didn't study literature in college and very glad to be able to listen to these lectures to keep myself interested in the course. great professor and here's to lifelong learning.
This was an extremely clarifying and incredibly helpful conversation. Such valuable information and commentary over a decade after being recorded. I love technology. Thank you, Professor!
I admire the speech communication skill of this lady,excellent non verbal communication. The ability to explain is phenomenal. Own this play approach is core teaching methodological beauty which a rare expert can afford. I would like to listen this lecture many a times.
Obviously, this professor offers much insight, and it is greatly appreciated. I feel bound to point out, however, that she has been taken in by one of the great fallacies of post-modern Shakespeare studies, viz., that, because his plays were originally performed only by males, it follows that the femininity they convey is a theatrical construction. By that 'reasoning', _Othello_ doesn't present us with real racism, since its original players all were white, or again, _Henry V_ doesn't present us with real nobility, since its original players were commoners all. No, if Shakespeare wrote his plays well (not much of an _if_), then his prominent women, and the male interactions with and responses to them, present us with genuine femininity.
Assuming that Shakespeare is without any flaws and that any male writer can capture 'genuine femininity'. Let alone the broader question of whether any writer can always capture the truth of anything and everything.
But nobility is often presented as a theatrical construction throughout the plays. For Shakespeare everything is theatrically constructed, otherwise why are we all Life a "poor player"?
Having read her book and also her essay on Troilus and Cressida, I don’t think she is trying to convey the fact that femininity is a theatrical construction due to being played by male actors. Instead, she is trying to point out the meta-theatrical nature of specific scenes because women are played by men. For example, ‘This is and is not Cressid’ is not only a metaphysical problem for Troilus but becomes a meta theatrical problem for the audience, ONLY in Elizabethan audience BECAUSE female characters are played by men and therefore only a performed femininity. It doesn’t make it any less feminine or less believable femininity.
I much prefer this play together with Coriolanus to plays like Hamlet and Macbeth--for one thing, the former are bereft of ghosts and witches and other such nonsense.
These lectures are wonderful. I just bought Professor Garber's book and am enthralled. The Atlantic 2019 May puts forth the idea that Shakespeare was a woman. Any thoughts?
In those times, the ways to manipulate the crowd were restricted to theater plays or music compositions. All the outstanding creators could have been invented by forces in power. Read through the written oeuvre titles of each age and you can tell the history course...
It's a shame there isn't a "Hamlet" or "Romeo and Juliet" lecture.She is on a par with Professor Jonathan Bate and Professor Stanley Wells for me but its a shame they all are seemingly so dismissive, of the serious doubt concerning the authorship question.
There is no serious question of authorship. The made-up debate basically ignores all evidence (such as, in short, his contemporaries writing to and of him as a "great playwright") and generally relies upon the assumption that true genius could NOT have possibly come from a poor background. To state it simply, at least one piece of evidence against his authorship would be required for there to be a debate. Otherwise, it's merely the stuff of conspiracy theorists. All actual literary scholars agree.
The latest Oxford edition posits that Shakespeare coauthored one third of his plays with other authors like Marlowe, Middleton, and Fletcher. Serious authorship scholarship is on going, but its more about a collaborative working theater company with multiple authors rather than one secret rich guy passing his work along to a country bumpkin.
Agree with you, sir! Someone smarter than I am has stated... "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!" So what we have with the "authorship question" is this: Extraordinary claim but NO evidence!
This lady really seems to know her subject. Having said that and having meant it, sadly, I must say that her stammering is off putting. I simply can't bear to listen to her. May I suggest she put as much effort into improving her speech as she obviously has in mastering her subject. A good start would be to slow the pace of her delivery enough to give herself time to think. I expect more from someone functioning at this level; after all, she is a Harvard Literature Professor. I wish her well.
didn't study literature in college and very glad to be able to listen to these lectures to keep myself interested in the course. great professor and here's to lifelong learning.
tokyorockstarn
This is so helpful to me! Thanks for the wonderful lecture.
+Paint lol wtf
This was an extremely clarifying and incredibly helpful conversation. Such valuable information and commentary over a decade after being recorded. I love technology. Thank you, Professor!
Thank you for giving me a chance to attend a class at Harvard.
she generates a lot of wind energy with her hands.
So outstanding performance ever seen ❤
So engaging. I really like her style and admire the way she makes this tough play so accessible. Julia Pascal PhD
Interesting that the students kept pronouncing "Troilus" as "Trolius."
I admire the speech communication skill of this lady,excellent non verbal communication. The ability to explain is phenomenal. Own this play approach is core teaching methodological beauty which a rare expert can afford. I would like to listen this lecture many a times.
This is my second lecture that I have listened to and I am learning a lot more than I did in school.
The internet is abundant with treasure if you know what to look for.
No more than a one-foot reach required to be a Harvard student, then ?
Rodriguez John Anderson Brian Gonzalez Frank
These lectures are essential for anyone with even a passing interest in Shakespeare. Thank you.
