man
That the great figure of a council frames
after about a day I suddenly realised that it is the man who frames the figure of the council, not the figure of the council which is doing the framing. And then the whole speech made sense. Do other readers have these difficulties?
First Lord / second Lord run through the play. Are they always the same people? If so, second Lord would know why France isn't helping Florence, since he heard the King's explanation in I.1 -- it would upset Austria.
Warfare is portrayed here (as so often in Shakespeare) as something between altruism and sport. I find this one of Shakespeare's least endearing characteristics.
The scene is shown from the French angle: they are there to help the good side. I feel sorry for the little city of Siena ("the Florentines and Senoys are by the ears"), pitted against Florence and the rest.
Martin wrote: Warfare is portrayed here (as so often in Shakespeare) as something between altruism and sport. I find this one of Shakespeare's least endearing characteristics.Thanks, Martin, for opening a door to this digression. I live in Canada and agree with you that our modern view of warfare is so much more endearing than dear old Will's. What with "surgical strikes" and all that jazz, we've cleaned up our act, haven't we?
I jest, of course, Martin, knowing that my fearless leader in Ottawa, had he an iota of the imagination of dear old Will, would have found something better for Canadian troops to be doing on the world's stage than continuing 30 years of killing in Afghanistan.
Oooop-p-ps! Well, blame it on Martin. Surgical strike coming your way!!
PS. Surely we're all struggling with the sense of Shakespeare. We persist in the struggle because we know that the sense is there, is ours for the getting, if only we could get it, as you have in the instance you site. Thank you.
Mod
Is the clown jokes where we get the adage "you have an answer for every question" I wonder? (act 2 scene 2)
As fit as ten groats is for the hand of an attorney,
as your French crown for your taffeta punk, as Tib's
rush for Tom's forefinger, as a pancake for Shrove
Tuesday, a morris for May-day, as the nail to his
hole, the cuckold to his horn, as a scolding queen
to a wrangling knave, as the nun's lip to the
friar's mouth, nay, as the pudding to his skin.
The Countess replys Have you, I say, an answer of such fitness for all
questions?
I spit a mouthful of tea all over myself when I read Lafeu's (act 2, scene3)
Why, your dolphin is not lustier: 'fore me,
I speak in respect--
Although stature and status were so important n Shkespeares time...I think it would not serve us well to assume to take sides with Bertram over his refusal. Bertram does claim that Helena is of low standing...but even rich wealthy proud microcosm's like Royalty understand breaking these
"rules" when it comes to making children. Genetics comes into play as part of maintaining and creating a strong royal blood line. In the same way that a taboo such as incenst is broken in the pursuit of "protecting" royal lineage (and keeping the money in the family!) so is breaking the taboo against class marriages in order to bring in new blood for the family and keep it healthy.
Bertram's refusal is a good try..he says Helena is lower order than him and not worthy...but the King gives back a good argument and one of the ways in which we tweak our so-called taboos and social class systems.
(act 2 scene3) The King says as much:
My love and her desert; that canst not dream,
We, poising us in her defective scale,
Shall weigh thee to the beam; that wilt not know,
It is in us to plant thine honour where
We please to have it grow. Cheque thy contempt:
Obey our will, which travails in thy good:
Believe not thy disdain, but presently
Do thine own fortunes that obedient right
Which both thy duty owes and our power claims;
Although incest is a taboo almost universally in human cultures...we break it when it comes to Royalty. Egyptians kept the money and power in the family...as has done the British Royal family. The taboo against marrying a lower class person was also subject to breaking...in order to get more bloodlines into the rroyal families (see Diana Spencer?)
The King is, like all powers and royalty(heads of state, or heads of family)...able to make and break these social conventions. (and genetic and natural conventioons)
Mod
I have wanted Canada out of Afghanistan...and that __________(insert any cuss you like) P.M. Harper OUT of office!
...for a long time!
:)
Mod
I would love to see the following acted out by very good actors. I have a feeling some real fun in the male bonding and also strut and rejection could be a lot of fun.
(Parolles has begun to show his misogyny in the previous scene. He sides with Bertrams horror of being made to marry and supports his secret escape. Very bad form! What was originally some funny banter between helena and Parolloes...is now hate for women...and the way women can suddenly throw a wrench into decorum or state affaairs, like wedlock between a noble and a lower class. Scary.)
As I said, I'd really like to see a great male energy between Lafeu and Parolles...Lafeu is sort of seeing what is going on here to a degree...
BERTRAM
Will she away to-night?
