Relationships, Residence and the Individual
eBook - ePub

Relationships, Residence and the Individual

A Rural Panamanian Community

Stephen Gudeman

Share book
  1. 296 pages
  2. English
  3. ePUB (mobile friendly)
  4. Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub

Relationships, Residence and the Individual

A Rural Panamanian Community

Stephen Gudeman

Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations

About This Book

Representing a departure from traditional studies of social organisation, the book asserts that a kinship system is best understood as a system of concepts rather than as a set of empirical relationships. Three aspects of life in the Panamanian community of Los Boquerones are described
First published in 1976.

Frequently asked questions

How do I cancel my subscription?
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on “Cancel Subscription” - it’s as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time you’ve paid for. Learn more here.
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Relationships, Residence and the Individual an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Relationships, Residence and the Individual by Stephen Gudeman in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Social Sciences & Anthropology. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.

Information

Publisher
Routledge
Year
2013
ISBN
9781136544248
Subtopic
Anthropology
Edition
1
Romeo and Juliet
Assembly Hall, Edinburgh
1st September 1952
Old Vic Theatre
15th September 1952
CHORUS
SAMPSON
GREGORY
ABRAHAM
BALTHASAR
TYBALT
BENVOLIO
MONTAGUE
LADY MONTAGUE
CAPULET
LADY CAPULET
ESCALUS, Prince of Verona
MERCUTIO
PARIS
ROMEO
PETER
NURSE
JULIET
OLD CAPULET
FRIAR LAURENCE
APOTHECARY
FRIAR JOHN
PAGE TO PARIS
WILLIAM DEVLIN
WOLFE MORRIS
GEORGE MURCELL
HUGH DAVID
JOHN BRESLIN
LAURENCE PAYNE
WILLIAM SQUIRE
RUPERT HARVEY
DAPHNE HEARD
JOHN PHILLIPS
YVONNE COULETTE
WILLIAM DEVLIN
PETER FINCH
JOHN WARNER
ALAN BADEL
NEWTON BLICK
ATHENE SEYLER
CLAIRE BLOOM
ROBERT WELLES
LEWIS CASSON
WOLFE MORRIS
ROBERT WELLES
ALAN DOBIE
OFFICERS, CITIZENS, SERVANTS, MUSICIANS AND LADIES:
JOHN BRESLIN, HUGH DAVID, CHURTON FAIRMAN, BERNARD KILBY, JAMES MAXWELL, DONALD PICKERING, DOUGLAS RAIN, DENIS RAYMOND, LLOYD RECKORD, BRUCE SHARMAN, ERIC THOMPSON, BARBARA GRIMES, PHYLLIDA LAW, ANDREE MELLY.
Sets and Costumes by Roger Furse.
Music composed by Clifton Parker.
[Photograph: Houston Rogers, London
Here is the Nanny of all time
JULIET: Claire Bloom
NURSE: Athene Seyler
[Photograph: Houston Rogers, London
The character of Juliet cannot be acted, it must be lived
JULIET; Claire Bloom
[Photograph: Houston Rogers, London
‘Which are the children of an idle brain’.
MERCUTIO: Peter Finch
Romeo and Juliet
LIKE Loves Labour’s Lost this is a young play, written when the playwright was between twenty-five and thirty. Chronologically, it is considered by Sir Edmund Chambers to be later than Loves Labour’s Lost and earlier than A Midsummer Night’s Dream. As an early play it displays a certain weakness, characteristic of this lyrical period of the poet’s life—his irresistible urge to concern himself with puns and conceits of language. This punning and word-play can be an embarrassment to us to-day, who have lost the humour and the ear for such matters, more especially so when the young word-spinner’s ebullience allows it to burst forth in tragic passages, such as the play on the word ‘Ay’ in Juliet’s outburst of grief, and in the passage between Peter and the musicians. In general, however, such outbursts of word-music can be accepted by us and woven into the lyrical framework of the tragedy; for the first important point to remember about Romeo and Juliet is that it is a lyrical play.
To point the importance that word-music plays in Romeo and Juliet, we have only to look at the moon-drenched duet of the balcony meeting, the torchlight aria of the Queen Mab speech, the dawn cadenza of the farewell scene, the ghost sonata of Juliet’s potion speech, and Romeo’s final swan-song in the tomb:
‘How oft when men are at the point of death
Have they been merry! Which their keepers call
A lightening before death: O how may I
Call this a lightening? O my love! my wife!
Death, that hath sucked the honey of thy breath
Hath had no power yet upon thy beauty:
Thou art not conquer’d; beauty’s ensign yet
Is crimson in thy Hps and in thy cheeks,
And death’s pale flag is not advanced there.’
