2005

Henry IV MS?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2006  Tuesday, 6 December 2005

From: 		Jeff Dailey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 5 Dec 2005 16:00:40 EST
Subject: 	Henry IV MS?

I came across a reference today to a MS page containing parts of Henry 
IV.  The website is http://www.nb.no/baser/schoyen/4/4.3/437.html.  Is 
anyone familiar with this page?  Is there writing on the other side? 
Another website (http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/h4ms.htm) states it 
is not from Henry IV.  Does anyone have any experience with the MS?  Is 
it really a performance script for an actor, or is it a draft?  Any 
insights would be appreciated.

Jeff Dailey

[Editor's Note: Because I post this is not an invitation to enter into 
forbidden topics.]

_______________________________________________________________
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 Internet Shakespeare Editions

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2005  Tuesday, 6 December 2005

From: 		Michael Best <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 05 Dec 2005 09:41:16 -0800
Subject: 16.1995 The Internet Shakespeare Editions
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1995 The Internet Shakespeare Editions

Bill Lloyd asked:

 >I'm loving the new Internet Shakespeare Editions [even as I loved the old
 >one, but in a different way]. A question: the old version included 
texts of
 >plays from the Shakespeare Apocrypha [not just the 'acceptable' 
Apocrypha'
 >like Ed III etc, but also London Prodigal, etc]. I don't see them on 
the new
 >version. Will they come back? I hope so; they were useful even if only
 >marginally relevant. If so, I hope they return in texts based on the 
first
 >editions rather than on the reprints from F3.

Our texts of the "apocrypha" will be up again soon. We are using texts 
based on the Third Folio because we have facsimiles of that edition, and 
use the texts for searching on the images. If anyone out there is 
interested in working on the plays, we could publish variant versions, 
as we do for Shakespeare's plays.

_Edward III_ is a different matter. It is in the process of being edited 
for the ISE by Sonia Massai and will in due course appear alongside 
other fully edited texts.

Incidentally, our editorial policies do make room for plays that have 
resonance with Shakespeare as well as those by him. We will be 
publishing _The Taming of *a* Shrew_, fully edited by Alan Galey, and 
will also publish the plays being edited and produced by the team at 
McMaster/Toronto (headed by Helen Ostovich and Alexandra Johnston) in 
their project, "Shakespeare and the Queen's Men." See their website at

    http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/QueensMen/index.html.

They will be recreating performances of _King Leir_, _The Famous 
Victories of Henry the Fifth_, and _The Three Ladies of London_ in 
"venues that reproduce their original performance conditions." The ISE 
will publish electronic editions of the plays in original spelling, and 
will include productions records from the performances in our expanding 
database of Shakespeare in Performance:

    http://ise.uvic.ca/Theater/sip/index.html

Cheers--
Michael Best
Coordinating Editor, Internet Shakespeare Editions
<http://ise.uvic.ca/>
Department of English, University of Victoria
Victoria B.C. V8W 3W1, Canada. (250) 598-9575

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Living Characters

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2003  Monday, 5 December 2005

[1] 	From: 	Peter Goldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 02 Dec 2005 09:40:04 -0700
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1992 Living Characters

[2] 	From: 	Tom Krause <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 2 Dec 2005 12:15:59 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1992 Living Characters

[3] 	From: 	Sarah Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 02 Dec 2005 10:54:13 -0800
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 16.1992 Living Characters

[4] 	From: 	Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 02 Dec 2005 14:07:06 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1992 Living Characters

[5] 	From: 	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Sunday, 04 Dec 2005 22:36:08 +0000
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1992 Living Characters


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Peter Goldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 02 Dec 2005 09:40:04 -0700
Subject: 16.1992 Living Characters
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1992 Living Characters

Claudius has his defenders, both within and without the play. Gertrude 
likes him enough to marry him, and Claudius expresses his devotion to 
her in his dialogue with Laertes later in the play. Polonius and the 
other nobles support his bid for kingship. Critics often defend Claudius 
as a competent king however unscrupulous, just as they do R3 sometimes.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Tom Krause <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 2 Dec 2005 12:15:59 -0500
Subject: 16.1992 Living Characters
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1992 Living Characters

Don Bloom asks:

"Does anyone ever say anything good about Claudius?"

