2000

Re: Ophelia and Ottilie

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0022  Tuesday, 4 January 2000.

From:           Martin Mueller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 03 Jan 2000 16:10:13 -0600
Subject: 11.0011 Re: Ophelia and Ottilie
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0011 Re: Ophelia and Ottilie

>I was under the impression that "Ottile" was German for Athalie which is
>French for Athaliah in the Bible.  Not one of the characters you want to
>name children after!
>
>Nancy Charlton

That's probably not so. Ottilie is an eminently respectable name that
you're likely to encounter in reading dedications of piano sonatas by
late eighteenth-century composers to aristocratic women with musical
tastes.

Martin Mueller
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.  USA
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0021  Tuesday, 4 January 2000.

From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 03 Jan 2000 12:01:22 -0800
Subject: 11.0004 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0004 Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth

Eric Beato and John Ramsay point out, quite sensibly, that Macbeth
remains free.  I'm not contesting this.  If the idea of a freedom frozen
into fate seems paradoxical, that's because it actually is paradoxical.
Macbeth chooses to kill Duncan, yes, but he makes the same choice on
every night of every production.  Because he's a literary character, in
a play that has a script, he's fated like Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern to repeat the same actions.  Though he still has choice
within the fictive world, he doesn't get to choose the fictive world
he's placed in, which represents a sort of fate, not merely in the sense
that character is fate, but in the sense that the future is already
known.  Macbeth's famous awareness might be seen as an awareness of this
fatality, even though he remains free.  This is what makes his
soliloquies so fascinating.

It's as if he exists in the past, and what he will do has already
happened, so that from a certain perspective it can't be changed, though
from another perspective, he's operating in the eternal now and can
always choose otherwise.  Boethius used a similar argument to show why
God can see the future, without limiting the freedom of sinful man to
choose the future.  More popularly, the film Twelve Monkeys has a
character who travels into the past and is repeatedly frustrated by the
fact that what has already happened can't be avoided, so while he can
decide to do something, the ultimate result of his actions are always
the same.  Trying to avert a plague, he accidentally finds himself
causing it.

Judith Craig makes a further argument that we aren't free to affect the
world of the play.  It's hard to deny this common-sense argument, but I
would like to note that references to common-sense always have a slight
air of desperation about them.  Moreover, the fact that something is in
a play isn't simply common sense.  Some people, not to mention whole
cultures, may have no concept of play-acting.  Everyone's seen a child
at a movie who weeps unconsolably for the death of a fictional
character.

Even if we were to grant the concept of play-acting, it's still not
clear why that implies that we shouldn't intervene.  Even if we aren't
watching "a scene happening spontaneously on the street when virtuous
action might make a difference" this doesn't explain why we shouldn't
try to help, albeit hopelessly.  More strongly, it doesn't explain why
we bring this "artificial play" into being by turning up and being an
attentive audience, even paying for the privilege.  Even if we grant the
impossibility of intervention-that the play ceases to be if we rush the
stage, or that at least the moment while we're being wrestled to the
ground and led off in handcuffs (exiting for a bomb threat, in someone's
else's post) isn't a part of the play-merely watching is a sort of
complicity.  Blaming Shakespeare for everything that transpires just
won't cut it.  We could always leave, but we don't.  Substituting
another play for Shakespeare's wouldn't do either, since it only
reassigns Shakespeare's portion of guilt to whoever is 'writing',
perhaps gesturally, the new play.

Without an audience, there is no play.  And without a play, Macbeth has
no fate.  Of course, he would have no freedom either, since he wouldn't
exist, but as I've tried showing earlier in this post, fate and freedom
can coexist.

None of this is to say that I have a clear sense of what sort of action
would count as ethical vis-


Re: MV

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


Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0020  Tuesday, 4 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 03 Jan 2000 11:08:42 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0010 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

[2]     From:   Cliffird Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 3 Jan 2000 22:44:57 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0010 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 03 Jan 2000 11:08:42 -0800
Subject: 11.0010 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0010 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

Judy Lewis sensibly observes that:

> Michelangelo sculpted for money.  Raphael and
> Leonardo and Rembrandt painted for money.  Mozart composed for money.
> Even geniuses have to eat.

But do they paint to live, or live to paint?  That's the central issue,
IMHO.

Cheers,
Se


Re: Shakepix

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0018  Tuesday, 4 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 3 Jan 2000 13:21:01 -0500
        Subj:   re: ShakesPix

[2]     From:   Joe Conlon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 3 Jan 2000 19:08:45 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0007 Re: Shakepix

[3]     From:   Brother Anthony <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 04 Jan 2000 10:47:18 +0900
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0007 Re: Shakepix

[4]     From:   William Kemp <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 04 Jan 2000 08:26:11 +0000
        Subj:   Re: Shakepix


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 3 Jan 2000 13:21:01 -0500
Subject:        re: ShakesPix

Apparently Professor Kemp's website of Shakepseare images has moved.
Try this instead of the one I posted last round:

http://www1.mwc.edu/~wkemp/public_html/gallery/shakespeare_images/shakimages1.htm

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Tanya

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joe Conlon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 3 Jan 2000 19:08:45 -0500
Subject: 11.0007 Re: Shakepix
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0007 Re: Shakepix

Tanya's link to Dr. Kemp's site didn't work for me since it had moved.
I searched around for it and found it at the address below.  It indeed
has some good images.  Thanks for the tip, Tanya.

http://www1.mwc.edu/~wkemp/public_html/gallery/shakespeare_images/shakimages
1.htm

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brother Anthony <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 04 Jan 2000 10:47:18 +0900
Subject: 11.0007 Re: Shakepix
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0007 Re: Shakepix

Bill Kemp's Gallery index at Mary Washington College has moved to
http://www1.mwc.edu/~wkemp/public_html/gallery/gallery_index.htm

An Sonjae

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Kemp <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 04 Jan 2000 08:26:11 +0000
Subject:        Re: Shakepix

Thanks to Tanya Gough for calling my modest collection of digitized
Shakespeare images 'lovely.' The url she reports, however, is no longer
active. Higher powers have decreed that I must move my website to a new
server, and I'm doing that this week. Temporarily, the old site is
available at

http://www1.mwc.edu/~wkemp/public_html/index.html

But by the end of the week I hope to have the bits and pieces
rearranged, with a newer, less verbose url, which I'll send to the
various sites which link to mine. I'll also be adding some new material.

Bill Kemp
Mary Washington College

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.