Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: October ::
Re: Titus's Chariot; Q1 Ham.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0989  Tuesday, 13 October 1998.

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 12 Oct 1998 13:50:47 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0983  Re: Titus's Chariot

[2]     From:   William Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 12 Oct 1998 15:04:19 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0983 Q1 Ham.; Titus's Chariot


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 12 Oct 1998 13:50:47 -0400
Subject: 9.0983  Re: Titus's Chariot
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0983  Re: Titus's Chariot

Prof. Wells wrote:

> [T]the chariot is referred to by Titus as something that is 'in sight':
>
>  . . . here in sight of Rome to Saturnine,
> King and Commander of our common weale,
> The wide worlds Emperour, doe I consecrate
> My sword, my Chariot, and my Prisoners,
> Presents well worthy Romes imperious Lord:
> Receiue them then, the tribute that I owe,
> Mine honours Ensignes humbled at thy feete. (1.1.246-52)

I don't I agree with Professor Wells that the speech necessarily means
that the chariot is "in sight."  The sense of the speech is that Titus
is making his gift in the sight of  Rome, i.e., representatives of the
City, whom he calls upon to witness his gift as an act of fealty.  The
presents do not necessarily have to be on stage, although the sword and
prisoners certainly are.  Is it also possible that Titus does not mean
"chariot" literally; it could be a figure for his military prowess, but
this is obviously more problematic.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 12 Oct 1998 15:04:19 -0500
Subject: 9.0983 Q1 Ham.; Titus's Chariot
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0983 Q1 Ham.; Titus's Chariot

Well, I guess two responses are called for here (I will not trouble you
all by quoting either Peter Groves or Stanley Wells since I assume you
have all read them).  In the case of Groves my only point was the
automatic privileging of Q1 over Q2 or F1.  Yes, as literature Q2
appears to be far superior to Q1, but was Shakespeare writing
literature?  In the case of Wells I was only using the chariot in Titus
as an example.  As Stanley Wells knows I have expressed myself about
this whole matter in Titus in other places and was not attempting to
argue the case here, once again.  I guess what I was responding to in
original message was the rather automatic assumption that better
literature will, without much questioning, always produce better drama.

WPW
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.