December
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 336. Tuesday, 31 Dec 1991. From: Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Subject: The Death of Susan Wright Date: Tue, 31 Dec 91 8:23:20 EST Some tragic news from Stratford, Ontario yesterday: 44-year-old actress Susan Wright and her parents perished in a house fire there Sunday night. One of Canada's most prominent actresses, Wright played leading roles with most major companies across the country, including the Shaw Festival, Vancouver Playhouse, Neptune Theatre, Alberta Theatre Projects, and Robin Phillips' Grand Theatre Company. She won Dora Mavor Moore Awards as best actress for her performances in *New World* and *A Lie of the Mind*. Wright was also Co-Founder and Associate Director of the Persephone Theatre in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Wright's film and television work included principal roles in *Thick as Thieves*, *The Wars*, and the series *Adderly*, and she won a 1985 ACTRA Award as Best Actress for the role of Elizabeth in CBC's *Slim Obsession*. Wright had just completed her seventh season with the Stratford Festival, playing Mrs. Webb in *Our Town*, Germaine Lauzon in *Les Belles Soeurs*, and the Citizen's Wife in *The Knight of the Burning Pestle*. (The latter two performances, in particular, were the highlights of the respective productions). In past seasons, Wright has performed Mistress Quickly in *MWW*, Queen Margaret in *R3*, the Countess in *AWEW*, Paulina in *WT*, and the Queen in *Cymbeline* (among many other roles). Wright had already been cast to play Mistress Overdone in next season's *MM*, Denise in Michel Tremblay's *Bonjour, La, Bonjour*, Shirley in Willy Russell's one-woman show *Shirley Valentine*, and three parts in Robertson Davies's *World of Wonders*. (Stratford has not yet made any announcement, but it seems at least a possibility that *Shirley Valentine* will be cancelled or postponed in response to Wright's death.) Susan Wright was delighted to play opposite her sisters, Anne Wright and Janet Wright, in this season's *Les Belles Soeurs*, arguably the season's best production. Anne Wright has just completed her sixth season with the Festival, playing Viola in *12N*, Gabrielle in *Les Belles Soeurs*, and Georgette in *The School for Wives*. In previous seasons she has performed Helena in *MSND*, Alice and Mistress Quickly in *H5*, and Lucetta in *2GV*, as well as appearances in *Macbeth*, *TC*, and *MAAN*. Janet Wright debuted at the Stratford Festival last season in *Les Belles Soeurs*, and has been cast as Maria in next season's *Uncle Vanya*, and Gilberte in *Bonjour, La, Bonjour*. I am sure many other SHAKSPEReans will share my sense of loss and concern for the family. I will remember Susan Wright's Mistress Quickly, Germaine Lauzon, and Citizen's Wife, as long as I read those plays, and I very much regret missing the work she might have accomplished in the years ahead. Ken Steele University of Toronto
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 335. Monday, 23 Dec 1991. From: Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Subject: Stratford (Ontario) Festival - 1992 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 14:44:15 EST Thought I'd distill the stack of press releases I've accumulated from the Stratford (Ontario) Festival in the past month, regarding their 40th Season, 1992. (Those not likely to travel to Ontario for Shakespeare can stop reading any time). On December 7th, Stratford announced a deficit of $1,351,271 for the 1991 season, perhaps because of a 5% decline in attendance from 1990. The Festival also announced that the search for an Artistic Director to replace David William for 1994-7 has begun. Most disturbing of all, because of the "continuing difficult economic climate" Stratford has cut the playbill from 14 to 11 productions for 1992, shortened the Avon Theatre's season by a further two weeks, cut the acting company from 105 to 90, and is planning to "rigorously monitor" budgets for next year. On December 11th, David William announced the particulars of the 1992 playbill. *The Tempest* will open June 1st, directed by David William and starring Edward Atienza (Trinculo), William Needles (Alonso), Nicholas Pennell (Stephano), Claire Rankin (Miranda), Alan Scarfe (Prospero), and Mervyn Blake (Gonzalo). I'd expect strong comic performances from Atienza, Needles, Pennell, and Blake (all established veterans of the Festival), particularly considering William's demonstrated talents for directing comedy (in *The Shoemaker's Holiday* two years ago). Hopefully the production, to be designed by Susan Benson, will not be as dull as the *Hamlet* William directed this past season. *Romeo and Juliet* will open June 3rd, and will be directed by Richard Monette and designed by Debra Hanson. (This sounds like a winning combination already!) The production will star Barbara Bryne (Nurse), Antoni Cimolino (Romeo), Colm Feore (Mercutio), and