2000

Hamlet's "draw"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0968  Friday, 5 May 2000.

From:           Justin Drewry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 04 May 2000 12:45:10 -0400
Subject:        Hamlet's "draw"

There is an ongoing debate between myself and a colleague as to what
Hamlet's definition of the word "draw" is in 3.iv.239 & 4.1.25 of the
folio.

Hamlet addresses Polonius's dead body while dragging it from the stage:

  "Come, sir, to draw toward an end with you."

And his mother replies to Claudies in the next scene that he has gone.

  "To draw apart the body he hath killed,"


Is Hamlet actually cutting the body to pieces in these quotations?

Thanks,
Andy Drewry
The Webb School
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Old Bill

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0967  Friday, 5 May 2000.

From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 04 May 2000 09:13:06 -0700
Subject: 11.0955 Old Bill
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0955 Old Bill

Terence Hawkes writes:

>Its participants may now be interested to learn that in London today the
>police have agreed to a declaration in the High Court that a number of
>their actions on that occasion were in fact 'unlawful'. The clear
>presumption is that they were acting in accordance with instructions
>received from the government.

Some leap of logic seems to be made in this paragraph.  Are you saying
that because the police actions were unlawful, they must have been
ordered by the government?  That's not exactly a logical necessity.  In
fact, such a leap seems doubly odd coming from a man possessed with a
widely-admired critical intellect.

Cheers,
Se


Re: Amazon.com

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0965  Friday, 5 May 2000.

[1]     From:   Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, May 05, 2000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0957 Re: Amazon.com

[2]     From:   Simon Malloch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 04 May 2000 23:37:09 +0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0957 Re: Amazon.com

[3]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 May 2000 17:40:47 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0957 Re: Amazon.com

[4]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 May 2000 21:09:56 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0957 Re: Amazon.com


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, May 05, 2000
Subject: 11.0957 Re: Amazon.com
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0957 Re: Amazon.com

The time has come for me as moderator to intervene in this thread. This
discussion has in my opinion moved so far away from anything in the
purview of this list that I am calling a halt to it. If members are
interested in continuing this conversation, do so off-list.

Hardy

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Simon Malloch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 04 May 2000 23:37:09 +0800
Subject: 11.0957 Re: Amazon.com
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0957 Re: Amazon.com

With all this talk about Amazon.com and censorship, I am surprised that
no one has mentioned the Mein Kampf incident.

According to Robert Spector's Amazon.com (HarperCollins, 2000), the
title was in Amazon's top 10 books sold to Germans.  But Amazon stopped
shipping it (nor is it listed, the last time I checked, on
www.amazon.de) after an article in the Washington Post, a complaint from
the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, and an investigation from legal authorities
in Germany.

I had first read briefly about this in the English press.  On asking
Amazon for an explanation in December of last year, I got this reply:

'In regards to the question in your other email, we currently do not
ship "Mein Kampf" to Germany or Holland because of legal concerns.  Our
policy is to follow the laws of all the countries in which we operate,
and the sale of this title in Germany and Holland is subject to various
local laws.

Should you want a copy, due to the German laws against Nazi memorabilia,
there are no German-language editions of "Mein Kampf" available.  The
only editions available from us are in English.'

Currently, Mein Kampf is ranked 8,704 on the US site, has an average
customer rating of 3.5 stars out of 5, and has 83 reviews, the first two
of which are positive, 5 star reviews.  Amazon.com has no disclaimers,
unlike the Protocols of Zion catalogue entry.

Apparently BarnesandNoble.com still supply it to Germans, which makes
one wonder about Amazon's legal concerns.

Simon Malloch.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 May 2000 17:40:47 +0100
Subject: 11.0957 Re: Amazon.com
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0957 Re: Amazon.com

Kevin De Ornellas writes

>this casual spreading of hyperbolic rumours by outsiders
>is incredibly unhelpful.  Can we - the Irish - be left alone
>to heal the scars of our traumatised society?

This comment betrays ignorance of email's anonymity and of post-colonial
theory. Given only my name and a virtual email address, I might, for
aught De Ornellas knows, be in real life the head of the school of
English at Queen's University, Belfast. I read "Can we - the Irish - be
left alone" as a coded reference to the phrase Sinn Fein ("ourselves
alone") and have already reported this to the appropriate authorities in
Gower Street.

I'm glad that De Ornellas finds that the content of this list

>could - if taken seriously - undermine confidence in the parties
>(including the larger part of the British State) that are still
>committed to the fragile Irish peace deal.

Undermining such naive confidence is essential war work.

