TheFace-to-FaceinShakespeareanDrama
Seminar,SAA2016
Leader:MatthewJ.Smith,AzusaPacificUniversity
TomBishop
UniversityofAuckland
[email protected]
“Facetofacewithlove”
ThepaperpresentsanexplorationofthedepictionsofloveintwoearlyShakespearean
textsthroughidentifyingtheirmaindriversastheworkofactorsatplay.Throughthis
play,Iargue,Shakespearecraftsapracticeof“discovery”inwhichtheemotional
trajectoryofacharacterismappedontoandtropedfromthepracticalworkof
generatingaperformancethattheactorsparticipatein,facetofaceonthestage.I
arguethatthepeculiar“liveness”nowwidelyrecognizedasaparticularlystrong
featureofShakespeare’sdepictionofhischaractersisastrategicby-productof,and
itselfadiscoverywithin,attentivenesstothetextureanddirectionofactorlyplay.
Emotionssuchaslove,fromthispointofview,arenotpassionateessencestobe
abstractedorallegorized,butproductsofarelationperformedbeforeandtowards
another(includingtheselfoverhearingitselfasanother)anddiscoveredthrougha
complexprocessofplay.MymainexampleswillbedrawnfromRomeoandJulietandA
MidsummerNight’sDream,withpossiblepassingglancesatTwoGentlemenofVerona,
andTheComedyofErrors.
Bibliography:
MichaelGoldman,TheActor’sFreedom
BernardSuits,TheGrasshopper
NancySelleck,TheInterpersonalIdiominShakespeare,DonneandEarlyModern
Culture
DevinL.Byker
BostonUniversity
[email protected]
“BedTricksandFantasiesofFacelessness”
Shakespeare’sbedtrickshingeonhumanswithoutfaces.Insuchdarkenvirons,oneis
unabletoperceivethefaceofanother,andthereforeunabletorecognize,to
acknowledge,oreventodeny.MeasureforMeasureinparticularillustratesnotonlythe
preciseAngelo’senjoymentofthisfacelessencounter,butalsohisshamewhenMariana
boldlyreclaimsherface,declaring,“Thisisthatface,thoucruelAngelo,/Whichonce
thouswor’stwasworththelookingon.”Thissuddenreemergenceofherfaceleads
Angelotodecryhisownfacelessdesire“[t]othinkIcanbeundiscernible.”Conversely,
inAll’sWellthatEndsWell,whenHelenaatlastresurfacesintheplay’sfinalscene,she
describesherselfas“buttheshadowofawifeyousee,/Thenameandnotthething.”
Theseinteractionssuggestthat,whenconfrontedwiththefacesofthosewithwhom
theyhavehadsex,AngeloandBertramaresurprisedlessbytheiridentitiesthanbythe
factthatthesefigureshavefacesatall.
LikethebedtricksinMeasureandAll’sWell,Macbethrevolvesaroundadark
bedroomscenethatexpressesasimilaraversiontofaces.Inachamberwherefacesare
bothavoidedandunavoidable,Duncanismurdered.GuidedbyDuncan’sanxious
concernthat“There’snoart/tofindthemind’sconstructionintheface,”Macbeth
chartsitsownattemptstoescapethefaceandtheclaimsitmakesuponus.
Butwhataretheconsequencesofimaginingafacelesshuman?Outofwhatdesires
ortemptationsmightafantasyoffacelessnessemerge?Wittgensteinrepeatedlydrew
onthefaceasasymboloftheinterconnectednatureofinnerexperienceandouter
expression,culminatinginhisassertionthat“Thefaceisthesoulofthebody.”Bysaying
this,hechallengesaparticularfantasyofprivacythatwouldseektoseethefaceasthe
externalmachineryofinnerfeelings.Accordingtosuchafantasy,doingawaywithfaces
mightresolvethethreatofduplicitythroughtheerasureofhumanexpression
altogether.Inmypaper,then,I’dliketoexplorehowtheseplays,throughcomicand
tragicmodes,investigatefantasiesoffacelessness—effortstodisavowthefaceandthus
toalterthedemandsofhumanrelations.
Bibliography:
StanleyCavell,TheClaimofReason
MarlissC.Desens,TheBed-TrickinEnglishRenaissanceDrama:Explorationsin
Gender,Sexuality,andPower
EmmanuelLevinas,Entre-Nous:EssaysonThinking-of-the-Other
LudwigWittgenstein,PhilosophicalInvestigations;BlueandBrownBooks;Culture
andValue
KevinCurran
UniversityofLausanne
[email protected]
“HamletandtheSceneofJudgment”
Hamletisaplayofjudgments.Itsactionislitteredwithscenesofjudicialobservation,
carefuldiscernment,andmethodicaldecision-making.Whentheseeventsoccurthey
arealmostalwayscollaborativeinform,takingplaceinsocialandtheatricalspacesand
developingoutofconversation,contest,andtransactionalthinking.Shakespeareisnot
simplyinterestedinjudgmentinHamlet,butmorepreciselyinsomethingwemightcall
the“sceneofjudgment”—theinteractiveenvironmentinwhichadjudicationtakesplace
andtherolethatperformance,interpretivespectatorship,andaestheticperspicacity
playtherein.
