From:     Stephanie Chamberlain <chamberlainsericson@gmail.com>

Date:      May 26 at 3:18 PM EDT

Subject:  TLS Book Review 

TLS Book Review: Protean Performances: A Leading Actor in an Age of Diverse Stages, by Peter Holland

https://www.the-tls.com/arts/theatre/richard-burbage-shakespeare-theatre-book-review-peter-holland

Multitalented, deeply committed to his craft, Burbage was unlike any other actor, for, as Richard Flecknoe wrote in 1664, he was “a delightful Proteus, so wholly transforming himself into his part and putting off himself with his clothes as he never (not so much as in the tiring-house) assumed himself again until the play was done”. Flecknoe’s phrase provides the subtitle for Siobhan Keenan’s new book, the first biography of Burbage. Richly detailed and thoroughly researched, Keenan’s account has to deal with much more than Burbage’s acting, for the “delightful Proteus” was heavily involved in the family business as a theatre entrepreneur.

From:     Kenneth Chan <kc231157@gmail.com>

Date:      May 12 at 6:14 AM EDT

Subject:  Much Ado About Nothing in Romeo and Juliet

The central theme of Much Ado About Nothing may be summarized by three complementary motifs:

• Our partiality—attraction or aversion—is an arbitrary projection based on imputed qualities not inherent in the object of our feelings.
• Our feelings of liking or hating are often conjured up by a misperception of reality.
• These arbitrary feelings, born of misperception, often create unnecessary strife and turmoil, and hence “much ado about nothing.”

This same theme echoes through the whole of Romeo and Juliet, with the misperception of reality mainly caused by the error of reifying the labels of “Montague” and “Capulet” to the extent that they define who their enemies are. It creates a dichotomy of interpretation which Shakespeare highlights throughout the play, and the resulting strife and suffering that ensues is truly much ado about nothing.

The dichotomy of interpretation is introduced by Shakespeare right from the start of the play in the dialogue between Sampson and Gregory, two members of the house of Montague. When they meet up with members from the house of Capulet, a fray begins and we witness a more pronounced dichotomy of interpretation between Tybalt and Benvolio.

Tybalt: What, art thou drawn among these hartless hinds?

Turn thee Benvolio, look upon thy death.

Benvolio: I do but keep the peace; put up thy sword,

Or manage it to part these men with me.

Tybalt: What, drawn and talk of peace? I hate the word

As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee.

Have at thee coward!

Tybalt encounters the same situation as Benvolio but his reaction is the exact opposite of Benvolio’s. While Benvolio tries to stop the melee, Tybalt—well immersed into his role as a Capulet—escalates the violence. If Benvolio uttered words of wisdom, Tybalt’s words must be the height of human stupidity. Even animals do not behave that stupidly.

That this quality of attraction and aversion is an arbitrary imputation is further emphasized by Shakespeare in the banquet scene. Here we find members of the house of Montague reveling amicably among the Capulets, until Tybalt discovers that someone with the label of Montague is among the guests.

Tybalt: This by his voice should be a Montague.

Fetch me my rapier, boy. What dares the slave

Come hither, covered with an antic face

To fleer and scorn at our solemnity?

Now by the stock and honour of my kin,

To strike him dead I hold it not a sin.

This hatred of Tybalt stems from the misperception embodied in the failure to realize that labels do not inherently exist but are merely imputed entities. Nothing has actually changed in Romeo to make him an enemy. The label “Montague” does not inherently belong to him.

This is further emphasized in the scene just before the fateful duel, where we find Tybalt spoiling for a fight over their respective labels. Romeo, newly married to Juliet, has a clearer view of the truth. He knows names do not demarcate them as enemies. Even by the labelling convention, his marriage to Juliet now makes the Montagues and the Capulets kinsmen. Romeo thus tries placating the belligerent Tybalt.

Romeo: Tybalt, the reason that I have to love thee

Doth much excuse the appertaining rage

To such a greeting: villain am I none,

Therefore farewell. I see thou knowest me not.

Tybalt: Boy, this shall not excuse the injuries

Thou hast done me, therefore turn and draw.

