June
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0604 Tuesday, 27 June 2006 From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 Subject: SHAKSPER: The Pump-Priming Edition Comment: SHK 17.0581 SHAKSPER: The Pump-Priming Edition Last week, I proposed that we consider making periodic Roundtable discussions a regular part of SHAKSPER. I then asked for responses to this idea and possible topics for discussion. What I did not delineate was a procedure for how such Roundtables might work. So here are some preliminary thoughts I am offering for members to think about. First, all such discussions would be identified specifically in the subject line as Roundtable (or some other designation - suggestions are welcome) to distinguish these from regular list queries. Second, only one of these discussions would be conducted at a time. Third, discussions would be time-limited. One possibility would be to set the discussion time limit of two, three, or four weeks. Another possibility (and the one that I am leading towards) is to have a guest moderator for each topic. The moderator would edit and oversee the contributions and determine when the discussion had run its course. Four, a list of possible future topics would be available on the website and subject to constant revision. Five, I would like to set up a simply process by which members have input into selecting the Roundtable topic to be discussed and for volunteering to be a guest moderator of the discussion, should we follow that path. If you have any thoughts about these or other procedures, please send me a private e-mail. When I have a set of procedures that I believe can work, I will post these to the membership, and given no ground swell of resistant we will get under way. Thanks, and below for your information are the topics that have been suggested so far. * The State of the Discipline * Historicism, New Historicism, Presentism: Where we are and where we are headed? * Performance Criticism: Thirty Years After * SHAKESPEARE'S LIVES to 1599: A YEAR IN THE LIFE OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE: The Future of Shakespeare Biography * Lukas Erne's Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist * Electronic Shakespeares * New Uses for Old Books * Pedagogy: The Shakespeare Classroom Today * Alternative to the Research Paper in the Shakespeare Classroom * Verse Speaking: Its Value. Does it matter? * Realization of Text into Performance. * Employment of the rising iambic line in the creation of argument. * Editorial practices (everything from specific cruxes to the pros and cons of the new Arden Hamlet) * Shakespearean (Early Modern) printing and publishing * Textual matters * The relevance of religion (intelligently discussed) * Restoration and 18th- & 19th-century adaptations and interpretations (I mean theatrical interpretations though of course with critical implications) * Shakespeare on film * Shakespeare's language (i.e., linguistically considered--but poetic and rhetorical approaches would be interesting too) * Family life in Shakespeare and his time * Historical approaches (e.g., related to law, politics, finance, etc.). _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0611 Friday, 30 June 2006 [1] From: William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2006 15:19:18 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0610 The Big Question [2] From: Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 30 Jun 2006 08:22:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 17.0610 The Big Question [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2006 15:19:18 -0400 Subject: 17.0610 The Big Question Comment: Re: SHK 17.0610 The Big Question Donald Bloom writes: "I need some clarification here. Why are we assuming that a well-respected merchant of late Renaissance Venice would have such a Dark Ages attitude toward banking?" I think it's hard to assume otherwise. Antonio says that he neither lends nor borrows "By taking nor by giving of excess" (1.3.57). "Excess" here means "usury" (OED, noun, 6. c., citing this passage). And Antonio tells Shylock: "If thou wilt lend this money, lend it not / As to thy friends, for when did friendship take / A breed for barren metal of his friend?" (127-129). I suppose Antonio could be telling Shylock not to be friendly with his clients, or informing Shylock that he, Antonio, never makes friends with his banker, but more likely he's decrying the taking of interest. And at line 70, Antonio appears to reject any taking of interest, and Shylock himself says that Antonio "lends out money gratis" (39). No wonder Antonio has no money. If Shylock is a loan shark (as current shylocks are), why does Bassanio turn to him rather than to a legitimate banker? Why don't Antonio's friends rally round? I quote the following from LEME, so that we have an EM definition of usury. William Rastell, An Exposition of Certain Difficult and Obscure Words, and Terms of the Laws of this Realm (1579) Vsurie. VSurie, is a gayne of any thing aboue the principal, or that which was lent, exacted onely in consideration of the loane, whether it be of corn, meat, apparel, wares, or such like, as of money. And here much myght be saied, and many cases might