1998

Re: Films

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0884  Wednesday, 23 September 1998.

From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Sep 1998 08:56:59 -0700
Subject: Re: Films
Comment:        SHK 9.0867  Re: Films

Hugh Davis and anyone else interested,

If my memory serves, the book has gone AWOL, there is a very brief, but
informative given its brevity, paragraph on George Dunning's animated
Tempest in Walking Shadows, and some materials, can't remember what, are
in the National Film Theatre.

Best,
Mike Jensen

Re: Julius Caesar and Stoicism

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0883  Wednesday, 23 September 1998.

From:           Yvonne Bruce <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Sep 1998 14:06:11 -0400
Subject:        Re: Julius Caesar and Stoicism

This is my first reply to other members.

Mr. Swilley wrote that the Stoicism of Julius Caesar, while generally
accepted, doesn't explain the action. I'm currently working on a larger
aspect of this "causal breakdown," I guess it would be, in all the Roman
plays. Mr. Swilley remarked that, logically, Brutus should kill Cassius
in the tent scene, because by letting him live, Brutus is betraying the
principal that led him to kill Caesar. Two things: Brutus may lead the
conspiracy (after being manipulated into it by Cassius), but he very
clearly heads a committee decision, so to speak, and makes sure that all
the conspirators have a hand in the actual murder. Similarly, his
soliloquy justifying the murder is made for the "general." He extricates
himself, or tries to absolve himself from personal responsibility.
Additionally, his soliloquy is notoriously illogical, although
rhetorically sophisticated as anything Antony will come up with during
the funeral oration. I mean, Brutus is depicted as Caesar's favorite,
and he knows, KNOWS that Caesar has never done anything tyrannical, yet
he cannot come up with a single reason why Caesar should not be crowned
king.

I don't think the soliloquies can be trusted in this play. Brutus may
not know himself well enough to admit he has ambitious designs (not even
when Cassius practically leads him to the revelation), but he certainly
should realize his justification for Caesar's ambition is weak. Same
thing with Antony. The play gives us no evidence that Antony should feel
personally devastated by Caesar's death, and in fact the death makes it
easier for him to put his own ambitious plans into action. Why should we
believe Antony's soliloquy any more than his funeral oration? The issue,
perhaps, is not whether Antony (or anyone) has been fooled, but that all
take part in this kind of ritual, communal fooling. This seems to be the
brand of Stoicism espoused by the play, and if so, then it is surely a
criticism of the philosophy.

Re: Duration of Travel in Othello

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0881  Wednesday, 23 September 1998.

From:           Ron Dwelle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Sep 1998 11:23:00 -0400
Subject: 9.0875  Query: Duration of Travel in Othello
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0875  Query: Duration of Travel in Othello

Steve Sohmer asked about "the duration of transit via sailing vessel
between Venice and Cyprus in the 16th century?"

I guess I'm a source. I don't have the exact distance, but eyeballing a
map, it looks like Venice to Cyprus is about 1200 nautical miles. Speed
would depend on wind and wave conditions, but for a naval ship in those
days, average sailing speed would have probably been somewhere between 3
and 5 knots (nautical miles per hour). At an average of 4 (a good
passage assuming steady winds, no protracted calms, no storms), the time
would have been 300 hours or 12-and-a-half days. Maximum possible speed
for a good Mediterranean ship (newish sails, no weed/barnacle growth on
the bottom) would have been in the area of 7-8 knots, but in reality
that could probably be sustained for only short periods. In calms, days
could be added easily. In storms (as reported), standard procedure would
be to heave to (stop and drift) or run off before the wind, even going
away from the destination if necessary-days or weeks could be added to
the trip. (For comparison, the uncertainty about Antonio's ships in MofV
and the "miraculous" re-appearance of them would have been quite
realistic for the times.) The Venetian fleet would have been thought of
as "top notch" for those days.

Tex Rex

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0882  Wednesday, 23 September 1998.

From:           Wes Folkerth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Sep 1998 10:35:47 -0500
Subject:        Tex Rex

Hi all,

Wanted to say that the Texas Dick movie's about Falstaff and Richard 3,
not 2 (for the less prurient of you, this is the "dick" in "Texas
Dick").  The movie's evidently in pre-production, so it may never get
made.  You can see the trailer (with the RealPlayer plugin) and read the
first act of the script at the website.

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

Preliminary Announcement: Rosenbach Lectures in

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0880  Wednesday, 23 September 1998.

From:           Daniel Traister <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Sep 1998 10:13:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Preliminary Announcement: Rosenbach Lectures in Bibliography

                ***PLEASE EXCUSE CROSS-POSTINGS***

This notice is a *preliminary announcement* about the Rosenbach Lectures
in Bibliography, to be presented at the University of Pennsylvania's Van
Pelt-Dietrich Library this spring, by Professor Brian Stock of the
University of Toronto. Full announcements will be posted again as the
dates for these lectures draw near.

Professor Stock will deliver three lectures, now entitled "Minds,
Bodies, Readers," on March 23, 24, and 25, 1999. He is the author, among
other works, of *Augustine the reader: meditation, self-knowledge, and
the ethics of interpretation* (Harvard University Press, 1996);
*Listening for the text: on the uses of the past* (Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1990; rpt. in paperback by the University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1996); and *The implications of literacy: written
language and models of interpretation in the eleventh and twelfth
centuries* (Princeton University Press, 1983).

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.