The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2083  Tuesday, 28 October 2003

[1]     From:   Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 27 Oct 2003 05:56:04 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2072 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

[2]     From:   David Cohen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 27 Oct 2003 09:13:50 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2072 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 27 Oct 2003 05:56:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 14.2072 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2072 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

Tom Larque writes, "I am not Bill Arnold, however, and have no direct
communion with the spirit of Shakespeare, so I am quite happy to accept
that I might be wrong."

OK: then be "happy," inasmuch as I do believe you are wrong about Will
S's usages of "Spirit" and "Ghost" in Hamlet the play.

And, as for my "direct communion with the spirit of Shakespeare" I would
request Tom of *his* proof of his bold statement of fact?

Not that I mind him saying that, which I don't, inasmuch as I accept it
as a *spiritual" fact, but then Tom probably does *not* relate to
spiritual facts.  In any event, I would love to *see* his proof.

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Cohen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 27 Oct 2003 09:13:50 -0600
Subject: 14.2072 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2072 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

Thomas Larque says, ". . . .  Renaissance readings of personality - from
what I have seen - would more commonly assume that a bad person was
intrinsically and entirely bad, and that Edmund was simply self-aware in
recognising his own villainy." My question is this: How does "entirely
bad" comport with Edmund's final moments where-compare with Aaron's
(Titus) final moments-he says in all apparent honesty, "I pant for
life.  Some good I mean to do, despite mine own nature"? Would a true
psychopath ("entirely bad") try to make amends?  I am, of course, not
denying that Edmund is a villain and that he has more than  his fair
share of psychopathic potential-just questioning whether that's all
there is and therefore how bad he really is.  I suspect that Shakespeare
intends something more complex and interesting with Edmund than with an
Aaron-that Edmund's nature includes a true sense of right and wrong (not
just knowledge of the rules) long suppressed by his psychopathy.   It
seems to me that the difference between an Edmund and a Iago or Aaron
when faced with their mortality is most telling.

David Cohen

_______________________________________________________________
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.