PAROLLES
As you'll have her.
BERTRAM
I have writ my letters, casketed my treasure,
Given order for our horses; and to-night,
When I should take possession of the bride,
End ere I do begin.
LAFEU
A good traveller is something at the latter end of a
dinner; but one that lies three thirds and uses a
known truth to pass a thousand nothings with, should
be once heard and thrice beaten. God save you, captain.
BERTRAM
Is there any unkindness between my lord and you, monsieur?
PAROLLES
I know not how I have deserved to run into my lord's
displeasure.
LAFEU
You have made shift to run into 't, boots and spurs
and all, like him that leaped into the custard; and
out of it you'll run again, rather than suffer
question for your residence.
BERTRAM
It may be you have mistaken him, my lord.
LAFEU
And shall do so ever, though I took him at 's
prayers. Fare you well, my lord; and believe this
of me, there can be no kernel in this light nut; the
soul of this man is his clothes. Trust him not in
matter of heavy consequence; I have kept of them
tame, and know their natures. Farewell, monsieur:
I have spoken better of you than you have or will to
deserve at my hand; but we must do good against evil.
Exit
PAROLLES
An idle lord. I swear.
BERTRAM
I think so.
PAROLLES
Why, do you not know him?
BERTRAM
Yes, I do know him well, and common speech
Gives him a worthy pass. Here comes my clog.
Enter HELENA
Mod
I often wonder if I'm the only one who struggles with the sense of Shakespeare at the simple level of basic grammar. For example,
Forgive me all...for being so slow in catching up by going through some specific lines.. I can't think of any other way to do so than by postning these separate posts. Worse: all ina row. I don't mean to make a scene...just wanted to point out some things in the play that have interested me.
Martin, I am glad you said something about Act 3 scene 1. It's a jolt how short it is and I was like...what!? Yes, I guess it is a way to bridge locations...seems unesesary ina way...but it does feature the warfare discussion...which I believe is more important from you and Williams comments than I may have given it due with a quick reading and wondering why the heck did he have this tiny scene?
I think there is much more here than I first thought. I am not so sure Shakespeare...overall...believes war is between altruism and sport. I would say that Antony and Cleopatra is Shakspeare's essay against war on many levels. Of course, that is a different play...but that is my response.
I actually think when these lines from DUKE:
DUKE
So that from point to point now have you heard
The fundamental reasons of this war,
Whose great decision hath much blood let forth
And more thirsts after.
When these lines appear...they provide a vast gulf for the attitude that Bertram is taking towards going to war. Bertram is naive and thinks war is his opportunity to outwit regular life, the will he rejcts from his father and society and his responsibilities.
Bertram becomes even less of a person arguing for "societal customs" why he shouldn't marry Helena...but he now is shown to be too casual about war. He has really become a classic contemporary bachelor as I was saying in my post about
"the other" and his fear.
Bertram is so contemporary ...and it is a wonderful exploration of male bonding between him and Parolles. If I didn't know better...the "confirmed bachelor" Parolles might be gay. Here is a case of where gay men have more in common with straight single men than straight men have with straight women.
I am not so sure Bertram is rejecting Helena as he might be rejecting a sense of responsibility and his age. He might be trying to stay "free" rather than live within his cuture and become "old". Classic "confirmed bachelor" with "peter pan complex" thrown in ha ha!
And this tiny scene with few lines...but lines about the gravity of blood and more blood highlight Bertram's irresponsible attitude towards life and death.
???
Candy, your posts are like double-decker buses in England, you wait ages for one, and then three come along at once.Is the clown jokes where we get the adage "you have an answer for every question" I wonder?
I don't know what you mean here. Could you edit it, because I'm interested in this?
I'm sorry now I made that remark about Shakespeare and warfare. It only relates a few passages in the Works, and does not have much to do with AWTEW.
Perhaps one shouldn't get too hung up on the "totemism and exogamy" thing. Marriage in England has always been flexible, and the class system fluid, even though the class system itself is hugely important. Remember that many of Shakespeare's titled characters marry people who don't have, or don't appear to have titles: Dule/Count Orsino (he is given both titles), Countess Olivia, Duke Vincenzo (M for M). Portia is simply "a rich heiress" and the aristos are queueing up to marry her. Royalty was different, but in the actual history of the British Monarchy it is hard to generalise, the Monarchy itself being so dislocated.
