April
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0820 Monday, 5 April 2004 [1] From: Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Apr 2004 22:28:32 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 15.0807 Lincoln / Macbeth [2] From: Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 03 Apr 2004 09:56:09 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 15.0807 Lincoln / Macbeth [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Apr 2004 22:28:32 +0100 Subject: 15.0807 Lincoln / Macbeth Comment: Re: SHK 15.0807 Lincoln / Macbeth >Prairie families didn't have a lot of room for books, even if they were >as casually easy to obtain as they are now, which they weren't. But they >had the King James Bible, and enough of them had a Complete Works of >Shakespeare. I would have thought that prairie families, and anyone spiritually descended from the Pilgrim Fathers, would have read the Geneva Bible. Did loyalty to the English crown and bishops extend as far as the Wild West? Peter Bridgman [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 03 Apr 2004 09:56:09 -0700 Subject: 15.0807 Lincoln / Macbeth Comment: Re: SHK 15.0807 Lincoln / Macbeth >Oddly enough, the King James made it easier for the kids back then to >read Shakespeare. "kids back then"???? Abigail...I grew up in the 60's (that would be the NINETEEN-60's) attending a church that used the KJB and I attribute my early love of Shakespeare to that exact point you make for the "kids back then"! [I didn't think I was so old as to be a "kid back then"] [smiling] Susan. _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0819 Monday, 5 April 2004 From: Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Apr 2004 15:57:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: 15.0811 Dancing in Shakespeare a good idea Comment: Re: SHK 15.0811 Dancing in Shakespeare a good idea No dancing, exactly, but there is the promised entertainment to be provided by Mary Frith herself at the end of The Roaring Girl. Contemporary records show that Frith did keep that promise with some songs performed on a lute. Jack Heller Huntington College _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0818 Monday, 5 April 2004 [1] From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Apr 2004 12:06:02 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 15.0808 The Murder of Gonzago [2] From: Jay Feldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Apr 2004 18:05:15 EST Subj: Re: SHK 15.0808 The Murder of Gonzago [3] From: Elliott H. Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 4 Apr 2004 11:37:52 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 15.0808 The Murder of Gonzago [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Apr 2004 12:06:02 -0600 Subject: 15.0808 The Murder of Gonzago Comment: RE: SHK 15.0808 The Murder of Gonzago W.L. Godshalk suggests:. >(1) We do not know that the parallel [between the murder of Old Hamlet >and the Murder of Gonzago] is exact. The ghost may be an >evil, lying ghost, and Hamlet may be deceived. He's not very good at >"seems," as he admits to his ma. The ghost or may not be evil and untruthful but the parallel between his story and the play as staged at Hamlet's behest seems pretty exact to me. Old Hamlet: sleeping within my Orchard, 763: My custome alwayes of the afternoone, 764: Vpon my secure houre, thy Vncle stole 765: With iuyce of cursed Hebona in a viall, 766: And in the porches of my eares did poure 767: The leaprous distilment, Luc. 1965: Thoughts black, hands apt, drugges fit, and time agreeing, 1966: Considerat season els no creature seeing, 1967: Thou mixture ranck, of midnight weedes collected, 1968: With Hecats ban thrice blasted, thrice inuected, 1969: Thy naturall magicke, and dire property, 1970: On wholsome life vsurps immediatly. Ham. 1971: A poysons him i'th Garden for his estate, his names Gonza-go, 1972: the story is extant, and written in very choice Italian, you shall see 1973: anon how the murtherer gets the loue of Gonzagoes wife. It is traditional to add a stage direction at the end of Lucianus's speech in which he pours the poison in Gonzago's ear, but that is not only to make the parallel exact but to make it rational: how else is he going to get the poison into the victim? The issue of the trustworthiness of the ghost is one thing. I am inclined to believe the ghost, since Claudius confirms that he murdered his brother, but that's another dogfight. The staging of the Murder of Gonzago, however-in the garden with poison poured in the ear while the victim is sleeping-is surely meant to parallel the facts of Claudius's crime as alleged by the Ghost, and thus to confront the king with Hamlet's knowledge of what Claudius assumed no living person but he knew. That's all