Such passages of word-music are, if you like, a play upon words, a mixture of metaphors, a conceit of imagery—but they are also word-magic, spun by a master weaver of language; by a playwright who knew how words, when used with inspiration, charged with emotion and shot through with lyrical magic, can produce the same effect as can the sound of viols, hautboys and all the consort of heavenly instruments that hale men’s souls out of their bodies.
To reconcile this elaboration of language with the tragic content of Romeo and Juliet, we must first recognize that this musical language is a part of the play, as important as is the score of an opera. To try to damp down die lyrical effect produced by the word-music is to destroy the magic of the play.
There are other signs of youthful workmanship; notably the lengthy winding up of the plot in the last scene. This we will deal with drastically, for we must bear in mind that our audience lack the endurance which must have characterized the spectators of the Globe, and three and a half hours on a hard bench in the Assembly Hall, Edinburgh, is not conducive to successful entertainment. We must, therefore, pledge ourselves not to exceed the Chorus’s statement, ‘the two-hours’ passage of our stage’—an exaggeration by any standards of speed—by more than one hour, no matter what the sacrifices may mean. To keep the play within its time limit, let us bear in mind that modem acting has developed a tendency to stress effects of tension by using elaborate pauses. Such pauses can, of course, be enormously effective in Shakespeare’s plays as in others, but in so far as they destroy or break the flow of words, which makes the music of the play, they are harmful. The effect of speed in the delivery of Shakespeare’s lines—the speaking of lines ‘trippingly on the tongue’—is too often neglected, because it is hard to master; John Gielgud is a notable exception to this. When used in the right places, speed is of considerable importance. We are too apt to linger over our parts, savouring their meaning at the expense of the movement of the play. In studying the play, we must pay particular attention to pace and tempo generally, for it is by the correct use of tempo, be it slow or fast, that the word-music is controlled.
Now for the play itself and its treatment. It is called in the First Quarto, ‘An excellent conceited Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet’, but we would do well to study the Prologue to the play for a further insight into what the playwright had in mind.
‘Two households, both alike in dignity,
(In fair Verona, where we lay our scene)
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life;
Whose misadventured, piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents’ strife.
The fearful passage of their death-marked love,
And the continuance of their parents’ rage,
Which, but their children’s end, nought could remove,
Is now the two hours’ passage of our stage.’
I would ask you to consider for a moment certain key passages of this Prologue: first, ‘Two households, both alike in dignity … from ancient grudge break to new mutiny.’
We are in Verona in the fifteenth century. Perhaps Verona is a little like London in the last years of the sixteenth century; these matters of location and period are supremely unimportant to the placeless and timeless flight of Shakespeare’s imagination. Though his scenes be laid in Greece, Rome or Egypt, his period be pre-historic or fifteenth century, yet the life that is breathed into his characters is drawn from the living, contemporary existence of his own age. That is the strength of his characterization.
We are, then, in Shakespeare’s Verona, sun-baked with a heat that makes men quick to strike ‘being moved’. The sort of drenching heat in which gallants and their minions lounge the street, idly exchanging quips, as they sprawl against comer-posts, mocking at passers-by, especially if they happen to be ancient ladies coquetting behind their fans. The sort of heat that breeds mischief and flies. In this proud city-state of Verona live the two great families of Montague and Capulet, proud of their nobility, jealous of their prerogatives, marrying their daughters and sons with careful attention to the wealth and stability of their houses. Between these two clans exists a bitter and continual blood-feud, the origin of which is unexplained and is for our purposes unimportant. It springs from the inevitable rivalry of two households, neither of which can bear to be outdone in precedence or wealth by the other. This rivalry, fanned by the sort of swordsman-braggart that each family cultivates, set in the quarrelsome heat of the piazzas of Verona and framed by the code of honour of a duelling age, when to study the changing fashions of swordsmanship and to draw blood are the necessary stigmata of manhood, is bound to present a serious problem to the upholders of law and order. In this struggle for family power, not only the noble members of the households are affected, but the quarrel lies no less deeply between the serving men. Sampson and Gregory deliberately set upon Abraham and Balthasar in the first scene of the play when they see Tybalt approaching, knowing that this will draw the commendations of their fire-eating lord.
