2005

A Claudius Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0272  Friday, 11 February 2005

From:           Greg McSweeney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 10 Feb 2005 11:07:01 -0500
Subject:        A Claudius Question

I've looked around for the answer to this probably-stupid question, and
can't find anything definitive. Perhaps someone here could help me out.

I'm teaching Hamlet and Lear this semester, and a student has asked me
why Hamlet's father had been king instead of Claudius in the first
place. If I'd ever thought about it, which I hadn't, I probably would
have assumed that Claudius was the younger brother, and that Hamlet was
king through primogeniture. I don't recall textual reference to this in
the play, nor can I find the question addressed in critical material.

Primogeniture will come up in the discussion of Edmund and Edgar, of
course, but I don't want to jump the gun and make a similar statement
about Hamlet and Claudius if I'm just speculating.

Am I right or wrong?

Thanks -

Greg McSweeney
Montreal

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Greenblatt Discussion Forum

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0271  Thursday, 10 February 2005

From:           John-Paul Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 09 Feb 2005 10:25:24 -0500
Subject: 16.0256 Greenblatt Discussion Forum
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0256 Greenblatt Discussion Forum

When and where did Shakespeare learn Hebrew?  Do we have any
evidence--apart from secret codes--that demonstrate his knowledge of
Hebrew?  David Basch's work is so easily parodied--in fact I'm inclined
to read it as Swiftian satire--that I'd like to know if these claims
have any more legitimacy than the claims about Paul McCartney being dead
or Elvis being alive.

John-Paul Spiro

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Antony and Cleopatra and The Sonnets?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0269  Thursday, 10 February 2005

From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 8 Feb 2005 14:14:42 -0500
Subject: 16.0254 Antony and Cleopatra and The Sonnets?
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0254 Antony and Cleopatra and The Sonnets?

The creative process miraculously permits a playwright to draw a large
political reference to, say, Shakespeare's Queen and her buddies, and
still populate the details with references from personal life. There is
no reason that AC could NOT be discussing Elizabeth AND Emilia and/or
Will's mommy and/or his wife and/or any other woman or man he ever met.
All his brain had to do was notice any similarity or contrast and his
brain was good at that.

Shakespeare is notoriously not about one thing OR the other. He is
always about one thing AND the other. And the other. And the other.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakespeare's Bottom Pinched

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0270  Thursday, 10 February 2005

From:           John Webb <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 9 Feb 2005 10:54:58 -0000
Subject: 16.0139 Shakespeare's Bottom Pinched
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0139 Shakespeare's Bottom Pinched

 >An article in the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday 25th January,
 >"Shakespeare's Bottom pinched by Levi admen", describes how Midsummer
 >Night's Dream has been expropriated for a television advert.
 >The commercial, to be launched on Valentine's Day, is based on Act III
 >Scene 1 of the play and stars Amanda Sudano, daughter of the Seventies
 >disco diva Donna Summer, as Titania. It shows a romantic encounter
 >between Bottom and Titania, queen of the fairies, set in contemporary
 >Los Angeles.
 >It is hoping the 


Date of King John

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0268  Thursday, 10 February 2005

[1]     From:   Michael Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 8 Feb 2005 08:10:29 -1000
        Subj:   SHK 16.0235 Date of King John

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 9 Feb 2005 08:13:14 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0253 Date of King John


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 8 Feb 2005 08:10:29 -1000
Subject: Date of King John
Comment:        SHK 16.0235 Date of King John

Mssrs Grumman, Godshalk, Evett and Lloyd demand impossible levels of
proof, unfortunately typical of this kind of debate. Almost nothing to
do with Shakespeare is 100% certain, including the fact that he attended
school, composed his plays in the years generally accepted, etc., though
much of what we think we know is overwhelmingly probable. The best I can
offer is preponderance of the evidence (i.e, the standards of a civil
not a criminal trial). My language reflects this: '...the F1 text was
probably never performed before 1623,' etc. All we can say is that there
is no KJ Quarto, no record of its performance before the 18th century
(as Beaurline's stage history reports) and that the condition of the F1
text supports the non-performance hypothesis.

Of course it is possible that John was set from a draft and, as  Bill
Lloyd notes, maybe performed at Blackfriar's (but when?). The real
question however must be, what happened to the fair copy, if it existed
in a version repeatedly staged? Why was it not available to the F1
editors who were the author's close colleagues and friends and had
access in other cases to his best texts? We must also take into account
Heminge's and Condell's claim that their copies were 'cur'd
..perfect...and absolute in their num


Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.