1999

Re: Henry

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0819  Wednesday, 5 May 1999.

[1]     From:   Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 4 May 1999 10:46:31 -0400
        Subj:   Hank the Cinq

[2]     From:   Brian Haylett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 4 May 1999 19:33:31 +0100
        Subj:   Re: Henry and Tro.

[3]     From:   Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 04 May 1999 18:32:07 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0801 Re: Henry and Tro.


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 4 May 1999 10:46:31 -0400
Subject:        Hank the Cinq

Dominant characteristic if any of Henry V? I think of him as a kind of
Candide, a nice guy who gets taken advantage of by everybody. First the
bishops get him out of the way with a lot of double-talk about the Salic
Law, then the King of France maneuvers him into a no-lose position (for
France)--whoever wins the war, the King's grandson is going to rule over
France and England.

Apropos of nice guys, Orlando is not the brightest fellow you'd ever
hope to meet, but I wouldn't call him a sexist "big". Romeo can't help
being "fortune's fool" (and a victim of clergy malpractice) but he seems
not merely devoted to Juliet but willing to listen to her.

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

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brian Haylett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 4 May 1999 19:33:31 +0100
Subject:        Re: Henry and Tro.

>'Why do we have to read Henry's actions-killing Hotspur,
>denying justice in the person of Lord Chief Justice, etc,--as aspects of
>his personal development? '

You do not have to. Clearly most people do not, though the recent notes
on The Tempest show that at least one play is exempted. Just as you are
sure that such a dimension does not exist, some of us feel that it
does.  Regard us as a bunch of eccentrics who run the odd flag up the
masthead to see if someone else does not delete it. I hope it is seen by
everyone else as harmlessly useless, to be tolerated as I have to
tolerate announcements of productions in Tucson, allusions to American
television shows, and references to literary theory.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 04 May 1999 18:32:07 -0600
Subject: 10.0801 Re: Henry and Tro.
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0801 Re: Henry and Tro.

In regards to Judith Craig's objection to my supposed substitution of
Machiavellianism for idealism (actually I think it is Shakespeare's), I
want to report my relief in reading her characterization of Falstaff and
the taverners, as "disease-ridden cells of vice that should be expunged
to save the whole." With such idealism, who needs Machiavelli?
        A
las, is only Harold Bloom with me on behalf of that Falstaff? A bad
world, I say.

--Hugh Grady

Re: Chooseth

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0818  Wednesday, 5 May 1999.

[1]     From:   Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 04 May 1999 09:15:50 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0812 Chooseth

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 04 May 1999 11:34:10 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0812 Mixed Responses

[3]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 4 May 1999 13:07:36 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0790 Re: Chooseth


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 04 May 1999 09:15:50 -0500
Subject: 10.0812 Chooseth
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0812 Chooseth

One other important question about such emotions as Dave Evett specifies
in relation to the taxi driver is whether they can or should be seen as
produced for the self by the self, seen as representation; as with
Berger's sense that representation of the self necessarily includes
representation to the self. In such a context "altruistic" gestures may
be seen to affirm our own worth to ourselves. (See, for instance,
Berger's marvellous exploration of John of Gaunt's deathbed scene. The
reference is in my other computer, alas. Write privately if you need
it.)

The next question is then, does this self-referentiality circulate
mainly (or maybe ever) within the self, rendering the externality of the
idea of Gift, the interaction with an Other, irrelevant. Are gifts ever
Pure Persuasion, indifferent to external "purchase"? Must gifts entail
the Other? Or perhaps the Other is the Burkean Scene upon which the
performance takes place? Etc.

Frank Whigham

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 04 May 1999 11:34:10 +0000
Subject: 10.0812 Mixed Responses
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0812 Mixed Responses

Thanks to Dave Evett for his summary of current views regarding the
possibility of true altruism.  I would argue that recent ideas on the
subject are more or less subject to the zeitgeist:  we have a hard time
believing in absolute givenness, because it's so incompatible with
efficient causation, or enlightened self-interest, ideas central to
modernity.  I think this ties in with how, in Merchant, absolute
gift-giving is incompatible with social institutions, marriage and law.
Economics couldn't function as a science if people were willing to
regularly ignore their self-interest altogether, to put the interest of
others before their own.  The marketplace would cease to exist, and so
would the implicitly economic model on which liberal democracy (or even
evolutionary science, for that matter) is based.

