Welcome

Welcome
John William Tuohy lives in Washington DC

The Killer War Bride

 

SHE FLEW HALF-WAY ACROSS THE WORLD TO MAKE HER HUSBAND FULFILL HIS OBLIGATIONS. THEN SHE SHOT HIM.

 

“I didn’t intend to kill him.”

— Bridget Waters, regarding her slain husband

 

 Irish “war bride” Bridget Waters traveled thousands of miles to challenge her husband’s efforts to file for divorce. Matters took a tragic turn when Bridget shot her husband during a custody exchange. The local, national, and international press broadcast the ins-and-outs of her trial. (Las Vegas-Clark County Library District)

 

A FATAL END AFTER SURVIVING WORLD WAR II

Las Vegas resident Frank Waters survived his service with the U.S. military in Europe during World War II.  But only a year after the War’s end, the consequences of Frank’s actions overseas followed him thousands of miles back to the middle of the Mojave Desert, leading to a series of events that would ultimately result in Frank’s murder by his estranged wife in front of his young son, followed by a trial that made international headlines.

 

A WAR-TIME ROMANCE SOURS QUICKLY

 

The first U.S. soldiers arrived in Britain in 1942 to join the war against Nazi Germany.  By the end of World War II, over 3 million American troops had passed through the United Kingdom, and not all of these soldiers went home alone – about 70,000 British women married American soldiers between 1942 and 1945.

One of these unions was between Frank Waters, a resident of Los Angeles that worked as a civilian employee for the Lockheed company, and Bridget McCluskey, a 24-year-old nurse from the small town of Cootehill near the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland that worked at a hospital in Liverpool during the War.  Frank, while on furlough from his work in London, met Bridget in Liverpool and the two were quickly wed.  It was not long before Bridget left her nursing job in Liverpool to move in with Frank back in London.  

Soon after the marriage, Bridget learned she was pregnant.  And not long after that, Frank decided he no longer liked married life.  In October of 1944, shortly after learning of the pregnancy, Frank received orders transferring him to France. Having the perfect excuse to leave his wife, Frank gave Bridget $50, told her that he had paid for the next two weeks of rent on their apartment, and proceeded to move out. 

Frank promised to write after being transferred to France, but he was no better at keeping this promise to Bridget than the others he had made over the course of their whirlwind relationship.  The letters from Frank were few and far between, and when they did arrive they did little to inspire sentimental feelings.  Bridget received a letter from Frank in May of 1945 offering to pay her delivery expenses but denying paternity of their son.  Then, in December of 1945, Bridget received correspondence from Frank containing $150, but the enclosed letter made clear this money was not a Christmas present but was only intended as child support.

Then the letters – and the occasional child support payments – stopped arriving at all.

 

FRANK WATERS SEEKS A SPEEDY REMEDY IN THE DIVORCE CAPITAL OF THE WORLD

Frank Waters was discharged from his civilian service with Lockheed in July of 1945 and returned to his home in Los Angeles.  Frank was anxious to move on with his life and put his wartime experiences, including his wife and child, behind him.  That’s what led Frank in late-1945 to temporarily relocate to Las Vegas to take advantage of the shortest divorce residency requirements in the country.

Nevada had loosened the residency requirements to obtain a divorce during the early years of the Great Depression in an effort to increase tourism to the State, even if it was tourists seeking a quick divorce.  In 1946 as today, a person only had to live in Nevada for six weeks before being eligible to file for divorce.

While Frank followed in the footsteps of countless other “divorce tourists” that took up temporary residence in Nevada, he was different in that his family had links to Las Vegas that stretched back to the town’s founding in 1905. Frank Waters’ father had been among the first real estate developers and land agents to set up shop in the Las Vegas Valley, and the Waters family made a tidy sum by selling real estate and pursuing related business ventures in early Vegas before moving to California. In fact, Frank used his father’s connections with Las Vegas newspaper publisher Charles “Pop” Squires to land a job as a teller at a local bank while he established Nevada residency.

 

SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR ABANDONED WAR-TIME WIVES

After not hearing from her husband for several months, Bridget Waters received notice in October of 1945 that Frank had filed for divorce in Nevada. 

Frank had been expecting an easy uncontested divorce.  After all, his wife lived halfway across the world and international travel was far more costly and cumbersome than it is today, especially in the immediate aftermath of the War.  What Frank didn’t know is that he was one of thousands of former American soldiers and military civilian employees that sought to divorce the women they had married overseas.  And a backlash was building in Britain to what was perceived as American men acting to legally abandon their wives and children.

