Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home ::


Literature and Theology Table of Contents for March 1, 2015; Vol. 29, No. 1

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.101  Wednesday, 4 March 2015

 

From:        Frank Whigham < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         March 4, 2015 at 8:14:28 AM EST

Subject:    Literature and Theology Table of Contents for March 1, 2015; Vol. 29, No. 1

 

Literature and Theology Table of Contents Alert Vol. 29, No. 1 March 2015 http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1?etoc

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Articles

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Shakespeare’s Gods

 Daryl Kaytor

 Literature and Theology 2015 29: 3-17

 http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/3.abstract?etoc

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Book Reviews

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Comedy and Feminist Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, A Subversive

 Collaboration. By Melissa A. Jackson.

 Hannah Strømmen

 Literature and Theology 2015 29: 104-105

 http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/104.extract?etoc

 

 Magic and Religion in Medieval England. By Catherine Rider.

 Brian Murdoch

 Literature and Theology 2015 29: 106-108

 http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/106.extract?etoc

 

 Vita Latina Adae et Evae. Edited by Jean-Pierre Pettorelli, completed by

 Jean-Daniel Kaestli. Synopsis Vitae Adae et Evae. Edited by Albert Frey,

 Jean-Daniel Kaestli, Bernard Outtier and Jean-Pierre Pettorelli.

 Brian Murdoch

 Literature and Theology 2015 29: 108-110

 http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/108.extract?etoc

 

 Francis Bacon: Painting in a Godless World. By Rina Arya.

 David Jasper

 Literature and Theology 2015 29: 110-111

 http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/110.extract?etoc

 
Book Announcement: Shakespeare Valued

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.100  Wednesday, 4 March 2015

 

From:        Jessica Pennock < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         March 4, 2015 at 4:16:51 AM EST

Subject:    Shakespeare Valued

 

Intellect would like to announce Shakespeare Valued: Education Policy and Pedagogy 1989-2009, this new title is now available for pre-order.

 

Taking a comprehensive, critical, and theoretical approach to the role of Shakespeare in educational policy and pedagogy from 1989 (the year compulsory Shakespeare was introduced under the National Curriculum for English in the United Kingdom), to the present, Shakespeare Valued explores the esteem afforded Shakespeare in the British educational system and its evolution in the twentieth century and into the twenty-first. Sarah Olive offers an unparalleled analysis of the ways in which Shakespeare is valued in a range of educational domains in England, and will be essential reading for students and teachers of English and Shakespeare.

 

Sarah Olive is a lecturer in English in education at the University of York.

 

Find out more or pre-order on our website http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/books/view-Book,id=5140/

 

Best wishes,

Jessica Pennock | Marketing Executive

A: Intellect, The Mill, Parnall Rd, Fishponds, Bristol BS16 3JG, UK

E: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

W: www.intellectbooks.com

T: +44 (0) 117 958 9916

 

 

 http://issuu.com/intellectbooks/docs/spring15_e-catalogue/1

 
CFP: Blackfriars Conference

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.099  Wednesday, 4 March 2015

 

From:        Sarah Enloe < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         Monday, March 2, 2015 at 2:00 PM

Subject:    CFP: Blackfriars Conference 

 

On odd numbered years since the first October the Blackfriars Playhouse opened, scholars from around the world have gathered in Staunton, during the height of the Shenandoah Valley’s Fall colors, to hear lectures, see plays, and explore early modern theatre. In 2015, the American Shakespeare Center’s Education and Research Department will once again host Shakespeareans, scholars and practitioners, to share ideas about Shakespeare in the study and Shakespeare on the stage and to find ways that these two worlds – sometime in collision – can collaborate.

 

The majority of events – papers, plays, workshops – take place in the world’s only re-creation of Shakespeare’s indoor theatre, the Blackfriars Playhouse. This conference distinguishes itself from saner conferences in a variety of other ways. First, to model the kind of collaboration we think possible we encourage presenters to feature actors as partners in the demonstration of their theses. For instance, in 2009, Gary Taylor’s keynote presentation “Lyrical Middleton” featured ASC actors singing and dancing to the songs in Middleton’s plays. Second, we limit each paper session to six short papers (10 minutes for solo presentations, 13 minutes for presentations with actors). Third, we enforce this rule by ursine fiat – a bear chases from the stage those speakers who go over their allotted time.  