Many scholars (e.g. Jenkins, Bradley) seem to believe that Hamlet's remark

"It is not very strange; for my uncle is king of Denmark, and those that 
would make mouths at him while my father lived, give twenty, forty, 
fifty,  a hundred ducats apiece for his picture in little. 'Sblood, 
there is something in this more than natural, if philosophy could find 
it out." (Arden 2.2.359-64)

reflects well on Claudius because Hamlet is whining about Claudius's 
seeming popularity (which is almost the same as "saying something good 
about Claudius").  My own reading is different -- if one understands 
"picture in little" to refer to coins, one can see that, consistent with 
Hamlet's contemptuous treatment of Claudius throughout the play, this 
was meant as an insult, not a whine -- people are being forced to "pay 
for" Claudius's picture, because it is the currency, not because he is 
popular.

Tom Krause

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Sarah Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 02 Dec 2005 10:54:13 -0800
Subject: 16.1992 Living Characters
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.1992 Living Characters

 >Does anyone ever say anything good about Claudius?

Hamlet does admit that the bloody, bawdy villain has a conscience - 
otherwise he never would try to catch it.

That's pretty much it, leaving aside Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's 
apple-polishing remarks about kingship in general.

Sarah Cohen

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 02 Dec 2005 14:07:06 -0500
Subject: 16.1992 Living Characters
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1992 Living Characters

 >Does anyone ever say anything good about Claudius?

We have had discussions about this.  I for one am a great admirer.

To begin with, consider that Claudius became king as a result of a 
contested election in which the more likely and popular candidate was 
defeated.  Assuming his state to be disjoint, a foreign prince 
threatened an invasion for which the country was evidently ill-prepared. 
  Claudius took steps to mobilize the country and simultaneously 
initiated diplomatic efforts which resulted in the diversion of the 
attack from his country to a traditional enemy of his country.  Pretty 
neat, eh?

Later on, Claudius quietly and bloodlessly quells a popular rebellion.

He is a deliberate and careful ruler, who does not immediately trust the 
intelligence he receives from his advisors and declines to take action 
until the need is manifest.

Grebanier also has some nice things to say about him.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Sunday, 04 Dec 2005 22:36:08 +0000
Subject: 16.1992 Living Characters
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1992 Living Characters

Don Bloom asks: "Does anyone ever say anything good about Claudius?"

His principal accuser, the Spook, gripes about Claudius' bewitching 
"wit" and seductive "gifts." Indeed, Gertrude's "o'erhasty marriage" 
testifies loudly to the Serpent King's allure. Even Prince Hamlet 
acknowledges him a "mighty opposite."

Yet Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not the only ones caught between 
"mighty opposites." Young Hamlet himself has been trapped since birth 
and baptism between mighty spirits contending for his soul. Like R&G, 
Hamlet has been assigned a slaughterous task by his "king."  Horatio's 
"Why, what a king is this!" could as easily apply to King Hamlet as to 
his brother Claudius.

Viva Goddard!
Joe Egert

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Missing Catalogues

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2004  Tuesday, 6 December 2005

From: 		Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 5 Dec 2005 12:48:18 -0500
Subject: 	Missing Catalogues

Greetings all,

It has come to my attention that several of our regular customers have 
not received the 2005 Poor Yorick Shakespeare Catalogue this year.  It's 
a whopping 68 pages with over 2000 items and was mailed out in 
mid-September, but we used a new mail service, so we're also trying to 
work out a few bugs in the system.

If you did not receive your catalogue (or would like to be added to our 
mailing list), please contact me off-list at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. so I 
can figure out who got missed.

Much obliged,
Tanya Gough
The Poor Yorick Shakespeare Catalogue
www.bardcentral.com

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shadowplay

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2002  Monday, 5 December 2005

[1] 	From: 	Jim Blackie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 2 Dec 2005 07:45:53 -0800 (PST)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

[2] 	From: 	Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 02 Dec 2005 10:09:48 -0600
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

[3] 	From: 	Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 2 Dec 2005 11:18:42 -0600
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

[4] 	From: 	Debra Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 2 Dec 2005 09:32:44 -0800
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

[5] 	From: 	Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 02 Dec 2005 14:24:28 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

[6] 	From: 	Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 2 Dec 2005 23:44:56 -0000
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

[7] 	From: 	John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 02 Dec 2005 23:24:25 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

[8] 	From: 	Bob Linn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Saturday, 03 Dec 2005 01:19:55 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Jim Blackie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 2 Dec 2005 07:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 16.1993 Shadowplay
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

From: Bill Arnold - "Indeed, to praise me is acceptable but to misuse me 
is not. What do I mean? Well, my point was that pervasive in English 
literature was Catholicism prior to the Shakespearean Age. And English 
literature, surely, knew of Dante's masterpiece: The Divine Comedy, 
agreed? So, every Protestant knew of the concept of Purgatory."