Women’s advocacy organizations pushed Bridget to contest the divorce in an effort to turn the young nurse into a cause celebre while establishing a legal precedent to protect thousands of other deserted “war brides.” Bridget, furious and heartbroken over news that Frank was seeking a divorce, did not need much convincing. With the advocacy organizations paying for her airfare and legal fees, Bridget flew from London with her infant son, Frank, Jr., and landed in Las Vegas just as the small desert town was heating up in April of 1946.

 

FIGHTING FOR HER MARRIAGE

Bridget did not want a divorce; she wanted a husband.  That is why she reached out to Frank within hours of her arrival in Las Vegas to introduce him to his son.  The meeting went well, but Frank made it clear that he intended to proceed with the divorce case he had filed. 

Bridget retained the services of a local attorney who filed a counterclaim against Frank for “separate maintenance.”  Separate maintenance would leave Bridget’s marriage with Frank legally intact even though the two were separated (which was important to the devoutly Catholic Bridget) and include financial orders for child and spousal support.  If Bridget could not live with Frank and their son as a family, then she would keep the marriage intact and force Frank to fulfill his financial obligations to his family.

There was plenty of legal maneuvering by attorneys for Frank and Bridget leading up to the divorce trial.  Frank’s counsel announced that two surprise witnesses would be arriving from Los Angeles to take sworn depositions at the local courthouse, intimating that the witnesses would testify to alleged “indiscreet actions” by Bridget after Frank transferred to France.  Bridget’s attorney responded to this news by demanding a jury for the divorce trial, which would allow Bridget to play on the sympathies of a local community that would not look kindly on a man failing to support his family.

It is important to remember that spousal and child support laws took on added importance in 1946. While women were encouraged to enter the workforce during World War II, with mass demobilization women were again expected to largely return to the domestic sphere. In addition to systemic barriers to employment, women also were unable to obtain individual consumer credit until the 1970’s. These economic obstacles created a situation where women with children faced a very real threat of being forced into poverty as a result of divorce or separation absent an order of support.

 

A DRAMATIC DIVORCE TRIAL

The divorce case finally went to trial in July of 1946.  Even though Nevada had established a reputation for loose morals it had not yet become a “no fault” State – meaning a spouse seeking a divorce had to prove one of several grounds for divorce, such as extreme cruelty, adultery, or abandonment.  If you couldn’t prove the grounds for divorce, the divorce wasn’t happening. 

Over the course of two days in a sweltering Las Vegas courtroom a jury of seven women and five men heard testimony from Frank and Bridget. 

Frank and several of his witnesses testified that Bridget had been unfaithful after Frank was transferred to France, including an account of Bridget being in the frequent company of a Royal Air Force officer.  Then for good measure, Frank testified that Bridget had repeatedly “belittled American culture and ideals.” 

On cross-examination, Frank was forced to admit that he had intended to abandon Bridget when he learned of her pregnancy but that he had been too afraid to outright tell her this, then his transfer to France seemed to solve the problem as far as he was concerned.  Frank was also confronted with evidence of letters he had written detailing his own extramarital escapades in France. 

When it came time for Bridget to present her case, she testified in a soft-spoken Irish accent about the difficulties she experienced after she was abandoned by Frank.  “My baby was born in a charity nursing home.  He was delivered by a nurse.  I had waived the services of a doctor because I didn’t feel I could afford the obligation.”  When she was asked about her response to a letter she received from Frank informing her that their marriage had been a mistake, she said, “My heart was broken.  I was still in love with him.”

Bridget also countered Frank’s allegations of infidelity by noting the Royal Air Force officer she had been seen with was her cousin – the same cousin that had served as the best man at their wedding. The jury disapproved of Frank’s hypocrisy, and based upon a finding that he had abandoned Bridget and their son the jury entered a verdict denying the divorce. Bridget was awarded her separate maintenance, custody of their son, and $220 per month in child support from Frank, while Frank was allowed reasonable visitation.

 

A CUSTODY EXCHANGE TURNS DEADLY

There weren’t many custody exchanges between the separated couple before things took a violent turn. 

Frank’s plans to make a speedy return to Los Angeles after obtaining a Vegas divorce had been derailed.  After his request for divorce was denied, Frank decided to settle into his life in Las Vegas, though the fact he rented a room at a house owned by an elderly woman and her daughter shows he intended to set down the weakest roots possible.  His plan was to spend another year in Nevada, at which point he would be able to seek divorce from Bridget based on new grounds – a period of separation lasting at least three years.

