Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: February ::
Re: Cressida
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0327  Monday, 12 February 2001

[1]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 09 Feb 2001 12:12:23 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0320 Re: Cressida

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 09 Feb 2001 12:56:27 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0320 Re: Cressida

[3]     From:   Werner Broennimann <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 10 Feb 2001 14:17:04 +0000
        Subj:   Cressida


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 09 Feb 2001 12:12:23 -0500
Subject: 12.0320 Re: Cressida
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0320 Re: Cressida

Laura Gowing's Domestic Dangers, 1996, is extremely interesting and
valuable, says David Lindley. "I recommend the book strongly to those
who wish to explore the construction of sexuality in the period, rather
than attempting to judge Cressida's 'whoredom' according to modern
understandings of the term."

I would like to remind David that a book written in 1996 -- however well
researched and documented -- must be a twentieth century version of the
early modern period.  We do not have direct access to the past, and our
point of view is always constructed from the present.  Science fiction
writers tell stories about the future, and historians tell stories about
the past.  Of course, I'm not saying that these stories lack interest.
I'm merely suggesting that we acknowledge our limitations, as well as
our responsibilities,  as agents.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 09 Feb 2001 12:56:27 -0500
Subject: 12.0320 Re: Cressida
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0320 Re: Cressida

I don't see any errors in the time line.  It seems quite straightforward
and simple:  Hamlet pere died about two months before the play starts;
his queen remarries about a month later; the wedding is celebrated in
another month (Act I).  Two months later (the time being confirmed in
the "Mousetrap" scene -- "'tis twice two months"), Hamlet still hasn't
taken the promised action.  The passage of time is established by the
Reynaldo scene as surely as leaves falling off a calendar in old movies.

This passage of time is essential to the plot and is very carefully
worked out, as it is in R&J also.  Where time makes little difference
(e.g., Othello) it is treated more cavalierly.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Werner Broennimann <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 10 Feb 2001 14:17:04 +0000
Subject:        Cressida

David Lindley's reference to Laura Gowing's book Domestic Dangers
reminds me of Lisa Jardine's chapter in "Reading Shakespeare
Historically", entitled: "'Why should he call her whore?': Defamation
and Desdemona's Case".  Jardine quotes numerous court protocols
involving women who defend themselves against the slanderous "hoore"
word.  Kay Stanton's work will also be relevant to this issue.  In
"Troilus and Cressida" the question of whether the observation that
Cressida's foot talks makes her a whore (remember the foot massage
dialogue in Tarantino?) must be correlated with the question of whether
Troilus is a bloodthirsty butcher.

Werner
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.