Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2004 :: September ::
Question on Measure for Measure
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1771  Tuesday, 28 September 2004

[1]     From:   Abigail Quart <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 17 Sep 2004 14:14:15 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1747 Question on Measure for Measure

[2]     From:   Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 17 Sep 2004 19:34:48 +0100
        Subj:   SHK 15.1747 Question on Measure for Measure

[3]     From:   Abigail Quart <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 17 Sep 2004 14:44:28 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1747 Question on Measure for Measure

[4]     From:   Tom Krause <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 19 Sep 2004 21:59:43 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 15.1737 Long Posts & Lists


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 17 Sep 2004 14:14:15 -0400
Subject: 15.1747 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1747 Question on Measure for Measure

2)  Shakespeare *ALWAYS* uses double-meaning.

Oh, like I'm supposed to fall into a silly trap like that. I will say
that Shakespeare has the oddest tendency to drag meanings and
associations into places you wouldn't think they belong. He has a
negative association with the word "pitch," for instance. Even the
perfectly innocent verb of the word will drag negative relationships
into the passage. Just plain odd.

He also seems to use a kind of synaptic overdrive. He starts an image
and his brain doggedly keeps supplying associations to it like the
sorcerer's apprentice.

As for Juliet Capulet, since she is likened to a "rich jewel," I can't
imagine why a link to another thing of value would be out of the
question.  As for the "debased" association, if she hasn't been debased
by her secret marriage to Romeo, why can't she tell her parents? After
all, Will was the father of two daughters. Why should we assume that a
runaway marriage would sit well with him?

I don't find Shakespeare's multilevel imagery "atrocious and confusing."
I find it enlightening. And delightful. I did say that it wasn't
necessary for the dramatic logic of the plays to work. But it IS why we
sit down and read them so carefully. And so often.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 17 Sep 2004 19:34:48 +0100
Subject: Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        SHK 15.1747 Question on Measure for Measure

Blimey.

Happy to report that Krause's impeccable logic makes most of the other
protagonists in this thread look absurd - two of them in particular.

Not sure I personally buy his interpretation of MFM entirely, but the
material he brings to light is undeniably interesting.

And to fight about whether or not Shakespeare could possibly have meant
certain double meanings of words or other allegories is surely
spectacularly beside the point? Didn't the 20th century happen? Last I
checked William Shakespeare wasn't a member of this list.

m

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 17 Sep 2004 14:44:28 -0400
Subject: 15.1747 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1747 Question on Measure for Measure

Damn. I scrolled down. Really, no one has the time to read all of this.

However. I was saddened by the ""angel" = "gold coin"". I understand
that Mr. Larque would be more comfortable with mathematical equations,
but poetic logic is simply not that linear. Yes, those passages are
aggressively gooey and the references are to airy beings. Yup, yup, yup.
Yup.

But everyone in England knew angels were gold coins, yes? YES? So no
matter what flight of fancy Romeo engages in, the reality is that this
thing of value, this Juliet, is much more solid, more of the earth, more
real, than any celestial being. You can't hold a heavenly creation the
way you can a coin. Or a woman. So all the audience has to do is wait
till the adolescent gets this frou frou out of his system and gets down
to the real. Which they have now been cued to expect. Because Juliet is
solid. And of value. And she can be held. Like a coin. Yes?

When Shakespeare had Romeo say "angel," the association was made. Done
deal.  Because everyone in England already knew about the two kinds of
angel. See, it IS possible for minds to hold contradictory images
comfortably. Jesus, for instance, is a lamb. And the shepherd.
Christians have NO problem with that, I hear tell.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Krause <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 19 Sep 2004 21:59:43 -0400
Subject: Long Posts & Lists
Comment:        SHK 15.1737 Long Posts & Lists

I defer to Hardy's views on the proper purpose of the list, as well as
the best use of his time.

But I didn't want to let this go without thanking Hardy for giving me
the opportunity to post my essay on the site, and also for his work in
posting the comments of my critics and my responses to them on the
Measure for Measure thread.  Although there were additional qualities I
could have wished for in my primary critic (Mr. Larque), he was not
wanting in passion, knowledge, and willingness to spend time researching
and debating the topic, and I for one benefited from the experience.  I
hope that the opportunity for such a debate will be available to future
authors.

Mr. Larque has offered to provide a summation of his arguments, and I
will do the same, and then the thread will presumably end.  I hope that
our summations will be posted, because they should spare any future
readers the necessity of reading through all the arguments and
counter-arguments post by post.  I apologize in advance to those of you
who have lost interest in the thread, and hope that you will simply use
the delete key and move on.

Tom Krause

_______________________________________________________________
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.