February
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0582 Tuesday, 27 February 2002 [1] From: Brandon Toropov <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 11:20:12 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 13.0565 Re: Shakespeare and Sex [2] From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 22:10:21 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 13.0565 Re: Shakespeare and Sex [3] From: Anna Kamaralli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 27 Feb 2002 15:06:25 +1100 Subj: Re: SHK 13.0504 Re: Shakespeare and Sex [4] From: Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 27 Feb 2002 15:05:00 +0800 Subj: Re: SHK 13.0565 Re: Shakespeare and Sex [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brandon Toropov <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 11:20:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: 13.0565 Re: Shakespeare and Sex Comment: Re: SHK 13.0565 Re: Shakespeare and Sex David Bishop writes, >Two points: (1) Gertrude could be -- and perhaps >is -- a sympathetic >character inspite of having committed adultery >with Claudius. >Cleopatra >is a sympathetic character, and so is Cressida (to >some, anyway). Mary >Magdeline is a sympathetic character in the >Gospel Story, and so. It >seems to me that the question of Gertrude's >adultery is simply kept up >in the air by Shakespeare, a rather maddening >habit of his in many of >his plays. In this play, her "adultery," like the real >character of >Hamlet, Sr., is part of a past that we long to know >but is >purpose-fully >denied us by the playwright. I agree that there are many such frustrating (yet theatrically effective) bits of sleight-of-hand in the plays. But note what A.C.Bradley had to say on this subject: <begin quote from p. 136 of SHAKESPEAREAN TRAGEDY> The answers to two questions asked about the Queen are. it seems to me, practically certain. 1) She did not merely marry a second time with indecent haste; she was false to her husband while he lived. This is surely the most natural interpretation of the words of the Ghost (I. v. 41 f), coming, as they do, before his account of the murder.... 2) On the other hand, she was *not* privy to the murder of her husband, either before the deed or after it. There is no signe of her being so, and there are clear signs that she was not. The representation of the murder in the play-scene does not move her; and when her husband starts from his throne, she innocently asks him, "How fares my lord?" In the interview with Hamlet, when her son says of his slaughter of Polonius, "A bloody deed!" almost as bad, good mother, As kill a king and marry with his brother, the astonishment of her repetition is evidently genuine.... <end of quote> The passage Bradley cites in support of 1) above is the familiar speech of the Ghost: Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast With witchcraft of his wits, with traitorous gifts -- O wicked wit and gifts that have the power So to seduce! -- won to his shameful lust The will of my most seeming virtuous queen. O Hamlet, what a falling-off was there ... (etc.) This is certainly a powerful portion of the play, and it comes back to me sharply, as it surely is designed to do, when I see Hamlet take his mother to task after Polonius's death. I think WS tries, as usual, to have it both ways (i.e., retain sympathy for Gertrude) by not pressing the specific question of adultery quite as emphatically after this point in the play. Interesting, isn't it, to picture WS the actor intoning these particular bitter words on stage? You wonder: What family issues related to the fall of his own father might be lurking beneath the surface? We'll never know... Brandon [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 22:10:21 -0500 Subject: 13.0565 Re: Shakespeare and Sex Comment: Re: SHK 13.0565 Re: Shakespeare and Sex Brandon Toropov writes, >This is an extremely important point, one well worth bearing in mind >whenever we are tempted to analyze theatrical characters as though they >were flesh-and-blood individuals on the therapist's couch. They are, >instead, hypothetical creations designed for the express purpose of >eliciting an emotional response from an audience (when properly >performed). Yes, of course, dramatic figures do not have sex -- really, but we certainly pretend that they do. Ophelia is pregnant when she commits suicide. Cassio has actually slept with Desdemona; that's why she's so anxious to have