The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0813  Tuesday, 4 May 1999.

[1]     From:   Ed Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 03 May 1999 12:19:43 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   The Henriad and TC

[2]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 03 May 1999 22:19:35 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0801 Re: Henry and Tro.

[3]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 03 May 1999 22:22:51 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0801 Re: Henry and Tro.


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 03 May 1999 12:19:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        The Henriad and TC

Just a quick response to John Lee and Moira Russell. Isn't the crucial
difference between Richard and Bolingbroke that the former has no sense
of public pressure or the need to please/gratify it, whereas Bolingbroke
instinctively feels public pressure and responds to it?  Isn't TC a lot
like 2H4? In both plays morality decays because the idealism on which it
is based is thought to be (2H4) or shown to be (TC) hollow?

--Ed Taft

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 03 May 1999 22:19:35 -0400
Subject: 10.0801 Re: Henry and Tro.
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0801 Re: Henry and Tro.

Terence Hawkes writes:

>It is of course appropriate that the nomination of
>Henry as 'Pig' comes about through a sly fracturing of the language
>which the English steam-roller ruthlessly imposes on all subject
>cultures.  Henry's porcine courtship of the French princess shows the
>same process in action and  confirms it as a central concern of the
>play.

To my ear, this sounds suspiciously like character criticism.  Is T.
Hawkes telling us that Henry has a piglike or steam-rollerish character
and is more than words in a dramatic script?  Does Henry really have
discernible characteristics?  If so, that's good to know.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 03 May 1999 22:22:51 -0400
Subject: 10.0801 Re: Henry and Tro.
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0801 Re: Henry and Tro.

Moira Russell writes:

>"Troilus and Cressida" is something of a "Gottendammerung"
>-- especially in the decimation of moral character among all until only
>the bitter anti-Falstaffian Thersites remains as an example of
>independence (what an example), the savage scene of Hector's slaying,
>and the play's ending with the degradation of his body.  There is
>nothing left to do after such events but curse.

This description seems on target.  And, if so, why is the play
considered a comedy by recent editors?

Yours, Bill Godshalk