Now the play’s thematic resonance on the dichotomy of interpretation reaches a dangerous level. Romeo sees Tybalt as a kinsman, while Tybalt sees Romeo, ominously, as a mortal enemy.

The irony is that even the label “kinsman” or “enemy” is not an inherently existing thing. They are merely imputed entities and do not inherently belong to either Romeo or Tybalt, not any more than the artificially attached names of “Montague” and “Capulet.”

The danger of labels lies in their tendency to imbue us with a sense of being a separate self, an isolated being, often at odds with others. The connotations attached to labels may also lead us into dichotomies of interpretation and conflict situations, causing suffering and strife when we are induced, in a deranged way, to play our roles in accordance with the labels. It is all much ado about nothing.

At the end of the play, Shakespeare again emphasizes that all the anguish and strife were unnecessarily brought about by the arbitrary projection of imputed qualities that do not inherently belong. We find Capulet and Montague finally realizing the tragic error of their enmity.

Capulet: O brother Montague, give me thy hand.

This is my daughter’s jointure, for no more

Can I demand.

Montague: But I can give thee more:

For I will raise her statue in pure gold,

That while Verona by that name is known,

There shall no figure at such rate be set

As that of true and faithful Juliet.

Capulet: As rich shall Romeo’s by his lady’s lie,

Poor sacrifices of our enmity!

It has taken the deaths of Romeo and Juliet in an embrace of unity to finally reconcile the Capulets and the Montagues. In Romeo and Juliet, the peril of misperception found in Much Ado About Nothing is thus honed to its most potent and emotionally devastating form. For the sake of humanity, it is imperative that we heed this message of the play at this critical time of human history.

Kenneth Chan

From:     Arnie Perlstein <arnieperlstein@gmail.com>

Date:      May 11 at 9:52 PM EDT

Subject:  Query: Romeo and Juliet vis-à-vis Virgil’s Aeneas and Dido

I’ve recently had reason to look, for the first time, at the question of the (to me, obvious) allusion in Romeo and Juliet to the tragic episode of Dido and Aeneas in Virgil’s Aeneid. I call it obvious, because of the significant parallels, particularly the tragic climax, when the sudden departure of the hero for distant parts leads to the suicide of the heroine, whose desperate actions in part also arise from avoiding forced marriage (to Iarbus and Paris, respectively). Mercutio’s seemingly flippant throwaway about “Dido a dowdy” is just the explicit, if cryptic, cherry on top of that otherwise noteworthy allusion.

However, when I searched all the usual literary databases today, looking for existing articles/chapters that would bring me up to speed on what others have thought on this topic, I came up completely empty, with one brilliant but very oblique exception, from decades ago, which has in any event been ignored since then.

Are any of you aware of any existing published scholarship on this topic? I am gob smacked by the possibility that this is new scholarly ground, given that Shakespeare’s interest in the Aeneid has been established for a long time, since the bad old days when many Shakespeare scholars didn’t think Shakespeare was that well versed in the ancient classics; and it is a routine matter for both Romeo and Juliet and Dido and Aeneas to be grouped together with other tragic literary pairs like Hero and Leander, the way Mercutio did.

I really did try a variety of search terms, from different angles on the topic, and the internet’s answer was crickets.

Cheers,

Arnie Perlstein

From:     Ian McCormick <ian.mccormick@hotmail.co.uk>

Date:      May 8 at 5:31 PM EDT

Subject:  Book Announcement: Shakespeare: New Voices

In Shakespeare: New Voices a diverse range of contributors were asked to rethink, reframe, and re-contextualize Shakespeare’s drama in relation to contemporary debates across the academy and public discourse. Accordingly, this new collection presents a variety of new voices emerging out of contemporary Shakespeare and performance studies in the wider context of a global age of culture wars, identity politics, digital transformation, and pedagogic innovation.

Shakespeare: New Voices is a bold and necessary collection for our times. It not only examines Shakespeare’s place in twenty-first-century culture but also interrogates the role that literature, performance, and theory can play in social justice movements, intensifying culture wars, and emancipatory pedagogy.

