2005

Lear's little dogs

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1447  Saturday, 3 September 2005

From: 		David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 2 Sep 2005 13:18:17 -0400
Subject: 	Query: Lear's little dogs

Anybody have glosses to offer on Trey, Blanch, and Sweetheart, the 
little dogs Lear imagines barking at him in his madness (3.5.54 [Q], 19 
[f])?

David Evett

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakesduck

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1446  Saturday, 3 September 2005

From: 		Marcia Eppich-Harris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 01 Sep 2005 09:06:25 -0700
Subject: 	Shakesduck

Dear SHAKSPEReans,

One of my friends sent me a housewarming gift the other day after our 
recent move to the San Francisco Bay area. It's a Shakespeare rubber 
ducky. She found it on a site called Celebriducks 
(http://www.celebriducks.com/) which has all different kinds of 
celebrity rubber ducks. Of interest to Shakespeareans would be the 
Shakespeare rubber duck and the Queen Elizabeth I rubber duck. Both are 
pretty cute. While I'm not trying to advertise for the site, I just 
thought that you'd be interested in seeing these two somewhat silly 
pieces of Shakespeare "art." Shakespeare and good Queen Bess are under 
celebrities.

On a side note, is there anyone here in the Bay area that knows of 
Shakespearean points of interest (now playing, etc.) of which I should 
become aware? Replies off list are welcomed.

Best wishes,
Marcia Eppich-Harris

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1444  Thursday, 1 September 2005

[1] 	From: 	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 18:42:40 +0000
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. [2]

[2] 	From: 	V. K. Inman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 15:16:39 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

[3] 	From: 	Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:08 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

[4] 	From: 	Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 19:03:18 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

[5] 	From: 	Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 19:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 18:42:40 +0000
Subject: 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. [2]
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. [2]

 >In the quest for Hamlet's father, Stuart Manger begs to be reassured, 
"this is a joke, right?"

Sorry, no joke, Stu. Stuart Manger is in denial, while the ground 
trembles beneath his feet. Blinder than those who cannot see are those 
who will not look. Look through the telescope, Stu. There are spots on 
the Sun; the planets have moons. Eppur si muove!

Florence Amit, in her perceptive reading, dubs Hamlet a "Reformation 
Protestant under siege." His plight, I fear, is far more complex and 
turbulent. In the roiling cauldron of Hamlet's conflicted   soul there 
are many currents. It is tossing on a tempestuous sea of motive and 
circumstance. The Ghost's Old Testament/pagan command for blood 
vengeance contends with both enervating Humanist doubt and a 
guilt-ridden Wittenberg conscience. This Christian conscience, while 
Oedipally driven, is only partially unconscious--one source for his 
love-sick melancholy. Hamlet at the same time yearns nostalgically for 
an earlier (Catholic?) world of unmaimed rites and unwhited churches. 
Can lasting love between man and maid bud and flourish in this new 
suffocating atmosphere of distrust and indirection? Now, Polonial policy 
(the Cecils?) turns family and friends into instruments of state; spies 
lurk behind every curtain. "Doubt" spreads by ear through this society 
like a leprous distillment-- a contagion blasting both young and old 
alike. Gertrude (the English people?) has succumbed to the new Claudian 
order (the Anglican police state?) whose joint rulers are themselves 
conflicted. Hamlet, in his role as minister (Father Confessor?), pushes 
his mater from material lust to spiritual grace and repentance.

In his Fatal end, however, the Prince as scourge remains "subject to his 
birth." That transplanted Old Mole of vengeance from slaughtered 
Fortinbras emerges triumphant.
The Old Adam has won again.

Regards,
Joe Egert

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		V. K. Inman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 15:16:39 -0400
Subject: 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

Quoting Kenneth Chan

 >If a blind man wants to walk off a cliff because he insists on his right
 >to believe that there is no cliff, are we just going to sit back and do
 >nothing more than respect that right? Surely, we would plead with him to
 >at least examine the evidence before proceeding.
 >
 >So, in the same vein, I am pleading that we also examine the evidence
 >carefully before denying the priceless legacy that Shakespeare has left
 >us. Please, please look at the evidence.

You just don't get it.  We (at least I and some of the others) don't buy 
your view of Shakespeare, and we have looked at the evidence.  Instead 
of getting hung up on this point, go on and present your views.  Just 
remember that we don't all buy them.  Otherwise you will go to grave 
trying to convince us-it just won't happen.