I meant, don [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Feldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Apr 2004 18:05:15 EST Subject: 15.0808 The Murder of Gonzago Comment: Re: SHK 15.0808 The Murder of Gonzago David Bishop asks: Why doesn't Hamlet sit quietly and give his test a fair chance to succeed? David, thanks for your excellent and insightful exegesis. In response to your query above, I wonder what you thought of Rick Jones' suggestion on 30 Mar, that Hamlet's commentary may have been private, directed only to Ophelia's ear? There is no indication that I can find that he necessarily was speaking to Claudius and the court after Lucianus' entry. Thanks again, Jay Feldman [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elliott H. Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 4 Apr 2004 11:37:52 -0400 Subject: 15.0808 The Murder of Gonzago Comment: RE: SHK 15.0808 The Murder of Gonzago In the new 2002 Yale HAMLET there is an essay by Harold Bloom. Bloom agrees with A.C. Bradley, "when he suggested that Hamlet was the only Shakespearian character whom we could think had written Shakespeare's plays". I am not sure to my mind that Hamlet was exactly the character that Michael Wood portrayed as the Bard in his latest television epic. However, in the Mouse Trap we do have Hamlet producing, directing and rewriting an old play. The Mouse Trap seems to be telling us something about its author Hamlet, since in the play Hamlet tells us "This is one Lucianus, nephew to the King". Hamlet, of course, is also a nephew to the king. Perhaps, the Bradley fans might explain what Hamlet/Shakespeare was driving at here? Best, Elliott H. Stone _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0817 Monday, 5 April 2004 From: Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Apr 2004 09:15:57 EST Subject: 15.0799 Oldcastle Comment: Re: SHK 15.0799 Oldcastle Dear Friends, I've followed your recent lively discussion of Oldcastle with considerable interest. But it's made me curious as to whether anyone has read my note in Notes&Queries for March 2003 entitled "Shakespeare's Posthumous Apology to Lord Cobham H5 2.3.8-14"? I'd be glad to hear from anyone who's seen this piece. Thanks. Steve Sohmer _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0816 Monday, 5 April 2004 [1] From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Apr 2004 09:55:32 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 15.0806 The Three Sons in Hamlet [2] From: David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Apr 2004 16:12:56 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 15.0806 The Three Sons in Hamlet [3] From: Jay Feldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Apr 2004 18:52:28 EST Subj: Re: SHK 15.0806 The Three Sons in Hamlet [4] From: HR Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 3 Apr 2004 01:20:02 EST Subj: Re: SHK 15.0773 The Three Sons in Hamlet [5] From: Stephen C. Rose <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 3 Apr 2004 13:07:47 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 15.0806 The Three Sons in Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Apr 2004 09:55:32 -0600 Subject: 15.0806 The Three Sons in Hamlet Comment: RE: SHK 15.0806 The Three Sons in Hamlet I think this is all getting too complicated by getting both too technical and too modern. Granted this is one Renaissance man's vision of the early Middle Ages, but it is the Middle Ages, and there is no clear sense of nation-states. The separation of one nation from another is thus often rather fuzzy. The relationship of Old Hamlet to Old Fortinbras is evidently one of a senior to a junior king, but their lands are not readily separable. Their battle was apparently to determine whether Norway would remain a more or less independent state, or become a full tributary of Denmark. So they wagered a chunk of Denmark against all of Norway. I don't see any indication that the Norwegians found that outrageous and treasonous -- and why should they? You cared who was king only as to who would provide you the most advantage. And the common people often didn't care at all. Fortinbras's sharks are adventurers. He wants his property back-much as the son of some industrial tycoon might want to regain the family's business when it was lost to a hostile takeover. He's not a patriot. He wants the "gloria" that goes with being a recognized king, rather than the nephew of a feeble viceroy. When the clamp gets put on that, he decides to obtain some gloria by beating up on the Poles and seizing some of their coastland. He asks permission to move a legal army past Elsinore to the Baltic. He gets it on "regards of safety and allowance." Shakespeare does not offer details on these "regards" but