The Making and Remaking of History in Shakespeare's History Plays

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Making and Remaking of History in Shakespeare's History Plays The Making and Remaking of History in Shakespeare’s History Plays Candidate’s Name: Alun Deian Thomas Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D. at Cardiff University. September 2012 1 DECLARATION This work has not been submitted in substance for any other degree or award at this or any other university or place of learning, nor is being submitted concurrently in candidature for any degree or other award. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 1 This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of …………………………(insert MCh, MD, MPhil, PhD etc, as appropriate) Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 2 This thesis is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. The views expressed are my own. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 3 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 4: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BAR ON ACCESS I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loans after expiry of a bar on access previously approved by the Academic Standards & Quality Committee. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… 2 Summary of Thesis: History is a problem for the history plays. The weight of ‘true’ history, of fact, puts pressure on the dramatic presentation of history. Not fiction and not fact, the plays occupy the interstitial space between these opposites, the space of drama. Their position between the binary opposites of fact and fiction allows the history plays to play with history. They view history as a problem to be solved, and the different ways in which each play approaches the problem of history gives us a glimpse of how they attempt to engage and deal with the problem of creating dramatic history. Each history play rewrites the plays that preceded it; the plays present ‘history’ as fluid and shifting as competing narratives and interpretations of the past come into conflict with each other, requiring the audience to act as historians in order to construct their own narrative of events. In this way the plays dramatise the process of remaking history. This can be seen in the relationship between the two parts of Henry IV, which restage the same narrative in a different emotional key, and the way that Henry IV’s retelling of the events of Richard II from his own perspective at the conclusion of 1 Henry IV forces the audience to re-evaluate the events of the earlier play, reinterpreting the dramatic past and imaginatively rewriting the play in light of the new perspective gained on events. The history plays thus create a new, dramatic history, a history without need for historical precedent. The plays deliberately signal their departure from ‘fact’ through anachronism, deviation from chronicle history and wholesale dramatic invention. In this sense the plays deliberately frustrate audience expectations; knowledge of chronicle history does not provide foreknowledge of what will happen onstage. History in the 3 theatre is new and unpredictable, perhaps closer in spirit to the uncertainty of the historical moment rather than the reassuring textual narrative of the chronicles. 4 Contents Introduction.....................................................................................................................6 Chapter I: History and the Histories.............................................................................23 Chapter II: The Making of History in Richard III......................................................49 Chapter III: Richard II: Competing Histories..............................................................86 Chapter IV: 1 Henry IV: Echoes of History................................................................118 Chapter V: 2 Henry IV: Rumours of History.............................................................155 Chapter VI: Other Histories........................................................................................197 Conclusion: A New History..........................................................................................224 Bibliography..................................................................................................................226 5 Introduction Anyone writing about Shakespeare’s histories has to wrestle with certain intractable problems. The first of these is the issue of which plays to consider. Shakespeare wrote eleven history plays throughout his career, some of them by him alone, some in collaboration with other playwrights. Some remain of doubtful authorship, but are generally considered to be at least partly his work.1 The history plays, and in particular the first tetralogy, thus present us with a patchwork history, comprised