Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: January ::
Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0133  Friday, 21 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Patrick Dolan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 12:38:41 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0123 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 14:28:37 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0123 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

[3]     From:   Robert Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 16 Jan 2000 10:57:25 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0123 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Patrick Dolan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 20 Jan 2000 12:38:41 -0600
Subject: 11.0123 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0123 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

On the subject of anachronism.

We ought to be careful about saying that looking at Shakespeare through
any particular ideology is out of court because that ideology wasn't
invented then. After all, he wrote before Darwin, Vatican II, the
industrial revolution, the enlightenment and any of a number of events
and considerations that have radically changed the nature of
Christianity over the last four centuries. A Christianity that doesn't
countenance burning heretics, gutting Jesuits or intimate contact
between Church and state provides an anachronistic lens as well.

The claim that human spiritual nature hasn't changed over time strikes
me as just as unfalsifiable as the claim that it's all material
(whatever you mean by material) or that class struggle is the basis of
all human social reality (all three "vulgar," I know, but I'm in a
hurry). (Is it just me, or do other people find the epithet "vulgar
Marxism" etymologically hilarious?)

I know Thomas More pretty well. In his hands, especially after Henry's
divorce, Roman Catholicism was a totalizing discourse. (Take a look at
Dialogue of Comfort for the palatable version. Any of the writings
against heresy will provide the unpalatable version.) He wasn't the only
one. His version no more makes religion ineluctably totalizing than
Lenin and Stalin make Marxism so.

The point to all this is what to make of our lenses, which, I take it,
what's been animating the arguments in the discipline 

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.