him back in the service (so to speak). Claudius has had a thirty year affair with Gertrude. All of these things have been suggested. And who are we to say no? But it is nice to have a little bit of textual evidence to support our make believe. Yours, Bill Godshalk [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Kamaralli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 27 Feb 2002 15:06:25 +1100 Subject: 13.0504 Re: Shakespeare and Sex Comment: Re: SHK 13.0504 Re: Shakespeare and Sex Robin Hamilton writes, > Ed Taft pointed me to towards Paris and Helen in _Troilus and Cressida_, > to which I'd add (though Cressida and Troilus aren't formally married) > Cressida and Diomedes. This observation raises a few really interesting points about this play and its portrayal of sexual betrayal. Firstly, the fact that Troilus and Cressida are not married should not be regarded casually. This incident of unmarried, consensual, unadulterous sex (so hard to find a less censorious word than fornication...) is highly unusual (unique?) in Shakespeare. Hector's argument to the Trojan council about the duty a wife owes to a husband emphasizes that the world of the play does include marriage, so the lack of mention of it between the young lovers, and Troilus's failure to make any offer of marriage to Cressida, is significant (believe it or not, he also never actually tells her that he loves her!). Second, and perhaps more importantly, Cressida's "adultery" with Diomedes is a kind of theatrical optical illusion: we know we saw it; we think we know we saw it; but when you look closely it isn't there. It's all to do with where in the text we get our information about what is happening between Cressida and Diomedes, and whether we can trust the person reporting it. There is no doubt at all that Troilus believes he is seeing himself betrayed, and he describes with outrage the infideleous (if this isn't a word, it should be) acts going on before his eyes (there is a nice tie-in here with the "dialogic stage directions" thread). Surprisingly though, the most damning thing he can come up with is "She strokes his cheek!" and "What, so familiar?" (when Cressida says "hark, a word in your ear" and "whispers" to Diomedes). Nothing along the lines of "lo, they shaggeth" or even "She kisses him." The other commentators are Ulysses, the Machiavellian (ah - another tie-in) enemy of Troilus and all Trojans, and Thersites, the enemy of mankind: both of whom have a personal interest in construing the worst. Diomedes' lines strongly indicate that he hasn't yet got what he wants from Cressida ("What did you promise me before?... Then let your mind be coupled with your words... Give me some token of the surety of it"). By the end of the scene Cressida has promised _only_ that she will allow him to come and see her, but she refuses to specify a time or make further promises, despite his asking. So all we have by the end of "the betrayal scene" are hints that Cressida might have further meetings with Diomedes, and a pretty clear indication that she's still holding him at arm's length. Because I can't resist bringing in one more current thread, it could be argued that Cressida's real betrayal of Troilus in this scene is nothing literally sexual, but is the symbolic one of handing over Troilus's favour: the sleeve. In courtly love terms this is about as big as a betrayal can get. Those who have seen the play performed could be forgiven for not being aware of the ambiguity of the text, as most directors seem determined to stamp it out with blocking and gesture. In the 2000 Michael Bogdanov production in Australia, for example, when Cressida is lying on her back on a camp bed, legs spread-eagled, with Diomedes lying on top of her, and a horrified Troilus cries "she strokes his cheek" one can only wish to point out to him that this is the least of his worries... [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 27 Feb 2002 15:05:00 +0800 Subject: 13.0565 Re: Shakespeare and Sex Comment: Re: SHK 13.0565 Re: Shakespeare and Sex Robin Hamilton suggests that 'the only literary text which equates a widow's remarriage with adultery' is _The Vicar of Wakefield_. The Wife of Bath's Prologue doesn't exactly make the equation, but that is certainly something Alisoun is worried about, from her first citation of Christ's rebuke to the five times married Samaritan woman (John 4:6) on. Arthur Lindley _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0581 Tuesday, 27 