And you must try & see the Jonathan Miller BBC version. The scene you cite is very well done. Parolles was done by Peter Jeffrey, never a star name, but a very versatile and skilled actor,
Lafew by the inimitable Michael Hordern,
and Bertram by Ian Charleson,
Charlson performance is rather under-emotional I feel. Charleson was considered very good looking in the eighties, so he may have been cast following Matthew's suggestion. (His career was cut short in 1990, when he died of aids.)
Candy, you quote the lines as,
Parolles: An idle lord. I swear.
Bertram: I think so.
as they appear in the 1st folio, but they are usually corrected to,
Parolles: An idle lord. I swear.
Bertram: I think not so.
Mod
Clown
Truly, madam, if God have lent a man any manners, he
may easily put it off at court: he that cannot make
a leg, put off's cap, kiss his hand and say nothing,
has neither leg, hands, lip, nor cap; and indeed
such a fellow, to say precisely, were not for the
court; but for me, I have an answer will serve all
men.
COUNTESS
Marry, that's a bountiful answer that fits all
questions.
Clown
It is like a barber's chair that fits all buttocks,
the pin-buttock, the quatch-buttock, the brawn
buttock, or any buttock.
COUNTESS
Will your answer serve fit to all questions?
CLOWN
As fit as ten groats is for the hand of an attorney,
as your French crown for your taffeta punk, as Tib's
rush for Tom's forefinger, as a pancake for Shrove
Tuesday, a morris for May-day, as the nail to his
hole, the cuckold to his horn, as a scolding queen
to a wrangling knave, as the nun's lip to the
friar's mouth, nay, as the pudding to his skin.
THE COUNTESS
Have you, I say, an answer of such fitness for all
questions?
Martin, when I read this, I tI was laughing because the Clown really does have quite a list of answers.
Twice the Countess asks about all his questions. Their conversation is a series of her answering questions and him with quite funny answers.
I was wondering if this might be the source of an adage...often seen or heard when one party is admonishing the other. Say, a parent or teacher...and the party in trouble has a lot of excuses.
It is a common response to say "oh you've got an answer for everything"
And I just wondered if this might be where that came from. It's not that the Clown is making excuses but he is creating a diversion of answers...?
Mod
You can read some of it here...
http://books.google.com/books?id=NgPG...
Is Jonathan Miller, the Shakespeare director, the same fellow who hosted "A Rough History of disbelief"?
Mod
I recommend watching those clips at this point in reading the play because Dennehy discusses the motives of Bertram and the King and Helena.
Here they are again, thanks Martin!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsqrMj...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnLU3o...
Candy, ah yes, I see now what you mean! Response: I don't know. There are many sayings attributed to Shakespeare ("dead as a doornail" etc) which were already current in his day and he just made use of them.
When I read this speech I was mentally ticking off the phrases I understood:
As fit as ten groats is for the hand of an attorney (yes), as your French crown for your taffeta punk (no), as Tib's rush for Tom's forefinger (no), as a pancake for Shrove Tuesday (yes), a morris for May-day (yes), as the nail to his hole (yes - easy), the cuckold to his horn (yes), as a scolding queen
to a wrangling knave (yes, I guess), as the nun's lip to the friar's mouth (yes - but...), nay, as the pudding to his skin (yes).
Is Jonathan Miller, the Shakespeare director, the same fellow who hosted "A Rough History of disbelief"?
The same guy. I did not see the series, so cannot comment, but Miller has given his name to so many ideas and causes, that he has come to seem rather ridiculous to many people. But his work as a Shakespearean director seems to me extraordinarily good.
Mod
I love the list, groats, pancakes, horn, pudding.
Well, I have watched the series and MIller has a very impressive career! I watched the whole series (4 hours or so?) last year or so online.
Enlarging on the following exchange between Parolles and Bertram about Lafew, on which Martin has helpfully commented above:Parolles: An idle lord. I swear.
Bertram: I think not so.
The footnotes in The Arden Shakespeare are as follows:
"I think so" is hard to justify as an antithesis to I swear, however much under Parolles influence Bertram may be supposed to be; it directly contradicts what Bertram says, ll. 52-3. I suppose that Bertram says "I disagree with you"; Parolles answers "What! Haven't you seen through him yet?" (cf. known at II. iii. 101). Bertram in reply takes up the common sense of "know": "I am well acquainted with him, and besides, his general reputation is high".
These notes nicely connect two problematical issues involving Lafew to an atypical meaning of the work "know" and provide more examples of how difficult it is to get what Martin has called the sense of Shakespeare.
Candy wrote: I recommend watching those [youtube:] clips at this point in reading the play because Dennehy [who plays the King:] discusses the motives of Bertram and the King and Helena.Thank you, Candy, for these links.
