2004

More W s Hal, Kerry is Hamlet Crap

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1036  Monday, 10 May 2004

From:           R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 07 May 2004 10:06:43 -0500
Subject: 15.1026 More W s Hal, Kerry is Hamlet Crap
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1026 More W s Hal, Kerry is Hamlet Crap

The teeth (tooth?) gnashing, tail chasing, screeching hissyfit that
Liberals are pitching in an attempt to diminish President George W. Bush
is extremely gratifying and somewhat entertaining. If you scrubbed the
ambition off John  Kerry, there  wouldn't be enough left to cast a
shadow in  the noonday sun. The more apt Kerry analog from Hamlet is
Osric, ameddling with his bonnet, one finger in the wind. The dregs of
the drossy age that is attempting to dote on Kerry will be swept up with
him, and together they will make a nice, soft plop in the bottom of
history's dumpster. George W. Bush, third George in the Pantheon  of
American Presidents, will be styled "George the  Conqueror," since
"George the Great" will forever be  retained by Washington.

All the Best,
R.A. Cantrell

_______________________________________________________________
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 15.1035  Monday, 10 May 2004

[1]     From:   Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 07 May 2004 15:37:44 +0000
        Subj:   A Good Read

[2]     From:   Matthew Baynham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 10 May 2004 10:11:50 +0100
        Subj:   The Murder of Gonzago


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 07 May 2004 15:37:44 +0000
Subject:        A Good Read

 >[...]Yes, of
 >course it was to earlier versions of the *Bible* which Will S. had made
 >his thousands of literary allusions,[...]

I assume that I am wrong in thinking that in this case Shakespeare was
making Biblical allusions rather than literary ones. Of course, if we
are considering works of fiction....

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Matthew Baynham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 10 May 2004 10:11:50 +0100
Subject:        The Murder of Gonzago

I confess I had not realised that Bill Arnold was one of the many who
claims to have isolated the pure thought of Jesus from the distorting
accretions of organised religion.

It's a difficult trick to pull off, of course, since the only access we
have to any thought of Jesus of Nazareth has already been mediated
through the tradition of the organised religion which sprang up so soon
after his death.  There's no particular reason to doubt, either, that
there was a primitive level of organisation in Jesus' followers before
that - Judas keeping the communal purse; perhaps Philip and Andrew
responsible for permitting access to Jesus; James, John and Peter in the
inner circle and so on.

But mainly I want to question Bill's musings on Shakespeare's faith,
which sound to me rather too modern. The question of whether a person is
a nominal or 'truly believing' Christian is one thrown up in a very
different way in our essentially post-Chrisian era from how it might
have presented in Shakespeare's time.

In the west, even those of us who are religious believers are now
educated in a thoroughly secular mindset: it is indeed precisely this
which tends to move (I might say 'relegate') faith to the private
sphere, where it is protected from the difficult questions posed by
modernity.

In Shakespeare's time, almost the exact opposite is true. Even the very
few who affirm themselves as non-believers have been educated in a
thorougly religious mindset, which is both the public and private
ideology. In this period, the assumptions one makes about one's
personhood and one's personal, social, political and cultural
relationships are inescapably religious - to the extent indeed that my
use of 'one' in this sentence is probably misleading.

Of course, the Protestant Reformation was the beginning (?) of a process
which has increasingly emphasised the personal and individual over the
corporate and communal in Christianity. And it undoubtedly created a
climate in which intelligent people had to think carefully about their
religious belief and practice, since the wrong belief and the wrong
practice could be fatal for some. But the Catholic/Protestant divide did
not offer an extra-Christian or secular option.

It is in this sense that Shakespeare's work must be considered as
religious, simply as a function of the time and place in which it was
written. The explicitness, personal depth, and church allegiance of
Shakespeare's faith will probably always evade us - apart from anything
else, they probably varied over time, like most people's - but what is
important is that we take seriously his body of work as participating in
a thoroughly religious culture, which we need to try and understand,
both in general and in detail. (I tend to think that we're getting
better at this, compared to when I were a lad, but there's still a long
way to go.)

