2004

Shakespeare Apocrypha and Stylometry

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1157  Monday, 31 May 2004

From:           Roger Nyle Parisious <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 13:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        Shakespeare Apocrypha and Stylometry

Despite all the fine work that is being done in Stylometry (and, on the
one hand, there is no one who has derived more emotional satisfaction
than myself by the overwhelming majority of the affirmative attributions
thus far published by Elliot and Vickers) certain very troubling basic
problems remain.  But, on the other hand, may I cite two of the best
known examples of this technique? One of these (Henry VIII) is almost
universally accepted. The other (the attribution of the complete
Groatsworth to Henry Chettle), despite what appears to be an equally
cogent application of the techniques involved, continues to be rejected
by huge number of both professional academics and dedicated lay readers.

The acceptance of the Henry VIII attribution is readily explicable. The
mechanical technique confirmed almost precisely the previous literary
analysis made by  academics, but likewise (and this is much better in my
experience) practicing poets and writers over a number of generations.

The "Shakespeare -wrote -it- everything- else -in - the- Folio- and
-much more" group (which I have for many years now dubbed as
neo-Stratfordian) were always (regardless of their academic rank) an
embarrassment in the case of Henry VIII.

There was ,of course, one glaring problem. The "Farewell, a long
farewell" scene is (outside of the "Katherine, Queen of England, you are
called into the court" sequence) head and shoulders above anything else
in the show and equally above at least ninety some per cent of anything
else Fletcher ever wrote. But, in view of the double coincidence of the
mechanical and the aesthetic, most of us accept the Fletcher
attribution. Still (is there something within us which rebels against
the common sense attribution?) when the speech is quoted it is still
almost invariably referred to as Shakespeare's (though Spedding
published his epoch making piece of historical revisionism well over a
century ago.

The parallel situation with The Groatsworth raises the identical, but
also many further, problems. The prose is charged beyond anything else
Chettle ever wrote, as the very best of Henry VIII is above fine
Fletcher; but Fletcher was still one of the most capable writers of his
time.

Chettle was otherwise a hack. And when he concocted this he would have
had under a week or ten day's leeway to produce the only quotable thing
he would ever write. Orson Welles (the creator of "F, as in Fake)might
have improvised on equally short notice, but plodding Chettle?

The obvious (but not necessarily correct) solution, i.e., that Chettle
was a much better editor than he was an original writer, and,
accordingly, must have had substantial Robert Greene fragments on which
to proceed, is (apparently) not demanded by the current exigencies of
computer research.

In short there is something in the creative factor which the
non-creative computer is not taking into account?

Last year I had occasion, during the discussion of Brian Vickers and
"Shakespeare Co-Author" to propose a very simple elementary test which
has thus far not been taken up. I will again call it to the attention of
Messrs. Vickers, Old, and Elliott. Perhaps we are starting at the wrong
end of the problem.

The only single Shakespearean play (I am excluding the Chronicles
because they mingle large chunks from several separate historians)
which by complete consensus contains a large amount of alien matter,
matter which cannot possibly be there as the result of collaboration or
revision is Coriolanus. It massively incorporates from North's Plutarch
within a succinct space computer is not taking into account?

I very simply suggested that we are starting at the wrong end of the
problem. The only single (I am excluding the Chronicles because they
mingle large chunks from several separate historians) Shakespearean play
which by complete consensus contains a large amount of alien matter
which cannot possibly be there as the result of collaboration or
revision is Coriolanus with its massive incorporation from North's
Plutarch within a sharply limited space.

Coriolanus therefore furnishes the best uncontaminated (or least
contaminated) text which could establish the author's rewrite pattern on
demonstrably alien material within the First Folio. If a pattern emerges
it should then be applied to the next best candidates with large
consecutive chunks of incorporated materials. i.e. the chronicle plays.
Henry VI, Part I, is again the obvious place to start -as virtually
everybody before Peter Alexander agreed that it was of multiple
authorship; and so does Vickers. He comes up with Thomas Nashe as
certain author.(I did the same ,with Kyd and Greene thrown in  many
years ago for my own satisfaction.)

