2005

Shakespeare's Personal Faith

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0657  Thursday, 7 April 2005

[1]     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005 13:48:29 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 16.0646 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

[2]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005 20:01:26 +0100
        Subj:   SHK 16.0646 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

[3]     From:   Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005 17:40:29 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0646 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

[4]     From:   Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005 23:01:40 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0646 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

[5]     From:   Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 7 Apr 2005 01:42:04 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0646 Shakespeare's Personal Faith


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005 13:48:29 -0400
Subject: Shakespeare's Personal Faith
Comment:        SHK 16.0646 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

Dear Norman Hinton,

I didn't write

'writing writes itself and no one can know what is really meant'

You did.

T. Hawkes

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005 20:01:26 +0100
Subject: Shakespeare's Personal Faith
Comment:        SHK 16.0646 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

"Reformation" may have been a word unknown in WS's time, but "reform"
and "reformer", in the context we understand in this thread, were
certainly common enough.

m

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005 17:40:29 -0400
Subject: 16.0646 Shakespeare's Personal Faith
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0646 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

Peter Bridgman wrote:

"The following quote, from a Protestant site called 'What was the
Reformation? A Brief History', seems to agree with me ..."

Nice site. http://www.orlutheran.com/html/refwhat.html

Maybe it doesn't agree with you all that much. For instance, right
before your quote comes:

"The Word Reformatio

Yet long before applied to the work of Martin Luther, the word
reformation had a long and varied history. According to Heiko Oberman,

 >      The word reformation was as popular in the Middle Ages as
democracy is
 >today -- and it meant as many things to as many people . . . Then
 >reformation meant return to original ideals. The Church was to emulate the
 >model of the early Christian community, to be united again in love; or a
 >monastic community was to regain sight of the original, authentic
principles
 >of the founder of their order. With regard to the individual reformatio
 >stood for the renewal of man and woman.2
 >
 >In the eleventh through the thirteenth century, many in Europe took up the
 >ideal of "apostolic poverty" and harshly criticized the wealthy
established
 >Church and called for "reformation," which in that case meant
repentance and
 >return to Christ's way of life.3 The word could technically refer to
 >reestablishing universities according to their original usage, e.g.,
 >reformatio in pristinum statum. As one of their slogans, the
 >fourteenth-century conciliar movement adopted the phrase, "reformation of
 >the church in head and members" (reformatio ecclesiae in capite et in
 >membris), which was basically an appeal to an ethical reform of both
people
 >and leaders within the church.4
 >
 >As has been often noted, it is interesting that Luther rarely used the
word
 >reformation to describe the work he had undertaken. When he did, it
was with
 >a marked difference. The reformation he undertook was a reformation of
 >doctrine rather than ethical renewal. And the reformation of doctrine
 >occurred through the preaching of the Gospel of justification by grace
 >through faith. And in all this Luther differed substantially from all
 >medievals and so-called forerunners of the reformation. In his own
words....
 >
 >   ....However, they do not want to be reformed (as they say) by this
former
 >mendicant monk. Yet this same mendicant monk . . . has reformed them
 >considerably. I have, God be praised, reformed more with my gospel than
 >perhaps they have done with five councils. So far they have done nothing
 >more in the councils than play around with unprofitable matters that
do not
 >concern the Christian church. However, now our gospel comes along, takes
 >away indulgence, abolishes pilgrimages, puts a stop to bulls, checks
 >covetousness, and achieves marvelous results.6
 >
 >Ultimately, for Luther man could not be reformed completely this side of
 >heaven. Only Christ's return could accomplish that. The real aim in this
 >life for Luther was forgiveness, not reformation."

So. "Reformatio" or "reformation" was being used to describe religious
change as far back as WHEN? The Middle Ages! "Eleventh through the
thirteenth century." Yet there's Wycliffe, who was ranting about
"reform" in the 1300s which keeps that association of "reform" with
changing the Church ongoing throughout the fourteenth century.

Here's a site that refers to John Wycliffe as "The Reformer."
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/john-wycliffe.html

This site refers to the "personal reformation of John Wycliffe" so it's
entirely possible for Henry V (by association of words and ideas only)
to be linked to protestant reformation VIA personal reformation:
http://www.lwbc.co.uk/reformation_of_wycliffe.htm

Here's a reference from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15722a.htm

Jan Hus wasn't English, of course, but there he was, promoting
Wycliffe's teachings and getting burned at the stake in the fifteenth
century.

Then there was Martin Luther "rarely" mentioning "reformation" in the
16th century.

So tell me again that the word "reformation" was not a loaded,
explosive, hot button word coming out of the mouth of a Catholic cleric.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005 23:01:40 +0100
Subject: 16.0646 Shakespeare's Personal Faith
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0646 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

John Briggs continues to insist that Shakespeare got his 'Non nobis' and
'Te Deum' from the Book of Common Prayer.