of different writers and different kinds of play. Shakespeare’s histories are generally grouped into two major sequences,2 with some plays existing outside this pattern. The so-called first tetralogy consists of the three parts of Henry VI and Richard III; the second tetralogy comprises Richard II, the two parts of Henry IV, and Henry V. This seemingly straightforward arranging of the plays itself causes problems, partly because the second tetralogy, although written later, depicts events that occurred before the first tetralogy. This means that Shakespeare completed his first history play sequence with Richard III and then began another, earlier, sequence starting with Richard II. Such an ordering could be taken to indicate that initially Shakespeare did not plan to continue the series.3 However, the placing of plays in two distinct tetralogies also raises the problem of the plays which do not fit into this pattern. Edward III, King John and Henry VIII are all chronologically distant from the plays 1 These include Edward III, the three parts of Henry VI and Henry VIII. See Giorgio Melchiori, ‘Introduction’, William Shakespeare, Edward III, ed. Giorgio Melchiori (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 14 and John Margeson, ‘Introduction’, William Shakespeare, King Henry VIII, ed. John Margeson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 4-5 for more information. 2 Graham Holderness, Shakespeare: The Histories (London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 2000), pp. 1-2. 3 Nicholas Grene argues that Shakespeare conceived the first tetralogy as a sequence of plays, but that the second tetralogy, initially at least, was not planned as such. Cf. Nicholas Grene, Shakespeare’s Serial History Plays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 247. 6 which constitute the tetralogies, and clearly do not readily fit into any history play sequence. In turn, this raises the question of whether the plays actually form a sequence at all, or whether critics have imposed a historical structure on a series of ‘essentially disaggregated’ plays.4 There are, in fact, compelling arguments for treating each play as a unique, stand- alone entity with only tangential links to other plays. For example, Richard of Gloucester, later Richard III, appears to be a completely different character in Henry VI than he is in Richard III. Similarly, it is hard to reconcile the tongue-tied Henry V with the quick- witted Hal who so ably matches wits with Falstaff. The disconnection between the two versions of the same character is so marked as to suggest that each play occurs in its own continuity, completely separate from the other histories. Even those plays which appear to continue a single narrative, such as the two parts of Henry IV, seem to be separated from the plays which precede them.5 This apparent disjunction between plays is complicated, however, by the fact that characters often look back at the history previously dramatised, explicitly referring to the events of previous plays. This would appear to fix the plays in the same continuity, but the accounts of the dramatic past related onstage often differ from what was actually dramatised in the earlier plays. Are the plays misremembering or deliberately reconstructing the past? Or are they referring to a different past, one similar to but ultimately quite different from the one the audience has seen? The relationships between the plays are not as straightforward as they first appear; the dramatic history they present is complex, multifaceted and contradictory, but also one that deeply involves the audience. 4 Holderness, Shakespeare: The Histories, p. 8. 5 Cf. Grene, Shakespeare’s Serial History Plays, p. 27. 7 Faced by such questions it is tempting, of course, to assign an overarching narrative to the histories, but any narrative imposed on the plays proves illusory at best. The two tetralogies are so different in tone, style and themes that it is difficult to see any concrete links between them.6 The first and second tetralogies appear to be relating two entirely different kinds of history as well as different periods of history. Taken together the plays do not readily constitute a unified whole; indeed, ‘disaggregation’ appears to be the hallmark of the histories. Instead of approaching the tetralogies, then, as a grand narrative, with all the assumptions about dramatic history which such an approach entails, or examining each play as an isolated history bearing tangential connections
Recommended publications
  • Plutarch, Machiavelli and Shakespeare's Coriolanus Patrick