In an era marked by global unrest, heightened attention to social justice, and a backlash against “wokeness,” Shakespeare’s drama persists as a cultural cornerstone and serves as point of common reference; the plays create a forum for debate and contestation, and opportunities for creative appropriation and adaptation. At one extreme, we find the Shakespeare Idol (Bardolatry); at the other the critique of transcendence and universalist claims, and a more nuanced exploration of forms of inclusion and exclusion within global Shakespeare studies.

With accessibility, originality, and meticulous scholarship as key guiding principles, this volume provides a pluralistic account of Shakespeare’s place in contemporary social and cultural life.

CONTENTS

1   Voices of Resistance and Renewal

Ian McCormick

2   Shakespeare, Social Justice and the Struggle for Relevance

Ananya Dhawan Deol

3   The International Ramifications of Antonio’s Debt

Alex Flores

4   “Mislike me not for my complexion”: Black Characters in Shakespeare’s Plays

E. Kalu Amah

5   Rewriting Caliban and Epistemic Struggle: A Postcolonial Reading Across Texts.

Chijioke Izuegbunem

6   “I Grant I am a Woman”: Gender Inequity, Women’s Non-Traditional Casting, and Why Modern Shakespeare Should be “Woke”

Emily Pickett

7   Class Agenda? Radicals and Reactionaries on Stage/in the Classroom

Lisa Gould-Crooke

8   Teaching Shakespeare Insults First: A Case for Practical Shakespeare Introductions

Savannah Xaver

9   “The Milk of Human Kindness”

Jessica Tooker

10   Trauma, PTSD to Recovery: Exploring the Journey of Shakespeare’s Tragic Heroes through the Lens of Optimality Theory

Kanak Kanti Bera and Sovan Tripathy

11   Shattered Mirrors: the Consequences of Narcissism in Shakespeare’s Parent-Child Relationships

Aglaia Maretta Venters

12   Shedding New Light and Meaning in the Field of Shakespearean Canon: Reconstructing an Ecological Perspective

Shantanu Siuli

13   Fixing Shakespeare, Breaking America: Translation, Turmoil, and the American Cultural Divide

Cason Murphy

14   Nikos Velmos’s New Voice for Cleopatra: Rewriting Shakespeare from the Margins of Interwar Greece (1924)

Dimitra V. Dalpanagioti

15   Mimicry, Androgyny and the Biological Roots of Rosalind’s Strategy

Catherine Diamond

16   Performative Dissonance: Shakespeare, Drag, and the Legal Regulation of Identity

Max Barrett

17   “The Quality of Mercy is Not Strained”: Using Fanfiction to Teach and Understand The Merchant of Venice in an Era of Hate

Allison Duque

18   Remaking and Reshaping Shakespeare through Fan Fiction

Bethany Smith

19   Witchcraft as Statecraft: Women’s Agency in The Hollow Crown’s Adaptation of Shakespeare’s Henriad

Susan Kendrick 

20   Shakespearean Voodooism in Ray Bradbury’s “The Small Assassin”: Serendipitous Appropriation and Modernization of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

Nancy Ann Watanabe

21   From Flesh to Puppet: Performance and Evolutionary Adaptation in Boğaziçi Performing Arts Ensemble’s Master Shakespeare

Gökçe Yetkin

ISBN: ‎ 979-8255328079

Birmingham: Quibble Academic

326pp £12.99

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0GYRM5VCW

Dr Ian McCormick

From:     Elena Pellone <lenavision@live.com>

Date:      May 7 at 9:07 AM EDT

Subject:  Book announcement 

Dear SHAKSPEReans,

I am pleased to announce the publication of my monograph: Directorless Shakespeare: Transformations through collective Embodied Literary Criticism (Routledge, 2025).

https://www.routledge.com/Directorless-Shakespeare-Transformations-through-collective-Embodied-Literary-Criticism/Pellone/p/book/9781032771885

