|
< PREVIOUS (none)
|
NOTES
|
CITATION
|
NEXT (Scene II) >
CHARACTERS:
Christianus, a satisfactionist
Katherine, a lawyer
Wendy, a waitress
Baldy, a player
Selma, an old lady
Thelma, another old lady
The scene throughout is at
a coffee shop in London.
It's 10:15, Friday, March 23, 2007.
SCENE I. Too Late for a Lady of the Law
1  KATHERINE: Hey Chris . . . you’re late!
[1]
2 CHRISTIANUS: Well, what did you expect? This is not The Early Victorian, is it?
3 KATHERINE: No. But . . .
4 CHRISTIANUS: I know, I know. I am sorry, Katherine. I didn’t plan coming late. But some last-minute matters came up.
5 KATHERINE: Nothing serious, I hope?
6 CHRISTIANUS: Well, national food policy issues are always serious. But personal ones are even more so. So here I am!
[2]
[3]
7 KATHERINE: That’s the spirit! I am really glad you could make it!
8 CHRISTIANUS: Likewise. So what do you think about this place?
9 KATHERINE: It looks great!
10 CHRISTIANUS: Yes, and they have some a-m-a-z-i-n-g coffee!
11 KATHERINE: So I’ve heard. The only problem is that it’s crowded!
12 CHRISTIANUS: Hmmm, yes. But let’s go in anyway. You can’t see everything from the street.
13 KATHERINE: Sure, sometimes one has to investigate things from some other location or perspective to get the whole story. Or at least more of the story.
14 CHRISTIANUS: Thy words are wise, my dear Lady of the Law!
15 KATHERINE: No wiser than those that thou speak’st, my dear Sage of Satisfaction!
[4]
16 CHRISTIANUS: Ha ha! You’re funny!
17 KATHERINE: You too.
18 CHRISTIANUS: Shall we?
19 KATHERINE: Sure. I am freezing!
20 CHRISTIANUS: After you, mademoiselle!
21 KATHERINE: Thanks, but why don’t you
go first, since you know the place?
22 CHRISTIANUS: OK. Just be careful with the door here. It’s really heavy.
23 KATHERINE: Uff! Uh! You’re right. And squeaky!
24 CHRISTIANUS: Indeed.
25 KATHERINE: But still charming!
26 CHRISTIANUS: Well . . .
27 KATHERINE: Aaah!
28 CHRISTIANUS: What?
29 KATHERINE: It’s warm in here!
30 CHRISTIANUS: It sure is. With so many people, how could it not be?
31 KATHERINE: Right. But I’m not complaining. I like it hot.
32 CHRISTIANUS: Me too.
33 KATHERINE: And I absolutely adore that classical music!
34 CHRISTIANUS: Yes, it’s quite popular.
[5]
35 KATHERINE: What is it?
36 CHRISTIANUS: I am not sure. I wasn’t part of the music committee. But it’s definitely something late nineteenth-centuryish.
37 KATHERINE: How do you know that, if you don’t know what it is?
38 CHRISTIANUS: It just follows naturally.
39 KATHERINE: From what?
40 CHRISTIANUS: From the premises.
41 KATHERINE: What premises?
42 CHRISTIANUS: Well, if you know that they must not play anything but late Victorian classical music, then what else could it be?
[6]
43 KATHERINE: Hmmm. No exceptions?
44 CHRISTIANUS: Well, when the place is closed, the staff can play whatever they want, if they just keep the volume down. But when it’s open, it has to be Victorian. Late Victorian.
45 KATHERINE: I see.
46 CHRISTIANUS: But now, ta-ta-ta-taaa-ta-ta-taaaaaa!
47 KATHERINE: What?
48 CHRISTIANUS: I have a surprise for you!
49 KATHERINE: You do?
50 CHRISTIANUS: Yes. We just have to cross the room.
51 KATHERINE: How can we? It’s so crowded!
52 CHRISTIANUS: Yes, I know. Which is why I’ll ask Baldy and his basketball buddies to move their butts.
53 KATHERINE: OK. Just be polite.
54 CHRISTIANUS: Sir?
55 BALDY: Yes?
56 CHRISTIANUS: Can you and your friends excuse us?
57 BALDY: Uh . . . ?
58 CHRISTIANUS: We just want to take a look at the wall over there, behind you. But neither of us is seven feet tall. So maybe we could trade places?