Frank continued his job as a bank teller while exercising a few hours of visitation with his son on the weekends.  But the 38-year-old was bristling under the desert heat over the summer of 1946, eager to find a way to break free from the bonds of matrimony with his estranged wife.  For her part, Bridget seemed agreeable to a divorce at an unspecified future date provided she received assurances that Frank would continue to make his support payments.  Bridget had suffered financial strain over the course of the divorce litigation that led her to obtain work as a housekeeper at a residence in a quiet neighborhood a few blocks north of downtown.

With this background of underlying tension, Frank arrived at 130 Palm Lane around 12:30 p.m. on Labor Day in 1946.  Her boss was out of town on vacation, so just Bridget and her young son were in the home.  Frank’s landlady accompanied him to pick up his son as she always did – Frank wanted a witness for the custody exchanges to support his role as a dutiful father during a future attempt at divorce. 

Bridget answered Frank’s knock and invited him in.  It was not long before Frank broached the same topic he had raised repeatedly since the outcome of the divorce trial in July.  He became irate as he demanded to know what Bridget wanted in order to agree to divorce.  Bridget replied, “Once you make a home for me and the baby, we can talk about divorce.”  She ended the conversation by pointing Frank to the living room where Frank, Jr. was playing on the floor and then stepping outside to take clothes off of the line. 

Bridget reentered the house a few moments later, walked past the living room where Frank was in the process of changing their son’s diaper, and into her bedroom.  She pulled a baby hammerless revolver from a dresser drawer and placed it in her pocket. 

She entered the living room where Frank was crouched over their son playing on the floor.  “Don’t touch the baby,” Bridget said. 

A shot rang out.  Frank slumped forward against the wall.  Frank, Jr. wailed.

Bridget picked up the phone and called the police, informing them between sobs that her husband had been shot.  Frank’s landlady Maude Griffith ran from the car parked outside and into the home where she encountered her tenant motionless on the ground while Bridget paced back and forth, tending to an injury to her baby’s leg.  “What happened?” she asked.

Bridget replied, “Go away from here.  You and your daughter have caused me enough trouble.  She has come between me and my husband.”

It did not take long for police to arrive. There was no way to save Frank. The coroner later found that the .22 bullet fired by Bridget was a “1 in a 1,000 shot.” The round entered Frank’s back and traveled downward directly through his heart without striking a single bone. Bridget was arrested and booked while Frank, Jr. was taken to the hospital to treat a superficial wound to his leg caused by the .22 round.

 

A WIDOW CHARGED WITH MURDER AND A PUBLIC OUTPOURING OF SUPPORT

During her interrogation by Las Vegas police, Bridget admitted that Frank had not made any threatening gestures leading up to the shooting though she stressed he had made a vague promise to “get rid of” her and their baby with a vicious look in his eye.  Clark County District Attorney V. Gray Gubler promptly charged Bridget with open murder, meaning she could be convicted of anything from involuntary manslaughter to first-degree murder.  Keep in mind this was at a time when being found guilty of first-degree murder in Nevada often led to a death sentence that was usually carried out within months.  Bridget was ordered held without bail pending her trial.

While prosecutors acted swiftly to hold Bridget to account, many residents of Las Vegas reacted differently to news of the slaying of Frank Waters.  Local citizens established a legal defense fund that allowed Bridget to retain prominent legal counsel.  The murder of Frank Waters soon became sensational news across the U.S. and Europe thanks in no small part to the work of publicists hired by Bridget’s legal team.  Letters soon started pouring into the city jail from Britain in support of Bridget, many recognizing her actions as a nurse during the war.

District Attorney Gray Gubler vented his frustration about the level of public support for Bridget shortly before her first hearing.  He alleged that Bridget had written letters disparaging American culture and defended the reputation of Frank Waters, noting he had been a lawyer in good standing in California prior to working for Lockheed during the War.  In a sign of the escalating tensions of the Cold War that served as a backdrop to the Waters case, Gubler told the press, “The subscription for Mrs. Waters’ defense is largely typical for America, which is today shipping great quantities of merchandise to a Russia that is closed to Americans...Some are wondering what the situation would be were conditions reversed and had an American girl married a European and shot him in his homeland.” 

 

As the summer heat gave way to the cooler temperatures of October, domestic and foreign press made their way to a town in southern Nevada that few had even heard of up to that point.  Daily stories rippled across the wire detailing Bridget’s wardrobe choices, and it was the rare article that didn’t feature Bridget carrying her young son in her arms.  A representative from the British consulate in San Francisco even traveled to Las Vegas to ensure Bridget received a fair trial.

