The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1966 Tuesday, 29 November 2005
[1] From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 27 Nov 2005 20:36:46 +0000
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1946 Living Characters
[2] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 00:30:14 -0000
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1955 Living Characters
[3] From: David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 27 Nov 2005 19:45:57 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1955 Living Characters
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 27 Nov 2005 20:36:46 +0000
Subject: 16.1946 Living Characters
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1946 Living Characters
Stu Manger's assault on "extravagant innovation", if reinforced, would
inevitably discourage imaginative exegesis of Myriad Man's living art.
It would give heart to all surface crawlers dreaming to limit and
constrict rather than expand and stretch the bounds of "legitimate"
discourse.
Fine word "legitimate"! Let the Forum partake of Edmund's vigor and
ingenuity. We need more upstart crows, not fewer. No more caged Ariels.
Let the eagle soar!
Joe Egert
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 00:30:14 -0000
Subject: 16.1955 Living Characters
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1955 Living Characters
Peter Bridgman wrote:
>It may be just a coincidence but Susanna and Judith are both names not
>found in Protestant Bibles. Daniel 13 and the book of Judith were
>among the books the reformers threw out.
Well, no. The Apocryphal books were included in Protestant Bibles until
the nineteenth century - as a separate section, of course. See Article
6 of the Articles of Religion (1562), which you can easily find in your
copy of the Book of Common Prayer. (Both Susanna and Judith are named
in that Article!) You should not confuse sixteenth-century Protestants
with modern Fundamentalists (some of whom produce editions of the
Septuagint without the Apocrypha - "which were ridiculous".)
Biblical names from the Old Testament become common during Elizabeth's
reign - thanks to people reading those Protestant Bibles, of course.
Other names such as Susanna and Judith had become popular earlier in the
century - they are names familiar from the Mystery Plays, funnily enough.
John Briggs
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 27 Nov 2005 19:45:57 -0500
Subject: 16.1955 Living Characters
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1955 Living Characters
Much has been said that I agree with, but part of the problem is that
it's all so general I think any reasonable person would also agree. On a
general level, for example, while David Frankel is right about different
levels of awareness, I'm not sure his jargon terms are all that helpful.
We can hear a speech and have the more or less simultaneous reactions of
weeping, admiring the writing, and admiring the acting and directing.
Yes, but it's in talking about particular cases that the rubber meets
the road. Reasonable generalizations quickly tend toward the
platitudinous, even though in this case it's worth responding to the
unreasonable generalization that has elicited them.
John Knapp at least touches on the specific. While I also am impatient
with the interpretive tradition of Ernest Jones, et. al., some of what
John Knapp says, almost in passing, as if everyone agrees, strikes me as
inaccurate. He refers to Shakespeare's "intuitive feel for how, for
example, two brothers might display levels of sibling rivalry, and how
one persuaded his immature son into continuing the family battles." I'm
not sure the anachronistic term "sibling rivalry" fits here--which isn't
to say that it might not, sometimes. The ambition to be king doesn't
require brotherhood. The fact that Claudius is King Hamlet's brother
intensifies the foulness of the murder, but what's sibling rivalry got
to do with it? We don't know enough about their past to say, and though
we might assume some such rivalry in a real family, these are characters
whose past, in the play, doesn't stretch back that far. So this would be
an example of going beyond what's justified by the play.
As for how one brother "persuaded his immature son into continuing the
family battles", this begs a great many questions. Laertes, in some ways
a mirror of Hamlet, needs no such persuasion because he believes it's a
son's duty to revenge his father's death. As I've said elsewhere, I
think the play's focus shifts, by the end, away from revenge toward
justice. This is only one example of the kind of unjustified assumptions
about the play, made even by established professional specialists, which
could use some critical examination.
Again, I wish those who take a phrase like "Hamlet feels" or "Hamlet
believes" as evidence of amateurism would try giving us an example--even
in 500 words or less--of an important insight into the play by a critic
whom they respect.
On a related topic, several people have given excellent answers to John
Reed's contention that Gertrude murdered Ophelia. That's the kind of
thread I hope Hardy will quickly cut short.
Best wishes,
David Bishop
_______________________________________________________________
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.