59 BALDY: Oh, I see! Sure, no problem! We
can hang out at the statue instead.
60 CHRISTIANUS: Great! Thanks, mate!
61 KATHERINE: Thanks!
62 BALDY: My pleasure.
63 CHRISTIANUS: Was I polite enough?
64 KATHERINE: Yes. Very nice!
65 CHRISTIANUS: Good. So here it is!
< PREVIOUS (none)
|
TOP
|
CITATION
|
NEXT (Scene II) >
Notes (SCENE I)
[1]
I:1,
you’re late:
This meeting was scheduled for 10 a.m.
See Christianus and Katherine’s discussion at XVI:24–37 in KQQ
(Klintberg 2008a, pp. 97–98).
BO C. KLINTBERG (2008a), Katherine’s Questionable Quest for
Love and Happiness in Philosophical Plays, vol. 1, no. 1.
[2]
I:6,
national food policy issues:
This comment may have been related in some way to the proposed change in
screenplay writing and production standards suggested by the Republican FCC commissioner
Deborah Tate, who, according to Brooks Boliek, in a move to decrease childhood obesity,
‘wants celery and carrots to get equal TV time with doughnuts and candy bars’
(Boliek 2007). Tate said that, ‘[t]he story line should include healthful
messages and activities’ (Boliek 2007).
It is also interesting to note that
although the article apparently was written by Brooks Boliek at 1 p.m. EST on
22 March 2007, it was not released (at least not with the same title) until 7:58
p.m. EST on 22 March 2007, after which it again was released at 2:54
a.m. EST on 23 March 2007, presumably with minor corrections. It may also be
relevant to note that their UK archive [http://uk.reuters.com] has a similar
article, dated 22 March 2007, 5:00 GMT, but only released once.
Therefore, if this is the food policy issue that Christianus is
referring to, there were many opportunities for him to see this information,
just on Reuters.
BROOKS BOLIEK (2007), ‘FCC Member wants more fruits, vegetables
on TV’. Reuters, Friday, 23 March 2007, 2:54 a.m. EDT. Online article retrieved
from the Reuters website [http://www.reuters.com] on Tuesday, 3 April 2012.
[3]
I:6,
food policy . . . always serious:
If Christianus’s serious food policy issue was connected to the
ideas presented in Boliek’s article (Boliek 2007; ref. supra,
note 2
‘food policy’
at I:6),
Christianus might have responded to FCC’s representative something like this,
having Table 37 (‘Modifications of public policies that would
promote better food choices and more active lifestyles’) in mind (Nestle
2002, p. 367): ‘If childhood obesity, or any obesity, really is
the issue, why propose equal TV time? Why not just prohibit the
exposure of all unhealthy foods and practices on air, or at least decrease
their time on air radically? And why not implement the rest of
Marion Nestle’s Food Politics recommendations as well, while you’re at
it?’
MARION NESTLE (2002), Food Politics: How the Food Industry
Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University
of California Press.
[4]
I:15,
thou:
The pronoun ‘thou’, derived from Old English (for OE pronoun paradigms, see
Lockwood 1975, p. 184), is a word that might be understood as ‘you’. It has been used
in Early Modern and Elizabethan English, and also in ‘most of the modern dialects
of England’ (Wright and Wright 1973, pp. 159–160), although (most of) its later
use probably should be understood as being ‘archaic’ and therefore mainly
‘poetic’ or ‘literary’. However, it is not immediately clear how and when one
might use it, since the word ‘you’ also might be used, but not always
interchangeably. In fact, it is that (potentially) non-interchangeable
aspect of these words that playwrights such as Shakespeare sometimes use to
display, in a more explicit way, the shifting roles and relations that the
characters are going through. Thus, Foakes is right to point out that speakers
sometimes (e.g. in King Lear) do signal changes in their
relationships when they suddenly start using ‘thou’ instead of ‘you’, or vice
versa (Foakes 1997, pp. 7–8).