Bill, I had no intention on misusing you, but your argument spoke to me 
directly for the reason I VERY briefly gave in my post. Perhaps this 
speaks to the nature of human perception and how preconceived ideas lead 
one down a road that, while obvious for one reader/audience, is absent 
to another and perhaps was never even intended by the author. Isn't that 
what makes WS great and allows his plays to live on?

"Not everyone is a strict fundamentalist in applying their knowledge to 
what they read or view and know. I do not believe that the Shakespearean 
audience thought just because the voice of the Spirit of Hamlet's father 
came from below the stage that ipso facto the Spirit was necessarily bad 
nor that it emanated from Purgatory. More like, in the Dantean sense, 
that the Spirit was in Limbo! Limbo is neither in Hell nor in Purgatory. 
  After-all, Purgatory was a creation in all its detail of Dante, was it 
not? At least in so far as it affected literature after its emergence 
upon the scene. It follows, that *all* knowledge of the Purgatory 
Concept was influenced by the *details* of Dante's Purgatorio, agreed?"

Sorry, but "no." I think that though literature may influence readers, 
the religious concepts that "everyman" heard in church (with enforced 
attendance, from what I read) would probably be the most familiar. So if 
EVERYONE goes to church, while SOME read Dante, I have to disagree that 
"*all* knowledge of the Purgatory Concept" points to Dante. Did 
groundlings read Dante? Merchants or lawyers? I have to admit I don't 
know... but surely not everyone.

That's why, TO ME, the issue of purgatory/ghost was an important one. To 
me, there were probably only 2 possibilities, that the ghost was having 
its sins burned away in a Catholic afterlife, or the ghost was a devil 
(Protestant). Debra Murphy did a much better job of explaining my 
thoughts that I did or am doing... (Do I dare chance another "Bravo?" 
Yeah -- BRAVA, Debra) I was happy to see that this interpretation is 
shared by others. I must have picked it up in my readings, but for the 
life of me I can't recall where!  Most likely Dover Wilson's explanation 
of why the voice came from the cellarage - to frighten Marcellus into 
keeping his vow with a supposed visitor from hell

Again, sorry if I misunderstood your point, Bill, no harm intended.

     Jim Blackie

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 02 Dec 2005 10:09:48 -0600
Subject: 16.1993 Shadowplay
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

What does your reading make of the way that Hamlet repeatedly moves his 
men around the stage when he swears them to silence and the ghost 
beneath the stage also says "swear!"? Most of the readers I know think 
he's moving them away from the ghost, in fear or wariness. "Hic et 
ubique? Then we'll change our ground" (1.5.164 in Jenkins, whose LNs on 
this are subtle and apt).

 >I do not believe that the Shakespearean audience thought just because
 >the voice of the Spirit of Hamlet's father came from below the stage
 >that ipso facto the Spirit was necessarily bad nor that it emanated from
 >Purgatory.
 >
 >Bill Arnold

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 2 Dec 2005 11:18:42 -0600
Subject: 16.1993 Shadowplay
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

Two points.

1. While I don't generally disagree with Bill Arnold on this subject, I 
think his reference to Limbo is incorrect ("More like, in the Dantean 
sense, that the Spirit was in Limbo!  Limbo is neither in Hell nor in 
Purgatory."). On the one hand, limbo is definitely in Hell, though 
outside the punishments of it. On the other, when I checked the Catholic 
Encyclopedia, I found only a Limbus Patrum (for the holy who died before 
the Incarnation) and a Limbus Infantium (for unbaptized babies), neither 
of which King Hamlet would qualify for. I will, of course, gladly defer 
to those more learned in Roman Catholic theology (of whom there must be 
multitudes) if I have missed something.

2. I think this Protestant / Catholic business tends to lose its way. 
The context of the play is clearly Medieval and thus Catholic, that is, 
clinging to a number of traditions which the Reformers swept away. 
Shakespeare was fully capable of writing in a Catholic or 
pseudo-Catholic context no matter what his personal religious beliefs 
were. His audience was capable of understanding it in that context, 
whatever *their* beliefs were.

