2001

Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1560  Wednesday, 20 June 2001

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 Jun 2001 09:11:06 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1557 Re: Why Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 Jun 2001 20:25:17 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1510 Re: Why Shakespeare

[3]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 Jun 2001 21:27:56 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1549 Re: Conflicts

[4]     From:   Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:25:06 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1549 Re: Conflicts

[5]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2001 21:05:04
        Subj:   Re: Conflicts


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Jun 2001 09:11:06 -0700
Subject: 12.1557 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1557 Re: Why Shakespeare

My friend Robin Hamilton teases me by writing:

>-- Gabriel is, indeed, traditionally assigned to the second-lowest rung of
>the hierarchy, as an Archangel.  However, as this subdivision of
>immaterial creatures is severely post-biblical (stemming from the work of
>Pseudo-Dionysius in the Twelfth Century), the +biblical+ Gabriel (as
>Mike Jensen notes, correcting himself) is strictly a generic angel, pure
>and simple.

Yeah, sure, that's what I meant.  Thanks, Robin, for giving me a whopper
of a rationalization!  The depth of your knowledge continues to impress.

All the best,
Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Jun 2001 20:25:17 +0100
Subject: 12.1510 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1510 Re: Why Shakespeare

We should be clear when using such an important word that we agree on
its meaning.  "Universal: Of, belonging to, done, or used by all persons
in the world. - OED"  It seems peculiar, strange even, that
Shakespeare's emotional conflict material of love, hate, betrayal,
sexual longing, jealousy, pride, life, death, power, corruption,
revenge, etc., are not seen by Robin Hamilton as having any part of the
culture of "China, Africa, India . . . and . . . the Middle East."  The
last time I looked those regions were displaying all those human traits
in spades and on TV.  Take any of the above humanities - betrayal, for
instance.  Shakespeare was a great poet before all else and understood
the poetry of betrayal.  Add to this his acute sense of conflict and
drama and you have a literary tract that will translate to any culture
on the planet and will be instantly understood.  Mike Jensen, as usual,
giggles with " Where can I worship and bow down?"  I do not adore Mr
Shakespeare as a Godlike genius who can write no wrong, rather he is the
best writer I have read.  I say this because he writes about the
darkest, filthiest and sometimes the highest and most wonderful emotions
of humanity whilst setting them in a glittering panorama of Kings,
Queens and courtiers.  I thank Don Bloom for his understanding of the
topic and will try to be less "posturing".   I less understand Terence
Hawks' accusation that I "airily" presented Shakespeare's writing as
"soppy and transcendental".  I am at a loss.  To try and understand him
- love: hate: we've ALL felt it. Correct?  Even Terrence Hawks.  How is
that "soppy and transcendental"?  Perhaps it was the "abstract"
separation that Mr Hawkes mistakenly believes that Shakespeare considers
emotions.

The unconscious part of our mind is something that writers especially
unconsciously employ.  It is said that the traffic from the unconscious
to the conscious mind is a one way, twelve lane freeway; the opposite
direction, a difficult, barely discernible path.  All the experiences,
memories, adventures, fears, longings, modified instincts, prejudices
and sexual longings abide there.  When we think of a universal word such
as "child" or "mother" then all manner of images come clattering down
that freeway. But the images are from our own experience, now long
forgot from our conscious memory.  If we ask why, access to that mighty
cavern of terrifying treasures is all but denied.  We do not incessantly
dream of living in a 6th century Bolivian village because we have no
experience of it.  But of course, the unconscious treats stage, film and
TV characters as unconscious experience.  That is why the "suspension of
disbelief" works in acted drama.  So, I say to Thomas Larque that his
unconscious has absorbed many people that he has since consciously
forgotten.  He invents nothing except plot.  Even when we consciously
try to make up non-human characters we are, of course are re-creating
human characters.  Karen Peterson-Kranz's example of HAL is of course
human.  There is no talking, emoting computer to base it on.  HAL is
what Clark thought a human would be like if it were a computer.  Not the
other way round.  In other words HAL is an endearing piece of nonsense.
Shakespeare's Ariel, Caliban, Puck and all the fairies are unconscious
fragments of humanity that fits the dramatic bill.  I think Sophie
Masson understands perfectly when she says that writing is a "happy mix"
of our experience and invention.  Shakespeare was, in my view, the
master exponent of the universal act.

SAM SMALL
Project site: http://www.passioninpieces.co.uk

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Jun 2001 21:27:56 +0100
Subject: 12.1549 Re: Conflicts
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1549 Re: Conflicts

Abigail Quart wrote

> No, honey, it doesn't work that way. The trick of writing
> universally (pay close attention) is to be as specific as
> possible. <i>The more specific you are, the more
> universal you become.</i>

One can intrigue a reader by opening a new line of argument with an
apparent paradox. However, if it isn't followed by an explanation, the
paradox just sounds daft. Would you care to add anything to make good
this shortcoming?