February 2002 [1] From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 10:49:48 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 13.0569 Re: Shakespeare's Will [2] From: Vick Bennison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 27 Feb 2002 01:03:19 EST Subj: Re: SHK 13.0569 Re: Shakespeare's Will [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 10:49:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: 13.0569 Re: Shakespeare's Will Comment: Re: SHK 13.0569 Re: Shakespeare's Will Takashi Kozuka quotes me, then writes, "Bill Arnold said: 'Shakespeare's last Will and Testament suggests so, does it not? He wrote, and signed...' No, he didn't write it. (He did sign, though.) There was a 'stock' form of the will in Shakespeare's time, for example, how it should start. The passage Bill quoted doesn't tell us much about Shakespeare himself.'" Takashi, if the message board is willing, I wish to explore this more. It does provide historical evidence of the _mind_ of the man we call Shakespeare. It does provide a statement by him of his religious beliefs. The website this appears on states that his lawyers made changes at the request of Shakespeare, therefore he could have struck the so-called _stock_ form, and apparently did strike some of them. But I am not an expert in the Jacobean Age law. Perhaps others on our message board can? Also, elsewhere, perhaps in Schoenbaum, I have read that Shakespeare's Will has been debated, and the final assessment is that it was _in fact_ in his own hand. And the will, in contrast to that of his father John's, in which his father confessed to being a Catholic, is a confession to being a Christian. Stock opening, is that what is meant? This is a long and detailed will, does _not_ apprear to be stock, he altered it, and he signed it. If he were a confessed atheist, as has been alleged of Christopher Marlowe, then he could have altered his will radically, could he have not? And I wonder, herein, do we take this last will and testament as a last will and testament or _not_? What basis to we reject it? It strongly suggests to me that William Shakespeare, gent, was also a confessed Christian. For those who have never seen it, here is the text: In the name of god Amen I William Shackspeare, of Stratford upon Avon in the countrie of Warr., gent., in perfect health and memorie, God be praysed, doe make and ordayne this my last will and testament in manner and forme followeing, that ys to saye, ffirst, I comend my soule into the hands of God my Creator, hoping and assuredlie beleeving, through thonelie merites, of Jesus Christe my Saviour, to be made partaker of lyfe everlastinge, and my bodye to the earth whereof yt ys made. Item, I gyve and bequeath unto my [sonne and] daughter Judyth one hundred and fyftie poundes of lawfull English money, to be paid unto her in the manner and forme foloweng, that ys to saye, one hundred poundes in discharge of her marriage porcion within one yeare after my deceas, with consideracion after the rate of twoe shillings in the pound for soe long tyme as the same shalbe unpaied unto her after my deceas, and the fyftie pounde residwe thereof upon her surrendring of, or gyving of such sufficient securitie as the overseers of this my will shall like of, to surrender or graunte all her estate and right that shall discend or come unto her after my deceas, or that shee nowe hath, of, in, or to, one copiehold tenemente, with thappurtenaunces, lyeing and being in Stratford upon Avon aforesaied in the saied countrye of Warr., being parcell or holden of the mannour of Rowington, unto my daughter Susanna Hall and her heires for ever. Item, I gyve and bequeath unto my saied daughter Judith one hundred and fyftie poundes more, if shee or anie issue of her bodie by lyvinge att thend of three yeares next ensueing the daie of the date of this my will, during which tyme my executours are to paie her consideracion from my deceas according to the rate aforesaied; and if she dye within the saied tearme without issue of her bodye, then my will us, and I doe gyve and bequeath one hundred poundes thereof to my neece Elizabeth Hall, and the fiftie poundes to be sett fourth by my executours during the lief of my sister Johane Harte, and the use and proffitt thereof cominge shalbe payed to my saied sister Jone, and after her deceas the saied l.li.12 shall remaine amongst the children of my saied sister, equallie to be divided amongst them; but if my saied daughter Judith be