Challenging received scholarship on the practice of Shakespeare’s theatre, this book displaces a contemporary cultural bias towards leadership models to reconsider possibilities of working in a non-hierarchical and inclusive creative theatrical practice. It offers ways of restoring to actors a sense of what the existentialists termed “autonomy” that Shakespeare’s company would have embodied. Against a critical account of two major Shakespeare playhouses—Shakespeare’s Globe, London and the American Shakespeare Center—the book describes the original practice-based research by Anərkē Shakespeare and Venice Shakespeare Company without a controlling director. Their staging of three directorless Shakespeare plays, and his narrative poem The Rape of Lucrece, with diverse actors, performance spaces, languages and countries, explores multilingual, intersectional, cross-disciplinary and international possibilities of early modern performance and study. Directorless Shakespeare as “Embodied Literary Criticism” releases the dialogical forces of Shakespeare’s texts, which are more fully served by the centrifugal force of the collective ensemble rather than the centripetal force of the single director. It allows texts to speak fully and multiply, in democratic exchange with an audience, liberated from directorial or theoretically driven concepts.

From:     Arnie Perlstein <arnieperlstein@gmail.com>

Date:      May 2 at 7:03 PM EDT

Subject:  Redux: Questions about Cassio

Two years ago, I started a thread in SHAKSPER, “Questions About Cassio,” which ended with the following: https://shaksper.net/archive/2024/912-april/35010-re-questions-about-cassio-7

Today I revisit two related parts of that thread, which I now claim to understand better, and which synergize with each other.

Shakespeare’s Inspiration for the Name “Cassio”:

I originally suggested that it was no coincidence that (a) the name Cassio is almost the same as Cassius, (b) Cassius in Julius Caesar was a “toged consul” (Iago’s dismissal of Cassio as an undeserving lightweight); and (c) the homophonic word “cause” is a thematic keyword primarily associated with Othello’s motivation for killing Desdemona.

Steve Sohmer responded: “…. Shakespeare did not make up Cassio’s name “from scratch.” He derived it from Cassia, an ingredient in anointing oil in Exodus 30:22–25 and in Psalms 45:7–9 (which might explain why the Veronese [he’s not Florentine] Cassio carries in on a wood frame and is promoted chief of the island) ….”

I responded to Steve: “…I would still maintain that Shakespeare’s own, earlier, stabbing, ambitious “Cassius” is a much more probable source for stabbing, ambitious Cassio than the oil in Exodus and Psalms ….”

Today I realized that the naming of Cassio was not an “either/or” but a “both/and” situation. In other words, I had missed a key aspect of Steve’s interpretation, which raises his “Cassia” interpretation to a level of at least equal plausibility and significance, alongside my “Cassius” claim.

To wit, the relevant text of Psalms 45 cited by Steve praises a newly crowned king using a metaphor of fragrant, gladness-inducing anointment:

7: Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness, because God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

8: All thy garments smell of myrrh and aloes, and cassia, when thou comest out of the ivory palaces where they have made thee glad. [my emphasis]

Steve’s essay fleshed out what he saw in this allusion:

[Cassio’s] name identifies Cassio as “the anointed,” “the chosen,” “the elect.” And Cassio’s startling, unprepared exaltation is the apotheosis of the play’s great theme, the triumph of inscrutable election over earthly merit—which Shakespeare articulates with uncharacteristic bluntness, though he wraps the statement in Cassio’s drunken slurring: “God’s above all, and there be souls must be saved, / and there be souls must not be saved” (2.3.98-100).

I now heartily endorse Steve’s sharp insight into this Biblical subtext of Cassio’s shocking ascension to governor of Cyprus, noting, additionally, that the keywords “glad/gladness” and “smell” in Othello subtly also point back to those same words in Psalms 45:7-8.

However, I also take Sohmer’s point one giant step further. Harking back to the claims in my 2024 thread, Cassio can plausibly also, like Iago, be heard to say, “I am not who I am.” In other words, his rise to governor can plausibly be viewed as no accident, but as an outcome he has––also like Iago––carefully planned from the get-go, and then improvised, (unlike Iago) and successfully implemented by the end of the play.

