Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: April ::
Re: Beating Systems
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1003  Wednesday, 10 April 2002

[1]     From:   Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Apr 2002 18:03:57 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0992 Re: Beating Systems

[2]     From:   Edmund Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 09 Apr 2002 14:08:18 -0400
        Subj:   Edgar and Edmund


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 9 Apr 2002 18:03:57 +0100
Subject: 13.0992 Re: Beating Systems
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0992 Re: Beating Systems

On the subject of worldly goods and divine Providence, Sean provided an
interesting reference to Luther. Then he added, "On a more corporeal
level, few of us believe that what Bill Gates did for his billions is
actually _worth_ infinitely more than what Mother Theresa, who took a
vow of perpetual poverty and so made nothing, did". My point is, what we
believe is beside the point, when considered next to the Providence of
God. The only possible belief we can have that would be sanctioned by
divine Providence is that Gates's inordinate wealth suggests his elect
status, at least until he loses it all in a stock-market crash. I guess
this is one of the places where Calvin (or at least some of his more
radical antinomian "followers") would have disagreed with Luther.

Paul Doniger objects that Edmund is neither poor nor old. Sorry - that
was an idiomatic South-East Englishism: "old" is just an intensifier,
used for the sake of rhythm more than anything else.

Nevertheless, I think Edmund would be poor indeed: see Joan Thirsk, "The
European Debate on Customs of Inheritance 1500-1700", Jack Goody, ed.,
Family and Inheritance (Cambridge 1976), pp.183-186; Linda Pollock,
"Younger Sons in Tudor and Stuart England", History Today 39 (June
1989), pp.23-29.

m

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmund Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 09 Apr 2002 14:08:18 -0400
Subject:        Edgar and Edmund

Paul Doniger writes:

"[Edmund's] an attractive character in many ways because he's colorful
and fun to play, but I don't think he's much of a role model.  I'd
rather throw my lot in with his brother, Edgar."

We need some straight thinking here:

Is Edgar much of a role model?  He arranges to kill his father, takes
revenge on Edmund, condemns the woman Gloucester took advantage of and,
by implication, all of her sex, and ends with sentiments that echo those
of Lear in the opening of the play.

Don't EDgar and EDmund switch places at play's end?  Edmund ends well;
Edgar discards his simplistic moralism and reveals himself to be the
real bastard.

Edmund Taft


_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail 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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.