lyving att thend of the saied three yeares, or anie yssue of her bodye, then my will ys, and soe I devise and bequeath the saied hundred and fyftie poundes to be sett our by my executours and overseers for the best benefitt of her and her issue, and the stock not to be paied unto her soe long as she shalbe marryed and covert baron [by my executours and overseers]; but my will ys, that she shall have the consideracion yearelie paied unto her during her lief, and, after her ceceas, the saied stocke and consideracion to be paied to her children, if she have anie, and if not, to her executours or assignes, she lyving the saied terme after my deceas. Provided that yf suche husbond as she shall att thend of the saied three years be marryed unto, or att anie after, doe sufficientlie assure unto her and thissue of her bodie landes awnswereable to the porcion by this my will gyven unto her, and to be adjudged soe by my executours and overseers, then my will ys, that the said cl.li.13 shalbe paied to such husbond as shall make such assurance, to his owne use. Item, I gyve and bequeath unto my saied sister Jone xx.li. and all my wearing apparrell, to be paied and delivered within one yeare after my deceas; and I doe will and devise unto her the house with thappurtenaunces in Stratford, wherein she dwelleth, for her naturall lief, under the yearlie rent of xij.d. Item, I gyve and bequeath unto her three sonnes, William Harte, ---- Hart, and Michaell Harte, fyve pounds a peece, to be paied within one yeare after my deceas [to be sett out for her within one yeare after my deceas by my executours, with thadvise and direccions of my overseers, for her best frofitt, untill her mariage, and then the same with the increase thereof to be paied unto her]. Item, I gyve and bequeath unto [her] the saied Elizabeth Hall, all my plate, except my brod silver and gilt bole, that I now have att the date of this my will. Item, I gyve and bequeath unto the poore of Stratfordaforesaied tenn poundes; to Mr. Thomas Combe my sword; to Thomas Russell esquier fyve poundes; and to Frauncis Collins, of the borough of Warr. in the countie of Warr. gentleman, thirteene poundes, sixe shillinges, and eight pence, to be paied within one yeare after my deceas. Item, I gyve and bequeath to [Mr. Richard Tyler thelder] Hamlett Sadler xxvj.8. viij.d. to buy him a ringe; to William Raynoldes gent., xxvj.8. viij.d. to buy him a ringe; to my dogson William Walker xx8. in gold; to Anthonye Nashe gent. xxvj.8. viij.d. [in gold]; and to my fellowes John Hemynges, Richard Brubage, and Henry Cundell, xxvj.8. viij.d. a peece to buy them ringes, Item, I gyve, will, bequeath, and devise, unto my daughter Susanna Hall, for better enabling of her to performe this my will, and towards the performans thereof, all that capitall messuage or tenemente with thappurtenaunces, in Stratford aforesaid, called the New Place, wherein I nowe dwell, and two messuages or tenementes with thappurtenaunces, scituat, lyeing, and being in Henley streete, within the borough of Stratford aforesaied; and all my barnes, stables, orchardes, gardens, landes, tenementes, and hereditamentes, whatsoever, scituat, lyeing, and being, or to be had, receyved, perceyved, or taken, within the townes, hamletes, villages, fieldes,and groundes, of Stratford upon Avon, Oldstratford, Bushopton, and Welcombe, or in anie of them in the saied countie of Warr. And alsoe all that messuage or tenemente with thappurtenaunces, wherein one John Robinson dwelleth, scituat, lyeing and being, in the Balckfriers in London, nere the Wardrobe; and all my other landes, tenementes, and hereditamentes whatsoever, To have and to hold all and singuler the saied premisses, with theire appurtenaunces, unto the saied Susanna Hall, for and during the terme of her naturall lief, and after her deceas, to the first sonne of her bodie lawfullie yssueing, and to the heires males of the bodie of the saied first sonne lawfullie yssueinge; and for defalt of such issue, to the second sonne of her bodie, lawfullie issueing, and to the heires males of the bodie of the saied second sonne lawfullie yssueinge; and for defalt of such heires, to the third sonne of the bodie of the saied Susanna lawfullie yssueing, and of the heires males of the bodie of the saied third sonne lawfullie yssueing; and for defalt of such issue, the same soe to be and remaine to the ffourth after another, and to the heires males of the bodies of the bodies of the saied