However, I would first suggest that Coriolanus be used provide a
demonstrable example of how the author worked on a single prior text and
also whether such a type of text  could be differentiated from imputed
cases of collaboration, or instances where such writers as Fletcher and
Middleton may have overwritten texts abandoned, for whatever reason , by
the original author.

Roger Nyle Parisious

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Films

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1156  Monday, 31 May 2004

From:           Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 07:59:10 -0700
Subject: 15.1143 Films
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1143 Films

 >Graham Hall writes: "but in these days of genderless casting."

In these days? Rosalind, Juliet, Sylvia, Bianca, these were all
originally played by teenage girls?

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Hamlet's Ghost

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1154  Monday, 31 May 2004

[1]     From:   Pamela Richards <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 28 May 2004 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1148 Hamlet's Ghost

[2]     From:   Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 28 May 2004 12:07:16 -0400
        Subj:   Hamlet's Ghost

[3]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 28 May 2004 11:12:47 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1148 Hamlet's Ghost

[4]     From:   Pamela Richards <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 28 May 2004 09:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1148 Hamlet's Ghost

[5]     From:   John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 28 May 2004 19:19:28 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1148 Hamlet's Ghost


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pamela Richards <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 15.1148 Hamlet's Ghost
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1148 Hamlet's Ghost

 >Pamela Richards writes...

 >>I believe, along with one of the posters here who
 >>stated that we can
 >>determine Shakespeare's intention from a thorough
 >>reading of the text.
 >
 >I'm glad that isn't true.  I'd say the closer the
 >scrutiny, the more
 >mysterious and enigmatic the play becomes.
 >
 >Peter Bridgman

Peter, I must agree with you that scrutiny enhances the transcendent
nature of the play itself.  But would we not both agree that to evoke
the mysterious and to touch on the enigmatic was Shakespeare's
intention?  Or can we believe that his construction of these plays was
an accident of the universe?  There are intentions and intentions;
devices and devices.  Sometimes the author intends to create ambiguity,
to layer complexity.  To provide the audience a choice.

Perhaps it is accidental that the loss of more direct communication of
meaning in the play, which we may expect to happen over time and
distance from the cultural and intangible values which engendered the
work originally, leaves us with a host of symbols uncoupled with
meaning.  Our minds and souls are left to form constellations of these
unnamed stars, and on those inky skies we write the personal myths of
our soul's own device.

I find both ways of understanding and enjoying Shakespeare are valid,
and probably many others besides.  This may not touch on the point you
made, but I wonder to what degree Shakespeare was aware that his use of
symbols, and in some instances the eventual obscuration of their
meaning, would render his plays virtually immortal.

Regards,
Pamela Richards

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 12:07:16 -0400
Subject:        Hamlet's Ghost

Writing of the play Hamlet, Sam Small notes, "I have brought this up
before - so please forgive me - of the incongruous nature of the ghost
in the drama.  In a play utterly devoid of the supernatural - a
contemporary political thriller, if you will - we are forced to the
conclusion that ghosts actually exist."

I think this is an interesting observation. From an audience point of
view, most in the audience believed in ghosts, but by no means all did.
The appearance of the ghost heightens the power of the drama, but I
suspect that the real issue is that in this play, Shakespeare is dealing
with matters of metaphysics.  What do we know for sure about the
afterlife?  The play suggests that we know damn little. The origins of
the ghost are not explained, nor is a Protestant or a Catholic view
affirmed. Providence is asserted to exist by Horatio, but his summary of
the plot at the end of the play explains things in terms of chance,
mistakes, and plots.

If Shakespeare affirms anything, it seems to be that there are more
things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy. It
should be noted that even the afterlife is not really affirmed, for the
Ghost may be the Devil, and not Hamlet's father.

Ed Taft

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 11:12:47 -0500
Subject: 15.1148 Hamlet's Ghost
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1148 Hamlet's Ghost

Sam Small's point about the rules that Shakespeare allegedly broke in
introducing a ghost into a realistic "political thriller" requires some
qualification. The two most closely related plays to *Hamlet* are
*Macbeth* and *Julius Caesar* -- both of which have ghosts.