Dozens of men and women from across Clark County were summoned as prospective jurors and questioned over several days.  Bridget took offense when District Attorney Gray Gubler asked every prospective juror, “Does a wife have any more right to kill her husband than anyone else?”  Bridget’s retort to this line of questioning was, “Of course a wife has no more right, but she certainly may have more reason than anyone else.”

 

TRIAL BEGINS: COLD-BLOODED KILLER OR JUSTIFIED HOMICIDE?

When the first day of trial opened on October 21, 1946 the tiny courtroom of Judge A.S. Henderson was packed.  The prosecution painted Bridget as a jealous cold-blooded killer willing to place her child in harm’s way while getting revenge for her husband’s dalliances with local women.  Just as during her divorce trial, Bridget did little to contain her emotions as the State presented its case – she softly sobbed, fidgeted with the wedding ring Frank had placed on her finger, and at one point called a deputy district attorney an “idiot” for the way he examined a witness.  Needless to say, there were frequent recesses called during the sensational trial. 

A highlight of the prosecution’s case was when the responding officer testified Bridget said of her husband lying dead feet away, “He can’t take my baby from me now.”  Another key witness was Maude Griffith, Frank’s landlady that had driven him to the fatal custody exchange.  Her testimony supported jealousy as a motive for the killing and defended against charges by Bridget that her daughter had carried on an affair with Frank.  In his closing, the deputy district attorney warned the jury that if they found Bridget not guilty, “She may get a Hollywood contract or do a personal appearance tour.  Perhaps the gun manufacturer will even seek her endorsement of his product.” 

Bridget’s attorneys countered by presenting a series of witnesses that testified to Frank’s rendezvous about town.  There was the owner of a local auto court that told about the time Frank spent the night there with a young woman shortly after Bridget arrived in town to contest the divorce case.  And then there was the witness that lived on Palm Lane who told of a young woman that arrived a few hours after the shooting and broke down crying in front of the home. 

The defense strategy was to play on the sympathy of the jury with a plea of temporary insanity – Bridget only wanted to reconcile with her husband and his constant affairs finally led to a momentary loss of control.  Bridget even took the stand in her defense, and when questioned by District Attorney Gray Gubler about the immediate aftermath of the killing, she stated she “couldn’t be sure about what happened there.”

 

But the entire defense strategy was derailed when Judge Henderson ruled that the evidence presented did not show Bridget lacked control of her ability to tell right from wrong.  This left a claim of self-defense as the only viable defense strategy for acquittal.  Bridget’s attorneys argued the fact that the killing was done with such a small handgun and that only one shot had been fired demonstrated she could not possibly have acted with premeditation.  Her counsel further highlighted that only a few short months before the slaying a jury had found Frank committed acts of extreme cruelty against Bridget during the divorce case. 

Then, in a last ditch effort to stoke the jury’s emotions, Bridget’s defense attorneys pleaded, “All she has is her baby. Don’t take that lady away from her baby.” The combination of logic and emotion worked. After 15 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a conviction on the lightest possible charge – involuntary manslaughter. Bridget was sentenced to serve 1 to 5 years in the Nevada State Prison.

 

SURPRISE PAROLE AND NOT THE LAST “WAR BRIDE” MURDER IN LAS VEGAS

After serving only 15 months in prison, and over the strenuous objections of Judge Henderson and the Clark County District Attorney, Bridget was paroled on condition that she return to Britain.  The young woman made her way to New York City where she left by ship from Ellis Island for home.  No one greeted Bridget Waters when she disembarked at Southampton.

Bridget was the most notorious case of a “war bride” murdering her American spouse, but she was not the last.  There was the 1949 case of Pamela Hurt out of Indianapolis, a 19-year-old English woman that killed her American husband while he slept, claiming self-defense because her husband had threatened to kill her for engaging in an affair during a separation. Then there also was the 1953 “kiss of death” case where a German woman killed her American husband while driving on a road near Niles, California - before Hildegard Pelton abandoned the scene of the crime, she left a lipstick imprint on her slain husband’s bloodied forehead.

 

In fact, the Bridget Waters case would not be the last “war bride” murder to shock the residents of Las Vegas. During the early hours of Mother’s Day, 1953, Alice White – a 32-year-old mother of two young children that was pregnant with her third – fired a shotgun into the head of her husband, Sergeant Andrew White, while he slept at their apartment on the grounds of Nellis Air Force Base on the north-eastern edge of Las Vegas. Alice was tried for the murder of her husband that she met during the War, but at trial it came out that Sergeant White was an excessive drinker and had threatened to kill her the night he was shot. The jury found the killing was done in self-defense and Alice went free.

