Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: June ::
Re: Why Shakespeare
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1489  Thursday, 14 June 2001

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Jun 2001 09:06:20 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1480 Re: Why Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Jun 2001 13:56:26 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1480 Re: Why Shakespeare

[3]     From:   Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Jun 2001 14:06:44 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1480 Re: Why Shakespeare

[4]     From:   William Proctor Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Jun 2001 09:11:40 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1480 Re: Why Shakespeare

[5]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Jun 2001 08:15:38 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1480 Re: Why Shakespeare

[6]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Jun 2001 19:30:09 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1480 Re: Why Shakespeare

[7]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Jun 2001 08:48:20 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1480 Re: Why Shakespeare

[8]     From:   Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Jun 2001 03:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1480 Re: Why Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Jun 2001 09:06:20 -0700
Subject: 12.1480 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1480 Re: Why Shakespeare

Gabriel Egan writes,

The charge of reductionism is often laid against cultural/textual
>theories ending in "-ist" (especially feminist, Marxist, and
>poststructuralist), which in the past Small has impugned in this forum.
>However, it would be difficult to find an example of even the most
>vulgar criticism from one of the "-ist" schools which could compete with
>the childlike simplicity of the above model of artistic creation.

Quite so.  On the other hand, this idea (like the notion that
Shakespeare must be basing Shylock on a real guy) seems like historicism
out of control.  The author can't possibly be just discussing
philosophical points in the abstract; instead, he must be describing
something with a precedent in the historical world.  Sam's dismissal of
'petty philosophies' (with which neither of us agree) seems strangely
parallel with an insistence on treating philosophical issues as issues
of power, politics, etc.  Of course, a true historicist wouldn't fall
back on universals, though a philosopher might be willing to discuss
them, which makes Sam's position all the less coherent.

BTW, I believe that there were 'Eskimos', as you put it, in Elizabethan
England.  Steven Mullaney notes in "Strange Things, Gross Terms, Curious
Customs" that "In 1577, for example, Martin Frobisher brought an Eskimo
couple back from his second voyage to Meta Incognita, later known as
Nova Scotia".  Quite apart from the fact that this is clearly mistaken
at least in its implication, since Nova Scotia has no Inuit population
and never has had one, it seems that Shakespeare could have had some
theoretical contact with Inuks.  Of course, that doesn't change your
point, but it is, I think, worth noting.  The Elizabethans had at least
notional contact with a huge amount of the globe.  What's curious is how
their mental world remained fairly narrow.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.