bee putt concernynge Vsurie, whiche of purpose I omytte, onely I wyshe, that they who accompte themselues religious & good christians, would not deceiue themselues by colour of the statute of vsurie, because it sayeth that it shall not be lawful for any to take aboue x. ii. in the C. li. for a yere &c. whereby they gather (although falsly) that they may therefore take x. li. for the loane of an C. li. with a good conscience, because the Statute doth after a sort dispence withal, (for that it doth not punish such taking,) which thing it cannot do with the lawes & ordinances of God, for God will haue his decrees to be kept inuiolable, who sayth, lende looking for nothynge thereby &c. By which woordes is excluded, eyther the taking of x. li. v. li. yea, or one penny aboue the principall. But rather let such think, that that statute was made vppon like cause, that moued Moyses to gyue a bill of dyuorce to the Isralites, as namelye to auoyde a greater mischiefe, and for the hardnesse of their hartes. (Lexicons of Early Modern English. Ed. Ian Lancashire. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Library and University of Toronto Press, 2006. Date consulted: 29 June 2006. URL: leme.library.utoronto.ca/lexicon/entry.cfm?ent=151-280). [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 30 Jun 2006 08:22:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 17.0610 The Big Question Comment: Re: SHK 17.0610 The Big Question By what alchemy do threads on general subjects always end up on Merchant of Venice? Is there nothing to consider about the morality of Taming of the Shrew, Julius Caesar, or Macbeth? Jack Heller _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0611 Friday, 30 June 2006 From: Cris Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2006 14:52:48 -0300 Subject: Bowdlers on Death of Ophelia Dear All, I have been working on bowdlerized versions of Hamlet to find out how different texts describe Ophelia's death in the nineteenth century and am rather puzzled. I have compared The Family Shakespeare to the Arden edition and can't find the many infamous expurgations commonly attributed to the Bowdlers. A part from a couple of lines cut from Gertrude's description of the accident, everything else remains pretty much the same. Why, then, do many claim that the Bowdlers only euphemistically refer to Ophelia's death as an accidental drowning rather than the suicide implied by Shakespeare? The grave diggers' words have not been modified and neither have Laertes' to the "churlish priest", hence the insinuation is clear. Could it be that the 1st editions, probably written by Henrietta, were more radical in relation to Ophelia than the later ones? (I should add that the Family Shakespeare edition I have was published in 1861). I would be very grateful indeed if a good soul could help me - no libraries here in Brazil have The Family Shakespeare, therefore I cannot compare mine to earlier editions. Many thanks and best wishes, Cris Smith. _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0610 Thursday, 29 June 2006 [1] From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 28 Jun 2006 18:50:25 +0000 Subj: RE: SHK 17.0608 The Big Question [2] From: David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2006 01:03:42 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0608 The Big Question [3] From: Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2006 10:30:15 -0500 Subj: Usury [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 28 Jun 2006 18:50:25 +0000 Subject: 17.0608 The Big Question Comment: RE: SHK 17.0608 The Big Question I cannot for the life of me understand how so many critics and scholars down the years have ignored or minimized the subversive undercurrents flowing beneath David Bishop's cover story. Perhaps, a Roundtable Discussion could explore the sources of such resistance-why so many are content to glide along the surface rather than pry to the interior. Rest assured, Ms. Bonomi, Shakespeare used both eyes in crafting his dramas, winking all the way. Shylock grew fangs only after being called dog, and not before. Joe Egert [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2006 01:03:42 -0400 Subject: 17.0608 The Big Question Comment: Re: SHK 17.0608 The Big Question Frank Whigham's question about "let all of his complexion choose me so" is a natural one, for us, and a difficult one-as many have found. One might wonder why Shakespeare put these words in Portia's mouth if he did not mean to make her an unsympathetic character-in our terms, a racist. In that sense we might consider Shakespeare a racist too, for example because of the many passing remarks about the ugliness of dark skin. This was a conventional judgment in his world, where whiter skin than alabaster was the ideal (though you could be too pale: a whey-face). But he also wrestles in the sonnets, as in Othello, with the conflict between conventional standards of beauty and a "fairness" that transcends skin color. What then, for Shakespeare, was the point of Portia's remark? I think it's to show that Portia is a young girl naturally swayed by conventional standards of beauty: that she's not wise enough to completely discount them. But if even a black man chose