Paul Yachnin

The Powerless Theater

he Elizabethan controversy about the theater was wideranging. Combatants argued about such issues as the Deuteronomic prohibition against transvestism, the moral status of theatrical make-believe, the social pretension of the players, the political, social, and religious influence of the plays, and the risks or benefits attendant upon the sheer size of an assembly of people who were engaged in neither work nor worship. Supporters of the stage stressed the theater’s capacity to mingle instruction and delight to promote citizenship and morality; detractors insisted that the theater spread both discontent and degradati0n.l Thomas Nashe, in support of the theater, claimed in I 592 that plays constitute “a rare exercise of vertue,” that they inspire patriotism by bringing on stage the heroes of English history, that they teach cautionary lessons by demonstrating the punishments wrong-doers and rebels inevitably incur: “In Playes, all coosonages, all cunning drifts over-guylded with outward holinesse, all stratagems of warre, all the cankerwormes that breede on the rust of peace, are most liuely anatomiz’d: they shewe the ill successe of treason, the fall of hastie climbers, the wretched end of vsurpers, the miserie of ciuill dissention, and how iust God is euermore in punishing of m ~ r t h e r . ” ~ Phillip Stubbes, on the opposite side, fulminated in I 583 that the theater was “ Venus pallace, & sathans synagogue.”3 In copious rebuttal of arguments such as Nashe’s, Stubbes wrote:

Shakespeare and Judgment: The Renewal of Law and Literature

Legal theorist Desmond Manderson and Shakespearean Paul Yachnin develop parallel arguments that seek to restore a public dimension of responsibility to literary studies and a private dimension of responsibility to law. Their arguments issue from their work as the creators of the Shakespeare Moot Court at McGill University, a course in which graduate English students team up with senior Law students to argue cases in the “Court of Shakespeare,” where the sole Institutes, Codex, and Digest are comprised by the plays of Shakespeare. Yachnin argues that modern literary studies suffers from impermanence and isolation from real-world concerns and that it can redress these limitations—developing attributes of corrigibility, temporality, judgment, and publicity—by learning from law. Manderson finds that modern legal judgment is bereft of affective engagement with the subjects of law and wedded to an ideal of objectivity, regulation, and impersonality. Literature can restore to legal judgment the elements of narrative, character, context, and self-reflection. Together, the essays argue that the question of judgment, so integral to the disciplines of law and of literature, needs the renewal that an interdisciplinary engagement provides.

Treating HPHD disorder—Shakespeare, law, and public life

Abstract The serious play of the Shakespeare Moot Project—a graduate course at McGill University in Montreal that choreographed a cross-over genre involving students and faculty in both Law and Literary Studies—provides a space for creative thought about how to make the PhD more useful, more mobile, and more worldly, while at the same time strengthening the core values of humanities research and teaching (For more about the Shakespeare Moot Court (n.d.). Also see Manderson and Yachnin (2010). Readers who want to set up a similar project that “preposterously” crosses the boundaries of law and the humanities are invited to visit our web site, explore its jurisprudence, or contact the authors).

Not Drowning, Waiving: Responsibility to Others in the Court of Shakespeare

Three close friends went on a camping holiday to Bleak Island, a secluded maritime reserve. They were Gabriel Pedersen, Jean du Parcq and Chris Vidaloca. After a couple of leisurely beers, Gabriel and Jean went sailing in Gabriel’s small sailing boat, “The Bard de la Mer,” while Chris lay drowsily in the sun. Out to sea, Gabriel, who was an experienced sailor, continued to drink heavily, much to Jean’s alarm. Within a couple of hours, Gabriel had become extremely inebriated, and Jean seriously concerned. Jean turned the boat toward shore, but an argument broke out, in the course of which Gabriel struck Jean violently. She fell overboard, whereupon Gabriel collapsed insensibly in the bottom of the boat. Jean, bleeding and unable to reach the boat, began to signal frantically to the shore for help. The boat and Jean were both now easily visible from shore. Chris, who had stayed ashore because of a fear of sharks, saw the drowning woman and the bloom of blood, but she did nothing. Fortunately for Jean, another boat happened by and rescued her from death. Unhappily, the rescue came too late to save her from permanent injury. As a result of the lengthy deprivation of oxygen, Jean suffered irreparable brain damage and she now requires round-the-clock institutional care. Both the fall in the water and the delay in the rescue are causally related to these injuries. On trial for criminal assault brought under a private prosecution, the Court held that, owing to his intoxication, Gabriel was not responsible for his actions.1 In a parallel action for civil negligence, Gabriel’s maritime insurance company sought to join Chris as second defendant, but the Court determined that neither the common law nor the Civil Code of Québec imposes a duty of rescue in these circumstances.2 The plaintiff succeeded against Gabriel and damages in the amount of

The Culture of Playgoing in Shakespeare's England: A Collaborative Debate

2.5 million were awarded. Before the Court of Shakespeare, the guardians of Jean du Parcq sought a declaration holding Gabriel criminally responsible for the assault on Jean