2003

Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2069  Monday, 27 October 2003

From:           Andy Jones <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 25 Oct 2003 12:07:47 -0300
Subject: 14.2031 Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2031 Hamlet

D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> on Friday, 17 Oct 2003 09:56:35 -0500, re: SHK
14.2022 Hamlet asks us:

>... are we to think that OF bet all his personal
>real property (farms, castles, etc.) against an equivalent amount of
>OH's personal real property?

Speaking as a lawyer, and without in any way criticising the posting
(which is a good one) or its message, can I sound a word of warning
against continuing the debate using the phrase "personal real property"?

In common law jurisdictions, assets are divided into personal property
and real property. The distinction is that between "realty" and
"personalty" (spelled correctly here, whatever your spell-check tells
you) and between "personal estate" and "real estate".

Realty and personality are collectively inclusive, by which I mean that
the phrase "my real and personal estate" means (and is often used in
wills to mean) "everything I own". However, realty and personality are
mutually exclusive, so "personal real property" means "nothing at all".

Presumably Don Bloom means "real estate owned personally by OF (or OH)",
as distinct from real estate of which OF (or OH) was overlord. but
unfortunately, to keep the terms of the debate precise, he needs to say
exactly that.

Andy Jones

_______________________________________________________________
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.

no spirit dares stir

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2068  Monday, 27 October 2003

From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Oct 2003 05:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 14.2027 no spirit dares stir
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2027 no spirit dares stir

Martin Steward writes, "So - Bill Arnold's sole point behind these
interminable ravings is simply that 'spirit' is a more 'serious' word
than 'ghost'. And there was I thinking (rather charitably) that there
was some profound theological undercurrent to it all that I was somehow
missing out on."

Not at all, mon ami!

Indeed, there *IS* a "profound theological undercurrent" to all the
"spirit" dichotomy referents in Will S's play Hamlet.  In my book JESUS:
The Gospel According To Will, I argued that point, precisely, and you
can obtain a copy for further study from abebooks.com.

For the nonce, however, I will point out that in *Christology* the words
"Soul," and "Breath," and "Spirit," and "Ghost," and "Will" find
themselves often translated by translators as synonyms: but I would
remind you *all* that they have *connotations* quite different, and
inasmuch as they are unique words, they *are* different.

Beware that various Biblical texts interchange the words according to
the translator's whim!

In Will S's opening scenes of Hamlet the play, one notes the symbolism:
"Father"[apart], the "Son"[here and now] and the [Holy]Ghost."

Theological implications, enough, for you, Martin [Voltaire's cynic, in
*Candide*?]
Or,
seeing as you are so "charitible," Lord Pococurante?

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

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Mark Rylance is touring the U.S. with an all-male

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2066  Monday, 27 October 2003

From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 23 Oct 2003 11:32:02 +0100
Subject: 14.2046 Mark Rylance is touring the U.S. with an
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2046 Mark Rylance is touring the U.S. with an
all-male "Twelfth Night"

It's a small point, but when the Los Angeles Times writes that

> Charles Block is the "master of word" [in the Globe company]

we should, presumably, read "Giles Block".

Gabriel Egan

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed by

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2067  Monday, 27 October 2003

From:           Gary Kosinsky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Oct 2003 16:04:39 -0700
Subject: 14.2055 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2055 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
by Stanley Wells in TLS

In regards to the responses to my questions regarding the legal rights
of owners to destroy property of historical importance:

Thank-you Allan Axelrod for your summary of the legal aspects of this
problem.  It's reassuring to know that, at least in *some* cases, action
could be taken to prevent such destruction.  Since you seem to know
about these things, is it true that it is illegal to destroy *any* paper
currency, even your own?

Larry Weiss, I'm surprised at your easy acceptance of such a
possibility.  Granted, it's an unlikely occurrence.  And I do respect
the rights of private property.  But it still seems to me that there are
certain types of property that (should) carry with them certain
responsibilities and obligations.  Take, as a possible example, a
heritage building.  Isn't it true that while such a property can be
owned privately, the owner cannot demolish it, or substantially alter
its appearance?

And for William Sutton: personally I thought the Taliban's destruction
of the giant Buddhas constituted probable grounds for their removal from
power.  And, yes, I suppose this is a question about the ethics of
maintaining cultural artifacts. However, since, as an infrequent
contributor to, albeit a regular reader of, SHAKSPER, I don't want to
try Hardy Cooke's patience, I will not pursue this question.  I will
simply conclude by saying that I find myself aligned with those who feel
that it would be...nice...if there were some provision ensuring that
items of historical importance could be viewed by interested parties
when required.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Totally Searchable Database on Amazon.com

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2065  Monday, 27 October 2003

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 24 Oct 2003 13:26:20 -0400
Subject:        Totally Searchable Database on Amazon.com

Amazon.com now has a new service allowing users to search all words
printed in the book as well as on the cover and back cover.  The books I
checked are entirely online as well.  I guess the marketing strategy is
based on the premise that if you read some of a book online you'll want
to own it in print form.  In any case, the really great thing is the
incredibly powerful search engine.  You do have to register (it's free)
to use the search engine.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.