I would say the reasons why he includes ghosts in the plays taken from
these disparate ancient sources are threefold: 1) Many peoples have
ghost superstitions that are taken seriously by nearly everyone
(Shakespeare's audience among them); 2) Ghost superstitions in Europe
tend to be associated with (among other things) vicious murders; 3)
They're great theatre (or at least WS thought so).

Cheers,
don

PS: I don't think we ourselves are so free from ghost superstitions as
we may pretend.)

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pamela Richards <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 09:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 15.1148 Hamlet's Ghost
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1148 Hamlet's Ghost

Sam Small asks:

"Did Shakespeare not believe this himself but believed the audience did?
  If so why base so important a topic on the superstition of the
uneducated?  Plays such as the Tempest and Midsummer Night's Dream are
fantasy worlds in which fairies and spirits exist.  In "The Merchant of
Venice" or "Measure for Measure" for instance, there are no goblins or
sprites because the plays are realistic and contemporary.  So why did
Shakespeare appear to break the rules of his own making?"

I'm not sure we can properly address what Shakespeare believed from the
distance that interposing time imposes.  His plays were varied; his
approach to the introduction of characters, whether supernatural or
strictly mundane, seems fairly utilitarian.  If he can develop his story
on such a character, or move his story on using such a character, he does.

Some of his choices may be predicated on a style or genre of literary or
dramatic tradition.  For instance, I understand that there are a number
of revenge plays that use the device of a ghost.  It is possible, as
grave and dignified as Hamlet's ghost seems, that Shakespeare intended
to use Hamlet's ghost not only to emulate well-known revenge plays and
develop conflict, but also to provide a measure of comic relief, as in
the cellarage scene.   This scene may be a parody of similar revenge
plays, although I don't have much familiarity with that form.  Perhaps
someone else here knows whether or not this might be the case.

Hamlet is actually quite a funny play, in many places.  Clowns or fools
are another device that Shakespeare uses, and Hamlet has its share of
those, too.  In fact, Hamlet evidently acts in the role of court jester
throughout much of the play.  And no wonder, for the jester is the only
person in court more powerful than the King.

I think the appearance of supernatural characters like ghosts, or
mundane characters like clowns, in Shakespeare's plays serve to show us
more about his intended impact on the audience than his personal
convictions.  The ghost to frighten us, the clown to make us laugh, and
so forth.  And with that touch of genius, he can send us into a whole
new frame of mind by sending us a Ghost who makes us laugh, or a Clown
who makes us shudder.

Regards,
Pamela Richards

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 19:19:28 -0400
Subject: 15.1148 Hamlet's Ghost
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1148 Hamlet's Ghost

 >Pamela Richards brings out some interesting points about Hamlet's ghost,
 >namely whether the ghost is an evil spirit or a true re-emergence of his
 >father's being.  She also reminds us of the fact that Shakespeare used
 >recognisable devices - such as the ghost - that would gain credibility
 >with the audience.  I have brought this up before - so please forgive me
 >- of the incongruous nature of the ghost in the drama.  In a play
 >utterly devoid of the supernatural - a contemporary political thriller,
 >if you will - we are forced to the conclusion that ghosts actually
 >exist.  Did Shakespeare not believe this himself but believed the
 >audience did?  If so why base so important a topic on the superstition
 >of the uneducated?  Plays such as the Tempest and Midsummer Night's
 >Dream are fantasy worlds in which fairies and spirits exist.  In "The
 >Merchant of Venice" or "Measure for Measure" for instance, there are no
 >goblins or sprites because the plays are realistic and contemporary.  So
 >why did Shakespeare appear to break the rules of his own making?
 >
 >SAM SMALL

We live in a much more scientific and enlightened age than Shakespeare's
original audience and are far less likely to believe in various aspects
of the supernatural.