Gabriel Egan

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 May 2000 21:09:56 +0100
Subject: 11.0957 Re: Amazon.com
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0957 Re: Amazon.com

I neglected a glaring contradiction in Kevin De Ornellas's posting. I
beg Hardy's indulgence for pointing this out in a separate message:

>casual spreading of hyperbolic rumours by outsiders is
>incredibly unhelpful.  Can we - the Irish - be left alone
>to heal the scars of our traumatised society?

Let us mask any collective wincing at the de-politicized ethnic purity
of "we - the Irish" (our intellectual visas having been duly
scrutinized) and move in dignified silence past the bad poetry of "heal
the scars of our traumatised society", so as better to appreciate how
the above clashes with

>I do not subscribe to see insensitive splutterings that
>could - if taken seriously - undermine confidence in the parties
>(including the larger part of the British State) that are still
>committed to the fragile Irish peace deal.

Senator George Mitchell, a notable American, brokered the peace deal
which De Ornellas supports, so clearly not all "outsiders" are
unwelcome. I can think also of at least one British politician hoping to
put this deal on his curriculum vitae.

De Ornellas ought not to assume that everyone shares his support for the
current peace deal. There is a significant body of republican opinion
that the situation cannot be resolved until the British Army agrees to
lay down its weapons and negotiate. Not one British bullet nor one ounce
of Army explosives has been handed over and the British government (the
political wing of the British Army) should not expect a long-lasting
peace on this basis.

Gabriel Egan

Re: Bardic Ignorance

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0966  Friday, 5 May 2000.

[1]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 May 2000 17:04:07 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0958 Re: Bardic Ignorance

[2]     From:   Kevin De Ornellas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 04 May 2000 16:37:35 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0958 Re: Bardic Ignorance

[3]     From:   Jean Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 May 2000 15:42:16 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Ignorance?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 May 2000 17:04:07 +0100
Subject: 11.0958 Re: Bardic Ignorance
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0958 Re: Bardic Ignorance

Arthur Lindley asked

>I may be misremembering, but doesn't Carol Vorderman have a fairly
>brilliant-as these things currently go-degree from Cambridge?

A colleague from Cambridge who just left the room claimed to know that
she couldn't handle the Cambridge maths course and so settled on
engineering, in which she got a third class degree.

Being unable to do a maths degree is nothing to be ashamed of.
Vorderman's television celebrity is founded on an ability to factorize
in her head numbers up to 1000. I believe Wordsworth knew of a horse who
could manage the same trick, but only up to 25.

Gabriel Egan

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kevin De Ornellas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 04 May 2000 16:37:35 GMT
Subject: 11.0958 Re: Bardic Ignorance
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0958 Re: Bardic Ignorance

>I may be misremembering, but doesn't Carol Vorderman have a fairly
>brilliant-as these things currently go-degree from Cambridge?
>
>Arthur Lindley

I heard that she had been awarded a Michelle Fowler (a Third).

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jean Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 May 2000 15:42:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Ignorance?

>Just a small corollary to that, on Tuesday's American celebrity version
>of "Millionaire", Dana Carvey was asked "In the 1998 film, Shakespeare
>In Love, at which theater does Romeo and Juliet premier?"  He didn't
>know, so he polled the audience and they of course responded "the
>Globe", which was wrong.

I would quibble at calling this "ignorance."  For an audience of
non-specialists, referring to a film that opened close to 2 years ago,
"the Globe" is a pretty reasonable guess.

Jean Peterson
Associate Professor of English
Bucknell University

Hamlet German

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0964  Thursday, 4 May 2000.

From:           Syd Kasten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 May 2000 16:56:49 +0300 (IDT)
Subject:        Hamlet German

Once again I ask your forgiveness.  This has been rattling around in my
head for ever so long and the only way I can exorcise it is by putting
it into print.

It all begins with the German tendency to put participles at the end of
subordinate clauses, so when I read the lines:

      "                           How stand I then,
      That have a father kill'd, a mother stain'd,"

I come up with an association to the previous major scene in which H.
kills a father (Ophelia's).  A mother stain'd? his own?  Which brings me
to tell myself "No,no! - the "have" is the have of possession, not of
the perfect tense."

And yet, I remember through a glass darkly a 1964 joint production of
BBC & Denmark Radio with Christopher Plummer as Hamlet.  I am probably
wildly distorting, but I seem to remember the closet scene as so
redolent of sexuality that I had to avert my eyes. (This was before the
revolution in cinema that made sex an every day commodity).

The cast (courtesy of This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) had some familiar names:

  Michael Caine ..................... Horatio
  Alec Clunes ....................... Polonius
  Jo Maxwell Muller ................. Ophelia
  Christopher Plummer ............... Hamlet
  Robert Shaw (I) ................... Claudius, King of Denmark
  Donald Sutherland ................. Fortinbras, Prince of Norway
  June Tobin ........................ Gertrude, Queen of Denmark

Best wishes,
Syd Kasten

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.