2000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0194  Monday, 31 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 28 Jan 2000 09:22:31 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0184 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

[2]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 27 Jan 2000 19:00:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0164 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

[3]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 27 Jan 2000 19:00:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0164 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

[4]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 27 Jan 2000 19:00:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0164 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

[5]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 27 Jan 2000 19:00:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0164 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

[6]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 29 Jan 2000 14:20:27 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0184 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 Jan 2000 09:22:31 -0800
Subject: 11.0184 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0184 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

Judith Matthews Craig writes:

> I am having a hard time understanding the intricacies of love and
> pornography as reflected in recent discussions, but I REALLY have hard
> time here-does love make the woman "transcendent" to him?  Is she some
> kind of Petrarchan unattainable goddess?  It seems to me that the whole
> drift of Shakespeare's characterization of women is anti-Petrarchan and
> if they err, it is on the side of grim reality rather than as
> goddesses.  Desdemona strikes me as a very fine woman who goes through
> hell to marry a man that she perceives as equally fine and "worth it."

I don't mean transcendent in the Petrarchan sense, which could just
collapse into idolatry, which is a form of self-worship.  I mean
transcendent in the sense of outside the self.  Desdemona cannot be
known or assimilated to Othello's knowing self until he declares her to
be an adulteress.  "Whore" is a label which exhaustively describes;
"wife" is not.  So long as she isn't exhaustively known, she's a
challenge to his way of seeing the world, not by virtue of anything she
does, but simply by virtue of being free.

> I always thought Othello's problems were not due to Desdemona's
> "alterity" but to his insecurity as a black man in white society.

Well yes, that's another possibility that I floated.  Still, if Othello
could treat Desdemona exhaustively as a trophy then they'd be no need to
worry about her infidelity.  As a trophy, she'd be "his" (like a
possession) not "hers", and therefore unable to pose a challenge to his
world.  One might look at the discussion between Iago and Othello about
the handkerchief, and whether it's Desdemona's to give away.

Cheers,
Se 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.