And a very interesting remark Dennehy makes, to the effect that Bertram is so thoroughly self-asorbed that he does not share what he is thinking with the audience. He has, as the interviewer puts it, no soliloquy.
Without such soliloquies, we have difficulty knowing what Bertram really is at the start of the play and how he might be changing as the play progresses.
As a consequence, even if Bertram's behaviour changes during the play, we will have a problem knowing whether those changes result from changes in his thoughts, feelings, and motives. In other words, we will have difficulty knowing whether Bertram is any less shallow (less self-absorbed, as Dennehy described him) than that of his hanger-on Parolles.
Mod
I am glad you checked out the links with Brian Dennehy...(actually Martin had posted them last week...and I re-posted them because I thought they were so helpful).
I thought the idea that Bertram is so self centered he doesn't tell us what he thinks was terrific. I also had the feeling of how much we don't know about Bertram...leads us to focus on the women. Or at least it seems so for me.
Okay...so as I can calculate...we are at Act 3, Scene 3 more or less....just as a marker of sorts...I am trying to follow readiing a scene ever two days, at least not to jump ahead. I'm actually kindof posting thoughts at this rate at least two days behind!
Mod
http://www.amazon.com/Shakespeare-Aft...
Act 3, Scene 2...
And regarding war, Helena at this point is also speaking of the repercussions of Bertrams flight...
HELENA
'Till I have no wife, I have nothing in France.'
Nothing in France, until he has no wife!
Thou shalt have none, Rousillon, none in France;
Then hast thou all again. Poor lord! is't I
That chase thee from thy country and expose
Those tender limbs of thine to the event
Of the none-sparing war? and is it I
That drive thee from the sportive court, where thou
Wast shot at with fair eyes, to be the mark
Of smoky muskets?
And then in Act 3, Scene 4 (which bring s us to today in our loose "sschedule") Helena (?) writes to the Countess:
I am Saint Jaques' pilgrim, thither gone:
Ambitious love hath so in me offended,
That barefoot plod I the cold ground upon,
With sainted vow my faults to have amended.
Write, write, that from the bloody course of war
My dearest master, your dear son, may hie:
Bless him at home in peace, whilst I from far
His name with zealous fervor sanctify:
His taken labours bid him me forgive;
I, his despiteful Juno, sent him forth
From courtly friends, with camping foes to live,
Where death and danger dogs the heels of worth:
He is too good and fair for death and me:
Whom I myself embrace, to set him free.
I think it is interesting that Helena wants to do this pilgramige because it hints at two purposes. One, Christian, for penance and two, Pagan, for fertility.
I've marked my calendar: Act 3, Scene 4 on Feb 10.Then, to help us stay together, one scene every two days, as Martin established at the start.
Brilliant notes from Candy:... a kiss is often part of the tradition in stories/lit of cannibalism.
This cannibalism is tied to the real core of fear by men of women, that they will "swallow them" ie...castrate them. A kiss has always been a kind of cannibalism and not only a threat to the sex of the man...after all he "disappears" ina woman...frightening as far as castration...but also as his ego or identity disappears.
I have a fantastic book by Marina Warner who is a British folk tale academic. I don't know if others here are familiar with her work but she is so handy to have as a reference for the histories of where folk stories and anecdotes come from and how they change over decades and centuries.
Martin mentioned the Arthurian legend of the witch and the kiss. This is the "loathly Lady" tale. It may be traced back to The Odyssey and Scylla...and I suggest it may also be taken further back...to Shiva and Indian goddesses.
The Loathly Lady is a stand in for the concept of soverneignty in these stories. Again, this is interesting in the image of consumption, cannibalism, kissing...and why a woman is often "the other"...
(Like Candy I don't quite understand William's expectations in the two new threads he posted. William, I think you'll need to throw in your own views first.)
I think this remark of Candy's is wonderfully perceptive,
I think it is interesting that Helena wants to do this pilgramige because it hints at two purposes. One, Christian, for penance and two, Pagan, for fertility.
Mentally, I've been comparing the play with MM (Measure for Measure) ever since I began the read. I have not wanted to say much, because (a) the comparisons are story spoilers if taken too far, and (b) the others readers (Candy and William only I think ...) might not know MM. But briefly the plots of AWTEW and MM are mirror images of each other, and MM is Christian (as its very title would suggest), in a way that AWTEW is not.