Oh, and please drop the 'honey'; my wife reads this list. Failure to
comply will result in my distributing copies of your account of what
would have happened if Laura had told Petrarch to come to bed.

Mari Bonomi wrote

> Without getting into a political discussion about Zionism, let
> me just say that there are at least two very different takes on
> the Palestinian/Israeli question, in terms of who moved whom
> and why.

On a list of this size there is no doubt a contributor willing to argue
that Israel was created in a pocket of land nobody had noticed going
spare.  (Which explanation is at least preferable to the "there just
isn't enough love to go around in the world" theory of postcolonial
syndrome.) Fortunately even in Israel academic freedom allows serious
historians to expose such nonsense.

> Perhaps we can keep such hotbutton topics out of these
> discussions if only to avoid losing sight of the key elements
> in the fog of political passions?

I was hoping to dispel the fog of apolitical passions with warming rays
of controversy in order to keep sight of the key elements, but chacun 


E-Book: A Sonnet Sequence from the Countesse of

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1559  Tuesday, 19 June 2001

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, June 19, 2001
Subject:        A Sonnet Sequence from the Countesse of Mountgomeries Urania

Yesterday, after reading Mike Jensen's post regarding a new paperback
edition of Cary's *The
Tragedy of Mariam*:

>SHAKSPERans will want to know a new edition of Elizabeth Cary's *The
>Tragedy of Mariam* has been published.  It has a 2000 copyright, though
>it has only just turned up in my campus bookstore.

I was looking for e-books for my Palm Pilot and discovered that The
University of Virginia's text archive --
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/ebooks/ -- has electronic copies of Lady
Mary Wroth *Pamphilia, to Amphilanthus: A Sonnet Sequence from the
Countesse of Mountgomeries Urania* (1621) for Microsoft Reader, Palm,
and the web:

About the electronic version

Pamphilia, to Amphilanthus: A Sonnet Sequence from the Countesse of
Mountgomeries Urania Wroth, Lady Mary creation of machine-readable
version: Richard Bear, University of Oregon; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Conversion to TEI-conformant markup: University of Virginia Library
Electronic Text Center ca. 150 kilobytes-round up to the nearest 5KB:
Charlottesville, Va. 1994

Note: The text for this etext edition was transcribed by Richard Bear
and proofread by Richard Bear and Micah Bear, and follows that of the
printed Mariott and Grismand text of 1621, as found in the copy in the
collection of the Folger Shakespeare Library. The editor wishes to thank
the Folger Library for permission to use the text of their copy, and
also thanks Professor Casey Charles for valuable suggestions concerning
the Introduction.

Italics found in the original have not been indicated here. Long "s"has
been silently emended to short "s"; however, seventeenth century usage
of "i" for "j" and of "u" and "v" have been retained. Catchwords have
been eliminated. Probable typographical errors and compositor's
misreadings have been enclosed in brackets, and emendations for these,
based on Josephine Roberts' reading of Lady Mary's manuscript, are
suggested in the right-hand margin. Pagination follows that of the
compositor, who is sometimes in error, and is indicated within angled
brackets, also in the right-hand margin. Endnotes are indicated within
the text by numbers enclosed within braces. It is possible that these
notes and marginalia may interfere with string searches and vocabulary
analyses; do feel free to make working copies from which you may remove
extraneous matter. This file may be distributed freely for nonprofit,
scholarship, and teaching purposes only.

Copies distributed offsite should remain unchanged and include this
paragraph. Please direct enquiries, comments and especially corrections
to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (Internet), or to Richard Bear, Department
of English, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA 97403.

Re: Why Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1557  Tuesday, 19 June 2001

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 18 Jun 2001 19:38:30 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1527 Re: Why Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Jun 2001 14:01:05
        Subj:   Re: Why Shakespeare

[3]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 Jun 2001 06:21:27 +0100
        Subj:   SHK 12.1527 Re: Why Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Jun 2001 19:38:30 +0100
Subject: 12.1527 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1527 Re: Why Shakespeare

> Mike Jensen wrote:
>
> > Also, I know Gabriel was not an Archangel.  Not sure why I wrote it that
> > way.  Sorry again.
>
> Pardon my confusion, but should I assume here that you are referring to
> your fictional character Gabriel, as opposed to the biblical Gabriel,
> who is indeed an archangel?
>
> Leslie

Of the nine orders of Celestial Beings --

Seraphim
Cherubim
Thrones
Dominations
Virtues
Powers
Principalities
Archangels
Angels

-- Gabriel is, indeed, traditionally assigned to the second-lowest rung
of the hierarchy, as an Archangel.  However, as this subdivision of
immaterial creatures is severely post-biblical (stemming from the work
of Pseudo-Dionysius in the Twelfth Century), the +biblical+ Gabriel (as
Mike Jensen notes, correcting himself) is strictly a generic angel, pure
and simple.