fourth, fifth, sixte, and seaventh sonnes lawfullie yssueing, in such manner as yt ys before lymitted to be and remaine to the first, second, and third sonns of her bodie, and to theire heires males; and for defalt of such issue, the said premisses to be and remaine to my sayed neece Hall, and the heires males of her bodie lawfullie yssueinge; and for defalt of such issue, to my daughter Judith, and the heires males of her bodie lawfullie issueinge; and for defalt of such issue, to the right heires of me the saied William Shackspeare for ever. Item, I gyve unto my wief my second best bed with the furniture, Item, I gyve and bequeath to my saied daughter Judith my broad silver gilt bole. All the rest of my goodes, chattel, leases, plate, jewels, and household stuffe whatsoever, after my dettes and legasies paied, and my funerall expenses dischardged, I give, devise, and bequeath to my sonne in lawe, John Hall gent., and my daughter Susanna, his wief, whom I ordaine and make executours of this my last will and testament. And I doe intreat and appoint the saied Thomas Russell esquier and Frauncis Collins gent. to be overseers hereof, and doe revoke all former wills, and publishe this to be my last will and testament. In witness whereof I have hereunto put my [seale] hand, the daie and yeare first abovewritten. Witnes to the publyshing hereof Fra: Collyns Julyus Shawe John Robinson Hamnet Sadler Rovert Whattcott http://shakespeare.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://fly.hiwaay.net/%7Epaul/shakspere/shakwill.html Bill Arnold [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vick Bennison <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 27 Feb 2002 01:03:19 EST Subject: 13.0569 Re: Shakespeare's Will Comment: Re: SHK 13.0569 Re: Shakespeare's Will Takashi Kozuka writes: "No, he didn't write it." I just finished reading Charles Hamilton's 1985 book "In Search of Shakespeare". Among his several claims is that Shakespeare's will is holographic. He claims that the will is neither in lawyer Francis Collin's handwriting, nor in the handwriting of his known clerk, but in Shakespeare's handwriting. This does not seem to be the generally accepted view. What is the evidence, other then legend, that the will is NOT in Shakespeare's handwriting? The fact that it is in stock form (i.e., not a form, but in stock language) available in a pamphlet to anyone, including Shakespeare, seems to prove little one way or the other. Nor does the fact that it is signed by his lawyer, since it is quite clear that someone besides the lawyer penned it. If we don't know what Shakespeare's handwriting looked like (except for the six signatures that do not look significantly unlike the writing in the will), why can we claim so adamantly that he did not write it? - Vick Bennison P.S. Even gullible little me finds many of Mr. Hamilton's claims dubious, but let's stick to the will, please. Thanks. _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0580 Tuesday, 27 February 2002 [1] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 13:41:49 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 13.0567 Re: "Chastely" [2] From: Simon Morris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:23:20 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 13.0567 Re: "Chastely" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 13:41:49 -0500 Subject: 13.0567 Re: "Chastely" Comment: Re: SHK 13.0567 Re: "Chastely" > With > the emendation you suggest, you have the stresses in chastely > (CHASTE-i-LY) in perfect position but absent would need to be pronounced > ab-SENT in order to scan. (Elsewhere it always scans AB-sent.) Actually, when the word is used as a verb, the stress is on the second syllable, as in "absent thee from felicity awhile." It seems awkward, but the word might be a verb here: A direction to the widow to make sure her daughter is not present. Of course, that merely postpones the shift from iamb to troche until the next word; but as David Wallace notes, > In the > scansion you suggest, "after" (AF-ter) would be acceptable since > Shakespeare often inverts the stress in two syllable words that follow a > syntactic break (such as a period, comma, conjunction etc.) [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:23:20 +0000 Subject: 13.0567 Re: "Chastely" Comment: Re: SHK 13.0567 Re: "Chastely" >I think it more likely that the missing half-foot is either an oversight >(S's or the typesetter's) or deliberately offered to indicate