Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: October ::
Re: Historical Fact
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0826.  Monday, 23 October 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Paul Hawkins <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 11:45:44 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   historical fact
 
(2)     From:   Harry Hill <HILHAR@CONU2.BITNET>
        Date:   Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 12:13:07 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: James VI & I
 
(3)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 16:50:59 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0823  Re: Historical Fact
 
(4)     From:   William Proctor Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 21 Oct 95 18:12 CDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0823  Re: Historical Fact
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul Hawkins <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 11:45:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        historical fact
 
David Skeele quotes Joseph Green as saying, "Not everybody reinvents
Shakespeare" and then proceeds with the usual blather about how everybody
reinvents Shakespeare all the time, and that surely everyone except the old
historicists recognizes it.
 
Now I don't still have Joseph Green's post, but as I've followed this thread
with interest, I'm fairly sure he actually wrote something like, "Not everybody
reinvents Shakespeare *to the extent that Taylor does*" by shading facts.  This
is after all the main point that Dr. Green was making, and I think it's a good
one.  Similarly, Taylor probably doesn't reinvent Shakespeare as much as some
of our students do when they misread or misremember things in the plays or
state a view for which there isn't textual justification.  And not everyone
will reinvent what Dr. Green wrote to the extent that I believe David Skeele
does.  Of course, *what* Dr. Green actually wrote is one of those troublesome
"facts" that any of us can easily verify.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Harry Hill <HILHAR@CONU2.BITNET>
Date:           Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 12:13:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Re: James VI & I
 
Two fairly plain facts, in fact pure & simple ones:
 
                The English called James James I
                The Scots called him James VI.
 
When home decorations were being erected for the coronation celebrations of
1952, in many parts of Scotland the shields, flags and so on read
                Elizabeth First of Scotland
                & Second of England
 
or
 
                E I & II R
 
Cumberland, but interpreted fact.
 
        Harry Hill
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 21 Oct 1995 16:50:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0823  Re: Historical Fact
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0823  Re: Historical Fact
 
I think I agree with Marcello Cappuzzo.  I took my example from astronomy, not
because I believe science to be "objective," but because the example seems to
me incontestable.
 
I was trying to make several points: (1) Intersubjective truth changes from
time to time. (2) I intuit that there is real data in the physical world. This
is a vaguely realist position. (3) But even if there is real data in the
physical world, we humans can only apprehend that data subjectively. (4) There
is no way to transcend our subjectivity.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Proctor Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 21 Oct 95 18:12 CDT
Subject: 6.0823  Re: Historical Fact
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0823  Re: Historical Fact
 
Well of course there is no fact without value. The "facts" I provided in my
last posting were not without values.  The value was that of a working- class
Ph.D. who thinks he is not appreciated by his English Department and who
believes, if he could get a good run at it, he could fly.
 
William Proctor Williams
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.