1997

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1040.  Wednesday, 15 October 1997.

[1]     From:   David Skeele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 12:54:54 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1036  Polish Hamlet

[2]     From:   Rick Jones <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 14:24:40 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1018  Re: A. L. Rowse


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Skeele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 12:54:54 -0400
Subject: 8.1036  Polish Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1036  Polish Hamlet

>For a lecture on *Hamlet* in an international context, I am desperately
>looking for the article (or possibly, chapter in a book) that I once
>seem to have read on *Hamlet* in Poland. The gist of the argument was,
>if I remember correctly, that in a Polish production Hamlet was made out
>to be an over-scrupulous fool, who broke the essential national unity,
>leaving a state in disarray, so that Fortinbras, the foreign power,
>could come and pick up the pieces.

To Paul Franssen:

I remember a that a fellow Ph.D. student at the University Pittsburgh
wrote an article entitled "Fortinbras, Our Contemporary," dealing with
the same subject matter you describe, which he presented at a conference
or two (definitely ASTR, but perhaps MLA as well).  His name is Gregg
Dion, and you can reach him through the University of Pittsburgh Theatre
Department at (412) 624-6568.  Hope this is the one you are looking for.

David Skeele

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rick Jones <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 14:24:40 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: 8.1018  Re: A. L. Rowse
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1018  Re: A. L. Rowse

John McWilliams asked several days ago if anyone wished to defend A. L.
Rowse.  I've been waiting for those more qualified than I to do so, but
since the silence has been deafening, I offer the following
observations:

First off, I have read little of Rowse's work on Shakespeare and have
been less than overwhelmed by what I have read.  And the man did not
lack for ego (at least in his public persona).

That said, I must say that his _Elizabethan Renaissance_ was invaluable
to me in preparing my MA thesis on Lyly, and the mere fact that a
trained historian chose to write about Shakespeare and other writers
helped to counter-balance the intellectual isolationism of New
Criticism.  [N.B. I do not wish to suggest that NC had no good points or
that reactions to it necessarily constitute improvements: I suggest only
that linking literature to its historical setting is a legitimate
approach, and that Rowse did so (even? especially?) when the prevailing
critical theory was otherwise.

Finally, if we were to eliminate from consideration everyone whose
self-regard exceeded his/her real importance, the libraries would be
much smaller, the art galleries and theatres empty, and this list very
quiet indeed...

Rick Jones
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.