2001

Re: Authorial Intention

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0653  Tuesday, 20 March 2001

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Mar 2001 08:53:55 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0643 Re: Authorial Intention

[2]     From:   R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Mar 2001 13:23:53 -0600
        Subj:   SHK 12.0643 Re: Authorial Intention

[3]     From:   John Robinson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Mar 2001 22:51:23 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0643 Re: Authorial Intention


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Mar 2001 08:53:55 -0800
Subject: 12.0643 Re: Authorial Intention
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0643 Re: Authorial Intention

Clifford Stetner writes that

>I hardly need to point out the paradox that the assertion that time
>spent in theory is not well spent is itself theory.

This paradox depends on conflating two notions of theory.  One meaning
of theory is the obvious one, to which Clifford alludes earlier in his
post, as involving the study of all great thinkers, and of any sort of
thought of sufficient complexity and abstraction.  It can also, however,
indicate a set of more or less mutually supporting ideas, nicely
described in a recent number of the University of Toronto Quarterly by
Graham Good, a professor here at UBC.

Conflating the two (rather different) meanings under the single term
seems to provide 'theory' with most of its rhetorical power, implying
that disagreement with the dogmas of the contemporary academy is
tantamount to not thinking at all.

Cheers,
Se


Re: Othello in Aleppo

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0652  Tuesday, 20 March 2001

[1]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Mar 2001 11:31:33 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0635 Re: Othello in Aleppo

[2]     From:   Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Mar 2001 13:58:59 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0635 Re: Othello in Aleppo


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Mar 2001 11:31:33 -0500
Subject: 12.0635 Re: Othello in Aleppo
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0635 Re: Othello in Aleppo

>If Othello in his Aleppo phase was a Moslem as Asimov suggests why would
>he refer to the Turk as a 'circumcised dog.'? Even after conversion to
>Christianity, as a lapsed Moslem would he not still retain the status of
>a circumcised?

Asks J. Birjepatil.  Asimov would respond (I think) that Othello still
remembers when he called Christians "uncircumcized dogs."  Now that he
is a Christian, Othello uses the opposite phrase for Moslems.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Mar 2001 13:58:59 -0600
Subject: 12.0635 Re: Othello in Aleppo
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0635 Re: Othello in Aleppo

Good point about circumcision. Vasectomy may be reversible, but
circumcision was not, at least not that I know of.

Since Chaucer's Knight fought for the Turkish "lord of Palatye / Agayn
another hethen in Turkye" (GP 65), there would certainly be no reason
why Othello couldn't have been in Aleppo as a professional in the pay of
the Turks, especially since he was so clearly non-European. The question
is why he would grow furious at a Turk insulting a Venetian before his
professional alliance with Venice. I suspect either that Shakespeare
didn't notice the inconsistency, or that he assumed the audience would
write it off as the raving of a man in the extremity of grief and guilt
(as heretofore suggested).

don

Re: Weed Noted

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0650  Tuesday, 20 March 2001

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Mar 2001 08:23:57 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0636 Re: Weed Noted

[2]     From:   Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Mar 2001 12:14:07 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0636 Re: Weed Noted

[3]     From:   Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 18 Mar 2001 14:31:20 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0636 Re: Weed No


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Mar 2001 08:23:57 -0800
Subject: 12.0636 Re: Weed Noted
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0636 Re: Weed Noted

Clifford writes that

>Similarly, paranoiacs
>live in a world in which everybody is in on the secret conspiracy of
>which they are the focus, and yet they must be struck by the absolute
>silence all these conspirators (and some may be perceived by the
>paranoiac as allies) manage to maintain, as if they have sworn some sort
>of oath.  Having imposed the oath, Hamlet's (or the audience's)
>delusions are not disturbed by the fact that Horatio does not reveal his
>knowledge to other potential allies.

There's a further question:  just because he's paranoid, does that mean
that they aren't all out to get him?  As in the film Conspiracy Theory,
we're not sure how much of the paranoia is actually right or, further,
whether the fact that some of the paranoid notions turn out to be right
justifies the logic of paranoid thought.  Could Hamlet be right (that
the king is out to get him) and wrong (that there's a vast conspiracy in
operation) at the same time?

In other words, can be arrogate to ourselves the ability to know
Hamlet's psychology (to play upon him, he might say) more than we know
the ghost's ontology?  Is 'knowing' the right sort of stance to should
assume towards characters?

