Coversheet for Thesis in Sussex Research Online
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A University of Sussex DPhil thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details Sounding Shakespeare: Acts of Reading in Cavell and Derrida Chiara Alfano PhD, Critical Theory University of Sussex July 2012 3 University of Sussex Chiara Alfano submitted for the degree of PhD in Critical Theory Sounding Shakespeare: Acts of Reading in Cavell and Derrida Summary Philosophy has always turned to literature, but its engagement with Shakespeare in particular has been problematic. Stanley Cavell and Jacques Derrida do better than most other philosophical readers to meet the three criteria for worthwhile philosophical engagement with Shakespeare recently outlined by Martha Nussbaum: namely, that it should actually do philosophy, that it should illuminate the world of the plays, and that it should account for why literature can do something for philosophy that philosophy cannot do for itself. Cavell’s and Derrida’s acts of reading Shakespeare are, however, marked by a seemingly unphilosophical aural sensitivity. This thesis argues that we will only begin to grasp their singular and radical understanding of the relationship between literature and philosophy once we get to the bottom of these auricular preoccupations. The first part will show that in Cavell’s readings of Shakespeare the figure of the ear and actual process of listening not only mark “separateness,” but are also instrumental in helping us to “acknowledge.” Although Derrida does not listen for separateness but différance, the second part argues that for him too the ear both actually and figurally inaugurates an act of reading which not only blurs the borders between the philosophical and the literary, but also fundamentally changes the way we relate the one to the other. The way Derrida and Cavell listen to Shakespeare, therefore, suggests three criteria to be added to Nussbaum’s. First, the philosopher’s act of reading must resonate beyond the conventional boundaries of philosophy and literature. Second, a philosopher’s account needs to be based on a textual model describing how the very encounter between text and reader can become part of the philosophical endeavour. Third, this realisation must be internalised in the very way philosophy is written. 4 Acknowledgments Cavell said somewhere that you cannot do philosophy without listening to different voices. I believe the same holds true for researching and writing up a thesis. I had the great fortune of being supervised by Prof. Nicholas Royle and Dr. Daniel Steuer, two voices as distinct as Derrida’s and Cavell’s. To each a deep gratitude is owed for their guidance, their intellectual generosity, constant encouragement and seemingly infinite patience in reading and responding to my work. This project would also have been a very schizophrenic one had it not been for their willingness to keep an open yet critical ear for the other’s philosophical pitch. I would like to express a heart-felt thanks to Stanley Cavell for welcoming me into his home and taking the time to speak to me about everything from our shared love of music, via Derrida, right through to feminism. His responses to what were still tentative ideas have been pivotal for my research and I will always fondly remember his hospitality. Other conversations, too, have borne on this project, whether they were held at conferences, symposia, reading groups, meetings, over email or in response to conference papers, articles and drafts. In this sense I would like to thank: Alice Andrews, Graham Allen, Sarah Beckwith, Geoffrey Bennington, Hugo Blumenthal, Dan Brudney, Peter Boxall, Clare Connors, David Coughlan, Paul Gordon, Sam Haddad, Martin Hägglund, Margit Hesselager, Peggy Kamuf, Ronald Mendoza- De Jesus, J. Hillis Miller, Toril Moi, Forbes Morlock, Stephen Mulhall, Michael Naas, John Phillips, Bernie Rhie, Roy Sellars, Francesco Vitale and Sarah Wood. Special thanks go to Oisín Keohane for helping me think about Derrida’s relation to English and Mauro Senatore for being my philosophical sounding board. At Sussex my deepest gratitude goes out to Karen Veitch, Donna MacPherson, Martin Eve, Ruth Charnock, Karen Schaller and Liz Sage for their camaraderie. Writing a thesis can be a lonely affair and had it not been for the friendship of Rebecca Baillie, Alex Chumley-Fairfax, Erik Niblaeus, Philipp Steinkrüger and Kati Ihnat (to whom an extra special thanks for heroically proofreading the first part of the thesis is due) these last four years would have been much less fun. Thanks to Niall Sellar for lending his English ear to sound out my translations and for proofreading the thesis. In future years, when I think back to this time there will be two people in particular who spring to mind: Chris Wilson whose wit and wisdom has lightened up many a dreary afternoon and Shela Sheikh whose proof reading and conversation on Derrida has been invaluable. Thanks to my brothers-in-law Pat, Max, Josh, George, my parents-in-law Paul and Christine and my friends beyond academia for their ever present interest, patience and support. A tremendous thanks goes to my big brother Marco who has been looking out for me during this project just as he always has and I suspect always will. The greatest thanks is, however, due to Stef – both my most honest critic and most unconditional champion – whose voice I always hear when I write. This thesis is dedicated with all my love to my parents Italo Alfano and Marilena Gerosa Alfano who, along with many other things, have given me an insatiable curiosity, a love of reading and who have taught me that few things are as valuable as an education. Without their generous support not a single word could have been written. 5 Table of Contents Introduction: Thinking Through Shakespeare...................................................................7 Part I - A Scarred Tympanum 1. Literary Investigations.................................................................................................25 1.1 Shakespeare’s Sceptics.........................................................................................28 1.2 Separateness: Towards Philosophical Foundations..............................................33 1.3 Lear’s Avoidance, Cordelia’s Acknowledgment...................................................39 2. Cavell’s Ear..................................................................................................................46 2.1 A Damaged Left Ear..............................................................................................49 2.2 Passionate Utterances – Heaving Hearts into Mouths..........................................56 3. Mending the Heart of Language in a Heartless World................................................65 3.1 The Relocation of Sceptical Doubt.......................................................................69 3.2 Acknowledging Shakespeare................................................................................76 3.3 “hidden and silent and fixed” – The Theatricalisation of Others and the Passionate Utterances of Shakespearean Drama........................................................83 3.4 Words on a Page....................................................................................................90 4. Perfect Pitch.................................................................................................................94 4.1 Remarrying the Human Voice and Philosophy.....................................................97 4.2 Parentheses..........................................................................................................103 [ First Interlude............................................................................................................110 ] Part II – Frequencies 5. Flèches.......................................................................................................................111 5.1 Contretemps........................................................................................................114 5.2 Télépoièse...........................................................................................................117 5.3 How to Love Shakespeare..................................................................................123 6. Porpentine..................................................................................................................132 6.1 Marx & Mole......................................................................................................134 6.2 A Shakespearean hérisson...................................................................................138 6.3 Peepholes (meurtrières)......................................................................................147 7. Génie qui es tu...........................................................................................................157 7.1 Listening to Hamlet’s Ghost...............................................................................161 7.2 to tympanise