“The Trout” by Sean O’Faolain

 

 “The Trout”

by

Sean O’Faolain

 


One of the first places Julia always ran to when they arrived in G--- was The Dark Walk. It is a laurel walk, very old, almost gone wild, a lofty midnight tunnel of smooth, sinewy branches.

Underfoot the tough brown leaves are never dry enough to crackle: there is always a suggestion of damp and cool trickle.

She raced right into it. For the first few yards she always had the memory of the sun behind her, then she felt the dusk closing swiftly down on her so that she screamed with pleasure and raced on to reach the light at the far end; and it was always just a little too long in coming so that she emerged gasping, clasping her hands, laughing, drinking in the sun. When she was filled with the heat and glare she would turn and consider the ordeal again.

This year she had the extra joy of showing it to her small brother, and of terrifying him as well as herself. And for him the fear lasted longer because his legs were so short and she had gone out at the far end while he was still screaming and racing.

When they had done this many times they came back to the house to tell everybody that

they had done it. He boasted. She mocked. They squabbled.

`Cry babby!'

`You were afraid yourself, so there!'

`I won't take you any more.'

`You're a big pig.'

`I hate you.'

Tears were threatening so somebody said, `Did you see the well?' She opened her eyes at that and held up her long lovely neck suspiciously and decided to be incredulous. She was twelve and at that age little girls are beginning to suspect most stories: they have already found out too many, from Santa Claus to the Stork. How could there be a well! In The Dark Walk! That she had visited year after year? Haughtily she said, `Nonsense.'

But she went back, pretending to be going somewhere else, and she found a hole scooped in the rock at the side of the walk, choked with damp leaves, so shrouded by ferns that she only uncovered it after much searching. At the back of this little cavern there was about a quart of water. In the water she suddenly perceived a panting trout. She rushed for Stephen and dragged him to see, and they were both so excited that they were no longer afraid of the darkness as they hunched down and peered in at the fish panting in his tiny prison, his silver stomach going up and down like an engine.

Nobody knew how the trout got there. Even Old Martin in the kitchen-garden laughed and refused to believe that it was there, or pretended not to believe, until she forced him to come down and see. Kneeling and pushing back his tattered old cap he peered in.

`Be cripes, you're right. How the divil in hell did that fella get there?'

She stared at him suspiciously.

`You knew?' she accused; but he said, `The divil a know;' and reached down to lift it out.

Convinced she hauled him back. If she had found it then it was her trout.

Her mother suggested that a bird had carried the spawn. Her father thought that in the

winter a small streamlet might have carried it down there as a baby, and it had been safe until the summer came and the water began to dry up. She said, `I see,' and went back to look again and consider the matter in private. Her brother remained behind, wanting to hear the whole story of the trout, not really interested in the actual trout but much interested in the story which his mummy began to make up for him on the lines of, `So one day Daddy Trout and Mammy Trout . . . .' Whenhe retailed it to her she said, `Pooh.'

It troubled her that the trout was always in the same position; he had no room to turn; all thetime the silver belly went up and down; otherwise he was motionless. She wondered what he ate and in between visits to Joey Pony, and the boat and a bathe to get cool, she thought of his hunger.

She brought him down bits of dough; once she brought a worm. He ignored the food. He just went on panting. Hunched over him she thought how, all the winter, while she was at school he had been in there. All winter, in The Dark Walk, all day, all night, floating around alone. She drew the leaf of her hat down around her ears and chin and stared. She was still thinking of it as she lay in bed.

It was late June, the longest days of the year. The sun had sat still for a week, burning up

the world. Although it was after ten o'clock it was still bright and still hot. She lay on her back under a single sheet, with her long legs spread, trying to keep cool. She could see the D of the moon through the fir-tree -- they slept on the ground floor. Before they went to bed her mummy had told Stephen the story of the trout again, and she, in her bed, had resolutely presented her back to them and read her book. But she had kept one ear cocked.

`And so, in the end, this naughty fish who would not stay at home got bigger and bigger,

and the water got smaller and smaller. . . .'

Passionately she had whirled and cried, `Mummy, don't make it a horrible old moral story!'

Her mummy had brought in a Fairy Godmother, then, who sent lots of rain, and filled the well, and a stream poured out and the trout floated away down to the river below. Staring at the moon she knew that there are no such things as Fairy Godmothers and that the trout, down in The Dark Walk, was panting like an engine. She heard somebody unwind a fishing-reel. Would the beasts fish him out!