A full and persuasive justification of my admittedly far-outside-the-box claim is far beyond the scope of this post, but I will now present one key element of Cassio’s carefully planned scheme, which points directly, if metaphorically, right back to those same Biblical verses cited by Sohmer.

To wit, I see Cassio as pulling off an off-center, audacious anointment, in which the “oil of gladness” Cassio uses to rise to power is not cassia––nor, indeed, is it myrrh, aloes, or any other ancient, sort of anointing balm––but is, instead, what Othello unwittingly alludes to, when, after Cassio’s drunken brawl with Montano, he says:

Come Desdemona, ‘tis the Soldiers life,

To have their BALMY slumbers wak’d with strife. [my emphasis]

In other words, alcohol is the metaphorical balm or “oil”* that Cassio chooses for his “anointing” as future governor! As in a high-risk, high-reward “queen’s sacrifice” in champion-level chess, Cassio deliberately frames himself as an alcoholic, and gets himself in hot water with Othello, as the first domino in a series of steps that will eventually culminate with Cassio, not Iago, the last, anointed man standing.

*per the OED, the earliest slang usages of “well-oiled” meaning “drunk” were before Shakespeare wrote Othello

Sohmer ended the relevant portion of his essay as follows:

Unconsciously, Desdemona identifies the engine driving her personal tragedy: “In reply to Iago’s question concerning Othello’s rage—“How comes this trick upon him?”—Desdemona replies, “Nay, heaven doth know” (4.2.131). Ironically, it is through Iago’s mouth that Shakespeare articulates the specialness of Cassio, though he wraps the statement in smoldering anger; the speaker (Iago) has no clue how true he speaks when he says of Cassio, “he, sir, had th’election” (1.1.26).

I add as a postscript that Cassio rigged that election, by making it a one-man race!

And now, I will very briefly turn to, and update my position on, another of Cassio’s “dominoes,” which I presented in my 2024 thread.

Cassio’s Coat

In my 2024 posts, I cited Maurice Hunt’s “Cassio’s Coat” from The Upstart Crow, vol. 26 (2006-7): 61-69, as the inspiration for my claim that Cassio deliberately wears the Elizabethan version of “body armor” so that Roderigo’s expected stab will not kill him, and Cassio will then be able to set the stage for his final act of gulling Iago.

However, as with Sohmer’s citation of Psalm 45, I now see, with 20:20 hindsight, that I failed to give due consideration to Hunt’s ingenious theological argument that Shakespeare meant to invoke St. Paul’s Christian armor.

Now, considering together (a) Cassio’s drunken anointment as the newly anointed king of Psalm 45, with (b) Cassio’s Kevlar coat as Christian armor, I see Shakespeare engaged in a surprising adaptation and blending of two elements of Biblical orthodoxy for his subversive dramatic purposes, centered on the deeply mysterious character of Cassio.

Arnie Perlstein

From:     Kenneth Chan <kc231157@gmail.com>

Date:      April 22 at 8:19 PM EDT

Subject: Techniques in Much Ado About Nothing

Shakespeare conveys the meaning in each of his plays by making us live through it. It is an emotional encounter designed to illuminate the meaning within the depths of our inner being. The message of the play is not conveyed intellectually; it is experienced.

To truly imbibe the message of a Shakespearean play, we thus need to feel and breathe the life of the drama as though it were real. We must plunge ourselves fully into the action and live through the performance. It is learning through emotional participation, an encounter that always leaves a deeper impression than mere textbook learning.

Much Ado About Nothing is a good illustration of how Shakespeare conveys the sage message for each of his plays. He consistently uses three techniques for this purpose, and this is true for practically all his plays.

1. Cohesive Unity

The meaning of a Shakespearean play resides in the experience of the entire play as a cohesive whole. While it is well recognized that a good short essay should be unified, Shakespeare extends this principle of unity to the entire play, so much so that there are no extraneous scenes in a Shakespearean play. Each play constitutes a tightly bound unit, carefully crafted to leave its impact as a single compact entity. I call this characteristic quality—found in every Shakespearean play—a “cohesive unity” of meaning, since every part of the play contributes towards the central theme.