Cheers,
Se


Re: JC and Sex

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0651  Tuesday, 20 March 2001

[1]     From:   Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Mar 2001 11:27:24 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

[2]     From:   Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Mar 2001 12:46:52 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

[3]     From:   Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 16 Mar 2001 13:09:09 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

[4]     From:   L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sat, 17 Mar 2001 15:34:39 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

[5]     From:   Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:22:54 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Mar 2001 11:27:24 EST
Subject: 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

Dear Friends,

Shakespeare was certainly aware that Brutus was Julius Caesar's
illegitimate son. As Suffolk says, "Brutus'bastard hand Stabbed Julius
Caesar" (2H6
4.1.138-9)

Shakespeare found plenty of testimony about this in the ancient
historians.  Seutonius wrote, "But above the rest [of Caesar'sexual
conquests], he cast affection to Servilia the mother of M. Brutus; for
whom both in his last Consulship he had bought a pearle that cost him
sixe millions of Sesterces, etc." Appian shared the view that Brutus was
illegitimate, and the natural son of Caesar: "It was even thought that
Brutus was his son, as Caesar was the lover of his mother, Servilia
(Cato's sister) about the time of his birth, for which reason, when he
[Caesar] won the victory at Pharsalus, it is said that he gave an
immediate order to his officers to save Brutus by all means, etc."
Plutarch also suggests Caesar's motive: "Some saye he [Caesar] did this
for Serviliaes sake, Brutus mother. For when he [Caesar] was a young
man, he had bene acquainted with Servilia, who was extreamelie in love
with him. And bicause Brutus was borne in that time when their love was
hottest, he [Caesar] perswaded him selfe that he begat him, etc." This
sorts well with Seutonius' report of Caesar's dying words: "some have
written, that as M. Brutus came running upon him he said, [in Greek] And
thou my sonne."

There are, I think, recondite clues to the illegitimacy of the Brutus in
"Julius Caesar," e.g. when Cassius soliloquizes, "Well Brutus, thou art
Noble: yet I see, Thy Honorable Mettle may be wrought From that it is
dispos'd: therefore it is meet, That Noble mindes keepe ever with their
likes: For who so firme, that cannot be seduc'd?" This punning turns on
"Noble ... mettle [metal] ... seduc'd [=debased]. A "Noble" was a coin
of gold, the "honorable" metal. Coining and coins were Shakespeare's
habitual metaphors for extramarital sex and illict births. (See Molly
Mahood for more.) In Antony's funeral oration he refers to Brutus as
"Caesars Angel." The Angel was an old English gold coin, often referred
to as the "angel-noble," having as its device the archangel Michael
standing upon, and piercing the dragon (OED).

The wiser sort among Shakespeare's auditors would certainly have known
that Brutus was the bastard son of Caesar -- which would have added
tremendous pathos to Brutus's exclamation, "O ye gods, render me worthy
of this noble wife." Portia was the daughter of Cato, Brutus a bastard.

Steve

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Mar 2001 12:46:52 -0500
Subject: 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

Paul Doniger writes that Julius Caesar's tragic hero is really Brutus.
This is an old argument, as Paul no doubt knows, that last heated up in
the 50's when there were some excellent movie versions of the play.
Those who think differently from Paul would argue that Caesar is the
real tragic hero because even after his death, his spirit (Caesarism)
and his ghost dominate both the action of the play and the mind of
Brutus.

Be that as it may, I think that the real focus of the play is the
origins of myth. Paul will remember that the main source of the play is
Plutarch's Parallel Lives, and so literate members of the audience would
soon be asking themselves what the story unfolding on the stage is
parallel to.  The answer is contained in the initials of the title: JC
-- Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ.  The parallelism was well-known at
the time, for one ruled the state and the other the universe.

The basic question is the same:  Is Julius Caesar a God or a flawed
mortal?  Is he a savior or a megalomaniac?  The parallelism extends to
Brutus and Judas, both of whom are found in the bottom rung of hell, if
Dante is to be believed.

The play moves from a realistic (but not definitive) portrayal of Caesar
and others to the world of myth.  When Antony eulogizes Brutus, he puts
everyone, even himself, back in the clouds. And we are left to wonder
about what it was that we just witnessed, and what it really means.

--Ed Taft

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Mar 2001 13:09:09 -0500
Subject: 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

Paul Doniger comments that JC is really about Brutus, despite its
title.  I agree with him; otherwise it is simply a history play, and not
a tragedy.

Shakespeare is in good company: the play we call Antigone today is the
tragedy of Creon, not of Antigone... but I guess "Creon's Downfall"
doesn't cut it as a title either <wry smile>.

Mari Bonomi

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sat, 17 Mar 2001 15:34:39 -0600
Subject: 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

Paul Doniger wrote,

"I wonder if it is possible that Shakespeare ignored all this
dramatically rich material because his play is not about Julius Caesar
at all. It may be called _The Tragedy of Julius Caesar_, but it is
really the tragedy of Marcus Brutus. Although the figure of Julius
Caesar does dominate the plot, Brutus is clearly the tragic hero, noble
of character, complete with a 'tragic flaw' (his own arrogant purity,
both as a stoic and as a man of virtue) which causes his downfall..."

