Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: March ::
Re: Cosby; Quill; Charity
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0382  Friday, 5 March 1999.

[1]     From:   Frances K. Barasch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Mar 1999 09:18:45 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0360 Re: Shakespeare on Cosby

[2]     From:   Catherine Loomis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 04 Mar 1999 16:38:09 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0365 Re: A Slip of the Quill

[3]     From:   Roger Schmeeckle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Mar 1999 13:45:30 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   charity as a critical factor


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Frances K. Barasch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 4 Mar 1999 09:18:45 EST
Subject: 10.0360 Re: Shakespeare on Cosby
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0360 Re: Shakespeare on Cosby

Besides the 44 plays which shook me up a bit, Cosby's "Shakespeare" says
there was a law preventing women from performing on the public stage.
Stephen Orgel (Impersonations), however, says there was no such law and
points out that foreign women appeared on English stage from time to
time, also a few on Jacobean stage.  The film "Shakespeare in Love" also
claims there was a law against women performers; custom probably, law
unlikely.  Can anyone answer the question of "law"?  frances k. barasch

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Catherine Loomis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 04 Mar 1999 16:38:09 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 10.0365 Re: A Slip of the Quill
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0365 Re: A Slip of the Quill

>...but in English, if you have a mat sitting on a cat, you have one
>stiffled pussy.
>
  As in Shrew, Much Ado, and Othello?

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger Schmeeckle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 4 Mar 1999 13:45:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        charity as a critical factor

>Charity, if not
>critical modesty, would indicate that we take characters (like people)
>at their words as much as possible.

The above suggests a question that I have thought about and arrived at a
tentative conclusion.  I would like to throw it out in hopes that it
will elucidate some feed-back.

As a Christian, I regard charity as an obligation.  The object(s) of
charity are other persons.  But literary characters are not persons,
they are constructs.  In interpreting Hamlet, for instance, when he
refrains from killing Claudius lest he go to heaven, one might regard
that as indeciseiveness, on the assumption that Hamlet is under some
sort of obligation to carry out the ghost's command, or one might regard
it as the depths of uncharity, in that he wants not only the death but
the damnation of his uncle, or whatever.  But one is under no obligation
to limit consideration of base motives, since Hamlet is a literary
figure, not a living person, and the rules of interpretation, not
morality apply.  Which is not to deny that moral considerations are
relevant to good criticism.

     Roger Schmeeckle
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.