The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1483 Wednesday, 7 September 2005
[Editor's Note: As I have noted before regarding other threads,
positions held as matters of faith for the poster appear to me to be so
unwavering that they are incapable of being shaken by any means of
persuasion. Because this thread has become circular, turning back upon
itself and not moving forward, I see no reason to continue it.]
[1] From: Kenneth Chan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 06 Sep 2005 20:32:42 +0800
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
[2] From: Jim Blackie <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 6 Sep 2005 10:54:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subj: RE: SHK 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
[3] From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 06 Sep 2005 11:09:49 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
[4] From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 06 Sep 2005 11:26:11 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
[5] From: David Basch <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 07 Sep 2005 09:54:18 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Chan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 06 Sep 2005 20:32:42 +0800
Subject: 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Robin Hamilton writes:
>"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?"
Quite obviously, Robin Hamilton has not looked at the evidence. If he
had done so, it would have been obvious to him that that is not what it
was all about. There is very much more.
I have come to learn that it is impossible to get some people to look at
new evidence, simply because they do not want to see. There is a long
tradition to this. When Galileo asked his fellow scientists to look
through his telescope, many simply refused.
Nonetheless, I am happy to report that thousands upon thousands of
students have already read the evidence. It is only a matter of time
before those who choose to be blind (to the evidence) hear it directly
from them.
Regards,
Kenneth Chan
http://homepage.mac.com/sapphirestudios/qod
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Blackie <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 6 Sep 2005 10:54:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: RE: SHK 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Kenneth Chan writes "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!"
I don't presume to speak for Larry Weiss, who seems well able to defend
his own positions, but I think the point is similar if not the same as
my concern; that we, being human, are very subjective in our reading.
Interpretations of solitary lines as well as entire plays are
sometimes/always based on our own unique personal experiences and
*expectations* rather than any objective thought process.
Perhaps the fear is that the results are pre-formulated and the proof is
later searched for and "found" whether it is there "without dispute" or not.
I have argued several times with others in other forums that we need to
capture the meaning that Shakespeare had intended for his audience at
that time in order to come away with the full value of his words. I
believe this is sometimes labeled as historicism (?) and has both come
and gone as popular schools of thought, perhaps returning here and
again. I support this and see the value just as examining brushstrokes
and use of pigment types adds to the appreciation of any decent artist's
painting.
But also of value is the impact that that painting has on an individual
because it sparks an emotion, a realization, an appreciation that was
not there before the painting was seen. The current parlance, I believe
is "it's all good." Why can't one work of art, one phrase mean several
things all at the same time? Argument over the meaning of art to another
person will be ultimately unsuccessful unless (for instance) that
argument centers over the type of brush used - camel hair or whatever.
There is clearly a right and wrong answer to this. Not necessarily to
the issue at hand. In My Opinion, of course.
Jim Blackie
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 06 Sep 2005 11:09:49 -0400
Subject: 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
>it appears that M Yawney is telling us he has not actually
>looked at the evidence
The "evidence" is the texts of Shakespeare's play and poems. All else
is commentary. It is a gross insult to say that a member of this List
has not read the works.
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 06 Sep 2005 11:26:11 -0400
Subject: 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
>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!
Not necessarily inadmissible, but definitely suspect. That is why it is
not only legitimate but essential to point out the prejudices and
preconceptions of witnesses.
In this case, there is a fundamental epistemological objection. Chan,
Basch and Amit do not offer evidence. As I said in my other post, the
only evidence is the texts themselves. What these commentators offer
are bizarre interpretations culled from carefully selected passages
while ignoring a great many other contradictory passages. Of course,
nothing else can be expected when superstition substitutes for cognition.
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Basch <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 07 Sep 2005 09:54:18 -0400
Subject: 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1472 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Kenneth Chan finds my alleged allusion to Ecclesiastes ("The wisdom of
the poor is despised") in the episode concerning the wisdom of "poor"
Horatio ("You will lose this wager, my lord.") that was dismissed by
Hamlet to be "rather contrived" and a stretch of the imagination. I
don't know what he means by this since nothing could be more straight
forward. I would also remind him that there are dozens of such
parallels. Were there only one such occurrence, I would agree that this
would be insubstantial or happenstance but twenty or more such parallels
amounts to a pattern that ought not to be lightly dismissed.
Also, notwithstanding Kenneth Chan's assertion to the contrary,
Shakespeare did do an excellent job in dramatizing Ecclesiastes. He
created a play integrating within it the words and meaning of
Ecclesiastes through creating a whole imaginative kingdom in which these
are enacted as these impinge on characters that he created. The
characters are so realistically drawn that the parallels to Ecclesiastes
emerge authentically out of their motivations and the events of the
play. Familiarity with Ecclesiastes would fully confirm these observations.
And since Ecclesiastes is one of the jewels of the Biblical heritage
with its brilliant insight on man, the play Hamlet is hardly the less if
it taps into that never bottoming well of wisdom.
David Basch
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