the right casket he would have proved his essential rightness-his fairness-and following the wise command of her father, she would have to marry him. Then, we understand, she would learn the deeper value of character. As it is, Shakespeare lets her off the hook, by giving her a man both beautiful and wise. But the hook is there, as her wish reminds us. I was arguing that through most of the play Shylock's Jewishness is given no further positive content than his character as a mean, miserly usurer. I'm not sure it has any positive content at all, since what it most essentially means-in this play-is not believing in the Christian God's command to be merciful. Separating "ideological" anti-Semitism from "racial" anti-Semitism can be difficult in some contexts. Here I'm pointing out that behaving kindly, and converting, seem to be all that's called for, in this play, to be accepted into the Christian community. Jessica is so attractive that even as a Jewess she inspires love and admiration. As far as the play is concerned, it appears that Shylock is an alien-a Jew-because that is what he chooses to be, when he could simply choose to be a Christian. If he quit usury, he could presumably make an honest living as a merchant. This may not apply to historical Jews in Venice, but then they also lived a ghetto, as Shylock does not. Incidentally I should mention to Hugh Grady that I'm not Tom Bishop, whom I imagine would not wish to be tarred with my feathers. As for Jessica's ambiguity, I think the way her father keeps her locked up, and her own reaction to him, shows his meanness. To think Shylock is an admirable father seems to me to strain plausibility. Jessica makes fast the doors in ironic obedience to her father's order to shut them "after you, /Fast bind, fast find"-a proverb yielding more than one meaning to the thrifty mind. To take her genetic Jewishness seriously would undercut the satire of Launcelot, who "tells me flatly there is no mercy for me in heaven, because I am a Jew's daughter." Shakespeare faced the dramatic difficulty of making a happy marriage interesting, which he does by giving the couple some lovingly needling dialogue. That they can twit each other with references to famously unfaithful lovers shows their absolute security in their love. Portia shows the same rather awesome security when she says "Since you are dear bought, I will love you dear." They navigate these dangerous waters with the insouciance of true love. Best wishes, David Bishop [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2006 10:30:15 -0500 Subject: Usury William Godshalk writes: "Shylock is a usurer. I think we'd call him a banker in 2006. How could Renaissance merchants function without a fairly sophisticated banking system?" Keeping strictly away from moral judgments of Shylock, what of Antonio's attitude toward "usury"? By the time Shakespeare wrote MOV banking had existed in Italy for upwards of 400 years and many a famous family (including the Medici) had gotten their start in that business. It strikes me as odd-and highly unlikely-that Antonio would accuse Shylock of a sin that was widely practiced by the most important people throughout Northern Italy, including (presumably) many of his Christian business associates. Isn't it far more likely that he's accusing Shylock of actual usury, that is, of charging exorbitant interest rates in order to gouge money out of the desperate? Isn't he calling him what we would now term a loan shark? I need some clarification here. Why are we assuming that a well-respected merchant of late Renaissance Venice would have such a Dark Ages attitude toward banking? Cheers, don _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0609 Thursday, 29 June 2006 From: Evelyn Gajowski <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 28 Jun 2006 10:16:26 -0700 Subject: CFP: "The Presence of Shakespeare and War" at SAA "The Presence of Shakespeare and War" Leader: Evelyn Gajowski, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Research Seminar, Shakespeare Association of America, San Diego, 5-7 April 2007 Military conflict is a subject Shakespeare dramatized time and again, particularly in the histories and the tragedies. How do his representations of war strike us--embedded, as we are, in the 21st century? How do contemporary lived experience and representations of war shape the meanings we construct in Shakespeare? How does he gender military experience? How do we? All theoretical perspectives are welcome, especially those interrogating how our moment (in)forms Shakespeare, as well as how his moment (in)forms us. SAA members can register for this research seminar online at the SAA website: http://www.shakespeareassociation.org/ Participants in SAA research seminars are expected to complete significant work in advance of the meeting: research papers, common readings, and bibliographic compilation. Papers are to be completed and circulated among seminar members before the meeting. Seminars are appropriate for college and university faculty, independent scholars, and graduate students in the later stages of their doctoral work. _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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.