2001

Re: Why Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1379  Wednesday, 6 June 2001

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 05 Jun 2001 08:16:44 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1356 Re: Why Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Jun 2001 16:43:29 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1376 Re: Why Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 05 Jun 2001 08:16:44 -0700
Subject: 12.1356 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1356 Re: Why Shakespeare

I'd like to thank Gabriel Egan for his good-natured response to my
suggestion about religion and politics.

>Politics which tortures people to death does, I agree, approach religion
>in its deferral of gratification. The workers' paradise is much like the
>city of god in that extraordinary cruelty along the way towards it is
>excused in the name of the final outcome. Such aberrations aside,
>politics is primarily "of the finite", as Sartre put it: the next
>improvement in working conditions, the next monopoly broken up.
>Religion, however, is primarily concerned with patient acceptance of
>present and forthcoming misery in the name of the final outcome
>(Valhalla, nirvana, heaven).

This is true enough, but I'm not convinced that the source of evil is in
the deferral of gratification.  If you actually enjoy torturing people
to death, then you're not deferring your gratification at all, but
indulging it.  Sociopaths aren't made by their deferral of their own
gratification, but by a complete indifference to other people.

Secondly, the beauty of concepts like "the city of God" is that they
don't have to be realized at all in "the finite", as you put it, at
least not in principle.  Therefore, to borrow an unfortunate but
oft-repeated metaphor, there's no reason to break any eggs at all, since
no omelet will ever be made.  One only commits crimes because one has a
goal in "the finite".

This isn't, of course, to deny that religious institutions often have
subjected people to torture, still do in a lot of places, and probably
will again in the future.  Such institutions, though, are inevitably
defending their situation and that of their adherents in the finite.
Witchcraft, for instance, is seen as a threat to society, heresy is a
threat to the church as institution.  In other words, the grounds for
the torture (its excuse, its justification, and its expression) is
political, within the finite.

If, as Levinas claims, the distance between self and other is infinite,
then ethics is not "of the finite".  Neither would a truly radical
religion, concerned with the radical alteriority of God.

Cheers,
Se


Titus on DVD? (UK)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1378  Tuesday, 5 June 2001

From:           Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 04 Jun 2001 21:56:25
Subject:        Titus on DVD? (UK)

Dear SHAKSPEReans (in the UK)

I live in the UK (which is THE key issue here). I just purchased Titus
on video online. I looked for it on DVD (because my new laptop has a DVD
player!) but I had no luck. (I checked with Amazon.co.uk, BOL, Blackstar
and DVD World.) I remember some conversation about Titus on DVD
(available at least in the USA?) among some SHAKSPEReans. (Or was it
another play?) Does anyone know if it's available on DVD in the UK?
Thanks in advance.

Best wishes,
Takashi Kozuka

_______________________________________________________________
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>
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.

Re: Why Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1376  Tuesday, 5 June 2001

[1]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 04 Jun 2001 21:38:52
        Subj:   Re: Why Shakespeare

[2]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 04 Jun 2001 22:28:26 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1316 Re: Why Shakespeare

[3]     From:   Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Jun 2001 07:33:30 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1356 Re: Why Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 04 Jun 2001 21:38:52
Subject:        Re: Why Shakespeare

Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> writes:

>But if he wanted to trumpet some fashionable religious philosophy he
> >simply didn't do a very good job of it.  Particularly in the speeches >of
>the "bad guys" we see an insight and fullness of description that >many
>modern writers baulk at.

I'm not sure what Sam exactly means by "some fashionable religious
philosophy". But if he is referring to "some fashionable religious
philosophy" in Tudor and early Stuart England here, then the issue is
extremely complicated -- so complicated that we cannot simply say that
Shakespeare "didn't do a very good job of it". Whether or not he wanted
to is also problematic. The more state papers, letters from and to the
Privy Council, and other manuscripts in the 16-17th centuries you read
(as I am now...), the more complicated you find religion (or "religious
philosophy" in Sam's words) of this period.

Feeling as if I were in Purgatory,
Takashi Kozuka

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 04 Jun 2001 22:28:26 -0400
Subject: 12.1316 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1316 Re: Why Shakespeare

> >it is commonly accepted today that the author
> >who wrote Not marble, nor the gilded monuments of princes shall oulive
> >this powerful rhyme, couldn't care less if his sonnets or Hamlet was
> >ever published. . . .