    The Changing Faces of Virtue: Plutarch, Machiavelli and Shakespeare’s Coriolanus Patrick Ashby University of Bristol [email protected] Introduction: The hinges of virtue ‘Let it be virtuous to be obstinate’, says Caius Martius Coriolanus, shortly before the catastrophe of Shakespeare’s tragedy (Coriolanus, 5.3.26).1 In uttering these words, he articulates a moral hypothesis which is of central importance to Coriolanus: the supposition that steadfastness of principle is a fundamental good. This is a theory which the play puts to the test. The idea of ‘virtue’ — in a variety of guises — is a key focus of this essay, which identifies as crucial those moments at which definitions of virtue are unsettled, transformed, or confronted with a range of alternatives. Several commentators have connected Shakespeare’s Coriolanus with the political ideas of Niccolò Machiavelli, the Florentine theorist whose notoriety rests upon his recommendation of moral flexibility for political leaders. For Anne Barton, who reads the play in the context of Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy’s history of early Rome, Coriolanus dramatises the futile persistence of obsolescent virtues (the valorisation of battlefield heroics) in an environment of subtler needs and growing political sophistication.2 In Shakespeare and the Popular Voice, Annabel Patterson hints at Shakespeare’s sympathy with the idea of popular political representation, proposing that ‘there is nothing in the play to challenge that famous interpretation of the tribunate which [. .] Machiavelli made a premise of Renaissance political theory’.3 John Plotz 1 William Shakespeare, Coriolanus, The Norton Shakespeare, ed. by Stephen Greenblatt, Katherine Eisaman Maus, Jean E.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Download Hamlet: the Texts of 1603 and 1623 Ebook
    HAMLET: THE TEXTS OF 1603 AND 1623 PDF, EPUB, EBOOK William Shakespeare,Ann Thompson,Neil Taylor | 384 pages | 31 May 2007 | Bloomsbury Publishing PLC | 9781904271802 | English | London, United Kingdom Hamlet: The Texts of 1603 and 1623 PDF Book The New Cambridge, prepared by Philip Edwards, also conflated while using the Folio as its base text. It looks like you are located in Australia or New Zealand Close. For your intent In going back to school in Wittenberg, It is most retrograde to our desire, And we beseech you bend you to remain Here in the cheer and comfort of our eye, Our chiefest courtier, cousin, and our son. An innnovative and stimulating contribution. On approval, you will either be sent the print copy of the book, or you will receive a further email containing the link to allow you to download your eBook. This wonderful ternion gives the serious students of Hamlet everything they need to delve deeply into the Dane. You can unsubscribe from newsletters at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in any newsletter. A beautiful, unmarked, tight copy. By using our website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy. Password Forgot Password? What says Polonius? While Jonson and other writers labored over their plays, Shakespeare seems to have had the ability to turn out work of exceptionally high caliber at an amazing speed. Gerald D. May show signs of minor shelf wear and contain limited notes and highlighting. Who's there? But, look, the morn in russet mantle clad, Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastern hill.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tragedy of Hamlet
    THE TRAGEDY OF HAMLET THE WORKS OF SHAKESPEARE THE TRAGEDY OF HAMLET EDITED BY EDWARD DOWDEN n METHUEN AND CO. 36 ESSEX STREET: STRAND LONDON 1899 9 5 7 7 95 —— CONTENTS PAGE Introduction ix The Tragedy of Hamlet i Appendix I. The "Travelling" of the Players. 229 Appendix II.— Some Passages from the Quarto of 1603 231 Appendix III. Addenda 235 INTRODUCTION This edition of Hamlet aims in the first place at giving a trustworthy text. Secondly, it attempts to exhibit the variations from that text which are found in the primary sources—the Quarto of 1604 and the Folio of 1623 — in so far as those variations are of importance towards the ascertainment of the text. Every variation is not recorded, but I have chosen to err on the side of excess rather than on that of defect. Readings from the Quarto of 1603 are occa- sionally given, and also from the later Quartos and Folios, but to record such readings is not a part of the design of this edition. 1 The letter Q means Quarto 604 ; F means Folio 1623. The dates of the later Quartos are as follows: —Q 3, 1605 161 1 undated 6, For ; Q 4, ; Q 5, ; Q 1637. my few references to these later Quartos I have trusted the Cambridge Shakespeare and Furness's edition of Hamlet. Thirdly, it gives explanatory notes. Here it is inevitable that my task should in the main be that of selection and condensation. But, gleaning after the gleaners, I have perhaps brought together a slender sheaf.
    [Show full text]
  • King and Country: Shakespeare’S Great Cycle of Kings Richard II • Henry IV Part I Henry IV Part II • Henry V Royal Shakespeare Company