That's why Stephen King and Ann Rice never make the bestseller lists -:)

John Ramsay

_______________________________________________________________
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 Murder of Gonzago

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1155  Monday, 31 May 2004

[1]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 28 May 2004 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1147 The Murder of Gonzago

[2]     From:   Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 28 May 2004 11:27:09 -0400
        Subj:   The Murder of Gonzago

[3]     From:   Pamela Richards <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 28 May 2004 09:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1147 The Murder of Gonzago

[4]     From:   Stephen C. Rose <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 28 May 2004 09:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1147 The Murder of Gonzago

[5]     From:   David Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 28 May 2004 11:30:24 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1147 The Murder of Gonzago

[6]     From:   Pamela Richards <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 29 May 2004 04:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Murder of Gonzago


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 15.1147 The Murder of Gonzago
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1147 The Murder of Gonzago

Pamela Richards writes, "Agrippa's Fourth book of Magic, one of the
works cited by King James in his book, _Daemonologie_, tells us...of
four types of apparitions--elementals (apparently odd looking creatures
who were associated with air, earth, fire and water); Good spirits, for
example angels, who could not masquerade as evil spirits due to their
very nature, and always told the truth; Evil spirits, who could
masquerade as a great variety of things, and who were not bound to tell
the truth; and unhappy ghosts of the departed dead.  Hamlet's ghost
could fit into only the last two of these categories...Although in our
day and age, fundamentalist Protestants may automatically suspect that
ghosts are evil spirits...."

OK: putting aside the significance of Agrippa's book to Will S.'s play
*Hamlet* we are left with your citations and conclusions: two above with
which I have more than a slight quibble.  Ready?  first, if the
spirit/ghost of Prince Hamlet's father told the *Truth* as I suspect the
play suggests he did, then Agrippa's second type fits, and the
apparition in ACT ONE of *Hamlet* was an *angel* and therefore a good
spirit; and second, I daresay your views on so-called "fundamentalist
Protestants" is highly suspect.

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

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 11:27:09 -0400
Subject:        The Murder of Gonzago

Although I couldn't follow all of David Cohen's objections, I can answer
one of them. Initially, Hamlet thinks that The Mousetrap works, but
Horatio pours cold water on him. As I argued in an earlier post, as 3.2
goes on, the close observer can see doubts beginning to form in Hamlet's
mind.

As to Hamlet's psychology, I don't deny it's a fascinating subject, but
it's not what I'm focusing on right now. I think it's better to respond
to what I have said than what you would like me to say; to the approach
I use, not the dozens I could use. You asked a bit earlier in what way
Hamlet's actions could be seen as honorable. I tried to answer that.
Actually, I think that Hamlet's psychology (since that's your interest)
gets in the way of solving his problems, and he has to find a way to
jettison his private issues (as they say), conquer his fear of death,
and overcome his emotional reactions to a Ghost who may or may not be
his father.

One of the main problems with Hamlet's Mousetrap is that he cannot
separate himself from what he wants to test and measure. He's often a
distraction to the audience, and his comments near the poisoning reveal
his own intentions as much as they suggest Claudius's possible guilt. In
fact, the play itself criticizes Gertrude and contains within it the
famous Oedipal

problems that Hamlet has been seen as harboring. Hamlet screws up his
own test because it is not impersonal and strictly logical in execution.

To my mind, Hamlet finds by the end of 4.4 a way to proceed that
separates his psychology from his quest to discover the truth and act on
it. He assumes the role of a soldier, a role which confers many
benefits. He must put aside his fear of death. He must consider the
command of the ghost impersonally, as coming from a superior, not a
father. As would-be soldiers are told in boot camp, mama and daddy are
no longer here. Soldiers must take their personal issues, whatever they
are, and pack them away in a suitcase. Once the war is over, he (or she)
can reopen the bag. Until then, it stays firmly shut, and the task is to
carry out the mission with whatever intelligence, skill, and cunning can
be mustered.

That mission, as I see it, is two fold: (1)  to continue hunting down
Claudius and (2) to test Providence in the process.

I might add, finally, that your wish to see Hamlet confront Claudius in
a showdown shows, I think, that you do want the prince to act like Gary
Cooper or John Wayne. But by the end of the play, Hamlet does exactly that!