Anybody know enough about Hollywood culture to know whether
screenwriters customarily go out of their way to see to it that their
screenplays get published and archived and otherwise preserved for
posterity separately from the movies made from them?

Dave Evett

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Jun 2001 07:33:30 EDT
Subject: 12.1356 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1356 Re: Why Shakespeare

I like Gabriel Egan's style but I'm not sure that Dostoyevsky would have
agreed that The Brothers Karamazov (a novel) "proved" the
indefensibility of Christian thought (he was after all a committed
Christian and most adherents (even of Religion) do not consciously
consider their own positions to be false. It is surely only anachronism
on Gabriel's part to consider that Dostoyevsky thought his book a
refutation of even a Christian "ethos". D's work is more like say,
George Herbert whose artistic agenda represents a negotiation of
Christian values and belief in a world that often seems so painfully
antagonistic to them. This argument over Dostoyevsky's work rather
parallels some views of Bach's St.Mathews Passion which suggest that
because of the exquisite and seemingly all-encompassing rendering of the
'why hast thou forsaken me' episode, Bach must have believed that Christ
did not rise again on the third day. This kind of 'snapshot is the
whole' view of music is merely reductive and as a method of analysis is
inadequate to any deeply considered art-form. Gabriel's reading also of
course resembles the Romantic mis-reading of Milton (Satan is the hero
etc etc). Moreover, novels (as Gabriel with his apparent knowledge of
Latinate rhetoric will know) do not and cannot "prove" anything. Surely
if one is convinced by an argument or rhetorical device in a work of
fiction then one is convinced by THAT ARGUMENT and not by any putative
author or 'the work as a whole'. Poets are liars anyway...

Cheers,
Marcus.
_______________________________________________________________
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: Venus and Adonis Query

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1377  Tuesday, 5 June 2001

From:           Maria Concolato Palermo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Jun 2001 09:58:50 +0200
Subject: 12.1361 Venus and Adonis Query
Comment:        R: SHK 12.1361 Venus and Adonis Query

They come from 'Amores', I, XV, 35-6. Greetings. Maria Concolato

> I believe the two lines of Latin poetry that are printed above the
> Dedication to Southampton on the title page of Venus and Adonis, come
> from one of Ovid's poems. Judy Craig (SHS. 11.0707 Sonnet 20) gives
> their translation as 'Let base conceited wits admire vile things; fair
> Phoebus lead me to the Muses springs. ' Can some kind soul tell me where
> in Ovid's works these lines are found?

_______________________________________________________________
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: Time in Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1375  Tuesday, 5 June 2001

[1]     From:   Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Jun 2001 06:26:38 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1355 Re: Time in Hamlet

[2]     From:   Vick Bennison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Jun 2001 07:15:13 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1355 Re: Time in Hamlet


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Jun 2001 06:26:38 -0400
Subject: 12.1355 Re: Time in Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1355 Re: Time in Hamlet

Now, now, Professor Hawkes, we all know that "son" can have a spiritual
and metaphorical meaning as well as a literal one.

To cite just the first example that pops into my head: "O son, the night
before thy wedding day / Hath death lain with thy wife" cries Lord
Capulet to Paris.

Unless you are asserting an ancient Egyptian dynastic marriage code in
Shakespeare's medieval Verona, "son" here refers to Paris' impending
legal relationship of son-on-law not to his biological relation to the
Capulets.

In a related way (pun intended), Claudius is referring to Hamlet as his
son by marriage, not as his biological, "literal" son.

Tsk!

Mari Bonomi

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Vick Bennison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Jun 2001 07:15:13 EDT
Subject: 12.1355 Re: Time in Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1355 Re: Time in Hamlet

T. Hawkes pull out:

'But now my cousin Hamlet, and my son--' (1. 2. 64 Arden edn.)

Wow, if we must be literal, then Hamlet is not only Claudius' son, but
also his cousin.  So he must be the result of incest between Claudius
and, presumably, his sister.  But, of course, neither "son" nor "cousin"
is here used at face value.  "Cousin" means "kinsman", or a relation
specifically not
a son, and qualifying that with "and my son", of course means that he is
his son by marriage, a stepson.  That should be anyone's first
interpretation.

Beyond that I can only say that language always fails when up against
conspiracy theorists.

As for "Our son shall win."  Well again, seems obvious that he is
talking about his son by marriage.  But wait, wait, could he be talking
about Laertes??????!!!!!

- Vick
_______________________________________________________________
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.