a slight >pause - which seems acceptable given the dramatic context. More than acceptable, perhaps. Helena is describing her plan step by step, and the vacant half-foot describes her non-description of the central step. The time is filled, with a space, just as Helena describes herself filling Bertram's time. _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0579 Tuesday, 27 February 2002 [1] From: Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 10:36:09 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 13.0562 Re: Hamlet (Once More) [2] From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 14:27:19 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 13.0562 Re: Hamlet (Once More) [3] From: Brandon Toropov <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 12:19:57 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 13.0562 Re: Hamlet (Once More) [4] From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 20:06:09 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 13.0455 Re: Hamlet (Once More) [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 10:36:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: 13.0562 Re: Hamlet (Once More) Comment: Re: SHK 13.0562 Re: Hamlet (Once More) > Isn't the action of revenge under his control? I can > imagine a Hamlet > who waits for means, motive, and opportunity (as I > think Hamlet does), > but once they are all furnished, Hamlet himself > must, finally, act. > > He does, of course, killing Claudius at play's end. > Does he do so > because he is finally convinced that it is God's > Will? If so, what > convinces him? I always thought that Hamlet, seeing falling bodies all around him, and realizing that he will soon be joining their desperate gasping for life, acknowledges that Claudius is indeed in the heat of his full-blown sin and ripe for a passage to Hell. However, he is ready to do so even before this scene, when he tells Horatio that it would be "perfect conscience/ To quit him with this arm". Brian Willis [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 14:27:19 -0500 Subject: 13.0562 Re: Hamlet (Once More) Comment: Re: SHK 13.0562 Re: Hamlet (Once More) Paul Doniger correctly claims that he is not me, and then quotes me: >>>"To my ear, this sounds as if Hamlet has given up plotting and is waiting >>> for a divinity to shape the outcome or his death. God will provide. The >> >way you find out what God wants is by waiting." He then asks some good questions. > Wait for what? What sign or event tells Hamlet that it is time to >act and that he is acting according to God's Will? >What happens that convinces Hamlet at the end of the play that he can >effect revenge? Or [leading question] is his killing of Claudius >justified on other grounds by play's end? I assume that Hamlet is dead wrong to assume that a divinity shapes our ends, but he appears to think so or, at least, says that he does. He doesn't tell us how he will know his cue to act. But he may assume that he will be forced to act, and if he is forced to act, then he will assume that a divinity is shaping the outcome. And so possibly he will assume that his revenge is divinely sanctioned. Note all the assumptions here. Of course, maybe Hamlet just gets angry after Laertes cuts him and confesses. Hamlet is, however, careful to kill Claudius with both the sword and the cup. The symbolism has not gone unnoticed. Yours, Bill Godshalk [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brandon Toropov <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 12:19:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: 13.0562 Re: Hamlet (Once More) Comment: Re: SHK 13.0562 Re: Hamlet (Once More) Edmunt Taft writes, > Brandon Toropov defines Hamlet's state of mind > at > the end of the play as > embracing the following sentiment: > > "The point being, as I understand it: "God is, by > definition, fully > present in *every* action and *every* > phenomenon -- > now what, precisely, > do you imagine is under your narrow personal > control?" > > Isn't the action of revenge under his control? I > can > imagine a Hamlet > who waits for means, motive, and opportunity (as I > think Hamlet does), > but once they are all furnished, Hamlet himself > must, finally, act. > > He does, of course, killing Claudius at play's end. > Does he do so > because he is finally convinced that it is God's > Will? Yes, I think so. > If so, what > convinces him? The clear (but completely unanticipated) evidence that