English 6320.01
Shakespeare’s Histories
·
History’s Shakespeares
CLAS 237
Thursdays: 1-3:30
Professor: Greg Colón Semenza
Office: 132 CLAS
Office Hours: Tuesday: 1-2:30; Thursday: 9-10:30
Phone: 486-4762 (Home) 456-1580
Email: semenza@uconn.edu
Course Description:
This seminar will explore simultaneously Shakespeare’s writing of English history and the historiographic traditions of writing Shakespeare. There are two specific benefits to recommend this approach: first, a rare opportunity to study all of Shakespeare’s English history plays—the two tetralogies, King John, and Henry VIII—in the order in which they were written and performed; second, a contextualized analysis of the ascendancy of historicism and materialism in Shakespeare studies. How have definitions of history and conceptions of the historiographic process changed between the Renaissance and our own time? How do current historiographic methods influence or even determine our readings of Shakespeare? Conversely, how has Shakespeare’s writing of history influenced modern historiography? Hopefully by the end of this course, you will feel as comfortable discussing historicist theory and criticism as you do Shakespeare’s historical drama.
Texts:
The Riverside Shakespeare (2nd edition)
The Complete Plays of Christopher Marlowe (Everyman edition)
Copy Packet
Chimes at Midnight (one viewing by instructor)
Henry V (Olivier version / one viewing by instructor)
Henry V (Branagh version / one viewing by instructor)
Hall’s Chronicles (on reserve)
Holinshed’s Chronicles (on reserve)
Assignments and Requirements:
Every assignment in this class is designed to achieve two goals: first, to increase your knowledge of Shakespeare and the massive field of historicist Shakespeare studies; second, to cultivate reading, research, and writing skills that will be vital to you both as a graduate student and, eventually, as an assistant professor. While you will receive grades on all materials that you turn in, I would prefer for a variety of reasons not to “weigh” assignments in terms of a percentage value. Your final research paper is, needless to say, the most important piece of work you will turn in, but all assignments should be approached with the same level of diligence and seriousness. Assignments and their due dates are discussed below in greater detail. You are welcome, of course, to turn in most assignments early and, in some cases, it is advisable to do so. I will be happy to read any draft given to me at least one week prior to the due date.
1) Attendance, Preparation, and Spirited Participation
2) One 1500-Word Book Review with Cover Letter
3) One 25-Minute Literature Review
4) One 500-Word Proposal for Final Critical Essay with Cover Letter
5) 20-25-Page Critical Essay and Cover Letter
6) “Final Exam” Attendance and Participation
Book Review with Cover Letter:
Please note that 1500 words equal approximately 6 double-spaced pages. You may choose to review any of the following historicist books, all of which are on reserve in the library:
Dolan: Dangerous Familiars
Dollimore and Sinfield, eds.: Political Shakespeare
Dollimore: Radical Tragedy
Drakakis, ed.: Alternative Shakespeares
Greenblatt: Renaissance Self-Fashioning
Greenblatt: Shakespearean Negotiations
Helgerson: Forms of Nationhood
Lenz, Neely, Greene, eds.: The Woman’s Part
Montrose: The Purpose of Playing
Paster: The Body Embarrassed
Sinfield: Faultlines (on reserve for Professor Kneidel’s class)
Stallybrass, et. al., eds.: Subject and Object in Renaissance Culture
Reviews should analyze the argument of the essay, its general persuasiveness, theoretical methodology, and significance. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that a harsh critique of an author demonstrates intellectual rigor. Focus less on what you perceive to be flaws and more on what you perceive to be strengths. I tend to associate the process of book reviewing with the process of grading student papers; it’s much more useful (and difficult) to be constructive than it is simply to point out weaknesses.
You should research appropriate journals, choose one that seems appropriate for your review, and model your review—stylistically and rhetorically—on the reviews you find therein. An appropriate cover letter on UConn letterhead should be addressed to the editor of the chosen journal. We will discuss the cover letter in more detail in class. Reviews are due the day before Thanksgiving (Nov. 20), but it would be wise to get them done early on in the semester.