Robin Hamilton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 14 Jun 2001 14:01:05
Subject:        Re: Why Shakespeare

Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> suggests:

>Strange things happen in the process of sending, receiving, and
>re-sending.

>I realize that when the misspelled word is central to
>the point, one has a problem, but I still feel that the best policy is
>to make the change to the correct form and assume that the incorrect one
>was just a quirk of the transmission process.

Thanks for your advice. It's true that unexpected things do happen while
messages are being sent. But I assume that Sam's typo had nothing to do
with the e-mail technology. When I *quote* a passage or phrase (as I was
in my previous posting), I prefer to be accurate. If I make any change,
I use a square blanket [ ] just to be accurate. Online we may not have
to be as strict as in printed forms. But since I don't know what the
regulations are (if there is any) I simply follow the usual rules. (Sam
-> No ill intention in my use of "(sic)".) We also use quotation marks
when we refer to certain words-when we verbally speaks these words, we
often do so while using a gesture with fingers making quotation marks.
My use of "fiction" (in quotation marks) was the latter case. In this
sense, " " were my (small) fingers.

Takashi Kozuka

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Jun 2001 06:21:27 +0100
Subject: Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        SHK 12.1527 Re: Why Shakespeare

> Maybe the word 'universal' has its limits, as it were, but I perfectly
> understand Sam Small's point of view.

It surely does.  First of all we have to extract from the equation
China, Africa and India (outside of the English educated elite), the
Middle East ...

So we're (setting up a decent context) talking about "universal" in the
context of post-Renaissance Western European culture, at the most.

Even within this limited historical and cultural context, "universal" is
a peculiarly contested concept, and shouldn't be used with such bland,
unthought inconsequence.

I too, think I understand (though perhaps not perfectly) Sam Small's
statements.  It's just that I find them nonsensical-the sweet
particularities of Shakespeare's words rendered down into an amorphous
soup of clich


Re: Fonts of Wisdom

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1558  Tuesday, 19 June 2001

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 18 Jun 2001 15:31:57 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1543 Re: Fonts of Wisdom

[2]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 18 Jun 2001 12:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1543 Re: Fonts of Wisdom


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Jun 2001 15:31:57 -0400
Subject: 12.1543 Re: Fonts of Wisdom
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1543 Re: Fonts of Wisdom

Is there a difference in this context between wisdom and sagacity?  Can
we say that Polonius is "wise" because he knows and apparently
understands proverbial wisdom, while Prospero is "sage" because he
originates his own wisdom?  Is Ulysses wise, sage or neither?

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Jun 2001 12:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 12.1543 Re: Fonts of Wisdom
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1543 Re: Fonts of Wisdom

No one has mentioned Shakespeare's wise women yet.  I'm probably
"reading in," but it sometimes seems to me that Shakespeare may have had
more unambiguous affection and respect for his female voices-of-reason:
Paulina, the Countess of Rossillion, the Princess of France, and
Beatrice, among others.

Cheers,
Karen Peterson

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

Re: U.S. Supreme Court on King Lear Case

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1556  Tuesday, 19 June 2001

[1]     From:   Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 18 Jun 2001 14:46:45 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 12.1540 U.S. Supreme Court on King Lear Case

[2]     From:   Richard Nathan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 Jun 2001 03:03:55 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1540 U.S. Supreme Court on King Lear Case


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Jun 2001 14:46:45 -0400
Subject: 12.1540 U.S. Supreme Court on King Lear Case
Comment:        RE: SHK 12.1540 U.S. Supreme Court on King Lear Case

The only Shakespeare our Supreme Court should be relating to is
Macbeth.  Sandra Day O'Connor should be waking in a cold sweat every
night, trying to wash her hands. It won't work, but I'd like to know she
was trying.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Nathan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Jun 2001 03:03:55 +0000
Subject: 12.1540 U.S. Supreme Court on King Lear Case
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1540 U.S. Supreme Court on King Lear Case

The lawyer's representing Cordelia LOST????  How could the lawyer's
representing Cordelia lose????  Was the Supreme Court deciding the case
based on pre-Christian Era British law?

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.