In a postmodern context, we may be more likely to return to such
pre-modern notions as an absolute gift, or gratuitous grace.  So far,
though, in clinging to notions of "negotiations", "economies" and power
structures, we seem to be resisting the radically of such a break.

Incidentally, while Harry Berger (brilliantly!) shows how various
supposedly altruistic acts might provide some reciprocal reward in
half-conscious terms, Stanley Cavell is considerably less insistent on
the subject.  We might ascribe some of Berger's insistence on debunking
supposed generosity to his own resistance to the influence of Cavell,
which he details in the "Acknowledgements" (really an introduction) to
Making Trifles of Terrors.

As a final incidental, I would note that while I'm grateful for Ben
Schneider's support, his citation of Cicero in his essay on King Lear (
http://www.humanities.ualberta.ca/emls/01-1/schnlear.html ) seems to
suggest that gift-giving forms an economy of reciprocal indebtedness and
gratitude:  "a benefit passing in its course from hand to hand returns
nevertheless to the giver; . . . "  In other words, it's possible to
place gift-giving within a pre-capitalist economy, or at least in terms
of enlightened self-interest.  Some of the recent readings of feudalism
seem to understand it as precisely such a system of exchange, although
the items of exchange can't be reduced to cash value.

So while questions of gratuity and reciprocity are certainly related to
the rise of capitalism (another point that Ben makes), they aren't
reducible to the difference between capitalist and pre-capitalist modes
of exchange.  It's always possible, and tempting from our own historical
context, to read pre-capitalist societies as exhaustively explained by
patterns of reciprocal exchange.

Cheers,
Se


Re: CSF Richard III

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0816  Tuesday, 4 May 1999.

[1]     From:   John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 4 May 1999 09:01:18 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 10.0805 CSF Richard III

[2]     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 4 May 1999 05:06:13 -0400
        Subj:   CSF Richard 111


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 4 May 1999 09:01:18 +0100
Subject: 10.0805 CSF Richard III
Comment:        RE: SHK 10.0805 CSF Richard III

Heavens to Betsy, Bill,

They're all on the zinfandel in Cincinnati

Look out for the spear-carrier

John Drakakis

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 4 May 1999 05:06:13 -0400
Subject:        CSF Richard 111

W. L. Godshalk reports that 'after each of Richard's commissioned
murders, the ghost of the murdered character enters with a spear and a
scull which are placed at various positions around the stage.' To
symbolise paddling your  own canoe, right Bill?

Terence Hawkes

Shakespeare and Islam

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0817  Tuesday, 4 May 1999.

From:           Alia Bin Darwish <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, May 2, 1999, 6:23 AM
Subject:        Shakespeare and Islam

[Editor's Note: Dale Lyles, who addresses unsolicited messages from
students and other non-members of SHAKSPER, and I could not decided to
do with the message below. I've edited it to try to make as much sense
of the question as I can and invite anyone who wishes to respond to do
so directly to Alia Bin Darwish <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>. -Hardy]

I wonder if you can give me a hand in the essay  I'm doing. You see my
doctor said that Shakespeare's plays are much related to certain Islamic
concepts - something like Sufism and the idea of life after death I
wonder if it's true or maybe my doctor was feeling sleepy.

Shakespearean tchotchke

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0815  Tuesday, 4 May 1999.

From:           Jerry Bangham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 3 May 1999 17:55:36 -0500
Subject:        Shakespearean tchotchke

My apology to the serious literary scholars on the list, but I can't
repress my interest in what F. E. Halliday referred to as "The Cult of
Shakespeare."

The latest Fahrney's pen catalog includes a "Select limited edition"
Shakespeare pen. For just $2,800, you can get a pen decorated with a
portrait and a facsimile of the Bard's signature (I can't tell which
spelling). Furthermore, "Special inlay holds a piece of wood planted by
Shakespeare himself." The thing looks rather ugly to me.

Those interested can check:

        www.fahrneyspens.com

Jerry Bangham

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.   http://www.win.net/~kudzu/

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.