    2016 BAM Winter/Spring #KingandCountry Brooklyn Academy of Music Alan H. Fishman, Chairman of the Board William I. Campbell, Vice Chairman of the Board BAM, the Royal Shakespeare Company, and Adam E. Max, Vice Chairman of the Board The Ohio State University present Katy Clark, President Joseph V. Melillo, Executive Producer King and Country: Shakespeare’s Great Cycle of Kings Richard II • Henry IV Part I Henry IV Part II • Henry V Royal Shakespeare Company BAM Harvey Theater Mar 24—May 1 Season Sponsor: Directed by Gregory Doran Set design by Stephen Brimson Lewis Global Tour Premier Partner Lighting design by Tim Mitchell Music by Paul Englishby Leadership support for King and Country Sound design by Martin Slavin provided by the Jerome L. Greene Foundation. Movement by Michael Ashcroft Fights by Terry King Major support for Henry V provided by Mark Pigott KBE. Major support provided by Alan Jones & Ashley Garrett; Frederick Iseman; Katheryn C. Patterson & Thomas L. Kempner Jr.; and Jewish Communal Fund. Additional support provided by Mercedes T. Bass; and Robert & Teresa Lindsay. #KingandCountry Royal Shakespeare Company King and Country: Shakespeare’s Great Cycle of Kings BAM Harvey Theater RICHARD II—Mar 24, Apr 1, 5, 8, 12, 14, 19, 26 & 29 at 7:30pm; Apr 17 at 3pm HENRY IV PART I—Mar 26, Apr 6, 15 & 20 at 7:30pm; Apr 2, 9, 23, 27 & 30 at 2pm HENRY IV PART II—Mar 28, Apr 2, 7, 9, 21, 23, 27 & 30 at 7:30pm; Apr 16 at 2pm HENRY V—Mar 31, Apr 13, 16, 22 & 28 at 7:30pm; Apr 3, 10, 24 & May 1 at 3pm ADDITIONAL CREATIVE TEAM Company Voice
    [Show full text]
  • The Second Coming of the Second Tetralogy: Shakespeare’S Depiction of That “Which Is, and Which Was, and Which Is to Come.” (Under the Direction of M
    ABSTRACT PRICE, TRUDY JONES. The Second Coming of the Second Tetralogy: Shakespeare’s Depiction of that “Which is, and Which was, and Which is to come.” (Under the direction of M. Thomas Hester.) Shakespeare’s second tetralogy is framed by various biblical types, images and allusions in order to dramatize a specific period in history in terms of divine history. Shakespeare develops the tetralogy’s structure using the structure of the Bible, beginning with an image of Genesis and ending with an image of Revelation. The first play, The Tragedy of Richard II, portrays England as a fallen “demi-paradise,” reminiscent of Eden, and Richard as a fallen man, a type of Adam whose tragic fall creates the need for a redeemer of England, as reccounted in the providential history of Genesis. This redeemer comes to life in his next two plays, The History of King Henry IV, Parts 1 & 2 in the character of Prince Hal, who is depicted later to be “the mirror of all Christian princes.” Henry IV, Part I dramatizes Hal’s gradual “revelation” as that “redeemer” and also introduces Apocalyptic images in order to foreshadow the hardships portrayed in the next two plays. Henry IV, Part 2 “mocks [our] expectations” raised by Hal’s success as one who will “Redeem…time” by allowing the play to linger on as we wait for Henry IV’s imminent death. The tetralogy presents the Fall of man and need for a redeemer, the waiting time (chronos) that must be endured, and the season and fulfillment of that time (kairos) in order to show the audience how to seize their own kairos and live a life worthy of imitation, as Henry V did.
    [Show full text]
  • Henry V Plays Richard II
    Colby Quarterly Volume 26 Issue 2 June Article 6 June 1990 "I will...Be like a king": Henry V Plays Richard II Barbara H. Traister Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cq Recommended Citation Colby Quarterly, Volume 26, no.2, June 1990, p.112-121 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Colby. It has been accepted for inclusion in Colby Quarterly by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Colby. Traister: "I will...Be like a king": Henry V Plays Richard II "I will . .. Be like a king": Henry V Plays Richard II by BARBARA H. TRAISTER N BOTH RichardII and Henry v, the first and last plays ofthe second tetralogy, I kings engage in highly theatrical activity. Each play, however, has a very different metadramatic focus. In Richard II acting becomes a metaphor for the way Richard sees himself. The focus of audience attention is the narcissistic royal actor whose principal concern is his own posturing and who is his own greatest, and eventually only, admirer. Richard is an actor and dramatist, the embodiment of Elizabeth I's comment: "We Princes, I tell you, are set on stages, in the sight and view of all the world duly observed" (quoted in Neale 1957,2:19). However, his self-ab­ sorption and blindness to the world around him lead the audience to make few, if any, connections between him and the actor-dramatist who created him. The play is nearly empty of self-reflexive dramatic overtones despite its complex portrait of a player king.