Pagan elements in AWTEW:
--- The frequent invoking of the three Roman Gods, Diana (chastity and Virginity), Venus (love and sex), Mars (war). (It must be significant that the new female character in Act 3 is called "Diana". The Clown has already compared Helena to Helen of Troy.)
--- The loathly lady, and other folk tale elements.
--- Witchcraft and magic, which is one half of the explanation of Helena's healing skills (the other being medical science).
A new folk-tale element is Bertram's "X will not happen until Y and Z happens", like the witches' prophecies in Macbeth,
"When thou canst get the ring upon my finger which
never shall come off, and show me a child begotten
of thy body that I am father to, then call me
husband ..."
-- you just know it's all going to happen.
Incidentally, Shakespeare stretches space as well as time, and the audience never notices. Helena is a Pilgrim of St James, and we learn later goes to his shrine, which is at Santiago di Compostella. In the next scene she turns up in Florence. Go to Google maps, find the shrine, and then zoom out to the map of Europe that brings in Paris and Florence and you'll see what a strange round trip she has made!
A more famous example is Fortinbras marching his men through Denmark on his way from Norway to Poland. Again the audience never notices anything unlikely about this.
Mod
Martin , glad you enjoyed some of these thoughts.
Yes...I also had thought in my head about what a trange trip helena was making. I will go to google maps thats a great idea!
Perhaps the audiences of the day had no very clear idea of the actual geography and thus no trip would seem too strange to them; also, avoiding certain countries/areas because of complex treaty issues wasn't uncommon in the day. Just a couple of thoughts.
Mod
Yeah, I've really been wondering about this trip too. I wonder if the way she traveled is significant by shape? Is it possible it is the same route as someone else, like a Crusade route?
Just thinking out loud, a scary dealie-o!
G. K. Hunter, the good editor of The Arden Shakespeare, offers this bodacious explanation of Helena's Amazing Adventure:The obvious shrine of St. Jaques (called Great and le Grand below--i.e. Saint James the Greater) for an Elizabethan audience would be that at Compostella. It is true that Florence is (as Johnson remarked) "somewhat out of the road from Rousillon to Compostella" but it is more probable that Shakespeare would make this mistake than refer to other shrines of merely local celebrity.
So, for Shakespeare as for us: an "expert" is "a guy from out of town."
Perhaps Helena has to go backwards before she can can go forwards? The shape of her journey is like a planet in retrograde motion, something of course that came up in the first scene: - The wars have so kept you under that you must needs be born under Mars.
- When he was predominant.
- When he was retrograde, I think, rather.
The first and second lords of 3.1 have to be a different first and second lords than 3.2, but are the same as the first and second lords of 3.6, I presume.
Bertram's letter to his mother is curt to the point of rudeness, but he is not, I think, studying to make this effect. I think of him as someone happier sending a telegram or texting on a cellphone than writing a thoughtful letter. He is cut out to be a soldier, not a courtier.
Helena blames herself, and is the only one to do so. Her soliloquy that ends 3.2 is a poetic high point.
3.3 is another of those scenes that amaze Candy by its brevity. I think the intention is to have the soldiers marching onto the stage on one side and exiting on the other, to a background of flags, standards, weapons, drums and so on, with the few lines of dialogue exchanged in the meantime. A martial effect is created.
In fairness to Bertram, he seems to be doing his job well. The Duke has made him a general in charge of the cavalry, having noted his "promising fortune". Bertram cannot be as gormless as we sometimes suspect.
(I think I would have the soldiers in 3.3 march the opposite way from in 3.1)
Mod
I tend to read shakspeare more intuitively than the style you quote William. As much as the Arden critique offers us a logical explanation...it doesn't help us at all with the text. I don't see why Shakspeares motives for choosing geographical locations would really be that different from any writer today. I believe the people of England had fairly reasonable maps...and likely knew more about the geography of Europe than if you went and asked almost any American on the street today. (in fact, comedians like Jay Leno...do go and ask people on the street geographical quizs and they seem to never know the answer to anything practical especially geography)
So, I give Shakspeare a bit more rope I suppose than our dear Arden and Hunter.
I like Martin's idea of retrograde Mars...and in fact, that is the direction I tend to go. Shakespeare's work often appears to have memory chambers built into the text (as the Globe Theatre and often many theatres would work for authors and actors). A memory chamber helped keep track of where actors were with their lines...
...and I believe some oral histories are records of celestial events and geographical maps. So...this is what I was trying to explore with Helena's strange trip. And Martin seems to have foun some lines in the text to support my exploration.