WhenwereadHamletfromthisperspective,itbecomesdifficulttorecognizethe
post-Romanticaccountoftheplayasastudyininteriority,individuality,andbounded
subjectivity,areadingmostreadilyassociatedwithHegelandA.C.Bradley,butwhich
persistsinvariousformsinmorerecentcriticism,too.JohnLee,forinstance,contends
thatHamletpossessesa“self-constitutingsenseofself,andthissenseofselfiscentral
tohistragedy.”PeterHolbrook,similarly,developsaninterpretationofHamletthat
buildsontheworkofKierkegaardandHeidegger,bothofwhomviewedHamletasa
figureofalienationandradicalautonomy.Accordingly,hearguesthatHamlet“holds
himselfbackfromtheworld,”andfurther,thatthecharacter’sappealliespreciselyin
this“aggressivesingularity.”Hamlet,Holbrookcontinues,“insistsonhisdifferencefrom
‘theothers’.Hisconductiseccentricandanti-socialbutalsodeeplyattractivebecause
humanandfree.”Judgment,however,requiresengagementwiththeworld,aface-tofaceencountertousetheterminologyofthisseminar;holdingbackisnotanoption.To
judgeistoparticipate,whichmeansfindingamiddlegroundbetweenautonomyand
dependency,speakingandlistening.BystagingscenesofjudgmentinHamlet,
Shakespeareoffersaseriesofcasestudiesinthesocialityofthinkingandthe
intersubjectivegroundsofmoralagency.
Bibliography:
Arendt,Hannah.“TheCrisisinCulture:ItsSocialandItsPoliticalSignificance”and
“TruthandPolitics,”inBetweenPastandFuture(London:PenguinBooks,
1993),197-226,227-64.
------.“PersonalResponsibilityUnderDictatorship”and“SomeQuestionsofMoral
Philosophy,”inResponsibilityandJudgment,ed.JeromeKohn(NewYork:
RandomHouse,2003),17-48,49-146
Beckwith,Sarah.ShakespeareandtheGrammarofForgiveness(Ithaca:Cornell
UniversityPress,2011)
CoppéliaKahn
BrownUniversity
[email protected]
“ReadingFacesinHamlet”
Facesareloadedwithmeaning:theyaretheprivilegedsitesofsubjectivityandof
individuation.Inportraits,itisassumedthatthefacerepresentstheperson,the
individual.Yetthefaceisthelocusofcontradictoryconstructions.InthewordsofMary
AnnDoane,itconveysboth“anintensephenomenologicalexperienceofpresence,”yet
issimultaneously“asurfacethatdemandstoberead.”
Itisonthecuspofthiscontradictionbetweenthefaceasthemostcompellingsign
ofhumanpresence,yetatthesametime,anenigmaticsignofsomethingunderneath
“thatdemandstoberead,”thatIwouldsituateaninterpretationofhowfacesmatterin
Hamlet,aplaythatnotablyconcernsitselfwiththequestionoffacesastruesignifiersof
theirowners’characters.Thedeviceonwhichtheentireplayhinges,“TheMousetrap,”
dependsonHamlet’sexpectationthatClaudius’s“occultedguilt”will,whenheseeshis
crimeenactedonstage,breakdownhiscustomarycomposureasonewho“maysmile,
andsmile,andbeavillain,”tobecomefullyvisibleinhisface(1.5.108).AsClaudius
watchestheplay,Hamletplansto“observehislooks....Ifadoblench,/Iknowmy
course”(2.2.592-4).
InHamlet’sstruggletoreadhisuncle’sface,theplaymakesbringsintocollision
twoprominentRenaissancediscoursesoftheface.Ontheonehand,Erasmus’swell
knownconductbook,Decivilitatemorumpuerilium(1530),instructsaspiringcourtiers
howtotraintheirfacesintoexpressionsdenotingtheframeofmindrequiredbytheir
socialstatus,theirimmediatesocialenvironment,theirambitions.Heprovidesdetailed
directionsforthemanagementoftheeyes,eyebrows,nostrils,mouth,teeth,andhair.