    [Show full text]
  • 53Rd International Congress on Medieval Studies
    53rd International Congress on Medieval Studies May 10–13, 2018 Medieval Institute College of Arts and Sciences Western Michigan University 1903 W. Michigan Ave. Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5432 wmich.edu/medieval 2018 i Table of Contents Welcome Letter iii Registration iv-v On-Campus Housing vi-vii Food viii-ix Travel x Driving and Parking xi Logistics and Amenities xii-xiii Varia xiv Off-Campus Accommodations vx Hotel Shuttle Routes xvi Hotel Shuttle Schedules xvii Campus Shuttles xviii Mailings xix Exhibits Hall xx Exhibitors xxi Plenary Lectures xxii Reception of the Classics in the Middle Ages Lecture xxiii Screenings xxiv Social Media xxv Advance Notice—2019 Congress xxvi The Congress: How It Works xxvii The Congress Academic Program xxviii-xxix Travel Awards xxx The Otto Gründler Book Prize xxxi Richard Rawlinson Center xxxii Center for Cistercian and Monastic Studies xxxiii M.A. Program in Medieval Studies xxxiv Medieval Institute Publications xxxv Endowment and Gift Funds xxxvi 2018 Congress Schedule of Events 1–192 Index of Sponsoring Organizations 193–198 Index of Participants 199–218 Floor Plans M-1 – M-9 List of Advertisers Advertising A-1 – A-36 Color Maps ii Dear colleagues, It’s a balmy 9 degrees here in Kalamazoo today, but I can’t complain—too much— because Kalamazoo will not feel the wrath of the “bomb cyclone” and polar vortex due to hit the East Coast later this week, the first week of 2018. Nonetheless, today in Kalamazoo, I long for spring and what it brings: the warmth of the weather, my colleagues and friends who will come in May to the International Congress on Medieval Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of English and American Studies English
    Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature Lucie Wanderburgová William Shakespeare’s Second Historical Tetralogy: A Study B.A. Major Thesis Supervisor: Mgr. Pavel Drábek, Ph. D. 2007 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. …………………………………………….. Acknowledgement I would like to thank my supervisor, Mgr. Pavel Drábek, Ph.D., for his kind help, valuable advice and guidance of my work. Table of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 2 Shakespearean History Play ........................................................................... 5 2.1 Genre .............................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Sources .......................................................................................................................... 10 3 Historical and Social Background ................................................................ 13 3.1 Reception of the Plays in Elizabethan Period ......................................................... 13 3.2 Political Situation. Queen Elizabeth‟s Case. ............................................................ 16 4 Second Tetralogy – Reality or Fiction? ......................................................... 19 4.1 Richard II ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Iowa State Journal of Research 56.1
    IOWA STATE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH I MAY, 1982 4'3 -439 Vol. 56, No. 4 IOWA STATE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 56 (August, 1981-May, 1982) No. 1, August, 1981 ASPECTS IN RENAISSANCE SCHOLARSHIP PAPERS PRESENTED AT "SHAKESPEARE AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES" SYMPOSIUM, 1981 From the Editors. 1 GALYON, L. R. Introduction...................... ...... 5 BEVINGTON, D. M. "Why Should Calamity Be Full of Words?" The Efficacy of Cursing in Richard III . 9 ANDERSON, D. K., Jr. The King's Two Rouses and Providential Revenge in Hamlet . 23 ONUSKA, J. T., Jr. Bringing Shakespeare's Characters Down to Earth: The Significance of Kneeling . 31 MULLIN, M. Catalogue-Index to Productions of the Shakespeare Memorial/Royal Shakespeare Theatre, 1879-1978 . 43 SCHAEFER, A. J. The Shape of the Supernatitral: Fuseli on Shakespeare. 49 POAGUE, L. "Reading" the Prince: Shakespeare, Welles, and Some Aspects of Chimes at Midnight . 57 KNIGHT, W. N. Equity in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries. 67 STATON, S. F. Female Transvestism in Renaissance Comedy: "A Natural Perspective, That Is and Is Not" . 79 IDE, R. S. Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy and the Providential Play-Within-a-Play. 91 STEIN, C.H. Justice and Revenge in The Spanish Tragedy... 97 * * * * * * * * * * No. 2, November, 1981 From the Editors.. ... 105 TABLE OF CONTENTS PUHL, J. Forearm liquid crystal thermograms during sustained and rhythmic handgrip contractions . 107 COUNTRYMAN, D. W. and D. P. KELLEY. Management of existing hardwood stands can be profitable for private woodland owners....... .... 119 MERTINS, C. T. and D. ISLEY. Charles E. Bessey: Botanist, educator, and protagonist . 131 HELSEL, D. B.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard III: Villain and Educator
    Richard III: Villain and Educator Marleen Janssen, 3880176 Master thesis English language and culture: education and communication Utrecht University Supervisor: Prof. Dr. A. J. Hoenselaars Second supervisor: Dr. Paul Franssen British English July 2014 1 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Theoretical Framework 2.1. Requirements of the Common European Framework of References and the Dutch literature curriculum when it comes to English literature teaching at Dutch secondary schools 2.2. What are the key themes of Richard III? 2.3. How can the character of Richard III be explained? 3. Analysis 3.1. Earlier didactic methods 3.2. Lesson plans 3.3. Analysis of the lesson plans: which didactic methods from the literature can be found in the lesson plans? 3.4. Exemplary lesson plan based on the literature 3.5. Analysis of the questionnaire 4. Conclusion 5. Discussion 6. Bibliography 7. Appendices 2 1. Introduction When teaching English at secondary schools in The Netherlands certain levels of reading proficiency must be accomplished by the Dutch pupils. One of the goals of the Common European Framework of References and the Dutch literature curriculum is that secondary school pupils have to have been taught literature from different literary ages, such as the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Romanticism, and 20th Century Literature. However, this poses a problem: how does one present the literature of difficult periods to secondary school pupils who do not have C1 or C2 proficiency in English? In The Netherlands, English is taught as a foreign language. This means that it is almost impossible for the Dutch pupils to reach C1 or C2 language proficiency in English in secondary school.