It seems however that he got them both from Catholic historian Raphael
Holinshed ...

". . . the King when he saw no appearance of his enemies, caused the
retreat to be blown; and gathering his army together, gave thanks to the
almighty God for so happy a victory, causing his prelates and chaplains
to sing this psalm: 'In exitu de Aegypto', and commanded every man to
kneel down on the ground at this verse: 'Non nobis Domine, non nobis,
sed nomini tuo da gloriam' (a worthy example of a godly prince.)  Which
done, he caused 'Te deum', with certain anthems to be sung, giving laud
and praise to God, without boasting of his own force or any human power"
   (Signet ed. John Russell Brown,  p198).

Peter Bridgman

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 7 Apr 2005 01:42:04 -0400
Subject: 16.0646 Shakespeare's Personal Faith
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0646 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

Bridgman again:

 >Besides, there are moments in the play when Henry's Catholicism is very
 >evident.  For example, he orders Bardolph's hanging for stealing a pax.
 >A pax or 'paxbread' was, as Duffy explains, "a disk or tablet on which
 >was carved or painted a sacred emblem, such as the Lamb of God or the
 >Crucifix. This pax was ... taken [after being blessed by the priest at
 >Mass] to the congregation outside the screen, where it was kissed by
 >each in turn ... [It was] clearly a substitute for the reception of
 >communion".
 >
 >I realize I need to be gentle here. Bardolph was hanged for stealing a
 >worthless object. The point being that ANY looting was forbidden.

Now, on Mr. Bridgman's side, there does seem to be some argument as to
the meaning of "pax" since the original Holinshed reference was to a
"pyx." A "pyx" is a container for the Eucharist and could, quite
possibly, be worth something. Some sources seem to think "pyx" and "pax"
are the same. But that would only mean that Shakespeare took the thing
whole out of Holinshed and didn't think about it much.

However, not everyone agrees that "pyx" and "pax" are the same. On this
site, "pax" is listed as being "ceremonial embrace given to signify
Christian love and unity:"
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Ka0YD1ABWWQJ:www.absp.org.uk/publicatio
ns/3sodd.doc+Shakespeare+pyx+pax&hl=en

In fact, if you plan to play Scrabble, it might help you to know that
"pax" is a "kiss of peace" and "pyx" is "a box in which coins are kept
for testing."
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:4WpXrRhvxEwJ:www.chambersharrap.co.uk/c
hambers/ebooks/scrabble_hints.pdf+Shakespeare+pyx+pax&hl=en

Here, "pax" clearly refers to a kissing ritual, while "paxbread" is the
object being kissed:  "Another central part of the ceremony was the pax
where just before his own communion "the priest kissed the corporas on
which the host rested, and the lip of the chalice, and then kissed the
paxbread, a disk or tablet on which was carved or painted a sacred
emblem, such as the Lamb of God or the Crucifix.""
http://www.shu.ac.uk/emls/06-2/brunvol.htm

Maybe "paxbread" is intended as this Duffy person insists. But Holinshed
said "pyx" and Shakespeare said "pax."

So we are left with the uncomfortable suspicion that Wicked William
altered Holinshed just the teensiest wee bit and hanged Bardolph for
stealing a kiss.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Words Ending in eth/th

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0656  Thursday, 7 April 2005

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005 16:50:04 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0644 Words Ending in eth/th

[2]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005 13:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0644 Words Ending in eth/th


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005 16:50:04 +0100
Subject: 16.0644 Words Ending in eth/th
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0644 Words Ending in eth/th

David:

 >I am happy to be corrected on the item concerning Rudyard Kipling's
 >short story as containing the item on Psalm 46. I got that bit of
 >information off the web and one can now see the pitfalls of that.
 >
 >I am happy that now I will get to read the Rudyard Kipling story.

         I'm not so sure you can get out from under this so easily.

It really isn't that difficult to find Kipling's prose on the Web, so
there isn't any excuse not to have read it when you make quite wrong
assertions as to the content of the text.

On the other hand, I hadn't come on it before I back-tracked it, so I
suppose I shouldn't parade my own righteousness.

Equally, if I had a penny for every fictional
Jonson/Shakespeare/Back-again-in-Stratford dialogue, I'd probably
develop a hernia walking to the corner shop to cash the money in.

Didn't Howard Brenton do a play on this?

R.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005 13:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.0644 Words Ending in eth/th
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0644 Words Ending in eth/th

Larry Weiss quotes another, "So, David Basch is in agreement with Bill
Arnold.  Is there a figure of speech, more precise than irony, for this
state of affairs?"

Then, the not-so weiss guy writes, "It is not a figure of speech, but
'folles 


The Use of Rolls?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0654  Thursday, 7 April 2005

From:           William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 06 Apr 2005 22:11:55 -0400
Subject: 16.0643 The Use of Rolls?
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0643 The Use of Rolls?