Ontheother,theancientstudyofphysiognomy,establishedbyAristotleastherulesof
naturebywhichthepassionsofthesoulareimbricatedinthematerialprocessesand
organsofthebody,holdsthatthefaceistheindexofthemind,revealingaperson’s
ineluctableinnertruth.
Whendofaceslie,andwhendotheytellthetruth?InHamlet,howcananyone
know?Cananyonerelyonan“art”—arule,orevenaruleofthumb—toguidehimin
readingfaces?
Bibliography
Balazs,Béla.“TheFaceofMan,”inTheoryoftheFilm.NewYork:ArnoPressandThe
NewYorkTimes,1972.
Doane,MaryAnn,“TheClose-Up:ScaleandDetailintheCinema,”differences14,3
(Fall2003).
Erasmus,DeCivilitateMorumPuerilium,trans.BrianMcGregor,CollectedWorksof
Erasmus,ed.J.K.Sowards,vol.5.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1993.
Wright,Thomas[1630],ThePassionsoftheMindeinGenerall.rpt.Urbana,IL:
UniversityofIllinoisPress,1971.
JamesKearney
UniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara
[email protected]
“TheFaceofEthicalExperience:Romance&RecognitioninKingLear”
AttheendofKingLear,Shakespearegiveshisaudienceascenestraightoutofthe
romancetradition:amysteryknightchallenges“Edmund,supposedEarlofGloucester”
and“manifoldtraitor.”Afterthechallengeisissued,theunknownknightappearsatthe
soundofthethirdtrumpet.Whenaskedbytheherald“what”heis–“Yourname,your
quality,andwhyyouanswer/Thispresentsummons”–theknightrespondsthathis
“nameislost”(5.3.110-119).Theface–firstobscured,ultimatelyrevealed–iscrucial
bothtothissceneandtothedeviceofthemysteryknightintheromancetradition.
Elsewhere,IhavearguedthatShakespeareintroducesthegenericconventionsof
romancerecognitioninKingLearinordertoplaywithexpectationsandtherebydraw
attentiontothewaysinwhichhischaractersapprehendtheunknown,and,in
particular,theotherperson,thestranger.Here,ItakeupFredricJameson’saccountof
romancetoexploreShakespeare’salmostsystematicsubversionofthegenreinKing
Learandtothinkthroughthewaytheconventionsofromanceshapetheethicopoliticaldimensionsofrecognitionintheplay.TurningtothethoughtofEmmanuel
LevinasandJacquesDerrida,IreadLearinrelationtoafundamentalincompatibility
betweenLevinas’sconceptionofthefaceandDerrida’sanalysisofxenia.Attheendof
theday,Iaminterestedinthewaysinwhichveilingorwithholdingoftheface–bothin
thesceneofthemysteryknightandthroughouttheplay–createsacertainexperience
oftheethicalforShakespeare’saudience.
Bibliography:
TerenceCave,Recognitions:AStudyinPoetics(Oxford,1988)
FredricJameson,“MagicalNarratives:RomanceasGenre,”NewLiteraryHistory7:1
(Autumn,1975).
KentLehnhof,“RelationandResponsibility:ALevinasianReadingofKingLear”
ModernPhilology111:3(2014)
JacquesDerrida,OfHospitality,trans.RachelBowlby(Stanford,200)
ShakespeareandthePoweroftheFace,ed.JamesKnapp(Ashgate,2015)
KentLehnhof
ChapmanUniversity
[email protected]
FacetoFacewithCordelia
Inthelastlineshespeaks,LearasksthosearoundhimtolookonCordelia'sface
(5.3.285-86).Incontemporaryperformance,it'snotuncommonfortheactorplaying
LeartoraiseCordeliaandpresenthertotheaudiencewhilespeakingtheselines--asif
toclarifythataudiencemembersarealsoincludedinthisinvitation.Butwhatdowesee
ifweanswerLear'scallandlookonCordelia'sface?Inanattempttoanswerthis
question,IturntothewritingsofEmmanuelLevinas(1905-1995),thetwentiethcentury'sforemostphenomenologistoftheface.Inparticular,IattendtoLevinas's
beliefthatthesignifyingnessofthefaceisnotonlyethical(puttingmeinmindofmy
responsibilityfortheother)butalsometaphysical(puttingmeinmindofGod).I
proposethattheface-to-faceencountersenactedinLearupholdthisidea,bearingout
Levinas'sbeliefthat"thedimensionofthedivineopensforthfromthehumanface"
(TotalityandInfinity,78).
Bibliography:
EmmanuelLevinas,"TheFace,"Ch.7ofEthicsandInfinity,trans.RichardA.Cohen
(DuquesneUP,1985),85-92.