She sat up. Stephen was a hot lump of sleep, lazy thing. The Dark Walk would be full of

little scraps of moon. She leaped up and looked out the window, and somehow it was not so lightsome now that she saw the dim mountains far away and the black firs against the breathing land and heard a dog say, bark-bark. Quietly she lifted the ewer of water, and climbed out the window and scuttled along the cool but cruel gravel down to the maw of the tunnel. Her pyjamas were very short so that when she splashed water it wet her ankles. She peered into the tunnel.

Something alive rustled inside there. She raced in, and up and down she raced, and flurried, and cried aloud, `Oh, Gosh, I can't find it,' and then at last she did. Kneeling down in the damp she put her hand into the slimy hole. When the body lashed they were both mad with fright. But she gripped him and shoved him into the ewer and raced, with her teeth ground, out to the other end of the tunnel and down the steep paths to the river's edge.

All the time she could feel him lashing his tail against the side of the ewer. She was afraid he would jump right out. The gravel cut into her soles until she came to the cool ooze of the river's bank where the moon-mice on the water crept into her feet. She poured out watching until he plopped. For a second he was visible in the water. She hoped he was not dizzy. Then all she saw was the glimmer of the moon in the silent-flowing river, the dark firs, the dim mountains, and the radiant pointed face laughing down at her out of the empty sky.

She scuttled up the hill, in the window, plonked down the ewer and flew through the air like a bird into bed. The dog said bark-bark. She heard the fishing-reel whirring. She hugged herself and giggled.

Like a river of joy her holiday spread before her.

In the morning Stephen rushed to her, shouting that `he' was gone, and asking `where' and `how'. Lifting her nose in the air she said superciliously, `Fairy Godmother, I suppose?' and strolled away patting the palms of her hands.

The Werewolf of Washington

Hylas and the Nymphs, 1896, John William Waterhouse.

In classical mythology, Hylas  was a youth who served as Heracles' (Roman Hercules) companion and servant. His abduction by water nymphs was a theme of ancient art, and has been an enduring subject for Western art in the classical tradition. After Heracles killed Theiodamas in battle, he took on Hylas as arms bearer and taught him to be a warrior. The poet Theocritus (about 300 BC) wrote about the love between Heracles and Hylas: "We are not the first mortals to see beauty in what is beautiful. No, even Amphitryon's bronze-hearted son, who defeated the savage Nemean lion, loved a boy—charming Hylas, whose hair hung down in curls. And like a father with a dear son he taught him all the things which had made him a mighty man, and famous."

Heracles took Hylas with him on the Argo, making him one of the Argonauts. Hylas was kidnapped by nymphs of the spring of Pegae, Mysia when they fell in love with him, and he vanished without a trace (Apollonios Rhodios). This greatly upset Heracles, so he along with Polyphemus searched for a great length of time. The ship set sail without them. According to the Latin Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus, they never found Hylas because the latter had fallen in love with the nymphs and remained "to share their power and their love." Theocritus, on the other hand, has the nymphs shutting his mouth underwater to stifle his screams for Heracles.

 


Charles Mingus and Eric Dolphy, Salle Wagram.





 

wow, talk about snapping the picture right on time


 

Coming soon! The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.

Nosferatu

Playwrights

 


Sat 3/27/2021 5:01 PM
  •  NYCPlaywrights
Greetings NYCPlaywrights

*** FREE THEATER ONLINE ***

VANYA AND SONIA AND MASHA AND SPIKE

NOW STREAMING THROUGH APRIL 11, 2021
USE CODE VANYAFREE TO STREAM FREE

This Tony® Award-winning Best Play (2013) takes 3 mismatched siblings (played to the hilt by Kristine Nielsen, David Hyde Pierce and Sigourney Weaver), adds 1 boy toy (Billy Magnussen), throws in themes from Chekhov, pours it all into a blender and mixes it up. The result? An utterly hilarious, touching work by master of comedy, Christopher Durang.

(After you register they will send you an email with a link to watch the show.)



*** DRAMATISTS GUILD END OF PLAY ***

End of Play.  is an annual initiative, created by the Dramatists Guild, to incentivize the completion of new plays, scores or songs over the period of one month. Starting with a successful launch in 2020, hundreds of participating dramatic writers across the world connected with one another to overcome obstacles that stand in the way of writing the first draft of new plays.

Each year, writers set goals for themselves at the beginning of End of Play.TM Month and post weekly updates about how they are doing to the community. Goals may include writing a new full-length play/musical, two one-act plays/musicals, or completing a second draft of any of the above. Ultimately, the goal of End of Play.TM  is to get writers to the finish line through motivation and community.  

How to Participate

Interested in taking part? The next round of End of Play.™ will take place in the month of April 2021 (pens up April 1, pens down April 30). Sign up using the registration form...

