1995

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0008.  Thursday, 5 January, 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Daniel M Larner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 4 Jan 1995 18:31:02 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0005 Re: Tragic "Flaw" -- Hamartia
 
(2)     From:   Michael Yogev <RHLE503%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 05 Jan 95 13:43:53 IST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.1028  Re: Tragic Flaw I
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Daniel M Larner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 4 Jan 1995 18:31:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 6.0005 Re: Tragic "Flaw" -- Hamartia
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0005 Re: Tragic "Flaw" -- Hamartia
 
Thanks to Piers Lewis for his clear and illuminating discussion of irony in
Oedipus, and the equally lucid comparison with RJ.
 
Daniel Larner
Fairhaven College
Western Washington University
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Yogev <RHLE503%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 05 Jan 95 13:43:53 IST
Subject: 5.1028  Re: Tragic Flaw I
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.1028  Re: Tragic Flaw I
 
All the notes on harmartia and its meaning have piqued my interest.  I agree
with those who doubt that Aristotle had any sort of psychologically-based
character flaw in mind, for "missing the mark" seems more an affective notion--
which makes sense when we recall that Aristotle is addressing drama.  I am
reminded of the meaning of one term in Hebrew for "sin", which is "chet", based
on the Hebrew verb "l'hachtee" or "to miss the mark".  Once again, the ancients
remind us that psychological views of character are often wide of the mark when
pressed too far back into the past.
 
Michael Yogev

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.