The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0602. Tuesday, 27 May 1997.
[1] From: Ted Nellen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 11:12:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subj: Shakespeare Web
[2] From: Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 23:06:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 8.0596 Qs: MM and Bedlam
[3] From: John McWilliams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 11:55:20 +0000
Subj: Re: SHK 8.0597 Re: Stoic
[4] From: Gabriel Wasserman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 21:16:16 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 8.0578 Q: The Malone Society
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ted Nellen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 11:12:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Shakespeare Web
I've been collecting Internet sites related to Shakespeare I have called
Shakespeare Web.
Please take a look and add, comment, and enjoy.
http://199.233.193.1/books.html#shakes
Ted
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 23:06:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 8.0596 Qs: MM and Bedlam
Comment: Re: SHK 8.0596 Qs: MM and Bedlam
In response to Mr. Houck's recent questions on Measure for Measure:
Having recently played Escalus, I'm not sure I would agree with the
theory that he is aware of the Duke's real intentions. I was working
with an admittedly edited text, and truth be known I did not have the
time to fully consult the Arden or other editions, except to read the
letters and tales which gave rise to the play.
I would imagine that Escalus, moreover, would be a completely
recognizable type for the crowd at the Globe; the decent, hard-working
functionary who nevertheless understands human weakness and sympathizes
with it. How else would Southwark have had its reputation as a
red-light district, if it didn't have Escaluses (sic) in abundance,
releasing pimps and whores with a shrug and a 'what can you do?'. The
trial scene is a vivid example of the Duke's immortal "baby beats the
nurse" speech, but given Escalus' predicament, being caught between
Master Elbow's incompetence (the idiot is a cuckold, to boot) and
Pompey's more than adequate training in legal argument (no doubt due to
frequent practice in situations like this one), Shakespeare succeeds in
showing us just how difficult it really was to enforce morality in the
suburbs of London/Vienna in those days. The Duke believes in clemency,
in part because even if he didn't, he'd have a helluva time getting
convictions.
Just a couple cents' worth,
Andy White
Arlington, VA
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: John McWilliams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 11:55:20 +0000
Subject: 8.0597 Re: Stoic
Comment: Re: SHK 8.0597 Re: Stoic
Dear Ben Schneider (and others),
Thank you for your very interesting question and answer session. I would
like to come back at you on one or two points, though, which I had
problems with. You suggest that the doctrine of a "neutral Shakespeare"
is "very popular in our postmodern times". The notion of 'Great Artists'
being neutral and above making political and moral choices is one which
was very popular in literary criticism during the 50s and 60s, at the
height of "New Criticism". At present, one only needs to look on the
Shakespeare shelves of a bookshop to see that this view has long since
passed out of fashion - every book on the Bard has to have a sexy title
like 'Political Shakespeare' or 'Queer Shakespeare' - titles which
suggest Shakespeare needs to be politicised and wrested away from New
Critic types who wish to keep an apolitical universal genius of a
national poet. So I disagree that your politicising view is thrusting
against current literary trends, it is in fact very much in keeping with
what is now going on.
I think that this politicising is in many ways a good thing - the work
of a critic such as Greenblatt is invaluable in showing us the kinds of
contemporary discourse which shaped Shakespeare's thinking and writing.
And anyway, complacent notions of Universal Genius and Neutral, Great,
Timeless Literature clearly needed a severe challenge. However, I think
that there are big problems with this type of literary criticism, and
I'll outline my problems here (if anyone would like to take me up on
these points I'd be happy to go into my objections further....). I go
along with Graham Bradshaw's line in 'Misrepresentations' - by far the
best book I've read on political literary criticism - that the important
thing to acknowledge is the genuinely exploratory nature of
Shakespeare's thinking in his plays.
The line in Lear "And that's true too" might exemplify this point:
Shakespeare in far more wary of easy truths or singular, unambiguous
answers than are many of his politicising critics. Indeed , we see
repeatedly in his plays, extreme ambivalence (eg. towards Hal/Hanry V in
the 2nd tetralogy) dramatically played out such that the audience is
likely to leave the theatre having experienced various and conflicting
choices and emotions. So alarm bells ring when you say "if I read the
play in the context of its Stoic moral substrate, our
modernist/postmodernist 'problems' disappear". Can Shakespeare really
become as unproblematic as he so often does within politicised
frameworks? One thing is for sure is that perplexing problems never
disappear (at least for me) when reading Shakespeare.
I would appreciate any comments on this slightly muddled message.
Thanks,
John McWilliams
[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gabriel Wasserman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 21:16:16 -0400
Subject: 8.0578 Q: The Malone Society
Comment: Re: SHK 8.0578 Q: The Malone Society
> Speaking of the Malone Society. I noticed some members had listed
> membership in the Malone Society in their Bios.
>
> What is it? Where is it? How can I join? Should I join?
Has this anything to do with the "Malone society reprints."?
