The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0001 Thursday, 3 January 2008
From: Hardy M. Cook <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, January 03, 2008
Subject: New Year's Greetings
Dear SHAKSPEReans,
This digest is the first in SHAKSPER's nineteenth year. I just spent an
hour or so browsing the archives and reading the first message of each
of SHAKSPER's previous years: "What a long, strange trip it's been."
Anyone wishing to do as I have should go to this link, click on a
Volume, sort by date, read, and enjoy.
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/index.html
I am including an excerpted essay without notes or citations about the
history of SHAKSPER and a few of the interesting exchanges of the past
that because of my health last semester I missed a publication deadline
so it will not be published after all. As for my health, I spent another
week in the hospital and have requested sick leave for the spring
semester to stabilize myself and to dedicate to the scholarship I have
neglected.
S H A K S P E R: The Global Electronic Shakespeare Conference: An Overview
SHAKSPER, now in its eighteenth year, is an international "electronic
seminar" that enables ongoing discussion of all things Shakespearean.
Technically an e-mail distribution list, it uses Listserv software to
deliver, archive, and manage its digests. In addition, the SHAKSPER web
site <www.shaksper.net>makes all the list's archived materials readily
accessible over the Internet. The membership currently includes more
than 1,200 SHAKSPEReans from sixty-four countries. Shakespearean
textual scholars and bibliographers, editors and critics are members,
but so are university, college, and community-college professors,
high-school teachers, undergraduates and graduates, actors, theatre
professionals, authors, poets, playwrights, librarians, computer
scientists, lawyers, doctors, retirees, and other interested
participants. SHAKSPER strives to focus on the scholarly by offering
the opportunity for the formal exchange of ideas through queries and
responses regarding literary, critical, textual, theoretical, and
performative topics and issues. Announcements of conferences, of calls
for papers, of seminars, of lectures, of symposia, of job openings, of
the publication of books, of the availability of online and print
articles, of Internet databases and resources, of journal contents, and
of performances and festivals are regular features as are reviews of
scholarly books, of past and present theatrical productions, and of
Shakespeare and Shakespeare-inspired films as well as citations and
discussions of "popular" culture references to Shakespeare and his
works. Further, SHAKSPER provides occasion for spontaneous informal
discussion, eavesdropping (known as lurking), peer review, and a sense
of belonging to a worldwide scholarly community.
On May 14, 1987, Willard McCarty then of the Centre for Computing in the
Humanities at the University of Toronto founded HUMANIST as "a
Bitnet/NetNorth electronic mail network for people who support computing
in the humanities" to "foster discussion of basic problems and exchange
of information among humanists world-wide, thus aiding research and
strengthening the community". HUMANIST was the prototype for all
academic e-mail distribution lists and continues to this day under
McCarty's able editorship. Kenneth Steele, then a graduate student at
the University of Toronto, inspired by HUMANIST, decided to found a
similar list dedicated to Shakespeare. The name he chose was SHAKSPER;
at the time, for technical reasons, list names could be no longer than
eight characters. On July 26, 1990, Steele's dream became reality.
I met Ken Steele at the 1990 Shakespeare Association of America annual
meeting in Philadelphia. We were both members of a seminar on computing
approaches to Shakespeare. He told me about his plans for the
Shakespeare Conference, and I expressed my interest. About a dozen
Shakespeareans including myself formed the core of founding members. On
February 21, 1992, I became SHAKSPER's co-editor, at first being
responsible for the file server. On March 25, I took over the editing
of the daily submissions into the digests. On June 3, Ken decided to
take a leave of absence from his graduate studies, and I became
SHAKSPER's owner, editor, and moderator. At that time, the 293 members
were virtually all from academia. Commercial Internet service providers
were just getting started in the early 1990s. The January 1, 1992,
membership list of 223, for example, contains only eight addresses that
ended in ".COM," and none of these are from the Internet service
providers we are so familiar with today. The remaining, except for one
with an "ORG" extension, i.e., an organization, are Bitnet or Internet
addresses from academic institutions. Through the early 1990s the
number of members steady increased: 400 in October 1993, 500 in February
1994, 700 in September 1994, and 1,000 in March 1995. Since the late
1990s, the membership has hovered around 1,300.