the King is responsible for both Gertrude's poisoning and the intrigue of the foils. Here's the transition I'm talking about (pardon the CAPS I use to sneak my own two cents in): Osric: Look to the Queen there ho! Horatio: They bleed on both sides. How is it my lord? (NOTE THAT HAMLET DOES NOT ANSWER -- INSTEAD, HE WATCHES THE SITUATION CAREFULLY.) Osric: How is't, Laertes? Laertes: Why, as a woodcock to my own springe, Osric: I am justly kill'd with my own treachery. (HERE THE AUDIENCE IS SUBTLY REMINDED OF POLONIUS, WHO USED PRECISELY THE SAME "SPRINGE" FIGURE OF SPEECH TO DISMISS HAMLET'S DESIGNS ON OPHELIA; THE AUDIENCE IS ALSO REMINDED OF THE PLAY'S MANY "SPRINGE"-LIKE INTRIGUES, INCLUDING A) POLONIUS'S FINAL BIT OF EAVESDROPPING AND B) THE DEADLY INTRIGUE COLLAPSING BEFORE HAMLET RIGHT NOW) Hamlet: How does the Queen? (HE'S GOT A FEEING ABOUT THIS... WANTS TO TEST IT. HENCE THE QUESTION.) King: She sounds (swoons) to see them bleed. (HAMLET MAKES NO RESPONSE) Queen: No, No -- the drink, the drink -- O my dear Hamlet -- (IS SHE TALKING TO HER SON? HER HUSBAND? BOTH AT THE SAME TIME? LOTS OF OEDIPAL STUFF IN THIS FINAL EXCHANGE...) The drink, the drink! I am poison'd! (HER DYING WORDS OPENLY AND PUBLICLY CONTRADICT THE KING'S. [THERE'S A FIRST.] HAMLET NOW KNOWS SOMETHING IS DEFINITELY UP.) Hamlet: O villainy! Ho, let the door be locked! (FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT, WHO MAY NOT BE QUITE AS SHARP AS HE IS:) Treachery! Seek it out! (I ALWAYS PICTURE HIM STARING DEAD-ON AT THE KING ON THAT LINE) Laertes: It is here, Hamlet. [Hamlet], thou art slain; No med'cine in the world can do thee good; In thee there is not half an hour's life. The treacherous instrument is in thy had, Unbated and envenom'd. The foul practice Hath turn'd itself on me. Lo here I lie, Never to rise again. Thy mother's pois'ned. I can no more -- the King, the King's to blame. (HAMLET IS NOW QUITE CERTAIN OF HIS OWN MORTALITY .. BUT THEN, HE WAS CERTAIN OF THAT AT V, II 219 FF.) (EVERYTHING IS NOW IN PLACE -- THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT CANNOT DISPUTE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF H'S CAUSE OR HIS MOTIVE -- THE KING'S TREACHERY IS CLEAR TO EVEN THE DULLEST OBSERVER -- AND MORE IMPORTANT THAN SUCH CONCERNS, THE TIME AND PLACE HAVE COHERED FOR HIM, AS A LATER SHAKESPEAREAN CHARACTER MIGHT PUT IT. THE GUILTY KING IS BEFORE HIM --AND HAMLET HOLDS THE PROOF OF THE KING'S LATEST CRIME IN HIS HANDS. IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE A FOIL.) (IN OTHER WORDS: HEAVEN IS ORDINANT. GOD HAS DELIVERED TO HAMLET THE *PERFECT* MOMENT -- AND HAMLET HAD LITTLE OR NO ROLE IN INSTIGATING THAT PERFECT MOMENT'S ARRIVAL. IT IS NOT TO COME; IT IS NOW. HE IS READY. HE ACTS.) Hamlet: The point envenom'd too! Then venom, to thy work! (etc.) ***** On the whole "providence" question, consider A.C. Bradley's dead-on analysis, which is the best I've ever come across. (Apologies if I'm a) quoting Bradley too often lately or b) going over ground you've already covered.) <begin quote from page 120 of SHAKESPEAREAN TRAGEDY> ... there is a trait about which doubt is impossible -- a sense in Hamlet that he is in the hands of Providence. This had, indeed, already shown itself at the death of Polonius -- For this same lord, I do repent: but heaven hath pleased it so, To punish me with this and this with me That I must be their scourge and minister: (i.e., the scourge and minister of
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0578 Tuesday, 27 February 2002 From: Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 10:25:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: 13.0563 Re: Courtly Love in Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 13.0563 Re: Courtly Love in Shakespeare Tue, I would be interested to see how the narrative poems fit into all of this (and perhaps the sonnets as well). Venus and Adonis seems like a sly reinterpretation and perhaps rejection of that courtly ideal. The Rape of Lucrece has a metaphorical scaling of the battlements as Tarquin rapes her. The sonnets might be closer to the courtly ideal but they also display disgust at those feelings and sometimes a rejection of it altogether. I think you have an interesting topic and certainly worth thorough research. Brian Willis _______________________________________________________________ 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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.