Matthew Baynham

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Coriolanus 4.5

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1033  Monday, 10 May 2004

From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 7 May 2004 23:53:31 +0100
Subject: Coriolanus 4.5
Comment:        SHK 15.1019 Coriolanus 4.5

"I'm not sure that Aufidius has abjured femininity; perhaps he has
become feminine: 'cut i' th' middle.'"

I like this suggestion. It made me wince a bit, though...

"Professor Steward..."

I am flattered by the implication (and pleased that Jack Heller found
some of what I had to say stimulating), but I am merely on the brink of
(finally) getting that elusive PhD, and now gainfully employed outside
academia.

"... gives source references for the material given above the passage
quoted I've quoted (Leggatt, Kernan, and others). Please let us know if
the remainder of your posting, on the servingmen, is your own because I
would like to read further on them. I am most grateful."

As far as one can ever make a claim on ideas, the rest, without
references, is my own. Thinking back, I don't seem to recall any decent
criticism on the Servingmen - but I wouldn't say my reading was
exhaustive by any means.

m

_______________________________________________________________
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.

A Couple of Anniversaries Today

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1034  Monday, 10 May 2004

[1]     From:   John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 7 May 2004 15:26:51 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1024 A Couple of Anniversaries Today

[2]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 7 May 2004 23:58:10 +0100
        Subj:   SHK 15.1024 A Couple of Anniversaries Today

[3]     From:   Edson Tadeu Ortolan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 8 May 2004 01:17:07 -0300
        Subj:   A Couple of Anniversaries Today


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 7 May 2004 15:26:51 +0100
Subject: 15.1024 A Couple of Anniversaries Today
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1024 A Couple of Anniversaries Today

Al Magary wrote:

 >>On this day [April 23] in 1616 both William Shakespeare and
 >>Miguel de Cervantes died.
 >>
 >>John Briggs commented:
 >>
 >>They didn't die on the same day, of course.
 >>
 >Yes, those who celebrated the real Millennium at midnight of December
 >31, 2000, will complain about the technical accuracy of Sh. and
 >Cervantes dying "the same day."  Date as locally reckoned, yes, but not
 >day.

Yes, exactly.  There is a similar problem with the oft-encountered
statement that Isaac Newton was born in the same year that Galileo
Galilei died.  No, he wasn't (on either calendar), although he was born
less than a year after the death of Galileo.  (Galileo was born in the
same year as Shakespeare - although that statement may depend on the
date of commencement of the new year!)

John Briggs

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 7 May 2004 23:58:10 +0100
Subject: A Couple of Anniversaries Today
Comment:        SHK 15.1024 A Couple of Anniversaries Today

"those who celebrated the real Millennium at midnight of December 31,
2000..."

What was the date of Christ's birth, again...? It's on the tip of my
tongue...

m

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edson Tadeu Ortolan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 8 May 2004 01:17:07 -0300
Subject:        A Couple of Anniversaries Today

John Briggs wrote:

 >They [Shakespeare and Cervantes] didn't die on the same day, of course.

Yes, they died. Same day, but in the Spanish 17th century calendar was
April, 13 and in the English 17th century calendar was April, 23.

Why are two different calendars?

In 1582, the pope Gregory 13th. reformed the calendar suppressing 10
days (concerning an astronomical problem), but the Anglican Church
adopted the new calendar only in 1752.

So, we can add 10 days in the Spanish calendar to understand the
coincidence of the deaths:
13 April (Catholic/Spanish calendar) + 10 (suppressed days) = 23 April
(Anglican/English calendar).

Or we diminished 10 days in Anglican Calendar:
23 April (Anglican/English calendar) - 10 = 13 April (Catholic/Spanish
calendar).

Choice the day!

Edson Tadeu Ortolan
History of the Theatre
Brasil

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Seeking Enfants Terribles

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1032  Monday, 10 May 2004

From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 7 May 2004 23:46:32 +0100
Subject: Seeking Enfants Terribles
Comment:        SHK 15.1015 Seeking Enfants Terribles

'I am organizing a symposium for spring 2005 of "the six most important
young scholars in the field of early modern English literature and
culture."'

Don't bother looking. Those born without silver spoons in their gobs
have all gotten fed up waiting to be given a chance to be "scholars" and
gone off to make money some other way instead.

m

_______________________________________________________________
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.