TheodoreLeinwand
UniversityofMaryland,CollegePark
[email protected]
“LinguisticIntimacy”
Inthispaper,IspeculateabouthowsomevarietiesofShakespeareaneroticintimacy
comeintobeingnotatthelevelofface-to-faceencounterbutlinguistically.
Shakespearecandescribesomethinginversethatisperfectlylucid,thatconjuresforus
aseriesoffamiliaractions,onefollowingthenextwithnarrativeplausibility.Butin
somesuchinstances,somewherealongtheway,wealsomayhearharmonics:a
fundamentalfrequency(accordingtophysics,thelowestfrequencyofaperiodic
waveform)triggers(somethinglikemusical)overtones.Thiscanoccurinthetheater,
whenagapopensbetweentheactionsthatweseeonstageandwhatwe
hear/understandintheformofunactualizedspokenverse:ifweare“tunedin,”a
whollyothermeaningfilledwithunexpectedimportregisters,atleastinitially,inthe
domainoflanguage.Alongsidewhatwesee,things(scenarios)crossourmindswhen
wehearcertainwordsandsotakeonalifeoftheirown.Thisalsooccursinourstudies,
whendoubleentendresregister.Somethingprosaicsuddenlybecomeschargedor,in
thecasesIsamplehere,eroticallyintimateintheharmonicallyresonantdomainof
language.MyprooftextsareHamlet5.2.12-17andAntonyandCleopatra4.15.19-69.
Bibliography:
Cavell,Stanley.DisowningKnowledgeinSixPlaysofShakespeare.Cambridge,
CambridgeUniversityPress,1987.
Gil,DanielJuan.BeforeIntimacy:AsocialIntimacyinEarlyModernEngland.
Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2006.
Traub,Valerie.ThinkingSexwiththeEarlyModerns.Philadelphia:Universityof
PennsylvaniaPress,2015.
CatherineSvyetlanaIreneLisak
Bordeaux-MontaigneUniversity
[email protected]
“Facetoface”inRichardII
Totheearlymodernworld,“facetoface”wouldhavehadaheavilyscriptural
resonance.Thephrase,asitoccursinTheGenevaBible(1587),accountsforman’s
immediaterelationshiptoGod(Genesis32:30),andtoGod’srelation(Deuteronomy
34:10),indeed,hisrevelation,toman(Numbers14:14),though,asGideondiscovers,
thisisarelationshipthatmanrarelysurvives(Judges6:22).Thephraseemphasizesthe
physicalnatureoftheencounteraswellasitsclarityanddirectness(therebeingno
interference).Whetheramirroringoraconfrontationofparties,“facetoface”,fromthe
Greekprosôponproprosôpon,inwhichonenotesthetripleuseof“pro”(“facingone”),
doesnotcancelthenotionofmediation.Themediation,however,asevokedby“pro”,
residesintheface,issecuredbywayofaface,afront,a“brow”–amétôponaswellasa
countenance.Extendedasasynecdoche,the“irreduciblerelation”(Levinas79)
containedwithinthebasicpreposition“to”,representsthatwhichfacesoureyes,orthe
eyesofanother:apersona,acharacter,amask,which“createsaconfrontationbetween
thedramaticactionandthepublic,whilebythesametoken,mediatingthis
confrontation”(Calame28).ThispaperarguesthatShakespeare’sRichardIItapsinto
bothheritages,thescripturalandtheclassical,byresortingtothephrase“facetoface”’
veryearlyintheplay,inawaythatrehearsestheverychoreographyofthehistoryplay
andtragedytocome.WhenthekingintroducesthetwofeudingDukes:“Facetoface,/
Andfrowningbrowtobrow,ourselveswillhear[…]”(1.1.15-17),theeponymoushero
preparestheaudienceforthedoublemodeonwhichthenarrativeoftheplayandits
poeticswillunfold.Theselineswearepreparedforthedramatizationofanegotiation
ofdistances,andtheinterweavingofatragicvisionofcharacterization(theappellant’s
fixedandundifferentiatedexpressionrecallsthetragicmaskthusreinforcing“the
mimeticeffectofdramaticfiction”)withtheChristlikeconstructionofthecharacter,
Richard,whosealoofnarrativedistancingleadstoashatteringofhispersona,especially
inthemirrorscene(4.1.):“Fornoweweseethroughaglassedarkely:butthenshall
weeseefacetoface.”(1Corinthians13:12).
Bibliography:
WilliamWhittingham,TheGenevaBible,1587,
http://ecmarsh.com/Geneva/default.html
ClaudeCalame,“Vision,BlindnessandtheMask:TheRadicalisationofEmotionsin
Sophocles’Oedipus Rex”, in M.S.Silk (ed),Tragedy and Tragic: Greek Theatre
andBeyond,Oxford1996,17-37.