since Claudius and his ambassadors do not appear to be stupid, these would probably be such that Fortinbras would not likely betray their trust-perhaps his wife and babies (if any) as hostages. When he returns, the royal family of Denmark is defunct, and being almost certainly a cousin, he can make an appeal for election as the king of both countries. And why not? There's no need to complicate matters, especially with theories that require Claudius and his advisors to be exceptionally stupid. It is much easier to accept the fact that Fortinbras is the beneficiary of good fortune that was pretty rotten luck for the Hamlet crowd. (Also, I wouldn't put too much credence in the words of the hardbitten and cynical captain that Hamlet speaks to in IV, 4. He's clearly an old hand who fights because it's his job and cares nothing for chivalry and gloria.) Cheers, don [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Apr 2004 16:12:56 -0500 Subject: 15.0806 The Three Sons in Hamlet Comment: Re: SHK 15.0806 The Three Sons in Hamlet The usurping Fortinbras seems to me an unbelievable character, above all for one simple reason. At the end of his tragedies, Shakespeare leaves the state under the rule of the best available candidate, who represents a good, if exhausted, order. He does not give the crown to a duplicitous usurper. The point about Fortinbras, it seems to me, is that he starts off as a kind of revenging son, but converts to a law-abiding prince. One reason he must convert is that his father lost fair and square, according to explicit "bonds of law." There was no secret murder involved. His gentleness as he crosses to Poland emphasizes his converted state, as does his judicious tone at the end. The shot to the English ambassadors is a salute. They then come in perfectly peacefully, along with Fortinbras, to bring their news. The drums are ceremonial, and perhaps funereal, since Fortinbras has already heard of "this sight." To make Fortinbras a scheming usurper, who only fakes his conversion, involves the critic in positively Ptolemaic contortions. Best wishes, David Bishop [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Feldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 2 Apr 2004 18:52:28 EST Subject: 15.0806 The Three Sons in Hamlet Comment: Re: SHK 15.0806 The Three Sons in Hamlet Jack Heller says: "The logic of Fortinbras's strategy is to catch the Danes with insufficient defenses. If they conclude that he has some other purpose than to attack themselves, then Fortinbras's conquest will be that much easier. Ultimately, much, much easier than expected." Jack, I wonder where your textual support for the above may be found? Since, there is no indication of the size of the opposing Polish Army we really have no idea of the appropriateness of a two or twenty-thousand man Norwegian Army. Also, there really is no word concerning the size of the Danish Army nor of the defenses at Elsinore Castle. We do know, however, that the battlements are manned with soldiers and cannon and therefore it would seem surprising if no one noticed an army attacking the fortress. Finally, I have had trouble associating Hamlet's argument that it is right to find quarrel in a straw when honor is at stake with Fortinbras' invasion of Poland. My sense is that particular sentence of Hamlet's declaration is a generalization and not applicable to possible deaths of twenty-thousand men for "a fantasy and trick of fame". To Ed Taft, please excuse my o'er hasty assumption that you were speaking of Fortinbras' message to Claudius in act IV. I should have known better. Jay Feldman [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: HR Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 3 Apr 2004 01:20:02 EST Subject: 15.0773 The Three Sons in Hamlet Comment: Re: SHK 15.0773 The Three Sons in Hamlet Fortinbras' motivations are ultimately quite enigmatic, after the mysterious fashion of so much in the play that seems 'obvious' on first sight. HR Greenberg MD ENDIT [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen C. Rose <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 3 Apr 2004 13:07:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: 15.0806 The Three Sons in Hamlet Comment: Re: SHK 15.0806 The Three Sons in Hamlet I think Jay Feldman has more than half the truth on his side. Tangentially, my own impression, albeit subjective, is that Shakespeare is more concerned with a sort of moral (rather than equivalency) or calculus. Much of Hamlet seems to me to be a reductio ad absurdam of received thinking about "honour" and conflict and the hierarchical orders which this thinking supports. Best, S _______________________________________________________________ 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.