The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1752 Monday, 8 September 2003
From: Rolland Banker <
Date: Friday, 5 Sep 2003 04:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Lear as Prophet?
With all due respect as I am not a scholar but, To every query of Mr.
Jellerson I would respond yes.
What's wrong with the ontological view of Romanticism? Not up to date I
suppose. At least I understand it. And as the fool says there is human
'matter' in the Romantic view to be grasped as well as all the fun with
the 'words'. But I suppose you could have more current and fresh fun
with the 'words' but that's another 'matter'.
Why would the 'vision parody' by the fool be not considered prophesy?
Isn't it just another 'kind' of
easier to define religious or theological visionary prophesy?
Theologically, don't ask, I was taught that a good guess was considered
prophecy, but that may have been a perverse parody too, now that I think
As an amateur, I think I understand that prophesy, in the sense that
Frye and Bloom are speaking, is a most primal stage of language and
So here's my two cents for thee:
Prophets, ontologically or no, historically are always viewed as mad.
No? Get your Scriptures: See Isaiah running naked for 3 years in the
wilds of Israel spouting words. Ezekial cooking up dung and Hosea
perversely marrying a harlot in a dramatic prophecy of Israel's
infidelity and scatteration. Or see Marx, or Nieztsche in pain or
poverty with naught to "sweeten their imagination" as Lear so generously
requested, seeing society, nature and reason fusing "into one great
Lear was certainly a prophetic prophet, to my mind, but I want to know
why any genre cannot be considered prophecy?
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
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.