    [Show full text]
  • Night Papers V on the Labyrinthitis Stuff By: —Joanna Fiduccia State of Curating Aaron Wrinkle • Brad Phillips • I
    LOS ANGELES | 2014 NIGHT GALLERY | 2276 E . 16TH ST. NIGHT PAPERS V ON THE LABYRINTHITIS STUFF BY: —JOANNA FIDUCCIA STATE OF CURATING AARON WRINKLE • BRAD PHILLIPS • I. RADIO HOUR M. CAY CASTAGNETTO • TODAY P6. JPW3 • coutez... Faites silence. Robert Desnos bids you listen — BOB NICKAS & ALLANA DEL RAY SAMANTHA COHEN • and be still, for the evening of Fantômas is beginning. It ZACH HARRIS • is November 3, 1933, and your rhapsode is as far away & MORE Eand near at hand as any voice on the radio — in this case, Radio Paris, which has marshaled its resources to present Desnos’s I MAY BE CRAZY BUT I’M NOT STUPID “Complainte de Fantômas.” A lyrical account of the crimes of the — JOHNNIE JUNGLEGUTS vagabond Fantômas, scheduled to coincide with the release of a P12. new episode in the popular series by Marcel Allain and Pierre Souvestre, Desnos’s poem is an advertisement with an outsize avant-garde pedigree (Kurt Weill composed the background music; Antonin Artaud directed and read the role of Fantômas) that would induct him into minor radio personality fame. The poet had been initiated into the blind art some three years earlier by a young entrepreneur and radio enthusiast by the name of Paul Deharme. Deharme, perhaps more than any of the other lapsed Surrealists that would follow in his path, was devoted to the radio’s novel artistic possibilities. In March 1928, he published “Proposition pour un art radiophonique,” a strangely matter-of-fact manifesto on the potentials of this new “wireless art,” combining a semi-digested Freud with a list of techniques to produce visions in the listener — the use of the present indicative, background music, adherence to chronology, and so forth.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Shakespeare Accessible to the High School Student: a Study of Language and Relationships in Hamlet and the Taming of the Shrew
    Making Shakespeare Accessible to the High School Student: A Study of Language and Relationships in Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew Virginia Kay Jones INTRODUCTION Having taught for over thirty years at an inner city high school, I have tried not only to shape my curriculum to my students‘ needs but also to make the study of British literature relevant to my students‘ lives. The teaching of Shakespeare is always a challenge. I have taught Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, The Taming of the Shrew, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and Hamlet—all with varying degrees of success. For the past few years, Hamlet has been my focal point for the spring semester of senior English. Although my students enjoy the play—often stating that it is the first Shakespearean play that they have liked—I feel that I can do more than what I am doing. By just reading and discussing a play, a student cannot appreciate the essence of the work. My students love language. They can improvise rap and create beautiful poetry with little prompting. However, they are afraid to tackle Shakespeare. I intend to design a unit that will make the study of Shakespeare more accessible to my students by helping them ―come to terms‖ with the language. My students also love to act, so I want to teach Shakespeare with a more performance-based approach. Additionally, I want to expose my students to Shakespearean comedy as well as tragedy. A unit designed around the theme of relationships (male-female, sibling, and parent-child) is the thread to connect Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew and make them more relevant to today‘s students.
    [Show full text]