Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: November ::
Re: Assorted Responses to Ham.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1189.  Friday, 21 November 1997.

[1]     From:   Scott Shepherd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 12:00:02 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1176  Re: Claudius' "error"

[2]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 16:03:22 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1168  Assorted Responses to Ham. (Was Heir): yours


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Shepherd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 12:00:02 -0500
Subject: 8.1176  Re: Claudius' "error"
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1176  Re: Claudius' "error"

I still don't see why we're calling something an error which has no ill
consequences.  We have textual cues to regard it as non-careless:

        On such regards of safety and allowance
        As therein are set down.

        . . . at our more considered time we'll read,
        Answer, and think upon this business.

The decision isn't even made onstage, nor mentioned again until two acts
later, when we see the arrangement going off without a hitch.

Andy White's good-news-and-bad-news suggestion for Voltimand's report
doesn't jibe with Claudius' "It likes us well" or Polonius' "This
business is well ended."

Of course Fortinbras could, like Laertes and Hamlet, go by water, but we
know Shakespeare's company liked to march armies across the stage, and
besides, we have to bring Fortinbras into Denmark somehow, first for
Hamlet's "delicate and tender prince" speech, and again in 5.2 for the
transfer of power that tragedy endings require.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 16:03:22 -0500
Subject: 8.1168  Assorted Responses to Ham. (Was Heir): yours
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1168  Assorted Responses to Ham. (Was Heir): yours

Jonathan Hope responds regarding the Quarto Hamlet's "your philosophy":

>Scott's right - it is sometimes called 'generic you'.

Yes, but, when you (generic you) use "your philosophy" followed by a
name (in this case, Horatio), doesn't the listener feel (as I do) that
"your" refers to the person named. For example, "This is your argument,
isn't it, Jonathan?" I interpret the "your" as a definite reference to
Jonathan, not as a generic usage.

Is this a general feeling of English users?  Or do I stand alone?

Yours (don't believe it for a minute!), Bill Godshalk
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.