Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: February ::
Re: Claudius' Incestuous Marriage
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0177  Monday, 3 Feburary 2003

[1]     From:   Carol Cole <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 31 Jan 2003 10:43:03 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0173 Re: Claudius' Incestuous Marriage

[2]     From:   H. David Friedberg <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 02 Feb 2003 21:14:14 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0173 Re: Claudius' Incestuous Marriage

[3]     From:   H. David Friedberg <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 02 Feb 2003 21:35:33 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0166 Re: Claudius' Incestuous Marriage


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Cole <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 31 Jan 2003 10:43:03 -0500
Subject: 14.0173 Re: Claudius' Incestuous Marriage
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0173 Re: Claudius' Incestuous Marriage

Michael B. Luskin wrote:

>>Claudius did MORE than "dishonor his brother...

>Recall Abigail and her no-account husband, Naval, whom David shames to
>death.  And, in addition, she keeps him from a blood-guilt.  There is
>soot on David for what he did.

A few clarifications:  Abigail's husband was Nabal, not Naval, and David
did not shame him to death.  Abigail provided food to David's men after
Nabal churlishly refused, and her action forestalled David taking
revenge against Nabal.  Afterward, as related in I Samuel 25:37-38
(KJV):  "it came to pass in the morning, when the wine was gone out of
Nabal, and his wife had told him these things, that his heart died
within him, and he became as a stone.  And it came to pass about ten
days after, that the LORD smote Nabal, that he died."  There is no
suggestion that David was wrong to seek revenge or to marry Abigail or
that he was responsible for Nabal's death.  Bathsheba and Uriah are
another matter; that was clearly adultery and murder, and David is held
to account.

Best,
Carol

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           H. David Friedberg <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 02 Feb 2003 21:14:14 -0500
Subject: 14.0173 Re: Claudius' Incestuous Marriage
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0173 Re: Claudius' Incestuous Marriage

Michael B. Luskin <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 > wrote,

>Recall Abigail and her no-account husband, Naval, whom David shames to
>death.  And, in addition, she keeps him from a blood-guilt.  There is
>soot on David for what he did.

I recall Nabal, described in the Scriptures as a boor by name and a boor
by nature  All David did was to tell Abishag (not Abigail) to wait
awhile because Nabal would surely have a coronary at the next feast, and
then they could make whoopee  And so it came to pass,

"The Lord smote Nabal and his heart stopped within him.  Ten days later
the Lord smote him again  so that he died."

 I am quoting from memory but this is the earliest account of a Morgagni
Adams Syncope on record The moral is not to doubt a doctor called David

>All Jewish oriented attempts to whitewash Claudius, whether one uses the
>Torah, the histories, Talmud, or commentaries are doomed.

Not so. The source of these attempts is to be found in the War of
Independence 1948, when the Israeli camp at Kfar Tsorfattit or Fench
Hill in their coded messages referred to Yasser Arafat as Claudius .
The Palestinians whose counterintelligence was limited to cooking
explosives in the bathtub, misread it as a reference to a Danish
counterrevolutionary

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           H. David Friedberg <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 02 Feb 2003 21:35:33 -0500
Subject: 14.0166 Re: Claudius' Incestuous Marriage
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0166 Re: Claudius' Incestuous Marriage

John W. Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 > writes,

>>David Friedberg <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 > writes,
>
>>>Christianity has never accepted the Levirate Law (as it is known).  For
>>>that matter, it has customarily been discouraged within Judaism for a
>>>very long time.
>
>> Not so>
>To quote from the on-line version of the Jewish Encyclopedia:
>(Diacritics deleted, as they require full Unicode support.)
>
>      By Talmudic times the practise of levirate marriage was
>      deemed objectionable (Bek. 13a), and was followed as a
>      matter of duty only.  To  marry a brother's widow for her
>      beauty was regarded by Abba Saul as equivalent to incest
>      (Yeb. 39b). Bar Kappara recommends halizah (Yeb. 109a). A
>      difference of opinion appears among the later authorities,
>      Alfasi, Maimonides, and the Spanish school generally
>      upholding the custom, while R. Tam and the Northern school
>      prefer halizah (Shulhan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 165).
>
>Halizah being the shoe-throwing ritual.

John I will agree with you that a forced ritual marriage, a ritual
insemination and a shoe throwing ritual is definitely a thing of the
bygone past.

Blackmail to prevent an ex sister in laws remarriage being recognized as
I described does still happen from time to time

BTW, Judaism is not the kind of religion where an encyclopedic entry can
be regarded as authoritative

>David Friedberg writes, "Dear Colleagues [sic] My rather light hearted
>comment drew a virtual avalanche of replies, all of which I have read
>with delight [sic] Claudius certainly did dishonor his brother...You and
>I as men of the world may be quite sure that Gertrude bedded both
>brothers during Hamlet's lifetime, but the text maddenly does not fully
>confirm this. We only have the word of the Ghost, and his nature is
>always in doubt [sic]"
>
>Excuse me, Sir.  But Claudius did MORE than "dishonor his brother." In
>the realm of the ten commandments, he leaned more heavily on that one
>that ONE "shalt NOT kill [i.e., the husband of your future wife, Exodus,
>C 20, V 13]."  And that one that ONE "shalt NOT steal [i.e., the throne
>of a rightful King, Exodus, C 20, V 15]."  Nor that one that ONE "shalt
>NOT bear false witness against thy neighbour [i.e., the rightful heir to
>the throne, Prince Hamlet, Exodus, C 20, V 16]." I will leave it to
>others to explicate the relevance of Exodus, C 20, Vs. 14 and 17]."
>
>And is it not equally as glib, or "light hearted" as you put it, to
>suggest that in the play Hamlet by Will Shakespeare, "We only have the
>word of the Ghost, and his nature is always in doubt [sic]"
>
>Surely, you jest, Sir?  Consult my remarks in the SHAKSPER archives on
>the "nature" of the ghost of the MURDERED brother, the USURPED throne,
>and the FALSE WITNESS against the rightful and Good Prince!
>
>Bill Arnold
> http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

Bill Arnold sends a blast a of bitter black bile from Palm Beach across
Florida to Sarasota

The correct usage of [sic] in square brackets is nicely set forth in
texts such the Oxford Companion to the English Language, which I
recommend you read. Such phrase are inapplicable to the words of mine
you posted

I also recommend that you read my original post once more.  My remarks
were about the charge of incest  I made no comment on whether Claudius
had contravened any other law or commandment

I challenge you Bill Arnold to look up incest in a dictionary and
reconsider your intemperate comments.

Please reply about Claudius and incest, or hold your tongue.

And No I am not jesting.

David

_______________________________________________________________
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.