Bernard Hopkins (Friar Lawrence). Monette has directed a string of first-class hits in recent years, including *The Comedy of Errors* and *As You Like It*, the former broadcast by CBC and the latter in production as a major motion picture. Bryne and Feore's abilities speak for themselves. This is going to be a must-see, I suspect. *Love's Labour's Lost* will open June 5th. It will be directed by Marti Maraden, and will star Peter Donaldson (Armado), Colm Feore (Berowne), Lucy Peacock (Princess), Douglas Rain (Holofernes), and William Needles (Nathaniel). Maraden has recently demonstrated her abilities directing Canadian and British contemporary playwrights (David Storey's *Home* in 1990, Michel Tremblay's *Les Belles Soeurs* and Elliott Hayes' *Homeward Bound* in 1991) and should do better at *LLL* than Hopkins did several years ago. The cast is strong and I have high hopes that Stratford will be able to pull off a good production of this play at long last. *Measure for Measure* will open mid-season, on August 14th, directed by Michael Langham and designed by Desmond Heeley. It will star Brian Bedford (Duke Vincentio), Antoni Cimolino (Claudio), Colm Feore (Angelo), Nicholas Pennell (Lucio), Peter Donaldson (Abhorson), Bernard Hopkins (Pompey), Brian Tree (Elbow), and Susan Wright (Mistress Overdone). This looks like it has the potential to be a very strong production too: I look forward in particular to the performances of Feore and Pennell. Marti Maraden has been appointed Director of the Young Company for 1992, a position which Bernard Hopkins held with reluctance this season. *The Two Gentlemen of Verona* will open August 2nd at the Tom Patterson Theatre (formerly the Third Stage), directed by Maraden and designed by Debra Hanson. The members of the 1992 Young Company will appear in *The Tempest* and *Romeo and Juliet* early in the season, and in larger roles in *The Two Gentlemen* at mid-season. David William has also continued his quest for younger audiences. Stratford's "Family Experience" discount tickets will apply to 154 performances in 1992, expanded from 65 in 1991, offering children's tickets (18 and under) for $13.50 when accompanied by a paying adult. (Limit two children's tickets per adult.) Furthermore, Stratford has announced a new "Under Thirty Theatre Club" for those 29 and under. For a $25 entrance fee, members will receive ten discount coupons for 50% off tickets for any Tuesday evening or Sunday evening performances. 1992 looks like a promising season for Stratford, and I'll try to keep you posted as news comes in. Ken Steele University of Toronto
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 334. Monday, 23 Dec 1991. Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 13:15:01 -0500 From: "Tad Davis" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Subject: 2.0332 Astral Navigation & Sonnet 166 Comment: RE: SHK 2.0332 Astral Navigation & Sonnet 166 [In SHK 2.0332, Ron Dwelle said:] >> It does seem a little surprising that Shakespeare understood navigation that well, though perhaps he just picked up the concept and the language, as he did with so many other areas of knowledge and experience. << I appreciate the confirmation, as if any were needed, and I will with your permission use it in my forthcoming monograph demonstrating that Shakespeare collaborated with Francis Drake on many of his early plays and poems. This theory is impossible to impugn, because it is (now) founded on correct navigational method. It puts out of court all previous theories on the sonnets and answers all questions, as of course I knew it would before I began. The only outstanding question is the identity of the Dark Lady, who may have been a mermaid (remembered by Shakespeare -- the magpie as ever -- in his glancing reference to the "fair vestal throned by the west"). These creatures are known to be of Italianate disposition and therefore dark, or at least brave. The Shakespeare establishment, of course, filled as it is with levellers and other demagogues who are unable to acknowledge the certainty provided by authority, will take its time catching me up. (Sorry. With the holidays coming on, I couldn't resist the temptation to caRowse a little bit.) Tad DavisThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 333. Sunday, 22 Dec 1991. From: Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Subject: Season's Greetings Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 10:52:18 EST Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans; The drop in network traffic of all kinds is the surest sign that the holiday season is upon us. Although I will be leaving town for Christmas, through the miracle of the network (and a few connections at the University of Western Ontario) I will be able to continue moderating SHAKSPER without interruption, for those still reading or writing. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for a wonderful year, and to wish you all the best for the holidays and throughout the new year (which will be Volume 3 of SHAKSPER). Yours, Ken Steele University of Toronto