EmmanuelLevinas,“TheFacetoFace—AnIrreducibleRelation",79-81inTotality
and Infinity, An Essay on Exteriority, translated by Alphonso Lingis,
Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania,DuquesneUniversityPress,2012.
JuliaLupton
UCIrvine
[email protected]
1.Howisvirtueunderstood,defined,staged,andtestedintheplaysofShakespeare,and
howdoesvirtueimplyanaccountofco-presence?
2.HowdoesthepracticeofShakespeareantheater,asanartofco-presence,affordthe
cultivationofparticularvirtuesforthosewhoparticipateasactors,audiencemembers,
ortheatermakers?
Iplantofocusonthevirtuesofcourageandtrust.Iwillprobablyreadascenefrom
Macbeththatdramatizesthedecayoftrustandthedifficultyofcourage.
Bibliography:
AlisdairMacIntyre,AfterVirtue
HannahArendt,TheHumanCondition(oncourage;ondrama)
MarthaNussbaum,PoliticalEmotions
NiklasLuhmann,TrustandPower
LawrenceManley
YaleUniversity
[email protected]
“Everybody’sSomebody’sFool”:FolieàDeuxandtheDuetinShakespeare
Iamplanningapaperon“facetoface”relationshipasitlimnsaboundaryoflovewith
folly/madnessinworksofShakespeare.Iwillbeplayingofftermsandconceptsinthe
psychiatricdiagnosisoffolieàdeux(“sharedpsychoticdisorder”intheDSM-5)against
someoftheformalpropertiesofwhatIamgoingtocallthe“unchaperonedduet.”
MycurrentunderstandingisinformedbyBernardBeckerman’sarticlesonwhathe
calls“theduet”inShakespeare.WhereBeckermandistinguishesthe“actor-actor”
relationinthe“duet”(asanelementalprincipalofperformance)fromthe“actoraudience”relationinsoloperformanceandfindsthatmost(maybe80%?)ofwhatisn’t
“solo”performanceinShakespeareisaseriesof“duets,”Iwillbelookingatsomemuch
morespecificcases–rareenoughtoseemdeliberatelyhighlightedastheatergrams–
wherecouplesarepermittedonstageprivacy(inthetragedies,thesetendtobe
betweenhusbandsandwives:BrutusandPortia,theMacbeths,whileRomeoandJuliet,
TroilusandCressida,andOthelloandDesdemonaaretheboundarycases).Iwillbe
testinghow“facetoface”encounterworksintheabsenceofonstageobserversand
withnoadvantagesofdisguiseorknowledgeenjoyedbyeitherparty.(Thislast
qualificationbegsahugesetofquestionsthatperhapstouchuponthepathologyoffolie
àdeuxandtheparticularkindofduetIhaveinmind.)
AmongtheitemsI’mconsideringatthemomentare:
- Thetransitionsthatsetupsuchscenes,especiallythe“subtractions”thatestablish
thedisinhibitedconditionsandexpectationsofface-to-faceintimacy.
- Thedifferentkindsinterruptionsandexitsthatterminatesuchscenes.
- Therelated(short-termorlong-term)delaysthatcreate,inABAfashion,the“da
capo”desireandformoreonthepartofbothaudienceandcharacters(likethe
Senecanghostorthebaroquearia,theunchaperoneddialoguetendstobealmost
necessarilyreprised).
- Thedynamicsofresistanceandconvergence(orrhetoricofpersuasionand
influence),sinceeachpartyisbothactorandaudiencetotheother.Thiswillbethe
placetotalkabout“chemistry”andwhyitisfoundinsuchsurprisingcasesas
AngeloandIsabella(thoughI’mnotsureIwanttogothere).Itiscertainlytheplace
-
tospeakoffolieàdeuxandquestionsaboutleadingvsfollowing,echoing,chiming,
andcollaboratingindubiousactions.
Approximationsofmarriageinunchaperonedduets.
AdjacentmatterslikeSirKenelmDigby’sthoughtsonsympathy,WilliamWeber’s
fascinatingrecentworkontheprevalenceofvocativesandotherheuristic“leads”in
scenesinvolvingapprenticeactors,andvariousmusicalinfluencesandanalogues.
ImayfocusonMuchAdo.
Bibliography:
Beckerman,Bernard.“Shakespeare’sDramaturgyandBinaryForm.”Theatre
Journal,33:1(1981):5-17.
------------------------.“Shakespeare’sIndustriousScenes.”ShakespeareQuarterly,
30:2(1979):138-50.
------------------------.Performer,Audience,andAct.London:Routledge,1990.