Those three lines are fantastic isolated like that...and reflect the association of star gazing, memory, astronomy and astrology...and narrative arcs is highly valuable to an insight in Shakesepeare's worldview. I feel Martin has highlighted an aspect of shakspeare related to the Elizabethan Occult Philosophy and Hermetic Tradition.
I suppose William I might be very close to answering your question about Shakespeare and belief heh heh.
I just want to chime in here and let you guys know that I have been following along but have been drowning in real life work so I haven't had the chance to post any of my thoughts.I am very eager to check out the Miller production once I have finished reading. I adore Ian Charleson whom I remember well from Chariots of Fire and Gandhi (what a rare feat to star in two back-to-back Best Picture Oscar-winners). His death was, to my mind, as tragic a loss to the art of drama as those of Rudolph Valentino, Jean Harlow, James Dean, River Phoenix, and Heath Ledger. Sir Michael Hordern was, of course, always wonderul in everything. Peter Jeffrey is nothing short of a dramatic genius! I will never forget his diabolically petulent portrayal of Oliver Cromwell in John Hawkesworth's By the Sword Divided. Oh yes, this will be a great productions.
I'm afraid I have to get back to the grindstone, my friends. I'll be in touch when I come up for air.
Mod
We need HELP!
I even sent messages to a few other members of this group hoping to inspire some more participation...
a nerd,
Candy
Mod
Elizabethans were sometimes superstitious about the stars causing natural disasters. In ‘King lear’ Gloucester comments on how the recent Solar and lunar eclipses are bad omens that natural philosophy can offer explanations for at the same time. He believes, like many in Shakespeare’s age that eclipses cause the breakdown of society and disrupt the natural order of things.
Edmund’s negative views on astrology as being devoid of any truth, was not uncommon among many in Shakespeare’s England. Much damage had been done to astrology because of astrologers like Forman and Llily, who took away the intellectual importance of astrology and transformed it into light hearted entertainment that only ignorant people would find appealing. Astrology at this time was becoming commercial and abused by charlatans who had little education and were practising astrology for financial gains. These men took advantage of their clients’ needs to know about their future. One such man was Simon Forman, a physician and astrologer, who spent much of his time in and out of prison for practising without a license. He was found to be totally ignorant in astronomy and physics. Forman claimed to use only an ephemeredes and aspects and constellations of planets in his diagnosis and to invoke angels and spirits in his healings. One of his clients had died after taking a compound water for a fever and he seduced many of his female clients. His diaries revealed that astrology to him was not a serious interest but one that provided him with wealth, pleasure and a high society
Shakespeare’s plays, reflect the status of astrology in Elizabethan society on all levels both politically, intellectually and religiously. Astrology was used in so many different ways; to predict individual’s future, in medicine and science. Through his characters, Shakespeare shows the varying attitudes towards astrology, from superstition, belief, ridicule or mystery. What is clear is that the status of Astrology was extremely high during this time, influencing, politics, religion, art, medicine and every other part of Elizabethan society. Natalie Delahave
Mod
All's Well That Ends Well
...that we, the poorer born,
Whose baser stars do shut us up in wishes,
and
HELENA. Monsieur Parolles, you were born under a charitable star.
PAROLLES. Under Mars, I.
Antony and Cleopatra
When my good stars, that were my former guides,
and
that our stars,
Unreconciliable, should divide
Our equalness to this.
Cymbeline
Our Jovial star reign'd at his birth, ...
http://www.rahul.net/raithel/Derby/pl...
The steps towards this transformation of medicine by music included Shakespeare's dramatization of the inadequacy of the conventional medical thinking of his day. In Macbeth (1606) this limitation is emphasized when the astute doctor of physic confirms that Lady Macbeth's illness and sleepwalking are ‘beyond my practice... More needs she the divine than the physician’ (5.1.59, 74). Indeed, the earliest use of magic by a physician or his representative in a Shakespeare play had already been shown in All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603) in the ‘cure’ of the King of France's illness by Helena. Although herself not a physician, she was the daughter and disciple of the famous deceased physician Girard de Norbon, friend of the King. The King's fistula had plagued him despite all his physicians' help, and he had been given up by both the Galenic and the rival Paracelsian doctors. Helena had hoped to cure the King by prescriptions inherited from her father, but the King refused medicines that had not worked in the past. So she quickly adds another power. She proposes that the King ‘to my endeavours give consent/Of heaven, not me, make an experiment’ (2.1. 153-154)—the use of mysterious astrological and magical powers to reinforce the effects of medicines. The prompt healing of the King's fistula seems to the old Lord Lafew indeed miraculous, but the rites she used are not disclosed.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/arti...