In the article on "Julius Caesar" in "The Wordsworth Dictionary of
Shakespeare," Charles Boyce wrote,

"The telling comparisons between Brutus and Caesar demonstrate the
play's most essential ambivalence: the tyrant and his opponent are not
easily distinguishable...Both Brutus and Caesar have great leadership
qualities, and, being certain of his virtues, each is susceptible to
flattery and manipulation by lesser men.  In murdering Caesar, Brutus
follows the Caesar-like course of attempting to change society in
accordance with his views.  Similarly, in the war that follows the
assassination, Brutus behaves as imperiously as Caesar did, enacting
precisely the failings of autocratic leadership - the isolation from his
followers, the presumption of sound decision-making., the potential for
tyranny - that he had acted to prevent in killing Caesar. Significantly,
Caesar's Ghost identifies itself as Brutus' 'evil spirit.'"

It would appear, then, that, in Boyce's view, the character of Caesar
might be considered to continue in the action of the play in Brutus and
reach an end appropriate to that "single" character at the conclusion of
the play.

One might take a similar view of "Antony and Cleopatra": Cleopatra
continues on alone  in the  fifth act, but she is "with" Antony in her
regally-robed death, thus *publicly* "royalizing" their mutual *private*
love, a union of interests they had so desperately, so tragically tried
but failed to achieve in life.

           L. Swilley

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephanie Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:22:54 -0800
Subject: 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0633 Re: JC and Mac. and Sex

> I wonder if it is possible that Shakespeare ignored all this
> dramatically rich material because his play is not about Julius
Caesar
> at all. It may be called _The Tragedy of Julius Caesar_, but it
is
> really the tragedy of Marcus Brutus. Although the figure of
Julius
> Caesar does dominate the plot, Brutus is clearly the tragic
hero, noble
> of character, complete with a 'tragic flaw' (his own arrogant
purity,
> both as a stoic and as a man of virtue) which causes his
downfall. I
> have often suspected that Shakespeare gave the play this title
because
> it would attract a larger audience than _The Tragedy of Marcus
Brutus,
> Senator of Rome_ .

> What do you all think?

I agree that Caesar's love life was ignored because that was not what
the play was about. The play is about politics and the kinds of pressure
that it creates that may make an individual make decisions that are not
in the best interest of himself or his community.  We see a similar
topic dealt with in Coriolanus. He is bad, but he has been made bad by
the situation that surrounds him.  Much the same question is dealt with
in Richard II. What justifies removing a ruler from power?

I agree that the play is about Brutus, not Caesar. As for the title,
many titles don't say much about the play unfortunately, otherwise we'd
have an easier time figuring out what some of the "lost plays" were
about. and Shakespeare himself may not have been responsible for the
title. But you may be right that whoever gave it the title may have
thought the public audience was more likely to know who Caesar was than
Brutus.

     Stephanie Hughes

Re: Shakespeare's Tomb

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0649  Tuesday, 20 March 2001

From:           Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 16 Mar 2001 10:36:47 -0500
Subject: 12.0631 Sonogram/Ultrasound of Shakespeare's Tomb?
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0631 Sonogram/Ultrasound of Shakespeare's Tomb?

Lisa Giudarinia asks:

>Now, I've a question for the esteemed list at large.  A few years ago I
>watched a program on life of Shakespeare on a PBS station, and in this
>program it was discussed that a sonogram/ultrasound of Shakespeare's
>tomb in Stratford was planned.  I never heard a whisper more on the
>subject, and it's been eating at me ever since.  Does anyone know if
>such a thing ever did occur, and if so, were there any published
>results?

To what possible end, Lisa? To determine that there is a body there?  If
for the purpose of determining its identity (as in the authorship
question, which on this list is taboo), like a DNA testing, a
sonogram/ultrasound would prove *nothing* other than that there is a
body in the grave, and perhaps that that body (if it hasn't turned to
dust) had the pelvic structure of a male. Identification by such means
in impossible, unless you have an authentic piece of the original to go
by: you can determine that semen sample B belongs to individual A if you
have the hair of A to go by, but you cannot determine who A is.

We don't have Shakespeare's DNA. Even if we had a micrometer-exact
description of the bone structure of the man called William Shakespeare,
that still wouldn't "prove" (to some people's satisfaction, anyway) that
he was the author of _Hamlet_. That's probably why you've heard no more
about the project.

Best to all,
Carol Barton

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.