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

[1]     From:   Marilyn Bonomi <
 This e-mail 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 e-mail 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 e-mail 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 e-mail 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 e-mail 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