 

Delegates also attend all of the plays in the ASC 2015 Fall Season – Antony & Cleopatra, The Winter’s Tale, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and Henry VI, Part I – and, for the past several conferences, bonus plays written by Shakespearean colleagues and performed by actors in the Mary Baldwin College MFA in Shakespeare in Performance program. The spirit of fun that imbues the conference manifests itself in the annual Truancy Award, for the sensible conferee who – visiting the Shenandoah Valley at the height of Fall – has the good sense to miss the most sessions.

 

The 2015 gathering will honor Barbara Mowat and will include keynote addresses from Gina Bloom,Tim Carroll, and Ayanna Thompson.

 

ASC Education and Research extends this call for papers on any matters to do with the performance of early modern drama (historical, architectural, political, dramatical, sartorial, medical, linguistical, comical, pastoral) to all interested parties for our biennial conference to be held at the Blackfriars Playhouse in Staunton, Virginia, 28 October - 1 November 2015. 

 

As in past years, participants may submit an abstract for consideration in one of 11 plenary sessions, each of which features only 6-7 papers. The deadline to submit an abstract for consideration in the plenary sessions is 10 April 2015 (notification and announcement by 4 May). Our colloquies will be different in 2015 than at past conferences, as we wish for proposals to lead these sessions (deadline 10 April). We will post the 11 selected topics by May 4th, and those who wish to register to participate in a session will be able to do so after notifications regarding plenary selections go out.Registration for participation in colloquies and workshops will end 1 June. Participation in a colloquy session will be mutually exclusive from presenting in a plenary session.

 

Submit an Abstract or a Colloquy Proposal for consideration; Deadline: 10 April 2015. Conference registration is also now open.

 

For more information, please email Sarah Enloe, Director of Education, at  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

 

All best,

Sarah Enloe

American Shakespeare Center

Director of Education

540-885-5588 x28

 

The American Shakespeare Center recovers the joy and accessibility of Shakespeare’s theatre, language, and humanity by exploring the English Renaissance stage and its practices through performance and education.

 
 
Shylock and the Greek Debt Crisis

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.098  Monday, 2 March 2015

 

From:        Lawrence Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         February 27, 2015 at 1:02:47 PM EST

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Shylock/Greece

 

Marianne Kimura approves of the revolution occurring in Greece—can we call it anything else? – because, as she candidly acknowledges, it is nothing short of pure Marxism:

 

First, Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek finance minister, has termed Karl Mark the thinker “responsible for framing my perspective of the world we live in, from my childhood to this day.”

 

In evaluating the wisdom of turning Greece into the third actual Marxist state still alive (the other two being Cuba and Laos) it would be well to consider the remarkable success those countries have achieved.

 

And in evaluating Ms. Kimura’s political and economic acumen, it is not amiss to also consider her literary insights, as evidenced, for example, by this:

 

The very first line of “Romeo and Juliet” is “Gregory, on my word, we’ll not carry coals” (I.1.i)—and this could be read as a coded statement very similar to Sheikh Yamani’s prediction: fossil fuels will simply become uneconomic to produce eventually. 

 
 
Adventures in Original Pronunciation

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.097  Monday, 2 March 2015

 

[1] From:        Anthony Burton < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         February 27, 2015 at 11:14:44 AM EST

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER:  OP

 

[2] From:        John Drakakis < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         February 27, 2015 at 11:49:31 AM EST

     Subject:    RE: SHAKSPER: OP 

 

[3] From:        Lawrence Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         February 27, 2015 at 1:17:30 PM EST

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: OP 

 

[4] From:        William Blanton < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         March 1, 2015 at 6:41:29 PM EST

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: OP 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Anthony Burton < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         February 27, 2015 at 11:14:44 AM EST

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER:  OP

 

William Blanton’s view that Shylock is the devil himself disguised as a Jew has somehow slipped into the discussion of original pronunciation, already a mare’s nest of uncertainties and conflicting approaches that almost sidetrack a very admirable and potentially illuminating line of inquiry.  But it should be no surprise that Mr. Blanton’s notion was resisted rather than embraced.  One principal objection to its plausibility is that it would have the Devil turn Christian, in defiance of all contemporary understanding what the Devil stood for in the general order of things.  Also, to have him convert in mid-play with no one commenting on or celebrating an epochal achievement that would rank beyond the miracles of Christ, promptly emptying Purgatory and maybe Hell too, and all with no apparent consequences in and to the world, constitute barriers that I’m not even tempted to surmount.