John Briggs questions the universality of theatre rolls: "all companies,
at all times, for all plays, for all roles?  I think I was warning of
the dangers of extrapolation from limited data.  After all, and for
example, a number of players could have shared a 'literary' transcript!"

I'm willing to be schooled. How would a number of actors share a
"transcript"? And why would they share a "literary" transcript?  I take
it that a literary transcript was made as a presentation copy for an
influential person, not for theatre use.

Bill Godshalk

_______________________________________________________________
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 Claudius Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0655  Thursday, 7 April 2005

From:           Cheryl Newton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 07 Apr 2005 00:01:44 -0400
Subject: 16.0645 (A Claudius Question) barking bats & flapping dogs
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0645 (A Claudius Question) barking bats & flapping dogs

 >I'm not saying this is right, all I'm saying is that it's possible to
 >stage a version of +Hamlet+ where the Prince isn't totally
 >bats-in-the-belfry barking mad.
 >>
 >        Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
 >>
 >It WORKS, and unless you want to dismiss the audience and elect
another  ...
 >>
 >            <sigh>
 >>
 >The Wee M'Greegor

I've seen productions with Hamlet as more distraught than mad (going for
the court defense of being under mental stress) or simply calm &
calculating.  Mostly they worked.  But the various characters make so
much reference to his changed disposition that I think the last 1/2 of
the play carries its own internal direction for Hamlet to be spiraling
out of control.  The only compelling argument for me to a strictly
rational approach is that Horatio, perhaps the most important
interpreter of Hamlet's behavior, seems to accept his friend's behavior
as put-on.

Drat, hmm.  I trust Horatio's judgement, so now I'll have to rethink the
entire process!

Cheryl

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Margery and the Tearful Jestmonger

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0653  Thursday, 7 April 2005

[1]     From:   Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 06 Apr 2005 20:40:34 +0300
        Subj:   SHAKSPER 2005: Margery and the Tearful Jestmonger

[2]     From:   Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 06 Apr 2005 13:51:26 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0642 Margery and the Tearful Jestmonger

[3]     From:   Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 06 Apr 2005 19:11:22 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0642 Margery and the Tearful Jestmonger

[4]     From:   Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 07 Apr 2005 13:26:22 +0300
        Subj:   SHK 16.0629 Margery and the Tearful Jestmonger


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 06 Apr 2005 20:40:34 +0300
Subject:        SHAKSPER 2005: Margery and the Tearful Jestmonger04/06/05

1. To Peter Bridgman: I have long thought that Jonson's quip is just
because Shakespeare had such a prodigious knowledge of Hebrew - to which
his Latin and Greek made no comparison.

2. To Joseph Egert: Hebrew does not fix vowels by inscription. So the
transliteration of gar or ger can be the way that you happen to
pronounce an a or an e.  I had never looked into the Hebrew of Margery
before, but my experience is that wherever a Hebrew label can be put for
a touchstone Shakespeare put it.

Florence

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 06 Apr 2005 13:51:26 -0500
Subject: 16.0642 Margery and the Tearful Jestmonger
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0642 Margery and the Tearful Jestmonger

 >Finally, the full manuscript by the late
 >fifteenth century belonged to the Mount Grace Carthusian Priory,
 >recipient of the Pembroke family's charity.

Yes, Mount Grace are the people who lost it.

The very brief excerpts issued by de Worde and by Pepwell have no
autobiographical passages in them (in fact, Pepwell thinks she was an
"anchoress") so are not likely to have the information about her that
you are using.


[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 06 Apr 2005 19:11:22 +0000
Subject: 16.0642 Margery and the Tearful Jestmonger
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0642 Margery and the Tearful Jestmonger

To Florence Amit, on "complexion":

The text is fairly clear. "Complexion" is used by Portia in its color
sense, almost a response to the Moorish prince's self-description,
though other meanings may be included.

It seems that Florence Amit and David Basch are intent on circumcising
Shakespeare's pen and every word issuing from it (like Shylock with
knife outstretched, looming over Anthonio). Lay down your knives a while
and broaden your focus.

 From a fellow Chosen One,
Joe Egert

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Florence Amit <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 07 Apr 2005 13:26:22 +0300
Subject: Margery and the Tearful Jestmonger
Comment:        SHK 16.0629 Margery and the Tearful Jestmonger

Dear Mr. Egart.

This sometimes this happens when I do not prepare. Please excuse me. You
are right to mention the second "a" in Margarey for Hebrew. As such
"gar" could mean where one resides. In that case it would fittingly
comment on Launcelot's hardship of residence as well as - so I think,
the hardship of his Jewish affiliations.

Florence

_______________________________________________________________
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.