Hopkins,Lisa.“JohnFord’s‘TisPityShe’saWhoreandEarlyDiagnosesofFolieà
Deux.”NotesandQueries,41(239):1(1994):71-74.
Webber,William.“ShakespeareAfterAll?:TheAuthorshipofTitusAndronicus4.1
Reconsidered.ShakespeareSurvey,67(2014),69-84.
HannaScolnicov
Tel-AvivUniversity
[email protected]
“Face-to-facewithoutmutualrecognition”
Face-to-facescenesgainanedgewhen,despiteapriorintimaterelationshipbetween
thecharacters,oneofthemisdisguisedandunrecognizable.Thedisguisedcharacter
clearlyrecognizestheother,butthereisnoreciprocityintherelationship.Thetwo
centraldisguisedcharactersinKingLeargenerateahostofmovingscenesthatdepend
ontheirbeingunrecognizedbytheirinterlocutors.WhenGloucesterdoesnotrecognize
hisownsonEdgar,disguisedasTomo’Bedlam,thisstretchesourwillingsuspensionof
disbelief.Thislackofrecognitioncreatesdramaticirony:thespectatorexperiences,
togetherwithoneofthecharacters,thefullsignificanceofthemeeting,whileoneofthe
charactersisbeingdeceived.
BothEdgarandKentannounceinsoliloquiesthealterationoftheiridentity,thus
alertingtheaudiencetotheirchangedappearance.Thedramaticironyensuresthe
continuityofthecharacterdespitethedisguiseheassumes.Theunityofcharacter,not
oneofthedeclared“dramaticunities”,buttakenforgrantedinclassicaldrama,isat
stake,onthebrink.Butitisprotectedbythespectator’sawarenessthatthecharacteris
merelyplayingarole.Revealinghisidentitywithinthedramaticworldwillendanger
him,butitisimperativethatthespectatorrecognizethecharacterthroughout.
Disguiseisabasicfeatureoftheatre,sothatdisguisewithintheplayishighlytheatrical,
adisguisewithinadisguise.Thelayeredactingdemandedoftheactorunderminesthe
possibilityofdecipheringtheface.Thelimitationonunderstandingthefacebringsusto
thephilosophicalproblemknownasOtherMinds,therealizationthatwecannot
penetratetheinnerworldoftheother.
AccordingtoAristotle,Recognition(anagnorisis)isanimportantcomponentof
tragedy,leadingtoreversal(peripeteia).Whetherunderstoodasrecognitionofthe
otherortheself,thechangeoffacepreventsitsreciprocity.BothEdgarandKenthave
theurgetofinallyrevealthemselvesandbeacknowledgedbytheothersthathavefaced
them.
AfterEdgarovercomesEdmundinthefinal,heraldicduel,herevealshistrue
identityandonlyregretshedidnotrevealhimselftohisfatheruntiljustbeforehedied,
andKentattemptstoremindthedyingLearofhavingservedhimasCaius.
Bibliography:
A.J.Ayer,PhilosophicalEssays,(London:Macmillan,1954).(Essayonotherminds)
PaulA.Jorgensen,Lear'sSelf-Discovery(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,
1967)
DavidB.Goldstein,“FacingKingLear”,in:JamesA.Knapp,ed.,Shakespeareandthe
PoweroftheFace(Farnham:Ashgate,2015)
AkihikoShimizu
UniversityofEdinburgh
[email protected]
“PerformativeCharacter:‘Face’astheToposoftheInter-SubjectiveSelfinBenJonson’
Literature”
Inthispaper,IwillarguethattheJonsonianconceptofcharacter—underpinnedby
classicalrhetoricaltheoriesofQuintilianandPlutarch—shouldbeunderstoodasa
rhetoricaleffectofinteractionandexchangeandnotasamanifestationof
consciousness.Inconcrete,Iaimtohighlightthenotionofthefaceasatoposofthe
socialconstructionofcharacterwhichispervasiveinJonson’sliteraryrepresentationof
personhood.ToJonson’sliteraturewhichismore‘abouttheduplicityandselfdeceptionsofthecharacters’whoareobsessedmorewith‘disguise,deception,
impersonationandmisdirection’thanwith‘profoundself-expression,’itwillbemore
instructiveforustorefertoJudithButler’sGenderTrouble(LoxleyandRobson,71).By
focusingonthemomentwhentheperformancematerializestheabsentsubject,Butler
deconstructsthewholeconceptoforiginalandimitationandinvalidatestheconceptof
performativeasaconsequenceofpre-existingselfandidentity:‘Theappearanceof
substanceispreciselythat,aconstructedidentity,aperformativeaccomplishment
whichthemundanesocialaudience,includingtheactorsthemselves,cometobelieve
andperforminthemodeofbelief’(Butler,44,179).Butler’sviewoftheperformanceof
characterasare-confirmationoftheconstructedidentitywithinthereadilyestablished
modeofbeliefisineffectaparaphraseofJonsonianobservationoftheimitative
persons/charactersinDiscoveriesandtheperformancesofthehumorouscharacteras
acontractualexecutioninTheAlchemist,EveryManOutofHisHumourandother
dramaticworks.