Welcome again, Matthew. You know much more about those English actors than I do, which is very pleasing. I imagined they were almost unknown in America.The Natalie Delahave and Henry D Janowitz articles I've just read, and the latter especially is very interesting. The reference to Galen and Paracelsus is made by Lafew, just after the King's recovery, and follows his remark on the "philosphical persons" which I said made me think of Richard Dawkins. But the middle article you quote Candy is from a very dodgy site.
I have only just noticed that the departure letter of Helena to the Countess in 3.4 is a sonnet. Her injunction to "Write, write," is echoed by the Countess's "write, write, Reynaldo". Nothing could contrast more with this letter than Bertram's telegraphic style.
Mod
I really enjoyed the Janowitz article too.
Yes, women talking more than men...some things never change har! What a great observation about Helena's letter being a sonnet.
This too is a fairly brief scene. I like how the Countess says "Ah, what sharp stings are in her mildest words!
Which made me go and read the letter/sonnet again. Something about how Helena says "his taken labours"...does she know he has avoided her with his excuse for being a soldier. He is "false" soldier which plays into the use of "labouring under" for mistaken belief.
I don't know...I woke up early this morning so I would be here on U.K. time and I'm just making some tea now...thought it might be nice to be awake and participating when you are Martin...and get started on Act 3, Scene 5
Mod
Tucket
We have lost our labour; they are gone a contrary
way: hark! you may know by their trumpets.
Beware of them, Diana; their promises,
enticements, oaths, tokens, and all these engines of
lust, are not the things they go under: many a maid
hath been seduced by them; and the misery is,
example, that so terrible shows in the wreck of
maidenhood, cannot for all that dissuade succession,
but that they are limed with the twigs that threaten
them.
Um, labour is quite specific...yet it covers warfare, Helena's pilgramige is certainly a labour/toil. Labour is associated with physicality.
I think it's interesting that Mariana warns Diana about engines of lust as if by an engine, the work of love is not no labourous...as a machine is doing most of the work...and it removes the courtship from physicality or investment by the courtier.
Yes, that is how understood "his taken labours" in the sonnet. Interesting that Helena compares herself in the sonnet not to Diana, or Venus, but to Juno, the imperious and cruel goddess.About engines, its worth remembering that in Shakespeare the word almost always means a weapon. Some examples,
Sword, pike, knife, gun, or need of any engine,
Would I not have (Tempest)
How ugly didst thou in Cordelia show!
Which, like an engine, wrench'd my frame of nature
From the fix'd place (Lear) - here a torture instrument
take me from this world with treachery and devise
engines for my life (Othello)
'Engine' is used for 'cannon' in Milton. 'Engineer' in Shakespeare is a military profession.
I think the engines of lust are seen as the weapons men use to get women's virginity. But I guess it also means the penis. It goes back to the beginning of the play, where Parolles uses the siege metaphor - the woman is the city, the man the besieging army. (It is interesting how the first dialogue in the play between Helena and Parolles, which when you read it first seems like isolated banter, actually establishes all the major themes of the play.)
Of course on Olympus Mars is married to Venus. I suppose this could refer to the sexual violence that often takes place in war, but also to the capacity of love to defeat violence, as in the Botticelli painting, where Venus's helpers steal away Mars's armour and weapons as he lies exhausted after lovemaking,
3.5 is a lovely scene, there is so much going on. It is also a women-only scene (apart from one remark from Parolles), which is rare in Shakespeare.The "French Count" (Bertram) becomes "French Earl" and "young Earl". Suddenly he seems English, or rather the women speakers do. Perhaps this helps make the Italian women more homely, or at least London-based. Perhaps it helps us forget the language distinction that may arise between them and Helena.
Helena now says she going to Saint Jacques le Grand rather than coming from. But later we find she must already have been there. Or does she never get there at all? In any case there is no surprise that a French pilgrim going to Spain should be in Italy.
The women are beautifully contrasted. The worldly wise widow and the two young girls, sentimental and combative by turns - Diana the more feisty of the two. There is nothing coarse about these excellent women, but they are clearly at a lower level of refinement than Helena and the Countess, able to shout insults at Parolles, and wish him hanged. When Diana says of him,
Were I his lady I would poison that vile rascal.
-- we almost feel relieved that she does not have Helena's powers with medicines!
I think it is very effective how they go to see the troops coming home, miss them and give up, and then see them anyway. Much more realistic than if the troops appeared on cue. In the BBC version this scene is done very successfully indoors, in a large kitchen area, with the troops seen from a balcony, although in reading it one sees it as an outdoor scene.