[ . . . ]
Over the years, SHAKSPEReans have talked about thousands of different
topics. Members surely will differ about which ones they consider most
memorable. But what long-time member could forget the announcement of
the As You Like It Hike: "a performance of 'As You Like It' (by Equity
actors) performed at various locations throughout an actual forest. The
actors and audience will walk together to each new location, covering
about 4 miles all told. The audience is told to bring a sack lunch,
which everybody will eat together during the supper scene in 2.7". Or
Terence Hawkes's subsequent: "We may have to abandon our annual 'King
Lear' Cakewalk. Persuading the audience to jump off the cliff was always
difficult. However, guests will continue to be welcome at the Titus
Andronicus Lunch (no substitutions)". I will not soon forget the
disagreements about the appropriateness of postings about
Shakespeare-related pornography, the extended discussion of A Funeral
Elegy, or the first mentions of "Presentism". From SHAKSPER, I learned
of the deaths of O. B. Hardison, Fredson Bowers, Peggy Ashcroft,
Northrop Frye, Joseph Papp, Judith Anderson, G. B. Harrison, Sam
Schoenbaum, M. C. Bradbrook, A. L. Rowse, Harold Jenkins, Maynard Mack,
Jonas Barish, J. L. Styan, Marvin Rosenberg, Roland Mushat Frye, and
Levi Fox. I enjoyed postings about the proper time to take tea, and as
an added bonus I learned about "elevenses." The catalog goes on and on,
but three extended discussions exemplify what I consider SHAKSPER at its
best. In the following, I will attempt to capture the essence of these
threads rather than to recount every detail or to make extensive
commentary on cited postings.
Earlier in this essay, I mention that Phyllis Rackin, in her Shakespeare
Association of America "President's Letter," cited the heated discussion
that followed the announcement that Sam Wanamaker had been awarded a CBE
for his work on the Bankside Globe; she wrote, "Outraged responses from
the UK provoked a series of exchanges that exposed profound differences
between the political and cultural locations occupied by 'Shakespeare'
on the two sides of the Atlantic." Before examining some of those
exchanges, let me provide some background. In 1970, Sam Wanamaker
established the Shakespeare Globe Playhouse Trust, whose principal
objective was to raise funds to rebuild the Globe Theatre. In the same
year, the Southwark Council offered the Trust a 1.2 acre site for the
project. This site was located beside the Thames River, opposite St.
Paul's Cathedral, approximately 200 yards from the site of the original
Globe. In 1987 a ground-breaking ceremony was held, and the site was
cleared. In February 1989, the remains of the Rose were discovered; in
October 1989 approximately five percent of the foundation of the Globe
was uncovered. On October 25, 1990, Stephen Miller of King's College
London provided information for the first SHAKSPER posting about the two
sites and some of the activities related to them.
On August 11, 1993, Australian Robert O'Connor asked if anyone knew the
mailing address of The International Shakespeare Globe Centre (ISGC).
The next day, Kenneth Rothwell, after providing it, added "His friends
will be interested and pleased to learn that the Director, Sam
Wanamaker, has recently been honored by the Queen with the designation
of 'Honorary Commander of the British Empire (CBE).'. A few days later,
John Drakakis remarked:
I understand that there has been some transatlantic genuflecting in
response to the apparent fact that Sam Wanamaker has been given an
honorary CBE. Far be it from me to dampen the enthusiasm of some of my
more naive Shakespearean colleagues. I'm left wondering what one has to
DO to get an honorary CBE (Commander of the British Empire!) Aside from
helping to oust a few roadsweepers from their depot in Southwark, and
contributing to the further impoverishment of still one of the poorest
boroughs in England, I guess it must have something to do with the
National Bard! It also, if my memory serves me right, has something to
do with Harry and Leona Helmsley among others!"
Several days after this posting, Stephen Miller reported: "This morning
was a fine crisp sunny morning in London and I decided to walk along
Bankside. Workmen on Sam Wanamaker's GLOBE site were erecting
scaffolding. There are now two sections of two bays each of the oak
super-structure of the Globe in place, facing each other. The new
scaffolding is on the North side and it looks as though one section of
two bays is to be extended by another two bays.". To these
observations, John Drakakis continued:
I wonder if in Stephen Miller's next communication from the Globe site
he might mention the 7 million pounds compensation which Southwark
borough council were ordered to pay to a property developer at an
earlier stage in the life of this project. Also is he aware that two
intending financial contributors to the project in the USA have been
prosecuted on charges of tax evasion.
