The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0019 Tuesday, 4 January 2000.
[1] From: Robert Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 3 Jan 2000 00:27:54 -0000
Subj: Re: SHK 11.0005 Re: MV
[2] From: Robert Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 3 Jan 2000 00:40:53 -0000
Subj: Re: SHK 11.0005 Re: MV
[3] From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 03 Jan 2000 11:17:34 -0800
Subj: Re: SHK 11.0005 Re: MV
[4] From: Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 3 Jan 2000 16:13:23 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 11.0005 Re: MV
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 3 Jan 2000 00:27:54 -0000
Subject: 11.0005 Re: MV
Comment: Re: SHK 11.0005 Re: MV
> From: Troy A. Swartz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
> Also, another
> comedic aspect of the play is Portia's cross-dressing-something
> that finds its way into almost every comedy!
Well, no ... five comedies from the whole canon, and three of them from
the roughly 1595-1600 period (in order, AYLI, MV, and TN), the other two
being TwoGents and Cymbeline.
I thought the idea that Shakespearean comedy as girls dressed up as boys
had died the death some time ago.
Robin Hamilton
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 3 Jan 2000 00:40:53 -0000
Subject: 11.0005 Re: MV
Comment: Re: SHK 11.0005 Re: MV
> From: Troy A. Swartz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
> Also, why should we be so general as to say Christian? These
> folks were
> Catholic to the Shakespearean audience....To a Protestant
> (Anglican)
> these Italian dudes were Catholic, of course...Christian? That
> could be pushing it
Well, for starters, there would presumably be a large proportion of
(Roman) Catholics in the audience. Further, there are no specific
signals in MV to define the specific version of Christianity held by the
Venetians (monks, confession, purgatory, etc., which occur elsewhere in
Shakespeare), let alone something like the explicit Roman
Catholic/Protestant clash between Bruno and the Pope in Marlowe's
+Doctor Faustus+.
To exculpate the Elizabethans by trying to imagine the play as saying
"nice Anglican boys wouldn't behave that way" verges on the ludicrous.
Robin Hamilton
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 03 Jan 2000 11:17:34 -0800
Subject: 11.0005 Re: MV
Comment: Re: SHK 11.0005 Re: MV
Manuella Rossini queries:
> Can we talk about anything other than politics? That's the question.
> Sorry, we have been here before, but I hope that Shakespe(a)rians don't
> leave this question behind in the 20th century (along with perhaps
> marxism and feminism??) but take it with them as an ethical (necessarily
> related to the political) obligation for the new millennium.
No one, I think, would say that the two are unrelated, but it's at least
as na