More info...


*** OPPORTUNITIES FOR PLAYWRIGHTS ***

Egg & Spoon’s 2021 Incubation Series provides developmental support for three BIPoC writers’ full-length plays over the summer of 2021. This expands previous Egg & Spoon programming by facilitating fifteen-hour workshops for playwrights. This program reflects our passion for developing new plays, and our commitment to building a more equitable and vibrant future for the American theatre.

***

2021 One Act Play Festival (OAPF) Presented by Artists’ Exchange
Plays should be original, short one act plays 10-15 minutes long (ideal length 10 minutes; no longer than 20 minutes maximum will be considered). Previously produced plays acceptable. Seeking Short Plays: Comedic, absurd, dramatic, satirical, farcical, musical, etc. are all welcome for review. Works for actors of all ages (children thru seniors) and abilities are strongly encouraged. Selected plays will be performed outdoors by Artists’ Exchange in Cranston, Rhode Island in late June 2021

***
Sullivan County Dramatic Workshop seeks 10 minute plays to be presented at the Rivoli Theatre1 May 7 through May 16, 2021. In the event that theatres are not allowed to open due to New York State covid restrictions, SCDW will present these plays in a virtual format. All plays chosen must meet the following requirements:

*** FOR MORE INFORMATION about these and other opportunities see the web site at https://www.nycplaywrights.org ***


*** THE DARK LADY ***

It remains one of the great mysteries of English literature. Who, exactly, was the “Dark Lady” of Shakespeare’s Sonnets? Did she even exist? And, if so, who was this tantalising woman with “raven” brows and black hair to whom Shakespeare addressed a string of overtly passionate and sometimes explicit poems? Scholars have debated the issue for decades — potential candidates include Aline Florio, wife to a translator, Mary Fitton, a lady-in-waiting, and “Black Luce”, a brothel-owner.

But for many, the chief contender is Emilia Bassano, an accomplished poet and musician, whom historian A.L. Rowse identified as the elusive Dark Lady in 1973. She has been the occasional subject of novels and dramas as well as academic studies; now, a new play at Shakespeare’s Globe aims to coax Emilia out of the wings of history and on to centre stage at the very theatre dedicated to the bard.

More...

***

The mysterious "Dark Lady" of Shakespeare's sonnets has long fascinated readers, with debate raging about her true identity. Now new research adds weight to the theory that the sexually voracious object of the poet's desire was an infamous London prostitute.

A Shakespeare scholar claims to have found evidence supporting a suggestion made in the 1930s that she was a madam called "Lucy Negro" or "Black Luce", who ran a notorious bawdy house in Clerkenwell.

Dr Duncan Salkeld, reader in Shakespeare studies at the University of Chichester, told The Independent that he has unearthed documentary records that lead him to conclude that she is "the foremost candidate for the dubious role of the Dark Lady".

Many of the sonnets 127 to 152 are addressed to an unidentified woman – the "Dark Lady" – with whom the Bard imagines an adulterous sexual relationship. She is a temptress, in sonnet 144 – "my female evil" and "my bad angel".

More...

***

When Caroline Randall Williams’s book of poetry “Lucy Negro, Redux” was published in 2015, she hoped its words would transcend the pages on which they were printed. But she said she never imagined that the book would be turned into a ballet.

Paul Vasterling, the artistic director at Nashville Ballet, based in the Tennessee city that is also Ms. Williams’s hometown, read the book in 2016 and knew immediately that he wanted to adapt it for the stage. “The images the book pulled up for me are very dancelike,” Mr. Vasterling said. “Poetry is close to dance because it’s open to interpretation, and you bring yourself to it.”

“Lucy Negro, Redux” tells the story of a slice of Shakespeare’s love life from the perspective of the so-called Dark Lady for whom many of his sonnets were written. Some scholars and readers, including Ms. Williams, believe that the Dark Lady was Dark Luce or Lucy Negro — not just a woman with dark eyes and hair, but a black woman who owned a brothel in London.

More...

***

When one hears mention of the Bard of Avon, one undoubtedly summons to mind images of a bearded man with a fluffy collar and balding head reciting the lines of his prose to a stunned crowd. Upon mention of his works, the mind conjures thoughts of his wonderful dramas and of his lyrical and beautiful sonnets. It is not often, then, that upon hearing the name “Shakespeare” one thinks of sexually provocative literature or the controversy which usually follows it. Upon deeper examination of his works, looking past the outward beauty of his prose, one can indeed often find sexual themes. The Dark Lady series of sonnets, however, require no deep examination to be seen as sexual. These final 28 Sonnets, detailing Shakespeare’s passionate and rather risqué affair with an unnamed woman, have been famously characterized as “bawdy” and “carnal” by many readers. The poems often feature extremely raunchy and suggestive themes, rather directly or indirectly, and give the reader a sense of the almost physical drive behind Shakespeare’s pen and his… nobler part. Despite their openly sexual nature, however, they are still timelessly beautiful in the eyes of many people. Shakespeare’s confidence as a poet was certainly not shaken even when writing such overtly sexual content.