Tocreatetheintentionallyambiguousanddeceptiveduplicityinhischaracters,
Jonsonfindsasolution,asAnnetteDrew-Bearexplicated,inthecharacters’‘cosmetic
deceit’offace-paintingaswellasintheirinterpretationsofthemanipulativefacesof
others.AlthoughJonsonshared,ontheonehand,themedievalviewof‘facial
alternation’as‘thedevil’sattempttodisguisehimselftodeceiveandseducemankind,’
hedid,ontheotherhand,makeuseofthisimageinhiscomedy‘inapeculiarly
Jonsonianwaytodramatizepretenceinallitsforms’(Drew-Bear,35,81).To
understandtheJonsonianandJacobeanmodeofperformativecharacter,Iwillexamine
somescenesfromJonsonandShakespeare’sdramawherethefacefunctionsasan
indispensablelegibilityofthecharacters’socialattribute.
Bibliography:
JudithButler,GenderTrouble:FeminismandtheSubversionofIdentity,NewEdition
(Routledge,2006)
LloydDavis,GuiseandDisguise:RhetoricandCharacterizationintheEnglish
Renaissance(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1993)
AnnetteDrew-Bear,PaintedFacesontheRenaissanceStage:TheMoralSignificance
ofFace-PaintingConventions(LondonandToronto:AssociatedUniversity
Presses,1994)
JamesLoxleyandMarkRobson,Shakespeare,Jonson,andtheClaimsofthe
Performative(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,2013)
EmilyShortslef
UniversityofKentucky
[email protected]
“Laertes’sFace”
Mypaper,provisionallytitled“Laertes’sFace,”focusesonaface-to-faceencounterthat
mightbemorepreciselydescribedasahand-to-throatencounter:themomentinAct4
ofHamletwhenHamletandLaertesfightat(orin)Ophelia’sgrave.Withtheircoupling
ofquestionandself-disclosure,thewordsHamletspeaksashestepsforwardand
revealshimself—“Whatishewhosegrief/Bearssuchanemphasis[....]ThisisI,/
HamlettheDane”—frametheimpassionedfaceoftheotherasaphenomenonthat
recallsHamlettohimselfandprovokeshimtoaction.Theplaypresentsuswithseveral
suchscenesinwhichHamletexperiencesothers’displaysofpassion,butwhatinterests
meaboutthisparticularoneisthefactthatintheFoliotext,Hamletwilllaterrecalland
reflectuponthisencounterinamomentofethicalthought—areflectionthat,througha
knotofmetonymicoperations,turnson,andreturnsto,Laertes’face(“Iamverysorry,
goodHoratio,/ThattoLaertesIforgotmyself,/ForbytheimageofmycauseIsee/
Theportraitureofhis”).
MypaperwillexploretheresonancesbetweenthisretrospectiveaccountHamlet
gives—whereheassertsthathe“sees”andunderstandsLaertesasheknowshimself—
andLevinas’snotionoftheethicalrelation,inwhichthefacefigurestheirreducible
opacityandalterityoftheother,adifferencethatbothconstitutesandcallstheselfinto
question.Byjuxtaposingtheseopposingformulations,Ihopetobringintoreliefthe
play’sstagingofthequestionofhowtheater,especiallyinitspresentationoftheother’s
passion,operatesasaninterfacefortheethical.Thisquestion,Iargue,requiresusto
returntoOphelia’sgraveandtothestrugglebetweenHamletandLaertes,andto
attendtothediscrepancybetweentheaudience’sperceptionofHamlet’sexperience
andHamlet’sownrecountingofthatexperience.
Bibliography:
HannahArendt,TheHumanCondition(2nded.,Chicago,1998)
EmmanuelLevinas,TotalityandInfinity,trans.AlphonsoLingis(Duquesne
UniversityPress,2008)
MauriceMerleau-Ponty,TheVisibleandtheInvisible,trans.AlphonsoLingis
(NorthwesternUniversityPress,1968)
SarahBeckwith,TheGrammarofForgiveness(CornellUniversityPress,2011)
BruceSmith
UniversityofSouthernCalifornia
[email protected]
“OutfaceandInterface”
Toface:shiftingattentionfromthenountotheverbchangesthedynamicsofthe
interface.Tofaceaperson,anobject,orasituationisanactofvolition.Theactor’sown
facebecomesseveralthingsatonce:anexteriorizationoftheactor’swill,anoptical
devicetobelookedthrough,atexttobereadbyotherpeople.InthispaperIwill
exploreShakespeare’sdistinctivewayswithtofaceasaverb.Inplayswritten
throughouthiscareer,incomedies,histories,andtragediesalike,Shakespeareusesthe
verbtofaceinmultiplesenses:todefy,tochallenge,tofeign,todisguise,totransform.