V. K. Inman

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:08 +0100
Subject: 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

Kenneth Chan writes:

 >Shakespeare's messages are not derived from a mere intellectual
 >interpretation of any particular religion's scriptural doctrine. The
 >nature of the messages strongly suggests that they are the direct
 >realizations of an advanced mystic who has actually undertaken the
 >arduous task of transforming his life and personality towards the
 >spiritual ideal. True aspirants of the spiritual path - the saints and
 >the bodhisattvas - attain their realizations from direct experience.

Ah, right, Shakespeare the Sufi.  I rather like that idea.  Puts him 
right up there with Omar and Hafiz.

(And obviously his audience -- the inner Illuminate audience -- were Zen 
monks who clapped with one hand.)

Robin Hamilton

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 19:03:18 -0400
Subject: 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

 >I am pleading that we also examine the evidence carefully
 >before denying the priceless legacy that Shakespeare has
 >left us. Please, please look at the evidence.

A close examination of the evidence for spiritualism offered by friends 
Amit, Basch and, now, Chan, is best left to the proctology list.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 19:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1431 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

Kenneth Chan writes, "Shakespeare's messages are not derived from a mere 
intellectual interpretation of any particular religion's scriptural 
doctrine. The nature of the messages strongly suggests that they are the 
direct realizations of an advanced mystic who has actually undertaken 
the arduous task of transforming his life and personality towards the 
spiritual ideal. True aspirants of the spiritual path - the saints and 
the bodhisattvas - attain their realizations from direct experience. 
Shakespeare's plays are designed to impart profound messages in a truly 
unique manner. The plays are carefully crafted to make us learn via 
direct emotional experience. This is a far more effective way to convey 
a message than merely stating it in words. Shakespeare's plays are thus 
more akin to initiations, where one learns because one has effectively 
lived through it."

Well, Kenneth, with all due respect, I do believe you are a lover of 
great literature.  Nothing wrong in that.

My friend Henry Miller who penned some wonderful works which do exactly 
what you describe above was responsible for New Directions publishing 
Siddhartha in America in English because he felt about the work the way 
you describe Will Shakespeare's life and plays.

In fact, that was why I wrote Jesus: The Gospel According To Will, and 
constructed it like I did.

So: what are we saying here?  For twenty-three years in Massachusetts I 
was a licensed motion picture projectionist and saw my fair share of 
movies.  Film accomplishes the same thing.  Can you sit through Easy 
Rider, or Deliverance without getting up and walking out of the theatre? 
  Powerful drama?  How about Burton and Taylor in Who's Afraid of 
Virginia Wolff?  Take any Tennessee Williams play and you have the same 
effect.  How about Brando screaming "Stellllllllllaaaa!"

Yes, good theatre, whether on stage or on film, accomplishes all you 
suggest.  But so does a good book.  I was so moved by any number of 
famous works from Madame Bovary to Herzog.

I would be careful of making Will Shakespeare's works into a work of 
scriptural doctrine and its author a son of God, unless you grant we are 
all daughters and sons of God!

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Roses

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1445  Thursday, 1 September 2005

[1] 	From: 	Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 31 Aug 2005 09:21:12 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1433 Roses

[2] 	From: 	David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 31 Aug 2005 16:23:03 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1433 Roses


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 31 Aug 2005 09:21:12 +0100
Subject: 16.1433 Roses
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1433 Roses

Dan Decker wrote

 >Stylistically the sonnets are congruent with the plays
 >reliably dated to '90-'95.

MacDonald P. Jackson has published a series of articles presenting 
stylometric evidence that sonnets 127-54 were written first, in the 
early 1590s, then sonnets 61-103 in the late 1590s, then sonnets 1-60 in 
the early 1600s, then sonnets 104-126 after 1605.

See his:

"Rhymes and Shakespeare's _Sonnets_: Evidence of date of composition" 
Notes and Queries 244 (1999) pages 213-219

"Vocabulary and chronology: The case of Shakespeare's sonnets" Review of 
English Studies 52 (2001) pages 59-75

"Dating Shakespeare's sonnets: Some old evidence revisited" Notes and 
Queries 247 (2002) pages 237-241

 >There is no evidence to the contrary as to when the
 >sonnets were written.

Even a sceptic would concede that Jackson's work listed above shows that 
the sonnets to the Friend (104-126) must have been written in the 
seventeenth century.

