Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: April ::
Re: Elizabeth
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0607  Monday, 5 April 1999.

[1]     From:   Christopher Warley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 31 Mar 1999 11:11:11 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0594 Re: Elizabeth I

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 31 Mar 1999 13:52:38 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0594 Re: Elizabeth I

[3]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 1 Apr 1999 10:54:08 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0594 Re: Elizabeth I

[4]     From:   Abigail Quart <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 31 Mar 1999 14:07:18 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0600 Re: Elizabeth's Nicknames

[5]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 31 Mar 1999 12:14:13 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0600 Re: Elizabeth's Nicknames

[6]     From:   Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 31 Mar 1999 19:58:08 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0600 Re: Elizabeth's Nicknames


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Christopher Warley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 31 Mar 1999 11:11:11 -0500
Subject: 10.0594 Re: Elizabeth I
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0594 Re: Elizabeth I

In response to Jimmy Jung's request for a concise Elizabeth bio, I
highly recommend Norman Jones' *The Birth of the Elizabethan Age:
England in the 1560s* (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), particularly since it
deals with the years the film is (more or less) concerned with.  Jones'
book is impressive because it manages to be both a great read and an
important scholarly book.  Reading Jones reminds me that Elizabeth, and
Elizabethans, were much stranger than they appear in the movie...

Best,
Chris Warley

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 31 Mar 1999 13:52:38 -0500
Subject: 10.0594 Re: Elizabeth I
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0594 Re: Elizabeth I

Stephanie Hughes makes some interesting points about why Elizabeth had
good reasons to fear marriage and sex.  I suppose we can pretty much
rule her out as the author of the plays.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 1 Apr 1999 10:54:08 +1000
Subject: 10.0594 Re: Elizabeth I
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0594 Re: Elizabeth I

After an excellent and closely reasoned analysis of why Elizabeth would
have been reluctant to engage in heterosexual intercourse, Stephanie
Hughes writes:

>That she never allowed herself this intimate freedom would go far to
>explain her hysteria when someone else in her court community allowed it
>to themselves. Her tantrums over the sexual peccadilloes of her
>Courtiers went far beyond what one would expect from an adult who was
>satisfied herself. They certainly speak to one who was sexually
>repressed, and very angry about it.

First, not wanting to engage in heterosexual intercourse does not
necessarily mean that she "never allowed herself this intimate freedom."
There were other women available, not to mention herself (sorry if I'm
being indelicate).  Of course, there is absolutely no evidence
supporting the above possibilities.  But then, there is absolutely no
evidence to disprove it, either.

I am more perplexed by the concept that "sexual repression" leads to
hysteria, or more specifically, "tantrums."  Certainly this is a fairly
standard Freudian interpretation (and also owes much to Galenic and
humoral medical theories).  There may be much truth in it.  The
difficulty I find- and I am sure Ms. Hughes is aware of it as well-is
that there may be other explanations.  Many feminists have pointed out
that men can discount any display of female anger by labeling it
"hysteria," and then doubly discount the woman by asserting that the
cure for her "hysteria" is sex with a male.  An alternative
interpretation: Elizabeth was justifiably furious that her courtiers
showed less self-control than she had proven herself capable of?

Even if we grant that her "tantrums" were inappropriate, if we follow
the advice of one of today's other correspondents and examine psychology
beyond psychoanalysis, we find some interesting new thoughts on
"hysteria."  Some researchers now are thinking that the classic
"hysteria" may have been a form of obsessive-compulsive behavior,
closely related to dysthymia, and essentially chemical in its origins.
So, rather than needing a man, Elizabeth may simply have needed Prozac.

Yours in the laid-back tropics,

Karen Peterson-Kranz
University of Guam

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 31 Mar 1999 14:07:18 -0500
Subject: 10.0600 Re: Elizabeth's Nicknames
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0600 Re: Elizabeth's Nicknames

Stephanie Hughes wrote:

"Actually, his unhappy job was often to frighten her by reporting to her
all the conspiracies that he saw forming against her, or thought he
saw.  He had to talk her into doing things she didn't want to do, like
sign the death warrants for members of her family, and stop her from
doing the things she did want to do, like marry Leicester."

Which would mean giving her the spirit, or courage, to deal with it.
Wouldn't it?

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 31 Mar 1999 12:14:13 -0800
Subject: 10.0600 Re: Elizabeth's Nicknames
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0600 Re: Elizabeth's Nicknames

Stephanie Hughes writes:

>She called Leicester her "Eyes" and Hatton her "Lids." The first
>suggests spying, or knowing all, the second might suggest keeping such
>knowledge private. Hatton did function for the Queen as an agent in
>Parliament; he portrayed himself as her knight, which would mean
>possibly carrying out private missions of various sorts.

It could just mean that he considered his work in parliament to be on
her behalf; "knight" could still, I believe, mean "knight of the
shire."  The queen's knight would therefore be something like a
government MP.

>Actually, his unhappy job was often to frighten her by reporting to her
>all the conspiracies that he saw forming against her, or thought he
>saw.  He had to talk her into doing things she didn't want to do, like
>sign the death warrants for members of her family, and stop her from
>doing the things she did want to do, like marry Leicester.  There's no
>doubt but she frequently saw him as a kill joy. (Somehow I doubt that
>"semen" had much to do with it.)

What about "familiar spirit"?  A constant companion and aid.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.