The issue is, thus, not a sectarian one, but a moral one which the 
author is at pains not to resolve. Like Hamlet, we have to decide 
whether the ghost is telling the truth, and then, if so, whether he 
should act on that information to exact revenge for the murder of his 
father. In the main, such revenge is forbidden: "Vengeance is mine, 
saith the Lord. I will repay." But what if the Lord's medium of 
repayment for Claudius's "foul murder" is Hamlet?

Certainly it is an "honest ghost" that tells Hamlet the truth, but 
beyond that we are walking in the same murky, nightmare region as the 
prince. At what point do you allow what may or may not be a messenger of 
God to persuade you to violate a commandment? The story of Judith may be 
relevant here, but by and large you make your choice based on aspects of 
your own character.

Cheers,
don

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Debra Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 2 Dec 2005 09:32:44 -0800
Subject: 16.1993 Shadowplay
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

I guess I am one who is not following Bill Arnold's argument.  However 
much influence Dante had on people's imagination of Purgatory, Purgatory 
*was* a religious concept, and long before Dante.  And no, I can't 
imagine any Elizabethan audience, Protestant or Catholic, imagining 
Hamlet's Ghost being in Limbo.  Limbo has always been a theoretical 
place (i.e., not taught, so far as I am aware, as defined dogma in the 
Catholic Church) where the souls of unbaptized infants go.  King Hamlet 
was not an unbaptized infant, and I can't imagine any Elizabethan, 
Protestant or Catholic, suspecting that he might be there.

The idea of Limbo was that an unbaptized infant could not see the face 
of God (heaven) because it still had Original Sin; but that because it 
had committed no sins of its own, it didn't deserve the pains of hell, 
either.  So the idea of a naturally happy but not beatific place was 
proposed to solve the theological problem.  Purgatory, by the way, has 
always been considered a rather nasty place-one is being purged, by 
spiritual fire as it were, of one's sins, so one didn't want to go 
there, either, if one could avoid it by living a saintly life.  In fact, 
the only thing separating it from hell, per se-I thought Dante made this 
clear, but I, too, am many years away from the text-is its lack of 
permanence.  A soul in purgatory knows its horrible sufferings are at 
least temporary, etc.

Debra Murphy
www.bardolatry.com

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 02 Dec 2005 14:24:28 -0500
Subject: 16.1993 Shadowplay
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

I don't think it is necessary to assume that WS was a closet Catholic 
just because he gets Catholic theology right in a play set in a Catholic 
period.  He also depicts Diana, Jupiter and Apollo as real deities in 
Per, Cym & WT.  Are we to conclude that he was a recusant pagan?

WS had remarkably few religious anachronisms in his plays.  Plays set in 
pagan times assumed the accuracy of pagan religious notions; Greek and 
Roman gods were real in those plays but mythological figures in the 
plays set in Christian times.

The one significant exception is WT, in which Apollo and his oracle are 
to be accepted as divine, but, at the same time, Polixenes alludes to 
Jesus and Judas, and there are two instances of oaths taken on swords 
(cruciform objects).  I suspect that this might have been deliberate, to 
convey the notion that the play was set at no time and all times.  The 
shift of locales from those in Pandosto, requiring Bohemia to have a 
seacoast, might have served a similar purpose of setting the play in a 
neverland.

There is much n WT that I find to be revolutionary.  It is almost as if 
WS set about creating an entirely new form of dramatic entertainment. 
Consider that it is a court play that suddenly becomes a pastoral after 
a 16 year gap in the action.  WS never paid much attention to the 
unities, but 16 years is a bit much.  It is a "comedy" (at least it ends 
happily with two weddings and three reconciliations), but two likable 
characters die and the protagonist loses the best sixteen years of his 
life.  Above all, WS intentionally deceives his audience.  Can anyone 
think of any pre-restoration play in which that was done?

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 2 Dec 2005 23:44:56 -0000
Subject: 16.1993 Shadowplay
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

Bill Arnold writes ...

 >I do not believe that the Shakespearean audience thought just because
 >the voice of the Spirit of Hamlet's father came from below the stage
 >that ipso facto the Spirit was necessarily bad nor that it emanated from
 >Purgatory. More like, in the Dantean sense, that the Spirit was in 
Limbo!
 >Limbo is neither in Hell nor in Purgatory.