Ed Taft

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pamela Richards <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 09:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 15.1147 The Murder of Gonzago
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1147 The Murder of Gonzago

David Bishop asks:

 >"If Hamlet, as Pamela Richards says, wants to provoke
 >a confrontation with Claudius--which as a general
 >proposition is difficult to disagree with--exactly
 >what sort of confrontation could he have in mind?
 >After Polonius's death, Claudius has Hamlet brought
 >guarded to his presence. Is this a confrontation, or
 >an opportunity for one? What should Hamlet do that he
 >does not do? Should he proclaim Claudius a murderer
 >and kill him, saying to the people that he knows
 >Claudius was guilty because a ghost told him so? What
 >would be likely to happen then, the thought of
 >which might give Hamlet pause?
 >
 >Just wondering."

Obviously, a confrontation with a King is a delicate thing.  Even
surviving life at court is sometimes difficult.  I'd say that Hamlet had
several priorities to follow in producing his eventual confrontation
with Claudius.  In order to achieve his goals, which he stated in 3.3:

1)  He needed to stay alive long enough to accomplish it.

Reason: sine qua non

2)  He had to keep his intentions secret.

Reason:  Apply # 1--Secrets get out, especially at court.  A direct
threat to the life of the king would be considered treason, and Hamlet
would have to assume he would not survive it.  Horatio was privy to many
of Hamlet's personal secrets, but as far as I can tell, not to the
specifics of his plan.

3)  He had to wait until Claudius was engaged in some act of sin.

Reason:  As a Protestant and educated in Wittenburg, Hamlet believed it
was possible for a man to be absolved of his sins without intervention
of clergy.  His sense of justice told him that Claudius himself,
deserved no quarter, because in the murder of Hamlet Sr., Claudius had
given none.  In fact, Hamlet even applied this principle to any of the
servants of Claudius who threatened his existence:  namely, Polonius and
R&G.  All died unshriven; in the case of R&G, Hamlet made a point of it.
  In fact, Laertes was the sole exception: the only one to die by
Hamlet's hand who had had an honorable chance to make his peace with
God. Not only did Laertes have the opportunity to shrive himself before
the fencing match; as Laertes died, Hamlet expressly forgave Laertes for
killing him.

David's questions:

"Exactly what sort of confrontation?"

First, we might ask ourselves, can Hamlet expect Claudius to abdicate
the throne in his favor?  I think not.  He sees Claudius as a shrewd
murderer, who, although he may be opportunistic enought to take
advantage of a deathbed repentance, is not capable of acting with
consistent moral purity.  His word is not to be trusted.

I think the best Hamlet can expect from a confrontation with Claudius is
an opportunity to enact justice.  According to Hamlet's reasoning, the
confrontation needs to be one in which he could avoid the use of
military intervention.  Without saying so, he also needs to avoid being
himself accused of treason.  Because he states that he does not wish to
extend to Claudius the opportunity for divine forgiveness, this must
necessarily be a surprise attack.  This leaves out:

Legal means
Military means
Conspiracy plots

We might describe Hamlet's role in such a confrontation as that of a
vigilante.  Perhaps more like a hunter or an assassin than a
conventional soldier, a large part of what he had to do was to wait for
the right moment to act.

"What should Hamlet do that he does not do?"

I believe he did everything he intended to do and stated he would do,
although he would have better served his country if he had lived longer.
  He said what he was going to do to serve justice, and he did it.  That
makes him a hero in my book--although the question of whether his
actions were entirely justified is left unresolved, and left to each
audience member to decide for himself.  And this makes him a tragic hero.

"Should he proclaim Claudius a murderer and kill him, saying to people
that he knows Claudius was guilty because a ghost told him so?"

This is not an inaccurate description of what he did, leaving out the
part about the ghost.  He initiated his confrontation directly after the
accusation of Caludius' intention to murder Hamlet left Laertes' lips.
This accusation effectively proclaimed him a murderer, but relied upon a
non-supernatural source.