More...

***

Emilia Bassano is just one of the many candidates proposed to have been Shakespeare's Dark Lady, to whom a couple of dozen of his sonnets are written. Here are some of the others:

Mary Fitton (Thomas Taylor 1890, Bernard Shaw 1909)

1578-1647, a maid of honour to Queen Elizabeth the First, Mary Fitton certainly had an eventful sex life, giving birth to the illegitimate son of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke and three other illegitimate children before marrying the father of the last, a son. In the late 19th and early twentieth century Mary was a top choice as Dark Lady, since Herbert was prime candidate for "Mr W. H." the dedicatee of the sonnets.

The theory was scuppered, according to Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson in their book Shakespeare's Sonnets (2004): "her star waned when she was discovered to have been fair." I don't know, she doesn't look very fair in her portrait above, painted in about 1595.

George Bernard Shaw wrote a play called The Dark Lady of Shakespeare's Sonnets, with Mary Fitton as the woman in question. However, there is no evidence that Mary Fitton knew Shakespeare.

Jane Davenant 
Jane was the wife of an Oxford innkeeper, at whose inn, the Crown, Shakespeare sometimes stayed en route between London and Stratford. There was a rumour that Shakespeare stood as godfather to Jane's son, William. And more than a rumour - a claim made by the man himself - that William was in fact Shakespeare's son, born in 1606. The claim was also made by Arthur Acheson in his book Mistress Davenant:the Dark Lady of Shakespeare's Sonnets (1913). And it is true that the Earl of Southampton had also stayed at the same inn and would have met Jane.

More...

***

Last month I described Shakespeare’s love, lust and ultimate dislike of the Dark Lady. So who was this sultry young woman? Several candidates have been suggested, including the idea that she did not exist at all, in other words that the entire sonnet sequence is no more than a literary exercise.

The likely lady is Emilia Lanier, an intelligent and dark-complexioned woman who was herself a minor poet. She was the orphan daughter of Baptist Bassano, one of the Queen’s Italian musicians, brought up in an aristocratic atmosphere by Susan Bertie, Countess of Kent. Emilia was five years younger than Shakespeare, and four years older than Shakespeare’s patron, the Earl of Southampton – just the right age to be the mistress of one and seductress of the other. For a while she was also the mistress of the Queen’s cousin, who was forty-three years her senior. When Emilia became pregnant, it was arranged that she be married to Alfonso Lanier, another Italian musician. Members of the Bassano musical family accompanied the performances of Shakespeare’s plays in the royal palaces. They were dark-skinned Venetians, and probably had some Jewish blood. Maybe it is not a coincidence that Shakespeare wrote a play about a Jewish family in Venice, and that one of the characters is named Bassanio.

Evidently the lady was a musician. There is a tender sonnet (Sonnet 128), written before the relationship soured, picturing her sitting and playing the harpsichord. The poet envies the keys, being tickled by her fingers:

Do I envy those jacks that nimble leap/ To kiss the tender inward of thy hand;/ Whilst my poor lips, which should that harvest reap,/ At the wood’s boldness by thee blushing stand.

Later he realizes that he is just one of her many lovers, but he is still enslaved. In his infatuation, he asks her only to cherish his name (Sonnet 136):

Then in the number let me pass untold,/ Though in thy store’s account I one must be;/ For nothing hold me, so it please thee hold/ That nothing me, a something sweet to thee./ Make but my name thy love, and love that still,/ And then thou lovest me, for my name is Will.

More...

***

The video of the spirited three-way debate on “Who is the Dark Lady of Shakespeare’s Sonnets?” at the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship’s annual conference, is now online. Hank Whittemore argued in favor of Queen Elizabeth; John Hamill argued for Penelope Rich; and Katherine Chiljan argued for Anne Vavasour. The debate took place on October 13, 2018 in Oakland, California and was introduced by Earl Showerman and moderated by Jeff Falzone.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NYCPlaywrights" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nycplaywrights_group+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nycplaywrights_group/0ae7e466-1d6d-4ffe-a8bd-3a648a981321n%40googlegroups.com.