No matter what severity the energy and civic sense of the ruling prince may display, it appears impossible, short of a general purge, to extirpate the evils of these constantly recurring brawls, which cause such damage to the citizens and bring such shame on the city. This is Verona, not unlike London within the living memory of Shakespeare and his contemporaries where the great noble houses still remembered their wounds from the Wars of the Roses and where, even in Shakespeare’s day, the citizens could be alarmed by the call of ‘An Essex’ or ‘A Leicester’.
Let us again return to our Prologue: ‘From forth the fatal loins of these two foes, a pair of star-crossed lovers take their life … The fearful passage of their death-marked love …’ These latter words raise the question of the part that destiny plays in this tragedy. In most of the great Shakespeare tragedies, particularly in the more mature works—Lear, Timon, Othello and Antony—fate, as it is understood by the Greek dramatists, plays no important part in the punishment or purgation of the heroes and heroines. Even in Macbeth and Hamlet it is the sin, or the will, of the leading characters, rather than the prophecies of Witches or the invocation of a Ghost, that bring about the tragedy. Shakespeare seems to have rejected any thought of predestination and, although he lays great store by supernatural warnings, he does not accept the philosophy of intervention by Divine power to order men’s actions. Man creates his own destiny and as he sows, so must he reap. Lear and Timon, Macbeth and his wife, Antony and Cleopatra, Hamlet, Coriolanus, Othello, the Richards, all meet the ends that they themselves have prepared by their temperaments and deeds—be it their jealousy, their pride, their folly or their weakness. But here, in this first major tragedy that Shakespeare wrote, we find in ‘the fatal passage of their death-marked love’ an inevitable destiny surrounding the two lovers. Antony and Cleopatra were also involved in such a death-marked love, but Antony and Cleopatra were mature, experienced lovers; moreover, their union was by man’s standards immoral, and, therefore, in the eyes of the audience, punishable. Romeo and Juliet are children—the one scarcely a man, the other a mere girl of fourteen. Their love is essentially pure and indeed in its social implication of uniting the two rival families, a thing to be desired by Christian principles. It may be argued that their love was ‘too rash, too unadvis’d, too sudden’, but the audience, which is the judge of the play’s morality, will inevitably side with these young people. Moreover, their union is encouraged by older and wiser people in the persons of the Nurse and the Friar.
But yet we would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that in this single instance the playwright has been untrue to his belief in man’s ultimate power to control his destiny, and to conclude that fate has intervened to strike down these young people in the same way as it does in the novels of Thomas Hardy or in the early Greek tragedies. The guilty parties are present in this as in all Shakespeare’s plays, though they are not the so-called principal characters. The motivators of this ‘excellent conceited tragedie’ are neither Romeo and Juliet nor fate, but the ‘two households both alike in dignity’, with which words the Prologue opens the play. The Capulets and Montagues are the cause of their children’s death-marked love. It is their family quarrel, their stupid pride, their mistaken sense of honour which causes the ‘misadventured, piteous overthrows’ of the star-crossed lovers.
Now in this, as in all things concerned with the treatment of the play, we must preserve a sense of balance. It does not mean, as I believe Bernard Shaw is reported to have said to a young producer who was preparing a production of the play, that the only thing that matters is the fights. ...

Table of contents