Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: September ::
"My crown ... and my queen" - Gertrude's Adultery
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1804  Wednesday, 17 September 2003

[1]     From:   Frank Whigham <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 16 Sep 2003 09:29:25 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1794 "My crown ... and my queen" - Gertrude's
Adultery

[2]     From:   John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 16 Sep 2003 15:48:09 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1794 "My crown ... and my queen" - Gertrude's
Adultery

[3]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 16 Sep 2003 16:32:38 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1794 "My crown ... and my queen" - Gertrude's
Adultery


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Frank Whigham <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 16 Sep 2003 09:29:25 -0500
Subject: 14.1794 "My crown ... and my queen" - Gertrude's
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1794 "My crown ... and my queen" - Gertrude's
Adultery

For a very striking historical/anthropological treatment of the history
and development of such laws as are here being discussed (what leads the
church to shape its incest laws as it does? how did the reformation
change this?  etc.), see Goody, Jack. The Development of the Family and
Marriage in Europe. 1983.

Frank Whigham

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 16 Sep 2003 15:48:09 +0100
Subject: 14.1794 "My crown ... and my queen" - Gertrude's
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1794 "My crown ... and my queen" - Gertrude's
Adultery

Robin Hamilton wrote:

>I take Common Law -- defined by tradition and precedent -- to be a
>sub-set of Civil Law, which would include both Common Law and Statute
>Law. If I'm wrong here, I'm sure someone will stand up to correct me.

You're wrong :-)

Civil Law has at least three different senses, all of which seem to
differ from that given above, so the term is perhaps best avoided.

1.  The commonest usage, although possibly the least accurate, contrasts
Civil with Criminal Law.  As such, it would certainly involve both
Common and Statute Law, but so also does Criminal Law.  Public Law is
said to be the preferred term, although I don't recollect ever seeing
that.

2.  The most accurate usage equates Civil Law with Roman Law (or at
least systems based on it) as opposed to Common Law (cf. Droit Civil).

3.  Civil Law is sometimes used as a synonym for National - as opposed
to International - Law.

Whatever it is, it isn't Equity - and don't mention Canon Law, either.

John Briggs

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 16 Sep 2003 16:32:38 +0100
Subject: 14.1794 "My crown ... and my queen" - Gertrude's
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1794 "My crown ... and my queen" - Gertrude's
Adultery

If the pertinency of Deuteronomy was so manifest in Tudor England (as
has been argued), how come marriage to a deceased brother's wife was
illegal in that place and at that time?  Why did Henry VIII have to have
his dead brother's marriage annulled in the first place before he could
marry Catherine?

Impressed as I am by the scholarly citation of the Leviticus/Deutoronomy
texts, I think that this is essentially a marginal issue.

I'd be even more impressed if the KJV, not published till 1611 and thus
too late to provide material for either Henry's divorce or the writing
of /Hamlet/, wasn't cited by default.

"Which Bible?" isn't exactly a transparent issue, either with regard to
the period between 1450 and 1611 generally, or Shakespeare in
particular.

Robin Hamilton.

_______________________________________________________________
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.