Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: February ::
Re: Shylock Redux
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0225  Friday, 7 February 2003

[1]     From:   Frank Whigham <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 06 Feb 2003 10:18:06 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0215 Re: Shylock Redux

[2]     From:   Graham Hall <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 07 Feb 2003 09:46:48 +0000
        Subj:   Drop it, eh?

[3]     From:   David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Feb 2003 12:10:36 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0167 Re: Shylock Redux

[4]     From:   David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Feb 2003 12:38:11 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0178 Re: Shylock Redux


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Frank Whigham <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 06 Feb 2003 10:18:06 -0600
Subject: 14.0215 Re: Shylock Redux
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0215 Re: Shylock Redux

>1) There may be sound reasons for these reiterated and sometimes
>frustrating discussions.

I think Don is absolutely right here; among other arguments, the reasons
(social, philosophical, ideological) for the eternal return of critical
struggles about this play are part of its reception history, and as long
as there is widespread and usefully arguable disagreement about the
play, discussion will ensue, and that's a good thing. Unlike the
anti-Stratfordian silliness, these questions about MV are at the heart
of many of today's major arguments about how to do what we're here to
do. I'm sure we all feel fatigue, which is why things draw to a close,
over and over, but this horse is not dead. I for one learn something new
every time one of these intractable arguments comes up again. They're
perfect teaching tools, too. Usually, for a time, this is the list at
its best.

Frank Whigham

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 07 Feb 2003 09:46:48 +0000
Subject:        Drop it, eh?

Ted (4 Feb 14.0208) Dykstra "You' re right...but your
wrong".........................................................................

Best,
Graham Hall

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 7 Feb 2003 12:10:36 -0500
Subject: 14.0167 Re: Shylock Redux
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0167 Re: Shylock Redux

>It's often objected that no law code could allow contracts which call
>for violation of the law.  I'm wondering, though, whether such an
>arrangement could be possible if the contract was intended to bridge two
>legally separate communities, who wouldn't be incorporated under a
>single 'code' of law for them.

I have no particular knowledge here, but wonder whether Sean Lawrence's
observation does not have a particular English application in the
sometimes sticky relations between secular and canon law.

David Evett

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 7 Feb 2003 12:38:11 -0500
Subject: 14.0178 Re: Shylock Redux
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0178 Re: Shylock Redux

>Shrewsbury, by contrast, is a real place where a real
>battle was fought during which Prince Hal led a royal army against
>rebellious Percies

When I first traveled in England the year following my graduation from
college, when my only knowledge of the battle of Shrewsbury came from my
reading of *1H4*, I visited the battlefield.  I can still vividly
remember my shock at finding there, right across the road from the bus
stop, a historical marker that read something like this: "On this spot
the body of Henry Percy, surnamed Hotspur, killed during the Battle of
Shrewsbury, was hanged, drawn, and quartered as a punishment for
treason."  The rather more generous treatment of his fallen adversary by
the Prince of Wales in the play (together with many other features of
the play when studied in relation even to Holinshed, to say nothing of
other historical materials) suggests that Shakespeare's Shrewsbury is
not more "real" than his Venice.

Realistically,
David Evett

_______________________________________________________________
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.