ParticularlydoesShakespeareseemdrawntotheverbtooutface.The“out”inthat
idiomcatchestheforceandthedirectionalityoftofaceaswellasitsreciprocitywith
thepersonorthingbeingfaced.ThosereciprocaldynamicsareteasedoutinRichard
II’saddresstohisfaceinthemirror:“Wasthisthefacethatfacedsomanyfollies,/And
wasatlastout-facedbyBolingbroke?”(R24.1.275-76).The“out”intooutface
ultimatelyreboundsandreturnstheactortotheinter-face.
MatthewSmith
AzusaPacificUniversity
[email protected]
Asiswellknown,withsomeshiftsinpracticearound1600,mostearlymodern
playhousesendedtheperformanceofplaybystagingajig.Thisatteststothegeneral
atmosphereofmusicandrevelryatplayperformancesandencouragesustoconsider
playsasholisticevents,inclusiveoftheoccasion,pre-showentertainment,inter-actand
so-called“incidental”music,clowning,andindeedtheafter-piecejig.Forcomediesand
tragicomedies,thissceneiseasytoimagine,butitishistoricallymoreproblematicin
thecaseoftragedies.Manyscholarshavenoted—butfewhaveaddressed—thecurious
butfrequentoccurrenceofthetragiccatastropheimmediatelyfollowedbyjigsongand
dance.Earlymodernanti-theatricalistsandsomesuccessfulplaywrightscomplainthat
post-tragedyjigsdefiletheclassicalintegrityofthegenre;andthetypicalscholarly
explanationfollowssuitinassumingthatjigswereaccidentaltotheplayandwere
includedprimarilytoselladmittancetolower-classaudiencemembers.Neitherthe
festivemoodnortheclown’spracticeof“facing”theaudience,manyargue,are
appropriatetoorhistoricallyimportantforunderstandingtragedy.Butthesepositions,
derivedfromtheexpressedopinionsofsomeearlymodernwriters,failtoaccountfor
thephenomenonitself.Thefactremainsthatsonganddancedefinitivelyshapedthe
performance,reception,andauthorshipoftragicplaysformuchoftheElizabethanand
earlyStuartperiods,anddespiteearlymodernandmoderneditorialpracticeusuallyto
publishprintedplaysontheirown,thetragedyinperformancewasrarelydisconnected
fromcontextualpopularmusic.
UsingRomeoandJulietasabase,myinterestisinattemptingtotheorizesome
pointsofthematic,practical,andphenomenologicalcohesionbetweentragediesand
theirjigs.Andmystartingpointistheobservationthatthejigbynomeanssignaleda
suddentransitionawayfromtheplaybutinsteadextendedtheplay’sowncopious
employmentsofmusicandmusicalmovementintheformsofnarrativemusic,sound
effects,dancescenes,ceremonialinstrumentalization,ballads,inter-actmusic,and
otherformsoftheatricalsonganddance.Giventhewaysthatmusicanddanceoften
inviteduniqueandoftenmorefamiliarandfestiveattentionfromtheaudience,the
after-piecejigmightevenbeunderstoodtocollecttheaudienceintotothedrama—ina
sense,tointegrateatragedy’sancientgenreformwithEngland’smedievalfestivaland
liturgicalperformanceculture.
Iwanttoattendinparticulartotheduetanddialogueaspectstostagejigs,asalmost
allprinted“jig”broadsidesaredialogueballads.AndIwanttospeculateabouthow
theirperformanceofdualityandhumanrelationshiprespondstorelatedthemesinthe
tragedyandservesasaphenomenologicalcontextthroughwhichtoexperiencethe
classicaltragicemotionsofpityandterror.Inotherwords,howdotragediesusethe
after-piecejigtofacetheaudience?
Bibliography:
JoelAltman,TheTudorPlayofMind:RhetoricalInquiryandtheDevelopmentof
ElizabethanDrama
ErikaFischer-Lichte,TheTransformativePowerofthePerformance
LeahMarcus,ThePoliticsofMirth:Jonson,Herrick,Milton,Marvell,andtheDefenseof
OldHolidayPastimes
DavidMorris,TheSenseofSpace