Or maybe he's so besotted with the idea of a Globe theatre on or near
the original site, that these small matters are of no concern to him.
I'd like to see a monument on the site to the seven (or was it eleven?)
roadsweepers who were so unceremoniously displaced from their depot to
make way for the unrestrained exercise of misplaced idealism to operate
unchecked.
Across the Atlantic, Edward Bonahue reacted: "To many of us here in the
States, John Drakakis's interesting details about the Globe project are
not widely known. I'd be interested in hearing more about how the
project is being received by both academics and the general public in
Great Britain". In the same digest, Jerald Bangham declared:
Considering the number of high-rise office buildings being built in the
area, it strikes me as highly unlikely that the dustmen's lot would have
remained inviolate even without the theatre project.
It also seems likely that the local economy will benefit from the influx
of tourists into the neighborhood.
The lines were drawn. In the next day's digests, Michael Mullin noted a
political connection:
Whether or not the Globe restored rises on the South Bank or not, the
project holds obvious importance in the present British political scene,
especially the Labour-Tory or working class-merchant class conflict.
And John D. stands firmly on the Labour side, to the far left. Many
theatre artists and scholars do not take such a narrow and parochial
view. Peggy Ashcroft and others lay down in the dirt to prevent the
bulldozing of the site; the Wanamaker effort enjoys wide support around
the world. Terence Hawkes responded:
At least Michael Mullin allows that the Globe project HAS a political
dimension. However, it goes well beyond the material issues raised on
the South Bank site. What does he think the function of these phony
links with a past "Golden Age" really is? Why has the British
government recently legislated that the study of Shakespeare shall
become compulsory at every level of the education system? Why has
Prince Charles, this summer, instigated his own Shakespeare summer
school at Stratford? Has it got absolutely nothing to do with our
imminent absorption into Europe? With Ireland? With the declining
fortunes of the House of Windsor? Think about it, Michael - as
presumably Sam "Commander of the British Empire" Wannamaker has.
The debate continued: Was Shakespeare a radical or a conservative?; Can
we know? Are his works radical and politicized?; What are the ways that
Shakespeare's texts have been used as icons in British culture?; and so
on. The British position was articulated by John Drakakis - "There is
an irony . . . in the fact that an American should wish to rebuild the
Globe AND that his efforts should be rewarded with a particular kind of
royal honour. On this side of the Atlantic, where politics is not an
optional add-on, some of us find this matter interesting." - and by
Terence Hawkes - ". . . don't ANY of our colleagues in The Republic find
it slightly distasteful that an American citizen should accept the title
'Commander of the British Empire' with an apparently straight face?".
John Lavagnino provided an American perspective:
In response to Terence Hawkes's inquiry: no, I at least don't find it
distasteful that an American citizen should accept a title like
"Commander of the British Empire"; I find it amusing. Cultures vary
from country to country, not just from century to century; I can believe
that this honor (and the Globe business generally) can seem appalling to
those in the UK, but in the context of American culture it all looks
different. Titles like CBE, to us, are one of those quaint things they
have over in Merrie England that make it such an interesting tourist
attraction . . .
The discussions that followed concentrated more on politics than on Sam
Wanamaker's CBE and seemed to wind down with this observation by Dennis
Kennedy:
. . . there were two subjects in this lengthy exchange, one about the
politics of Shakespeare, the other about Wanamaker's CBE and the Globe
project. The fact that discussion about the first became conflated with
the second seems to prove the point some of us have been trying to make
in print, that ideas about Shakespeare's own ideology or the ideological
status of the plays cannot be extricated from our own political (or
social or cultural) positions in the fin of our siecle.
On Sunday, December 18, 1993, Kenneth Rothwell announced Sam Wanamaker's
death. In the summer of 1994, construction of the "New" Globe building
began. The next few years saw a number of reports on the progress of
the Globe "restoration." By September of 1996, reports of productions
during the "Prologue Season" began to turn up. In late 1996, notices
about the 1997 "Opening Season" appeared. Discussions about politics
and the commercialization continued but began to give way to discussions
of productions in the theatre, with the 1997 Henry V and the 1998
Merchant of Venice receiving a fair share of attention. Nevertheless,
the 1993 debate was certainly an enlightening, unforgettable one.