There are again the thematic links to the other two "problem comdies". In Troilus and Cressida there is a scene where Cressida is looking at the returning Trojan heroes, and comparing their merits, while Pandarus promotes the interests of Troilus. In M for M Isabella, coming out of her nun's habit, and with a monk in disguise, meets Marianna; here Helena, adopting a pilgrim's habit but in disguise meets Diana. Isabella-Marianna and Helena-Diana are matching pairs in the two plays. "Escalus" is given as the name of one of the soldiers. "Escalus" is the opening word of Measure for Measure.
Mod
You're right, their bawdy joking towards Parolles is wonderful. Of course,then, has he been traveling trying to get at their virginity? Are these some of the knowledgeable women who he so resents for making such a big deal about their virtue?
And then, some thing about hiding one's identity...
Yes, this is a really good scene. I love how the Widow slightly plays around and not saying directly she is the hostess. Helena figures it out. Is it because helena recognizes a tease of identity? By this I mean...an adage in Canada at least "you can't bullshit a bullshitter".
I found myself most nervous energy when the women are gossiping
DIANA
He;
That with the plume: 'tis a most gallant fellow.
I would he loved his wife: if he were honester
He were much goodlier: is't not a handsome gentleman?
HELENA
I like him well.
DIANA
'Tis pity he is not honest: yond's that same knave
That leads him to these places: were I his lady,
I would Poison that vile rascal.
Have I missed something...how does Diana know what she knows? How does she know he isn't honest? Is this more of the gossip surrounding the soldiers?
Martin mentions the "women only" scene being rare in Shakespeare and, immediately, I start thinking of others. But he may be right. After all, those others are easy to think of precisely because they are somewhat exceptional. Off the top of my head:The English lesson in Henry V
The introduction to Juliet in Romeo and Juliet
The three queens in Richard III
The three witches in Macbeth
Viola and Olivia in Twelfth Night
Emilia and Desdemona in Othello
That's about it. And that last one, of course, is cheating because the scene does continue with Othello's entrance even though the first portion is sufficiently long and significant to count as a scene in itself.
I cannot think of any scenes exclusively between the sisters in Shrew, Lear or Much Ado. Can you?
By the way, Martin, you are right that those Egnlish actors are virtually unknown in America (with the probable exception of Hordern). I just happen to be a very serious film and theatre geek with a particular fondness for British television. At the risk of sounding horribly arrogant (please forgive me), when I was living in Missouri, I was probably the only person within 500 miles who who knew the name of Peter Jeffrey. In New York, there are plenty of other obsessive nerds like myself, which is why I feel so at home here.
Other truly obscure (at least over here) British actors whose work I enjoy: Miriam Margolyes, Geraldine McEwan, Eileen Way, Sian Phillips, Margaret Tyzack, John Castle, James Wilby, Trevor Eve, David Robb, Nicholas Farrell, Ronald Pickup, Tony Haygarth, Michael Maloney, and David Yelland.
The vast majority of these names are utterly unknown to most Yanks but they are brilliant performers all.
---
The interesting aspect of the interview with Martha Henry and Brian Dennehy (I had to stop watching halfway through part 2 when the director said "not to give away the whole story" which is what people always say before doing precisely that) is that there are two different understandings of Bertram.
Last night, I finished Act II with the firm opinion that Bertram is a monumental ass of the highest order, not worth the powder it would take to blow him to hell. It occurred to me that, if I were directing this play, I would want to cast the most gorgeously handsome man in the world as Bertram (is Jude Law available?) in order to provide some explanation for what on earth Helena sees in him!
This morning, I clicked on the links to the interview and heard an interpretation that had not occurred to me: Bertram is rebelling against the archaic notion of arranged marriages and the insistance that he marry without love. Such inlcinations could very well be the qualities that Helena first found and loved.
However, I am not convinced. The only reason Bertram provides for his hostility toward Helena is her lowly birth. There is every indication that they have known each other through his mother for ages and have gotten along splendidly. While that does not make for romantic love, it also does not equal the kind of vitriol Bertram exudes at the time of the marriage order.
The prevailing theme here seems to be, more and more, that all too timely evil that still pervades our culture, class distinctions.
There are those who would claim that we have come a long way since the 16th century in terms of tearing down class distinctions. And I might be tempted to agree. But let me ask you this: What if the Sidney Poitier character in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner had been a truck driver instead of a doctor?