WAYS OF READING THE TEMPEST
WAYS OF READING THE TEMPEST: Greenblatt Vs SchneiderShakespeare criticism has long been recognised as a touchstone to shifts in our critical discourses. The following paper constitutes an examination of two conflicting discourses. The analysis will be confined to the views presented in Stephen Greenblatt's article entitled "Martial Law in the Land of Cockaigne" and Ben Ross Schneider, Jr's "Are We Being Historical Yet?": Colonialist Interpretations of Shakespeare's Tempest - a contest, if you will, between two different theoretical positions as to where the text lies.In his article entitled "Are We Being Historical Yet?": Colonialist Interpretations of Shakespeare's Tempest, Ben Ross Schneider, Jr extends Carolyn Porter's critique of new historicism to recent work on The Tempest. Included in Schneider's study of eight recent analyses of The Tempest, is Stephen Greenblatt's article "Martial Law in the Land of Cockaigne." Schneider argues that by choosing colonialism as a frame, and then "reifying" it as if it were "coterminus with the limits of discourse in general," the new historicists marginalize not only a large field of relevant contemporary discourse, but also The Tempest itself (Schneider 121).
Schneider uses Seneca's work to highlight the plays use of Stoic language. While he seems to negate the influence of writers such as Cicero and Seneca, his concept of circulation allows for the incorporation of new discourses. Greenblatt advocates that the conjunction of Strachey's unpublished letter and Shakespeare's play signals an institutional circulation of culturally significant narratives. He does, however, emphasise that these affiliations do not amount to a direct transfer of properties. BibliographyStephen Greenblatt, "Martial law in the land of Cockaigne", in Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988). As a significant point of reference, Schneider mentions Ruth Kelso's bibliography of Renaissance books pertaining to the Doctrine of the English Gentleman (1929) and The Doctrine for the Lady (1956). If Source X is found not to cause Source Y then the process breaks down. In his attempt to establish a specific causal relationship, something that Greenblatt's circulation of social energy threatens to erase, Schneider maintains that we must examine the past. Committed for their survival to attracting investment capital and turning a profit, both companies depended on their ability to market stories that would excite, interest, and attract supporters (Greenblatt 148). Consequently, the theory will be blind to certain areas in order to elucidate others. On a moral level Schneider argues, it is "not so puzzling a remark . First, that Shakespeare's audience predominantly consisted of the best educated and most well-read segment of society. Schneider argues that Seneca's work elucidates other key elements of The Tempest and provides the rationale behind Prospero's behaviour.
Common topics in this essay:
Virginia Company,
Seneca Schneider's,
Shakespeare's London,
Schneider Seneca's,
William Strachey's,
Source Source,
Roman Greek,
Professor Kelso's,
Freedom Schneider,
Tempest Schneider,
ross schneider,
causal relationship,
greenblatt 148,
schneider argues,
ben ross,
ben ross schneider,
shakespeare's tempest,
schneider 133,
martial law land,
interpretations shakespeare's tempest,
law land,
cicero seneca,
schneider jr,
historical colonialist interpretations,
law land cockaigne,
|
Acceptance Essays