And, consistent with the theory that Hamlet deliberately provoked a
confrontation with Claudius which would expose him and bring him to
justice in the midst of his sins, Hamlet was Claudius' intended victim
when the trap was sprung.  Mousebait.

Regards,
Pamela Richards

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen C. Rose <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 09:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 15.1147 The Murder of Gonzago
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1147 The Murder of Gonzago

Pamela -- Most interesting and excellent post.

Ed -- I would add that Hamlet is under extreme duress from the very
start, knowing he is doomed before the play begins.

Best, S

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 11:30:24 -0500
Subject: 15.1147 The Murder of Gonzago
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1147 The Murder of Gonzago

Pamela Richards <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> writes,

 >In response to David Cohen's comments on augury:
 >
 >I agree with you, as I think we all must, that there are limitations to
 >free will, e.g. time, limited material resources, and obstacles outside
 >of our control, the willingness of others to cooperate with our plans,
 >etc.

You don't include in you list biological limits on free will, that is,
inner limitations as powerful as outer for any consideration of just how
limited our free will really is.  Consider: Two 30-year-old identical
twins separated at birth and raised in different countries were asked
about their personal habits.  Interviewed separately, they both proved
to be compulsively neat, precise, meticulous, punctual, and obsessed
with cleanliness, all to pathological excess. Asked for an explanation,
one twin answered "My mother.  When I was growing up, she kept the house
perfectly ordered.  She insisted on every little thing being returned to
its proper place 


Representing Incest in Genealogy

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1153  Monday, 31 May 2004

[1]     From:   Claude Caspar <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 28 May 2004 10:19:13 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1142 Representing Incest in Genealogy

[2]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 28 May 2004 10:55:28 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1142 Representing Incest in Genealogy

[3]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 28 May 2004 17:57:12 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1142 Representing Incest in Genealogy


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Claude Caspar <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 10:19:13 -0400
Subject: 15.1142 Representing Incest in Genealogy
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1142 Representing Incest in Genealogy

See the very interesting "The Incest Theme in Literature & Legend," by
Otto Rank [1992 edition], with much on WS throughout.

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=21738910287112

For a visual representation of a family tree:

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/wfincst/results.htm

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 10:55:28 -0500
Subject: 15.1142 Representing Incest in Genealogy
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1142 Representing Incest in Genealogy

I'm not sure under what circumstances incestuous *parenthood* would ever
be accepted, and thus ever be more than speculation on the part of later
genealogists. How would we know? Are there *any* instances where incest
(according the modern definition) was ever countenanced or admitted, and
thus offspring of such a union presented to the world as such products?

I remember reading somewhere that Lucrezia Borgia was debauched by her
father and brothers, and bore children by them. Were they accepted as
regular Borgias? Is that what is being referred to?

Cheers,
don

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 28 May 2004 17:57:12 +0100
Subject: 15.1142 Representing Incest in Genealogy
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1142 Representing Incest in Genealogy

I'm grateful to Bill Arnold for pondering my question, but I confess I
can't see the point of this part of his answer:

 >Particularly in rural areas of America, where there were limited numbers
 >of families, and there was desire for families to hold lands in common
 >in families, there was marriage among cousins that would be frowned upon
 >today.  In other words, the question you raise has no easy answer.

My question was about how an instance of parent/child incest is
represented in a family tree, because the vertical and horizontal line
convention, for child and mate relations respectively, doesn't seem able
to show the child who is also the mate. Mating cousins don't present
this problem. I'm grateful, though, for the tip about the National
Genealogical Society, to whom I've sent an enquiry.

Graham Hall kindly tries to save me from a cul-de-sac:

 >The latest Arden Pericles (ed. Suzanne Gossett) glancingly glosses
 >a mixture of these topics. Not as specific as may be wished, but a
 >research cul-de-sac is worthy of mention to save other travellers
 >some time.

There's so much of great value in Gossett's introduction that I'm loathe
to complain that although she writes about the arboreal imagery and the
incest she doesn't put them together. In fact, I'm glad.

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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.