The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0535  Tuesday, 22 March 2005

[1]     From:   Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 21 Mar 2005 12:29:45 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 16.0525 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

[2]     From:   Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 21 Mar 2005 21:29:18 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0525 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

[3]     From:   William Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 21 Mar 2005 17:35:47 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0525 Shakespeare's Personal Faith


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 21 Mar 2005 12:29:45 -0500
Subject: Shakespeare's Personal Faith
Comment:        SHK 16.0525 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

John W. Kennedy writes,

 >You go too far. It (the idea that you can dredge up an author's 'personal
 >faith' by means of a close analysis of his or her writings ) depends
on the
 >author (and the writings). In /some/ cases, it's quite easy.

Really? Give us an example.

T. Hawkes

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 21 Mar 2005 21:29:18 -0000
Subject: 16.0525 Shakespeare's Personal Faith
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0525 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

Tad Davis writes ...

 >The evidence of John's recusancy and Susanna's
 >absence from communion doesn't warrant the conclusion that either was
 >"definitely" a recusant Catholic.

John's recusancy was discussed extensively on SHAKSPER last year so I
won't bore everyone by going over it again. What evidence there is (the
recusancy rolls, the "fear of process for debt" alibi, the