Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: September ::
Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1472  Tuesday, 6 September 2005

[Editor's Note: Unless there is something substantively new to add to 
this thread, I will be closing it.]

[1] 	From: 	Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Monday, 5 Sep 2005 16:15:23 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1463 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

[2] 	From: 	Kenneth Chan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Monday, 05 Sep 2005 23:39:44 +0800
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1463 Shylock, Hamlet, et al

[3] 	From: 	Kenneth Chan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Tuesday, 06 Sep 2005 18:10:00 +0800
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1463 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Monday, 5 Sep 2005 16:15:23 +0100
Subject: 16.1463 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1463 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

 >"Your worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all creatures else to
 >fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots. Your fat king and your lean
 >beggar is but variable service - two dishes, but to one table. That's
 >the end."
 >
 >We may cringe when we hear this, but there is no mistaking the meaning;
 >it is about the reality of death and about how our station in life makes
 >no difference in the end.

I'm not sure why Kenneth Chan thinks we should cringe when we read this, 
as, nicely worded as it is, the idea itself is a commonplace.  If I had 
a pound for every Memento Mori and Ubi Sunt poem I've read, from the 
middle ages to the seventeenth century, it's not cringing I'd be doing 
all the way to the bank.

(May I recommend, from many possible examples and out of a sense of 
Scottish chauvinism, William Dunbar's "Lament for the Makars".)

Nevertheless, let me congratulate Mr. Chan on his neatly reductive 
elucidation of the complex tradition which develops this motif.   So 
*that's* what it was about.  How could I have missed seeing this for so 
long?

Robin Hamilton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Kenneth Chan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Monday, 05 Sep 2005 23:39:44 +0800
Subject: 16.1463 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1463 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

M Yawney writes:

 >"The reason most of us are not interested enough to delve
 >deeply into Chan's and Basch's ideas is because they are
 >reductive and limiting. If they were true, I suspect
 >Shakespeare work would be far less rich and exciting."

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that M Yawney is telling 
us he has not actually looked at the evidence before making the 
statement above. I can only request then that others do look at the 
evidence before coming to such conclusions.

Shakespeare's plays actually take on a whole new artistic dimension if 
we accept their meaning as he intended. Thus, until we do, we have yet 
to realize how great Shakespeare really is.

Regards,
Kenneth Chan
http://homepage.mac.com/sapphirestudios/qod

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Kenneth Chan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Tuesday, 06 Sep 2005 18:10:00 +0800
Subject: 16.1463 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1463 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

Larry Weiss writes:

 >"The point of view we start with colors what we see.
 >Amit, Basch and Chan did not stumble over their
 >"evidence"; they were looking for it."

Surely, Larry Weiss cannot be suggesting that just because evidence is 
looked for, it becomes suspect or invalid. If that were so, it would 
then follow that practically all evidence presented in court, by both 
defence and prosecution, should be thrown out!

We have to be careful with sweeping generalizations. Any evidence needs 
to be assessed on the basis of its own merit.

Regards,
Kenneth Chan
http://homepage.mac.com/sapphirestudios/qod

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail 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.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.