However, Foakes’s simple categorization
of the word ‘you’ as ‘the common, more neutral form’ (Foakes 1997, p. 7) might be
troublesome: for what does ‘common’ and ‘neutral’ mean? If, for example,
we would take ‘neutral’ to mean ‘less emotional’ or ‘unemotional’ or
‘emotionally disengaged’, we would still not be able to explain cases
such as the example in Abbott’s Shakespearian Grammar where one
seemingly should use ‘you’ even in a more passionate (i.e., less
‘neutral’) utterance: ‘When the appellative “sir” is used, even in anger, thou
generally gives place to you’ (Abbott 1883, p. 155).
Therefore, it may be better (at least in
the beginning stages) to simply avoid Foakes’s attempt to offer a simple
categorization and instead go directly to Barber (1993, pp. 186–187) or Wright
and Wright (1973, pp. 159–160) for a better, but still not entirely unproblematic,
introduction. The serious student can then continue to Abbott’s more detailed
account and its many examples (Abbott 1883), after which he also may consider
using the concise ‘thou’ entry in Onions as a convenient ‘Abbott reminder’
(Onions 1966, p. 255).
Consulting these resources, it might
then not be unreasonable to take Katherine’s usage of ‘thou’, in this
particular context, not as a gesture of any ‘good-humoured superiority’
towards a servant, but simply as an ‘affection’ towards a friend (Abbott 1883, pp.
153–154; cf. Onions 1966, p. 225). But if that is the case, why does she
— and Christianus — switch back to ‘you’ soon after? Is there no more
affection on the table? Or are the times a-changing?
E. A. ABBOTT (1883), A Shakespearian Grammar: An Attempt to
Illustrate Some of the Differences Between Elizabethan and Modern English.
New edition. London: Macmillan.
CHARLES BARBER (1993), The English Language: A Historical
Introduction. Cambridge Approaches to Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
R. A. FOAKES (1997), ‘Introduction’ in William Shakespeare,
King Lear. High Holborn: Arden Shakespeare, pp. 1–151.
W. B. LOCKWOOD (1975), Languages of the British Isles Past
and Present. London: André Deutsch.
C. T. ONIONS (1966), A Shakespeare Glossary.
Second edition, revised. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
JOSEPH WRIGHT AND ELIZABETH MARY WRIGHT (1973), An
Elementary Middle English Grammar. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
[5]
I:34,
it’s quite popular:
Christianus here seems to be talking about the current state of affairs in this
particular coffee shop, in terms of what customers generally are saying about
the music when they visit. But serious historians should, of course, be very
careful not to conclude from this statement that classical music was very
popular in Christianus’s time; for in the beginning of the twenty-first
century, only a relatively small percentage of the population actively listened
to classical music.
Also, one should probably not
understand Christianus’s statement as having anything to do with the
preferences of the general population in (late) Victorian times.
Although classical music certainly was promoted in different forms by
associations such as the Philharmonic Society in London (see infra,
note 6
‘late Victorian classical music’
at I:42)
and by the (in 1883) newly inaugurated Royal College of Music (with its
50 students, selected from 1,588 local candidates, studying pianoforte,
singing, violin, composition, violoncello, organ, clarinet, flute, and harp;
see Musical Times 1883), classical music was probably not the most
popular type of music for the middle class.
The exact ‘composition’ of
what the middle class liked may remain unknown, but there are still a few
points one could make. In terms of commercial interest and ‘popular culture’,
the (London) music hall and its nightly entertainment, including its ‘song,
dance, comic routine, acrobats, and animal acts’ (Faulk 2004, p. 1) must be
mentioned. Other popular music events were Gilbert and Sullivan’s playful
operas at the Savoy, which, according to Wood, ‘will always be associated with
the late Victorian age’ (Wood 1982, p. 285) and, according to George Rowell,
their popularity so lasting that ‘for modern audiences Savoy Opera and the
Victorian theatre have largely become synonymous’ (Rowell 1978, p. 95).
But we shall not forget that also many late Victorian musical adventures
simply were had at home, around the piano (Harwood 2009, p. 22), or
in other small groups of people coming together in various locations,
such as in those ‘singing classes’ and ‘temperance bands’ that Dave Russell
mentions (Russell 1987, p. 18).