Literature Review:
Each of you will sign up on the first day of class to review a primary work of literature. Ideally, you will choose a text on which you’ll also write your final paper. Doing so will allow you to spend most of the semester focusing on a single work, which should, in turn, result in a more informed final paper. Prepare a 25-minute presentation of the major criticism written on the text you choose. You may wish to focus most of your attention on recent criticism, but I would encourage you to look further back and to attempt to construct a loose historical outline of the critical heritage dating back to the seventeenth century. While the value of this assignment is obvious to the presenter, it’s not always clear to the (oftentimes bored) audience. With this in mind, I would encourage you to assume a more instructor-like role during your presentation. It is your job to teach your colleagues and me what we should know about a particular seventeenth-century text and about the criticism that’s been written on it. It would be especially helpful if you could speculate about where criticism on a particular work may be heading in the near future. Please be prepared to write out the presentation, which you will read aloud and hand in (not simply a bibliography). Finally, be aware of the time limit, which will be enforced as though you were presenting a conference paper. Due dates are specified below on the Class Schedule.
Proposal with Cover Letter:
A concise “sell” of your proposed final paper topic. Make sure that your argument is clearly stated and situated in relation to previous critics who have written on the text/subject. Also make sure that the pay-off of your contribution is clear. 500 words equal about 2 double-spaced pages. An accompanying cover letter on UConn letterhead should be addressed to an appropriate conference panel chair. We will discuss the proposal and cover letter in some detail in class. Proposals are due on October 30.
Critical Essay with Cover Letter:
Your goal should be to produce a potentially publishable article. While I have specified as a general guideline that the article should be 20-25 pages, reasonably longer or shorter essays can be justified. Along with the essay, please provide a professionally written cover letter on UConn letterhead. The cover letter should be addressed to an appropriate journal that you have researched and singled out for an initial submission. This assignment will be harped on endlessly in class. The essay is due at our exam meeting on December 11.
Exam:
Since I’d rather that you focus on the final paper than on an exam, I’m asking for three things here: 1) that you come to the final; 2) that you bring a serious question that you think might be appropriate for a final exam on Shakespeare’s Histories/History’s Shakespeares; 3) that you lead a serious discussion about the question’s underlying assumptions, merits, flaws, etc. This format will allow you to ponder the sorts of questions that will serve you well in preparing for MA and PhD exams, but it will also allow you the time you’ll need to write a wonderful paper. We will meet for the exam discussion on December 11.
CLASS SCHEDULE:
Aug. 28:
Introduction to course; abbreviated background history of the English Renaissance; Hattaway, “The Shakespearean History Play”
Sept. 4:
Introduction to the history play: read Christopher Marlowe’s Edward II; Introduction to historicism and materialism: Montrose, “Renaissance Literary Studies”; Howard, “The New Historicism”; and Marcus, “Localization”
Sept. 11:
1 Henry VI. Subversion and Containment: Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”; Greenblatt, “Intro” and “Epilogue”; and Dollimore, “Introduction”
Sept. 18:
2 Henry VI. The Old and New Histories: Harold Bloom, “Henry VI” and Helgerson, “Staging Exclusion”
Sept. 25:
3 Henry VI. Writing Historicisms: Susan MacDonald, “Epistemic and Non-Epistemic Textual Patterns”
Oct. 2:
Richard III. Feminism and Historicism: Madonne Miner, “The Roles of Women in Richard III” and Howard and Rackin, “Making Gender Visible”
Oct. 9:
King John. History and Revisionism: Jeffrey Knapp, “This Blessed Plot”
Oct. 16:
Richard II. Macro and Micro Histories 1: E.M.W. Tillyard, “The Cosmic Background” and “Conclusions”
Oct. 23:
1 Henry IV. Macro and Micro Histories 2: Muir, “Introduction”; Ginzburg and Poni, “The Name and the Game”
Oct. 30:
Proposals due; Macro and Micro Histories 3: 2 Henry IV; Greenblatt, “Invisible Bullets”
Nov. 6:
Henry V. History and Performance: Branagh v. Olivier; read Norman Rabkin, “Either/Or: Responding to Henry V”
Nov. 13:
Henry VIII.
Nov. 20:
Reviews due; Edward III.
Nov. 27:
Thanksgiving Break: no class
Dec. 4:
Orson Welles’ Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight). Performative Interpretations: Auteurs and Authors: Anthony Davies, “Orson Welles’ Chimes at Midnight”
Dec. 11:
Final Exam Meeting & Final Paper due
Presentation Schedule:
Sept. 11:
1 Henry VI
Open
Sept. 18:
2 Henry VI
Open
Sept. 25:
3 Henry VI
Reggie
Oct. 2:
Richard III
Mary-Elizabeth
Oct. 9:
King John
Polya
Oct. 16:
Richard II
Tina
Oct. 23:
1 Henry IV
Ken
Oct. 30:
2 Henry IV
Molly
Nov. 6:
Henry V
Karen
Nov. 13:
Henry VIII
Keith
Nov. 20:
Henry IV
Doug
Dec. 4:
Chimes at Midnight
Rebecca