2. Thematic Resonance

As each Shakespearean play imparts its message through our emotional experience, the central meaning is repeated many times throughout the play. The dominant themes of the play reverberate through the entire drama, like a long rolling thunder that often builds, from the beginning, to a resounding climax at the end. I call this unique trait of ever-repeating motifs in Shakespeare’s plays “thematic resonance”—a technique of flooding our subconscious with an incessant flow of recurring impressions that convey the deeper meaning to our inner being.

3. Focused Allegorical Scenes

Another vital clue to the meaning of a Shakespearean play resides in scenes that do not directly contribute to the main action. Nonetheless, they are there for a specific reason for they contribute to the play’s central meaning. I call all these apparently extraneous scenes “focused allegorical scenes” because they artistically amplify the main themes of the play using symbolism, analogy or parody. These allegorical scenes can be called “focused” because they all contribute towards advancing the central message.

An excellent example of Shakespeare’s use of these three techniques can be found in Much Ado About Nothing, where the central theme can be summarized by three complementary motifs:

• Our partiality—attraction or aversion—is an arbitrary projection based on imputed qualities not inherent in the object of our feelings.
• Our feelings of liking or hating are often conjured up by a misperception of reality.
• These arbitrary feelings, born of misperception, often create unnecessary strife and turmoil, and hence “much ado about nothing.”

Because the message in the play is relatively uncomplicated, the thematic resonance of its main theme is literally relentless. This thematic resonance is the main method that Shakespeare uses in this play to establish its cohesive unity.

In addition, the scenes involving Dogberry and company function as focused allegorical scenes that amplify the same central message allegorically through analogy and parody. The first focused allegorical scene we encounter in the play, however, is the masked ball, that again builds on the resonating theme. The masked ball symbolizes our usual mundane state, one of floundering around, unaware of the true situation.

The opening dialogues in the masked ball—between Hero and Don Pedro, Margaret and Balthasar, Ursula and Antonio—establish an atmosphere of groping in the dark, as each lady is unsure of the identity of her masked dancing partner. As in the real world, where ignorance prevails, errors begin to emerge.

We witness the first error when Beatrice dances with the masked Benedick, who pretends to be someone else. Beatrice disparages Benedick more severely than she would have intended, had she known the identity of the man she was addressing. It is an error born of ignorance, an unfortunate state often found in the real world.

The next error from the masked ball is a variation of similar groping in the dark. Claudio traps himself by believing that Don John—who knows his real identity—has mistaken him for Benedick. Under the pretext of advising the supposed “Benedick” to dissuade Don Pedro from pursuing Hero, Don John works his mischief.

Don John: Signor, you are very near my brother in his love. He is enamored on Hero. I pray you, dissuade him from her. She is no equal for his birth. You may do the part of an honest man in it.

Don John poisons Claudio’s mind with jealous resentment by suggesting that his brother, Don Pedro, will be courting Hero for himself instead of doing it on behalf of Claudio. This misperception is, however, soon corrected with no lasting effect, making this episode inconsequential and almost redundant to the play … except that it does serve one real purpose. It is part of the thematic resonance on how our feelings may be conjured up by false perception.

Some of Shakespeare’s plays have an abundance of these apparently extraneous episodes, only they are not extraneous. They have definite purpose and are either part of the thematic resonance or serve as focused allegorical scenes, depicting symbolically the very theme the recurring motifs present.

This is the mystical art of Shakespeare in its element. We are immersed in the message reverberating without respite. The recurring leitmotifs play on our hidden depths, like music with an ever-resounding echo, weaving through our train of thoughts in a lyrical dance that pulls the strings of the subconscious. This is why Shakespeare’s plays have such a mesmerizing effect on so many. They touch something archetypal and deep inside.

If Shakespeare’s intended meaning is understood consciously, the effect may even be enhanced, for the ever-resonating motifs, surging and receding repeatedly, may grip the consciousness in a way that guides towards a thematic stirring within.

Kenneth Chan