BARRY J. FAULK (2004), Music Hall and Modernity: The Late-Victorian
Discovery of Popular Culture. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
JEREMY HARWOOD (2009), Looking Back at Britain: Holidays and
Hard Times – 1870s. London: Reader’s Digest.
MUSICAL TIMES (1883), ‘The Inauguration of the Royal
College of Music (1 June 1883)’. Reprinted (partly, with omissions) in J. M.
Golby, ed., Culture and Society in Britain 1850–1890: A Source Book of
Contemporary Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 228–231.
GEORGE ROWELL (1978), The Victorian Theatre 1792–1914. Second
edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DAVE RUSSELL (1987), Popular Music in England, 1840–1914: A
Social History. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
ANTHONY WOOD (1982), Nineteenth Century Britain: 1815–1914.
Harlow: Longman.
[6]
I:42,
late Victorian classical music:
What is the significance of the phrase ‘late Victorian’, in connexion with the
term ‘classical music’ and the role it plays at the coffee house? One way to
interpret this expression might be to propose that the kind of classical music
that was played there was the one that was composed sometime during that
era. In this case, one could then include works such as, for example, César Franck’s
Symphony in D minor (1888), Tchaikovsky’s Fifth Symphony (1888), and Arnold
Schoenberg’s Verklärte Nacht (1899), as mentioned in Grout and
Palisca (1988, p. 666).
Another way to interpret this expression might be
to suggest that the kind of classical music that was played there was the
one that was performed in the late Victorian era, whether it
was composed in that era or not. One could then list, for example,
the works performed by the Philharmonic Society at its First Concert (of the
season) at St. James’s Hall on Thursday, 23 March 1876, as reported by the Illustrated
London News (1876a, p. 310), including Mendelssohn’s overture ‘The Isles of
Fingal’, Weber’s overture ‘Euryanthe’, Schumann’s symphony in C, and
Beethoven’s pianoforte concerto in G. However, the full programme that Thursday
evening, as Foster has recorded it (Foster 1912, p. 354), also included works by Mozart,
Stradella, Chopin, Hiller, Taubert, and Brahms.
MYLES BIRKET FOSTER (1912), The History of the Philharmonic
Society of London: 1813–1912; A Record of a Hundred Years’ Work in the Cause of
Music. London: John Lane.
DONALD JAY GROUT AND CLAUDE V. PALISCA (1988), A History of
Western Music. Fourth edition. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company.
ILLUSTRATED LONDON NEWS (1876a), Saturday, 25 March
1876, vol. 68, no. 1913.
< PREVIOUS (none)
|
TOP
|
NOTES
|
NEXT (Scene II) >
HOW TO CITE:
Bo C. Klintberg (2012), ‘Too Late for a Lady of the Law’ in Wendy's Risky Role-Play and the Gory Plot of the Okefenokee Man-Monster.
Online edition of Philosophical Plays, 15 Apr. 2012. Retrieved [today’s date] from
http://www.philosophicalplays.com/pgWRRv1sc01.htm.
|
![Click to open the Philosophical Plays Home page [open-other-page navigation]](ggSLP_PPSiteLogo.gif)
![Click to open the Download page for a FREE PDF of Philosophical Plays [open-other-page navigation]](ggLIA_LatestIssuePP21.gif)
![This Online Edition Play: Wendy's Risky Role-Play and the Gory Plot of the Okefenokee Man-Monster, by Bo C. Klintberg [text image, no navigation]](grPlayWRR_PCAHead.gif "This Online Edition Play: Wendy's Risky Role-Play and the Gory Plot of the Okefenokee Man-Monster, by Bo C. Klintberg [text image, no navigation]")
![Philosophical Play: Wendy's Risky Role-Play and the Gory Plot of the Okefenokee Man-Monster, by Bo C. Klintberg [text image, no navigation]](grPlayWRR_PVAHead.gif "Philosophical Play: Wendy's Risky Role-Play and the Gory Plot of the Okefenokee Man-Monster, by Bo C. Klintberg [text image, no navigation]")
![Click to validate the HTML code quality at w3.org [open-external-page navigation]](ggSMF_W3CValidHTML401.gif){kind=small}
![Click to validate the CSS code quality at w3.org [open-external-page navigation]](ggSMF_W3CValidCSS.gif){kind=small}