2001

Re: Scotland

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2864  Wednesday, 19 December 2001

[1]     From:   Ros King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 18 Dec 2001 13:18:25 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2846 Re: Scotland

[2]     From:   Ros King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 18 Dec 2001 13:44:06 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2836 Re: Scotland


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ros King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Dec 2001 13:18:25 EST
Subject: 12.2846 Re: Scotland
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2846 Re: Scotland

Larry Weiss writes,

<< writing in the context of a constitution which called for inherited
succession he had damned well better "seem" to prefer it. >>

At a disputation in front of Elizabeth during her visit to Oxford in
1566, Toby Matthew, a student of Christ Church was one of the two
opponents when the question for discussion was 'A prince should be
declared by succession not election'. Matthew, who went on to be
President of St John's, Dean of Christ Church and finally Archbishop of
York, argued against succession, apparently with taste and distinction,
winning great praise (Plummer, Elizabethan Oxford, 1887, p. 182). They
were, I would suggest, politically very sophisticated people - more so
than we often give them credit for being.  They evidently needed to hear
these arguments rehearsed openly. It is, after all, probably the best
defence against those who would otherwise rehearse them in secret.

Happy winter holidays,
Ros

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ros King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Dec 2001 13:44:06 EST
Subject: 12.2836 Re: Scotland
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2836 Re: Scotland

David Bishop writes,

<< In both cases, the fact that the succession reverts to election seems
a lost chance for a more peaceful dispensation, which will in the long
run be established forever, we might hope, under a king like James. >>

Wasn't James himself an elected monarch? Elizabeth had been pressed
repeatedly to make that election and eventually did so - everyone was
told - on her deathbed. Election was an essential part of Elizabethan
politics. How else could she have remained the 'virgin queen'? What's
really terrifying about 'Macbeth' is Macduff's willingness to overlook
Malcolm's supposed sins in that essential but frequently cut scene in
the English court. Malcolm had a right through both succession and
election, and fortunately he was only playing with Macduff! Maybe the
message of the play - if there is one - is that it's not who they are
but what they're like that's important.

Ros

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Iago's Evil

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2863  Wednesday, 19 December 2001

From:           Sophie Masson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday 19 Dec 2001 03:11:49 +1100
Subject:        Iago's Evil

I have read with interest people's contributions re Othello and Iago.
The thing that interests me above all is--why would we need explanations
for Iago's evil? Evil of that kind rarely has an adequate explanation.
Some people--very rare indeed, but still real--simply seem to act that
way, for no apparent reason or motive, unless you except power from it.
But even then it is a power that is often not even seen to be exercised.
Its only reward is the thrill of knowing one is doing wrong, of
fulfilling an evil nature.

Some of Shakespeare's portraits of evil seem to be the evil committed by
people because of greed, or lust, or power--such for instance as
Macbeth.  Such evil is quantifiable in a way, explainable, able to be
analysed. We can see where people 'went wrong'. Iago is troubling
because he appears motiveless. But that is because that is his
function--destruction. In the same way, some real people seem to have
precisely that kind of functional, no-fuss, yet surreal kind of evil
within them. They exist to do evil, if the circumstances are right. If
they're not, then they just stay unremarkable, that's all. In
suspension, as it were. A far more chilling prospect than any
explainable evil..

Sophie Masson
Author site: http://www.northnet.com.au/~smasson

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

(R) New Kean Articles - How tall was Kean really?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2861 (R)  Monday, 17 December 2001

From:           Christopher Moore <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, December 16, 2001 11:48 PM
Subject:        New Kean Articles - How tall was Kean really?

New Kean articles posted on www.classicaltheatre.com including William
Winter's article on where Kean drank, and an article which deals with
Edmund Kean's height, plus suggestions of how to celebrate Edmund Kean
month.

Christopher Moore
www.classicaltheatre.com

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

CFP Med/Ren Las Vegas

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2862  Wednesday, 19 December 2001

From:           Charles Whitney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 17 Dec 2001 13:52:30 -0800
Subject:        CFP Med/Ren Las Vegas

Call for Papers

The Presence of the Past
34th Annual Meeting of the RMMRA
Rocky Mountain Medieval and Renaissance Assn., RSA Affiliate

Las Vegas
University of Las Vegas, May 23-25, 2002

Plenary speakers
Wole Soyinka, Nobel Laureate and Director, International Institute of
Modern Letters, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Terence Hawkes, English, Cardiff University, Wales

Diane Wolfthal, Art History, Arizona State University

>>Topic Open<<
You are cordially invited to submit abstracts for session and 20-minute
paper proposals either on the conference theme or on any topic in
medieval, Renaissance, or early modern studies. "The Presence of the
Past" concerns such questions as these: in what ways are images,
artifacts, texts, and institutions of the medieval and early modern
periods part of the contemporary world?  What valid parallels or
narratives connect these periods to the world today?  How can we address
our own historical and cultural situatedness?  How did medieval and
early modern cultures themselves apprehend and address the presence of
the past?

Deadline: March 1, 2002
Submit by January 15 for early response

Please send session proposals or one-page abstracts to: Elspeth Whitney,
Dept. of History, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
fax: 702-895-1782  phone: 702-895-3350   address: Las Vegas, NV
89154-5020

Questions? Contact Charles Whitney, Dept. of English, UNLV
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.   fax: 702-895-4801  phone: 702-895-3920  address:
Las Vegas, NV 89154-5011
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

(R) Soliloquies: Performance Practice

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2860 (R)  Monday, 17 December 2001

From:           David Wilson-Okamura <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 17 Dec 2001 09:00:03 -0600
Subject:        Soliloquies: Performance Practice

Last week, while reading Samuel Johnson's "Life of Milton" with my
Milton seminar, I was struck by the following stricture on _Comus_:

             What deserves more reprehension is, that the prologue
spoken
        in the wild wood by the attendant Spirit is addressed to the
        audience; a mode of communication so contrary to the nature of
        dramatick representation, that no precedents can support it.

The problem, I assume, is not that a prologue addresses the audience,
but the prologue addresses the audience directly _and_ participates in
the action. The reference to "no precedents" struck me (and my students)
as odd, though, because there seem to be prominent counterexamples in
Shakespeare -- one thinks (I thought) immediately of Richard, in R3
("Now is the winter of our discontent"), or of Edmund, in Lear ("Thou,
nature, art my goddess"). Upon reflection, however, it occurs to me that
the reason these seem like counterexamples is because I am used to
seeing Olivier address the camera thus on screen. I take it from
Johnson's remark, though, that this kind of address to the audience is
_not_ something that was done by actors in the eighteenth century. Can
anyone confirm this?

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.