2000

International Shakes Conf.

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0786  Thursday, 13 April 2000.

From:           Tiffany Rasovic <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Apr 2000 15:21:59 -0400
Subject:        International Shakes Conf.

Hello...

Well, after SAA, I'm ready for Valencia...

Can someone provide the URL for the conference?

Thanks
TR

Re: Cuckolds

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0785  Thursday, 13 April 2000.

From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Apr 2000 09:47:37 -0700
Subject: Re: Cuckolds
Comment:        SHK 11.0771 Re: Cuckolds

Clifford Stetner wrote:

> (I've often wondered, given his proximity to young Hal and
> his roley-poley,hostlery haunting ways, if there is not something
> of Chaucer in Falstaff-the name Oldcastle could then be a ref
> to the belief that the old poet was a closet Lollard...)

Clifford, you seem quite learned, so I assume you know Oldcastle is the
name used in one of Shakespeare's sources, so surely you have a stronger
reasons for this idea.  Care to share?

Mike Jensen

Winter 2000 Issue of Shakespeare Bulletin

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0783  Thursday, 13 April 2000.

From:           Jim Lusardi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Apr 2000 12:33:54 -0400
Subject:        Winter 2000 Issue of Shakespeare Bulletin

For those who don't know or don't subscribe to Shakespeare Bulletin, a
Journal of Performance Criticism and Scholarship (in its 18th year):

The Winter 2000 issue (18.1) is now available.  This issue features
International Shakespeare.  Contents:

Alan C. Dessen on "Provocative Choices:  London and Stratford in 1999."

Abbey Zink on "Gender Peformance and the Role of Cleopatra in the 1999
RSC and Globe Productions of Antony and Cleopatra."

Marvin Rosenberg's "Observations" on the RSC and Globe stagings of
Antony and Cleopatra.

Margaret Varnell on the English Shakespeare Company.

Barbara D. Palmer on "The York Cycles 1998:  Toronto and York."

Rosemary Gaby on stagings of the Henriad, past and present, in
Australia.

In the section "Shakespeare on Film," Samuel Crowl's review of Julie
Taymor's Titus.

In addition to covering eighteen British productions, the issue offers
reviews of productions from The Netherlands, Italy, Estonia, Finland,
Russia, and Australia.

As usual, the issue also includes production photos and listings of
Events and "Books on the Rialto."

SB remains a great bargain among journals:  $15 (US) for one year (4
48-page issues), $30 for two years, etc.  No surcharge for mailing to
overseas subscribers.  Back issues available $4.

Make out check or money order (no credit cards) to Shakespeare Bulletin.
Send to J. P. Lusardi and J. Schlueter, Co-Editors, Shakespeare
Bulletin, Lafayette College, Easton, PA 18042.  Phone: (610) 330-5245,
fax: (610) 330-5606, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Re: Oxymora

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0784  Thursday, 13 April 2000.

From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Apr 2000 09:41:33 -0700
Subject: 11.0769 Re: Oxymora
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0769 Re: Oxymora

Ed Taft writes:

>Sean asks how {Hamlet} would be different if Hamlet does not realize at
>the end of 4.4 what Fortinbras is up to.  Well, we'd still have to
>explain why he walks off with R&G to certain death after apparently just
>reaffirming his vow to revenge his father's death.

He might also not suspect that he's being sent to his death, despite his
rhetoric about cherubs.  He might also think that just refusing,
whipping out his rapier and taking on a regiment of Swissers would
constitute an even more certain death!  Or he may be embracing events
without actually embracing Providence-claiming superior awareness could
be a sign of self-confidence, rather than of humility before the
Divine.  After all, if you don't actually do anything, you can still
feel in control by cultivating a vague, long-term plan.  I would know,
since this is what I did with my dissertation for a few months!