As from this week, Limbo is in neither.  It has officially disappeared ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1653708,00.html

Up to last week however, Limbo was definitely at the outer edge of Hell 
('limbo' is Latin for 'hem' or 'edge').

 >After-all, Purgatory was a creation in all its detail of Dante, was it 
not?

The image of Purgatory as a mountain might have been Dante's, but the 
idea of Purgatory itself is ancient.  Eleven hundred years before Dante, 
Origen (182-251 AD) wrote that if a person left this life with lighter 
faults (i.e. not quite deserving of hell), they were condemned to a 
"purging fire" which "destroys the wood of our transgressions and then 
returns us to the reward of our good works".  In The City of God, St. 
Augustine (354-430 AD) states that there are "some who have departed 
this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as 
to be entitled to immediate happiness". Augustine says these souls will 
eventually gain happiness, having "gone through those pains to which the 
spirits of the dead are liable".

While Dante's Purgatory was a rather cosy place where sinners chanted Te 
Deums all day, Shakespeare's Purgatory is clearly a much tougher place, 
and much closer to Origen's "purging fire" ...

I am thy father's spirit,
Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confined to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purged away.

 >It follows, that *all* knowledge of the Purgatory Concept was influenced
 >by the *details* of Dante's Purgatorio, agreed?

Not agreed.  Dante's Purgatory was a mountain; in the British Isles, 
Purgatory was believed to be underground.  And the pilgrimage site known 
as St Patrick's Purgatory in Northern Ireland was believed to be the 
actual entrance to this underground Purgatory.  Shakespeare clearly has 
the British idea of Purgatory in mind.  Old Hamlet lives underground, 
and young Hamlet swears by St Patrick.

Peter Bridgman

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 02 Dec 2005 23:24:25 -0500
Subject: 16.1993 Shadowplay
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >Indeed, to praise me is acceptable but to misuse me is not.  What do I
 >mean?  Well, my point was that pervasive in English literature was
 >Catholicism prior to the Shakespearean Age.  And English literature,
 >surely, knew of Dante's masterpiece: The Divine Comedy, agreed?  So,
 >every Protestant knew of the concept of Purgatory.  Not everyone is a
 >strict fundamentalist in applying their knowledge to what they read or
 >view and know.  I do not believe that the Shakespearean audience thought
 >just because the voice of the Spirit of Hamlet's father came from below
 >the stage that ipso facto the Spirit was necessarily bad nor that it
 >emanated from Purgatory.  More like, in the Dantean sense, that the
 >Spirit was in Limbo!  Limbo is neither in Hell nor in Purgatory.
 >After-all, Purgatory was a creation in all its detail of Dante, was it
 >not?  At least in so far as it affected literature after its emergence
 >upon the scene.  It follows, that *all* knowledge of the Purgatory
 >Concept was influenced by the *details* of Dante's Purgatorio, agreed?
 >Does that make Purgatorio a religious concept or a literary concept, if
 >you follow my argument?  In any event, Purgatorio was a mountainous
 >terrain, as a I recall and not to be confused with Hell or The Inferno
 >of Dante.  By the way, if I err in all this, I will stand corrected, as
 >I have not taught Dante in eons.  But my point is that if apples are
 >religion and oranges are literature, they are not to be easily confused
 >as they often are by students of both, and, yes, scholars, as well.

You are right about Dante, but wrong about 16th-century RCism. The 
popular impression of the time, encouraged by the Church, was quite 
different from Dante's green and pleasant penitentiary for sinners 
knowing and regretting their sins, and willing accepting the working out 
thereof while looking forward to Heaven. On the contrary, it was 
frequently described as simply a suburb of Hell, and it was even 
suggested by some that the pains of Purgatory were so great as to make 
the soul forget God (I rather fancy the modern Church would denounce the 
last, at least, as outright heresy). It may well have been this, as much 
as the commercial scandal, that led to the denunciation of Purgatory by 
the Reformers.

"The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and 
Adoration as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of 
Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty 
of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."
         -- Articles of Religion (1563)

[8]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bob Linn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 03 Dec 2005 01:19:55 -0500
Subject: 16.1993 Shadowplay
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1993 Shadowplay

Bill Arnold writes, "Limbo is neither in Hell nor in Purgatory." 
Actually, Limbo is in Hell.  It is the First Circle of Hell, a special 
place for virtuous pagans and unbaptized babies, but most definitely in 
Hell.

_______________________________________________________________
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.