 

Tony Burton

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        John Drakakis < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         February 27, 2015 at 11:49:31 AM EST

Subject:    RE: SHAKSPER: OP

 

Oh Dear!

 

Gabriel Egan thinks that he has the monopoly on textual bibliographical discourse, to the extent that without having ever done any collations himself he can wade into a debate in which his strategy is to play one position off against another.  When I use the term ‘substitution’ I mean that one sort is substituted for another.  No more than that. I was only interested in quarto printing since my copy text for MV was Q1. The gibberish that he then embarks upon seems to me to emanate from Egan’s own muddled thinking rather than anything that I have written. Only somebody possessed of Egan’s peculiar brand of stupidity could conclude from my remarks that I was making a general point that applied across the printing formats. There are plenty of examples of exemplary textual scholarship that have appeared over a considerable period of time, but there is no substitute (that word again!) for getting down to the business of handling the actual books. Unlike Egan, I am always embarrassed about advertising my own work, but the next time he is in Leeds he might go and visit the Brotherton Library and search out a 2 volume Ph.D thesis that collates some 90+ quartos of three non-Shakespearean plays from three different printers. Then he can come back and we can chew the fat about the nuts and bolts of textual bibliography. Of course he will also need to re-read his Moxon, McKerrow, Gregg, Gaskell, MacKenzie, and Blayney before doing so.  And I mean, this time, read them.

 

I am more than willing to accept the responsibility for a volume that bears my name, even if this means defending my views in the face of idiocy. But I think that his public impugning of the integrity of the general editors smacks of a childish desperation that has no place in serious academic discourse, despite Egan’s obvious pitch to set himself up as the guardian of some attempt at textual bibliographical political correctness that has no foundation in any renaissance text that he has edited and published. Clearly he has been at a feast of textual-bibliographical language and stolen away the scraps.   But then, I don’t suppose that Gabriel Egan is someone that can be taken seriously, so I pass over his comments in silence in the hope that he will find time to rectify the fully stocked warehouse of beams in his own eye.

 

Cheers

John Drakakis

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Lawrence Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         February 27, 2015 at 1:17:30 PM EST

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: OP

 

>If Drakakis really does believe that we don’t know how many 

>pieces of type the compositor had in his sort boxes, then he 

>needs to retract all that he has written about type substitution. 

>If we don’t know how many pieces there were, then everything 

>he has claimed as a consequence of the compositor(s) of Q1-MV

>being short of certain letters has no basis.

 

This observation strikes me as self-evidently correct.  In general, it seems to me that arguments based on type shortage most often works backward:  A particular anomaly, such as variant s.pp., can be explained by a shortage of a certain letter, so, therefore, that letter must have been depleted.  

 

I don’t know enough about the scholarship in this area to say for certain that it is not feasible to count the number of slugs in each case, but that seems a likely hypothesis.  For example, the abundance or paucity of a particular slug would depend not only on its frequency in the work in question but also on the need for that character to set other jobs the shop had going at the same time.  Extremely detailed research might enable us to determine something close to that, but probably not to anything approaching confidence.  But is the end result worth the tedium?

 

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        William Blanton < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         March 1, 2015 at 6:41:29 PM EST

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: OP

 

Thanks to Professor Egan for supplying the correct URLs for the Internet Shakespeare copies of the First Quarto and First Folio of the Merchant of Venice. 

 

I have read those copies, as well as others. Here are the facts:

  • In no copy of either Q1 or F1 is Launcelet referred to as Gobbo.
  • In every copy of Q1 and F1, Shakespeare has Launcelet refer to himself as Jobbe or as Launcelet Jobbe six times in quick succession.

