Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: June ::
Re: Fathers and Mothers
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1176  Wednesday, 7 June 2000.

[1]     From:   Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 6 Jun 2000 12:54:57 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 11.1165 Re: Fathers and Mothers

[2]     From:   Sophie Masson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 7 Jun 2000 12:41:55 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1165 Re: Fathers and Mothers


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 6 Jun 2000 12:54:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Fathers and Mothers
Comment:        SHK 11.1165 Re: Fathers and Mothers

What makes Annalisa Castaldo think that Mrs. Lear was 'killed off"?  Her
social worker reports a close relationship with Ophelia's mother until
quite recently. Of course, the business with Mrs. Bottom took its toll.
The Macbeths were appalled. She fainted, as usual.

T. Hawkes

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sophie Masson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 7 Jun 2000 12:41:55 +1000
Subject: 11.1165 Re: Fathers and Mothers
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1165 Re: Fathers and Mothers

Annalisa Castaldo's interesting question about why mothers are so often
killed off in Shakespeare touched off a parallel echo for me, raised in
Arthurnet last year: why are fathers so often killed off or absent or
failed in some way in the Arthurian romances? Practically every
important knight, from Arthur down, is fatherless (incidentally this
last can also be paralleled with modern young adult fiction, where
fathers are equally absent, and yearned for). I wonder if perhaps the
answer to these two contrasting things lies firstly in the sociological
facts of the time-at the time of the Arthurian romances, fathers were
often absent (or killed) on crusades, pilgrimages and the like, leaving
women at home to manage the estates and rear the children (see the story
of Perceval for a particularly strong example of this) and were strong
supporters of the romance movement; and in Shakespeare's time, when men
were much more at home, women often died in childbirth, and despite
Elizabeth's reign, were much more powerless politically and economically
than earlier .Secondly, and much more nebulously, and probably
controversially(so don't all fall on me at once!), it could be because
of the contrasting spirit of the time: anima in the romance era; animus
in Shakespearean times. Thus, the 'father' is absent in the first, the
'mother' in the second.

Sophie
Author site: http://members.xoom.com/sophiecastel/default.htm
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.