Another memorable dispute concerned the so-called "Authorship Question."
[What follows is a discussion of the so-called "Authorship Question,"
and an account of how I eventually "banned" discussion of the topic."]
The issue of talking about Shakespeare's characters as if they were
"real" people - a la L. C. Knights's question, "How Many Children Had
Lady Macbeth?" - is regularly raised on SHAKSPER. On several occasions,
the thread has resulted from a naive question.
[What follows is an account of exchanges regarding "characters."]
The character debate has reemerged on several occasions. In early
February 1996, the question of whether Hamlet and Ophelia had sexual
relations was brought up. After members expressed many opinions on the
matter, including Louis Scheeder's "Only in the Chicago company", John
Drakakis sounded the point made a year and a half earlier, "I fail to
understand the need to treat Ophelia as a real person. Whether she is
pregnant or not is about as irrelevant as whether Gertrude and Claudius
had a clandestine affair before the death of Old Hamlet, or whether Lady
Macbeth had any children (and how many). Terence Hawkes observed, "The
theory shared by a number of MY colleagues is that Hamlet and Ophelia
had textual relations". Others in the debate, myself included, wanted
to distinguish between textual and performative characters - characters
in texts and characters in performances. Nonetheless, discussions of
characters as "real persons" continue. In fact, this interest in
characters and their motivations, frequently in relations to a "pet"
theory about Shakespeare or about a particular play, has been the
central location of contention on SHAKSPER emanating oftentimes over the
past half dozen years from exceptionally vocal and passionate
non-academic members, greatly complicating my role as moderator.
SHAKSPER was founded as an "academic" conference, and I still view it as
such. Nevertheless, I have encouraged diversity and inclusiveness. In
the early days of SHAKSPER before the proliferation of Internet Service
Providers, almost all of the members of the list were from academia.
However, as the Internet and personal computers became ubiquitous the
membership of SHAKSPER changed as did the nature of some of the
discourse that took place on the list. Beginning in the mid-1990s,
meta-discussions concerning SHAKSPER's purpose, most initiated by
academics, began to appear with increasing frequency among the
discussions. The eight-week hiatus at the end of 2005 and the beginning
2006, which resulted from the server crash mentioned above, provided me
a break from my editing duties and the chance to consider the changes
that had occurred as SHAKSPER evolved from its academic roots. When
SHAKSPER came back online in February, in an effort to regain the
academic focus of the early days of the list, I resolved to become a
more active moderator and only to post messages that I believe were of
interest to the Shakespeare academic community. By adopting this new
policy and direction to the posting messages only of interest to the
academic community, I was not proposing to restrict the membership of
SHAKSPER or to eliminate significant questions and comments from actors,
directors, or any member of SHAKSPER. The source of the post was not
the issue; the issue was its relevance to the broad scope of academic
interests in Shakespeare studies. In the spirit of reasserting SHAKSPER
discursive role in the scholarly community, a new feature on SHAKSPER
will commence in January 2007, The SHAKSPER Roundtable. These
roundtable exchanges are designed to differ from the everyday
discussions that take place on the list. They will be organized around
a focused topic of current interest to the discipline of Shakespeare or
Early Modern Studies and will be under the direction of a Guest
Moderator. Our first topic is Presentism with Hugh Grady, Professor of
English at Arcadia University in Pennsylvania, as Guest Moderator. The
Guest Moderator is responsible for initiating, moderating, directing,
and concluding the discussions. To begin, the Guest Moderator suggests
a Reading List of three to five items that are announced at least two
weeks before discussion starts. Anyone participating is expected to be
thoroughly familiar with these readings. The Guest Moderator initiates
the discussion with a question or a statement. Members who wish to
participate send responses that are clearly identified as belonging to
the Forum/Roundtable thread to me, and I forward them to the Guest
Moderator, who organizes and comments on the entire week's submissions
before suggesting directions that discussions might take the following
week. After calling an end to the Roundtable, the Guest Moderator
provides a summary statement, and then the entire course of the
Roundtable discussions is given its own page on the SHAKSPER website for
public review. My hope is that these changes will enable SHAKSPER to
regain some of the excitement of the earlier years when scholars around
the world had an alternative venue to conferences and publications to
talk and to explore ideas.
Best wishes for the New Year,
Hardy
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail 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.
|