Professor Bate and other Shakespearean scholars have determined that Shakespeare marked up a copy of Q1 when he wrote the version of the play that Hemings and Condell included in F1. Shakespeare made a few changes to Q1. For example, he changed the spelling of “precedent,” which was correctly spelled for the context in Q1, to “President,” which was incorrectly spelled for the context (and capitalized) in F1. Shakespeare could have changed the spelling of Launcelet’s surname to Gobbo, but evidently chose to retain the surname he had given Launcelet in Q1.

 

Professor Egan states that I should take Gobbo’s name seriously, given the conventions of English drama and naming practices. But where does that get us?

 

Assume that it was in fact a universal custom in late sixteenth century England that all men had surnames, and that their sons universally took their fathers’ surnames.

 

I believe that we all recognize that Shakespeare wrote his plays as scripts to be performed, not as texts to be studied. Members of Shakespeare’s audiences to a performance of the Merchant of Venice would not have heard anyone refer to Launcelet’s father as “Gobbo” or “Old Gobbo.” To the extent that anyone cared about the surname of Launcelet’s father, they would have assumed it to be “Jobbe.”

 

Why, then, did Shakespeare give Launcelet the surname of “Jobbe,” and why did he have Launcelet repeat that surname six times in quick succession? It is almost as if Shakespeare were beating his audiences over the head with Jobbe, Jobbe, Jobbe, Jobbe, Jobbe, Jobbe, Jobbe.

 

I have provided my conclusion: that Shakespeare thus brought the Book of Job into The Merchant of Venice in order to provide a second example of someone (God) who had made a deal with Satan. Recall that at the end of The Book of Job God restored the wealth that Satan had taken from Job. Recall also that at the end of The Merchant of Venice, Portia mysteriously restored the wealth that Antonio had lost: 

 

Anthonio you are welcome,

And I have better newes in store for you

Then you expect: unseale this letter soone,

There you shall finde three of your Argosies

Are richly come to harbour sodainlie.

 

You shall not know by what strange accident

I have chanced on this letter.

 

With all greatest respect to JD Markel. Shakespeare does not reveal whether Launcelet, a merrie divell, chose to leave Shylock for Bassanio or whether Shylocke compelled him to do so:

 

The patch is kinde enough, but a huge feeder:

Snaile-slow in profit, but he sleepes by day

More then the wilde-cat: drones hive not with me,

Therefore I part with him, and part with him

To one that I would helpe to waste

His borrowed purse.

 

Shakespeare does have Launcelet say:

 

certainely the Jew is the verie divell incarnation,

and in my conscience, my conscience is a kinde of hard

conscience, to offer to counsaile me to stay with the Jew;

The fiend gives the more friendly counsaile: I will runne

fiend, my heeles are at your commandement, I will

runne.

 

I realize, of course, that it is difficult for those who have studied, written, and taught that Shylock is a Jew to all of a sudden learn that he is not a Jew at all, but rather the Devil poorly disguised as a Jew. I say “poorly disguised” because everyone who meets him knows right away that he is the Devil. I provided a number of examples in my post of 2/23/15.

 

I believe that we should take Shakespeare’s words seriously. After all, these words are the only evidence that exists concerning what Shakespeare intended The Merchant of Venice to mean. It is all too easy to slough off all the references to Shylock as the devil as some supposed widespread anti-Semitism in England. 

 

But there exists no evidence that Shakespeare himself was anti-semitic. In fact, Shakespeare brings in the Three Ladies of London when he has Anthonio say at the end of Act I Scene 1:

 

Hie thee gentle Jew.

This Hebrew will turne

Christian, he growes kinde.

 

In the Three Ladies of London, Gerondus, a Jew who had loaned Mercadorus a large sum of money, forgave the entire debt plus interest rather than let Mercadorus carry through with his threat to renounce Christianity in favor of Islam in order to avoid having to repay that debt and the agreed amount of interest.(Exactly the opposite of what Shylocke, the Devil who had loaned Anthonio a large sum of money interest free, did in Act 4.)  The exasperated Turkish judge before whom Mercadorus had defrauded Gerontus of his loan, said

 

Jews seek to excel in Christianity, and Christians in Jewishness.

 

The Merchant of Venice is a much more interesting and significant play if we understand Shylock as the Devil. I would very much like to have a dialog with Shakespearean scholars on this and other interesting facets of this great play.

 

Best regards to all,

Bill

 
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 3

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.