Marjorie Garber and Prof. Paul Cantor are the best Shakespeare lecturers on UA-cam.
Dr tim mcgee is better than them. Honestly by miles.
I thought she was a comedian at first. People in the Ether. This is a very good play.
04:55
02:55
shes a genius and her fucking book is absolutely stunningly beautiful UGH THANK YOU YAAASS QUEEEEN
why are you so feminine? if you want to keep your private life private then dont be gay on youtube
@@rivenmain2175 why do you care...
@@TheNivKo are you saying im gay?
@@rivenmain2175 are you sure you're up for Shakespeare? You're not exactly acing the reading comprehension
@@TheNivKo so you are better than gays because you read shakespeare?
09:20
Obviously, this professor offers much insight, and it is greatly appreciated. I feel bound to point out, however, that she has been taken in by one of the great fallacies of post-modern Shakespeare studies, viz., that, because his plays were originally performed only by males, it follows that the femininity they convey is a theatrical construction. By that 'reasoning', _Othello_ doesn't present us with real racism, since its original players all were white, or again, _Henry V_ doesn't present us with real nobility, since its original players were commoners all. No, if Shakespeare wrote his plays well (not much of an _if_), then his prominent women, and the male interactions with and responses to them, present us with genuine femininity.
Assuming that Shakespeare is without any flaws and that any male writer can capture 'genuine femininity'. Let alone the broader question of whether any writer can always capture the truth of anything and everything.
But nobility is often presented as a theatrical construction throughout the plays. For Shakespeare everything is theatrically constructed, otherwise why are we all Life a "poor player"?
You don't see a problem with the word femininity?
@@jerrykitich3318 Stop being pedantic. Shakespeare was genuine in his writing, that's all that matters.
Having read her book and also her essay on Troilus and Cressida, I don’t think she is trying to convey the fact that femininity is a theatrical construction due to being played by male actors. Instead, she is trying to point out the meta-theatrical nature of specific scenes because women are played by men. For example, ‘This is and is not Cressid’ is not only a metaphysical problem for Troilus but becomes a meta theatrical problem for the audience, ONLY in Elizabethan audience BECAUSE female characters are played by men and therefore only a performed femininity. It doesn’t make it any less feminine or less believable femininity.
I much prefer this play together with Coriolanus to plays like Hamlet and Macbeth--for one thing, the former are bereft of ghosts and witches and other such nonsense.
Does anyone know the lecturer's name? Thanks x
+Grace Tompkins Professor Marjorie Garber
Terrific
You ain't seen nothing yet, you need to go to school. She took me to the doctor, told me I was cured.
Great insights into this magnificent play. Garber is academia at its best.
I love her hands.
Thanks for the lecturer.
sorry i understood nothing
Her discussion of the famous speech on Degree is of course intelligent and perceptive, as usual, but not ultimately convincing.
These lectures are wonderful. I just bought Professor Garber's book and am enthralled. The Atlantic 2019 May puts forth the idea that Shakespeare was a woman. Any thoughts?
IMO all these myriad theories on authorship are just 'alternative facts' and should be taken with a grain of salt.
In those times, the ways to manipulate the crowd were restricted to theater plays or music compositions. All the outstanding creators could have been invented by forces in power. Read through the written oeuvre titles of each age and you can tell the history course...
No, Shakespeare was a well known historical figure. Why is it important for you to make Shakespeare a woman?
Yeah I have one, Shakespeare wasn't.
It's a shame there isn't a "Hamlet" or "Romeo and Juliet" lecture.She is on a par with Professor Jonathan Bate and Professor Stanley Wells for me but its a shame they all are seemingly so dismissive, of the serious doubt concerning the authorship question.
There is no serious question of authorship. The made-up debate basically ignores all evidence (such as, in short, his contemporaries writing to and of him as a "great playwright") and generally relies upon the assumption that true genius could NOT have possibly come from a poor background.
To state it simply, at least one piece of evidence against his authorship would be required for there to be a debate. Otherwise, it's merely the stuff of conspiracy theorists. All actual literary scholars agree.
The latest Oxford edition posits that Shakespeare coauthored one third of his plays with other authors like Marlowe, Middleton, and Fletcher. Serious authorship scholarship is on going, but its more about a collaborative working theater company with multiple authors rather than one secret rich guy passing his work along to a country bumpkin.
Agree with you, sir! Someone smarter than I am has stated... "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!" So what we have with the "authorship question" is this: Extraordinary claim but NO evidence!
This lady really seems to know her subject. Having said that and having meant it, sadly, I must say that her stammering is off putting. I simply can't bear to listen to her. May I suggest she put as much effort into improving her speech as she obviously has in mastering her subject. A good start would be to slow the pace of her delivery enough to give herself time to think. I expect more from someone functioning at this level; after all, she is a Harvard Literature Professor. I wish her well.
Stop Waving Your Arms ….
Is this unisex stuff?