>As to Fortinbras's "plan," it may be just like Hamlet's, if they are
>foils/doubles/alter-egos, which, manifestly, they are!  There is a neat
>symmetry here: Hamlet copies Fortinbras, and then Fortinbras replaces
>Hamlet. If that is the will of Providence, then there's no problem.
>Besides, Hamlet's going to get killed no matter what he does, it seems,
>but there's no warrant for thinking that Fortinbras would have done so,
>had Hamlet lived. Both men exemplify Milton's great summation of
>Renaissance humanism: "They also serve who only stand and wait."

Maybe they do, but I still don't see any evidence that Fortinbras is
planning to take over Denmark, much less that Hamlet realizes this.
Even if they are thematic doubles, this hardly means that Hamlet will be
able to predict Fortinbras's future, perhaps even indetermined, actions
on the basis of their parallel.

>1. The Ghost speaks for God IF God's will is being worked out through
>Hamlet's actions.  Whether or not God wants Hamlet to obey the Ghost can
>only be known through the actions of Providence.

Doesn't this argument approach solipsism?  If the ghost expresses the
will of Providence, then whatever actions it inspires are workings out
of the will of Providence.  The circumstances that dictate what exact
form this working out takes would also be Providential.  Once we decide
that the instructions and their realization are Providential, everything
inevitably comes to show this.

Solipsism, by the way, isn't always bad; it has the acute advantage of
not relying on outside data on which we may or may not agree.  It does,
though, have the danger of turning into elephants all the way down, to
return to a thread which is perhaps best left forgotten.  Perhaps a way
to break this impasse is through historicism, looking at what sorts of
things the English Renaissance assumed that Providence was able to
command.

J. Birjepatil makes a fascinating contribution to this thread:

>I may be flogging a dead horse here but Derrida's spin on Hamlet in
>'Spectres of Marx' may help understand the nature of impasse over
>whether or not Hamlet is too cowardly to kill. [...] Hamlet seems to me
>like the figure Derrida has in mind of a man who is suspended between two
>epistemologies, one dying or dead and the other not yet born. Located in
>that epistemological fracture Hamlet is struggling to make sense of the
>task assigned to him by the ghost  and the image of time being 'out of
>joint' serves to problematise the issue of choice. Thus Hamlet's
>aversion to spilling blood has an intellectual underpinning.

One other possibility places the rupture not between rival
epistemologies, but between rival "Providences" (to coin a neologism).
The ghosts and gods of classical tragedy have no qualms about calling
for revenge, but the God of Christianity is usually assumed not to call
for sin.  The fact that Shakespeare has placed Hamlet in a Christian
time, but with the Senecan device of a ghost returning from Hades to
call for revenge, might explain some of the difficulty not only with
Hamlet's motivation, but also with my, Ed, and David's disagreements in
this thread.  Rather than colliding epistemologies, we have a collision
of theological and generic expectations.

By the way, thanks for your reference to Derrida, which may come in
handy for a paper that I will probably have to revise in the near
future.  I would just add that, were Hamlet able to do nothing at all,
to not feel a certain ethical imperative in the ghost's voice or see it
in his face, the question of what specifically to do, "the issue of
choice", would fade from centrality.  Derrida's argument, at least as
you've summarized it here, strikes me as requiring a Levinasian
supplement.

Cheers,
Se


Re: Sonnet 20

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0782  Thursday, 13 April 2000.

From:           Tom Reedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Apr 2000 14:07:56 -0500
Subject: 11.0765 Re: Sonnet 20
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0765 Re: Sonnet 20

Judith Matthews Craig writes

>In the interests of "unprotecting Shakespeare" I would like to see an
>argument advanced rather than an ad hominem attack.  Some of us
>"prickless" pricks thought that the "universality of Shakespeare" meant
>that he was more interested in the impact of time on people and events
>or perhaps the value of universal ideas as they applied to the universal
>human condition as depicted in poetry rather than in the depiction of a
>mindless blob of gutter sexuality common to any bestial human willing to
>indulge it.
>
> Judy Craig

Oh, boy.  Here we go again.

I'll pass on this one; it does get tiresome after a while.

Tom Reedy

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.