Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: February ::
Re: Hamlet (Once More)
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0528  Friday, 22 February 2002

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Feb 2002 10:18:50 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0510 Re: Hamlet (Once More)

[2]     From:   Brian Willis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Feb 2002 10:33:17 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0510 Re: Hamlet (Once More)

[3]     From:   Paul E. Doniger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 22 Feb 2002 00:17:23 -0500
        Subj:   Fw: SHK 13.0510 Re: Hamlet (Once More)

[4]     From:   Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 22 Feb 2002 08:28:43 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0510 Re: Hamlet (Once More)

[5]     From:   Andrew Walker White <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 22 Feb 2002 10:23:15 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0510 Re: Hamlet (Once More)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 21 Feb 2002 10:18:50 -0800
Subject: 13.0510 Re: Hamlet (Once More)
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0510 Re: Hamlet (Once More)

Ed Taft notes that

>to believe that one can discern the
>workings of Providence would be seen by many in a Renaissance audience
>as proof of madness. Sure, some extreme Calvinists and Puritans believed
>that they could see a "sign" confirming that they were part of the
>elect, but the mainstream view by the time _Hamlet_ was written was that
>Providence was inscrutable -- it's operations were beyond our power to
>see or understand.

Or more to the point, Providence is scrutable only retrospectively.
Diaries of Providential events are always written after the fact.  One
can have faith in Providence, but that's rather different from knowing
the details of its working.  I still disagree that Hamlet seems to be
interrogating Providence, but we're unlikely to ever agree on that.

I agree with Bill, by the way, that by this point, Hamlet is awaiting
Providence, rather than claiming to know it.  What is interesting is
that while this is certainly patient, it isn't passive.  It implies
taking up the challenge, clearly.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.