2000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0388  Wednesday, 23 February 2000.

[1]     From:   Marilyn Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 22 Feb 2000 12:54:47 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0381 Who's Who in Hell

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 22 Feb 2000 09:28:18 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0381 Who's Who in Hell

[3]     From:   Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 23 Feb 2000 09:09:43 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0381 Who's Who in Hell


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marilyn Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Feb 2000 12:54:47 -0500
Subject: 11.0381 Who's Who in Hell
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0381 Who's Who in Hell

Dana Shilling's suggestion that the division between comedy and tragedy
in Elizabethan drama be marked by the ultimate destination of the
characters makes quite a bit of sense to me.

I've always understood the ending of MV to be-FROM THE VIEW OF THE
ORIGINAL AUDIENCES ONLY-a gift to Shylock (no matter how offensive I
personally find it) of salvation.

And I'm also intrigued at the application of the idea to R&J.

Thanks, Dana!

Marilyn Bonomi

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Feb 2000 09:28:18 -0800
Subject: 11.0381 Who's Who in Hell
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0381 Who's Who in Hell

Dana Shilling writes:

>With or without Ethel the Pirate's Daughter, R&J does seem to start off
>as if it were going to become a comedy, with Juliet in doublet and hose
>en route to Mantua. However, once Romeo has incurred his own damnation
>by murdering Tybalt, the play can no longer be a comedy, and so the
>theo(logical) next step s despair, suicide, and damnation all around.

Isn't that a little structuralist for something as generous as grace?
Why can't Friar Lawrence grant absolution to Romeo?  Perhaps he's too
obsessed with municipal politics to think in such terms...

Yours,
Se 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.