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 332. Sunday, 22 Dec 1991. (1) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 11:11:22 EST From: Ronald Dwelle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Subj: SHK 2.0331 Q: Sonnet 166 & Astral Navigation? (2) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 16:40:48 PST From:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Subj: SHK 2.0331 Q: Sonnet 166 & Astral Navigation? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 11:11:22 EST From: Ronald Dwelle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Subject: Q: Sonnet 166 & Astral Navigation? Comment: SHK 2.0331 Q: Sonnet 166 & Astral Navigation? A most interesting question, Geoff, on 116, and one that I've contemplated frequently. Most memorable for me was six hours I spent reading and re-reading the sonnet, while becalmed in the Atlantic ocean about 200 miles from Bermuda. I frequently had to interrupt my reading to grab the sextant and shoot the sun through breaks in the overcast. To a contemporary celestial navigator, the lines can make sense in this way: a good star sight is always difficult, since in order to get the "height" or elevation of the star, you need to see the horizon and the star at the same time. The "height" is, by definition, the angle between the horizon and the star. The difficulty comes because at night it's often hard to identify the horizon accurately enough to get a precise angle--or, occasionally because of overcast or ship motion, it's hard to identify which star you're shooting. It is not unusual for a navigator (in poor conditions) to "shoot" any star he can. When you do that, you have a height (read off the sextant, or astrolabe), but you don't have a "worth"--that is, the navigator still has to calculate his position, to "reduce" the sight and convert it into a geographical position on the globe. Or simply guess which star he's working with. This is pretty sophisticated navigating for 1594, unless the star referred to is the North star or Pole star. By measuring the angle between the horizon and the North star, the navigator can make a fairly easy reduction to determine his latitude. Think of it this way: If the North Star were dead overhead, the height (angle) between the horizon and the star would be 90 degrees. And the ship would be at 90-degrees north latitude (or the North Pole). If the North Star were dead on the horizon, the height (angle) would be 0, and the ship would be located at 0-degrees latitude (or the equator). If the height (angle) were 45-degrees, the ship would be at latitude 45 degrees. Etcetera. This is a bit oversimplified, because several corrections have to made to the raw sight (defraction in the atmosphere, sextant mirror error, the fact that the pole star is not exactly over the pole, etc.) before the "worth" (accurate latitude) is known. This is all sensible in Shakespeare's time, since "latitude sailing" was the common way to traverse the ocean. (Longitude couldn't be easily determined until Captain Cook's time, since an accurate timepiece is required for that.) What the shipmaster did was sail "up" or "down" to the latitude of the home port or landfall (for example, the southern tip of Ireland), and then sail due east by compass until landfall was made. Frequent checks of the height of the north star had to be made, of course, to be sure the ship was not being set off course by currents or steered off course by poor helmsmanship, or forced away by contrary winds. So the sonnet's lines seem to be to be good navigation, or good navigational terminology. Love is like the North Star to every wandering bark, but it's not a sure simple easy thing, because you have to work at it, taking heights and calculating worths, and you're always in the sort of medial stage that the navigator finds himself in--confident yet anxious--between the taking of the sight and its reduction. When you do finally get the reduction right (when you know the star's worth), it is heaven, man. (Don't take my word--ask any navigator at sea!) It does seem a little surprising that Shakespeare understood navigation that well, though perhaps he just picked up the concept and the language, as he did with so many other areas of knowledge and experience. Ron Dwelle (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ) (Sorry the preceding is a little incoherent--my local e-mail system has an unusable text editor, so what you get is my rough draft.) (2)-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 16:40:48 PST From:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Subject: Q: Sonnet 166 & Astral Navigation? Comment: SHK 2.0331 Q: Sonnet 166 & Astral Navigation? I thought that was the point, that is, that the worth of a star is beyond navigational knowledge, as the value of love is beyond calculation. No?