Gabriel Egan

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 31 Aug 2005 16:23:03 -0400
Subject: 16.1433 Roses
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1433 Roses

Our list does not lack humor as Markus Marti demonstrates in his "Ine 
eye" response to my comment on how this configuration which appears in 
the Sonnet is a hint left by the poet that the friend he addresses is 
"In I," in him, within him. My surmise would indeed be arbitrary and off 
the wall were it not for the fact that it was through many other hints 
and devices that I was led to this conclusion. "Ine eye [In I]" was just 
another confirmation of my findings through one of the poet's many such 
ingenious devices.

But here now is another hint, more direct, of Shakespeare's message that 
the friend he addresses in some of his sonnets is the spirit inside him 
and all of us. See this in the humorous Sonnet 62:

                                       62
         /
   [1]   \ Inne of selfe-loue possesseth al mine eie,
   [2]   / And all my soule,and al my euery part;
   [3]   And for this sinne there is no remedie,
   [4]   It is so grounded inward in my heart.
   [5]   Me thinkes no face so gratious is as mine,
   [6]   No shape so true,no truth of such account,
   [7]   And for my selfe mine owne worth do define,
   [8]   As I all other in all worths surmount.
   [9]   But when my glasse shewes me my selfe indeed
   [10]  Beated and chopt with tand antiquitie,
   [11]  Mine owne selfe loue quite contrary I read
   [12]  Selfe,so selfe louing were iniquity,
   [13]     T'is thee(my selfe)that for my selfe I praise,
   [14]     Painting my age with beauty of thy daies,

Notice line 13 in the couplet:

      T'is thee(my selfe)that for my selfe I praise,
      Painting my age with beauty of thy daies,

Here he again tells that "thee" is himself. So engrossed is he in this 
higher self that it went to his head, obscuring his "age" that revealed 
his wrinkled mortality, and he forgot, like most of us do, that there 
was this terrestrial self that had far to go.

Unfortunately, the professional objectors that only want to see the poet 
in their own image despite what the poet actually wrote will not take 
seriously and literally what the poet is declaring.

The first 17 sonnets are not in contradiction to this view of the 
friend.  In these, the young man is on such a high moral plane that he 
won't deign to reproduce and must be coaxed to do his duty, needing the 
active support of his lower angel to get into the swing of life, 
attractions that are made real and manifest in later sonnets that waken 
his soul slumbering in a one-sided heavenly purity.

Attempts to identify the "friend" as a real person will be frustrated by 
the fact that Shakespeare, using misdirection, gave a few candidates to 
conjur with. This prevents certain identification of a real person and 
hence confusing his grand allegory that his sonnets are, seeing them as 
odes to specific lustful, terrestrial objects. Unless readers begin to 
raise their sights to the possibility of the higher purpose of these 
poems, the poems will not be seen in their true light and exquisite beauty.

No doubt, there are those on the list that see and find interpretation 
for a different Shakespeare. I have my interpretation which I would not 
have had the nerve to present had I not found ample direct evidence to 
lead me to these views. It is hardly being obsessional to argue this 
case and present evidence on a list that has many scholars.

I would note that Kenneth Chen has reached conclusions on a Shakespeare 
that has a high spiritual side and has done so without having to put it 
into a Judaic-Christian context, indicating the universal thrust of the 
poet's message. This is well and good but it seems that this will lack 
the added dimensions that the religious context gives his work since 
this context sheds light on the spiritual meaning of many specific 
references in his work. It is like only knowing some of the 
hieroglyphics of an ancient message. Why deprive ourselves of the chance 
to get all?

Anyway, the matter should be explored but won't be if readers stick to 
limiting preconceptions. This is all right too if enough of his message 
comes through. But for those who are harder to satisfy and are unwilling 
to forever wallow in confusion about what the poet was about, such 
explorations will offer new worlds.

David Basch

_______________________________________________________________
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.

What Happens in "Hamlet"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1443  Thursday, 1 September 2005

[1] 	From: 	Jim Blackie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 11:23:15 -0400 (EDT)
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 16.1427 What Happens in

[2] 	From: 	Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 1 Sep 2005 06:04:07 -0400
	Subj: 	SHK 16.1413 What Happens in "Hamlet"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Jim Blackie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 11:23:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 16.1427 What Happens in
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.1427 What Happens in

Bill Arnold

 >Well then, you ought to read Bernard Grebanier's The Heart of Hamlet
 >which covers Hamlet the play and the character like a warm and fuzzy
 >bear rug. Along the way, Grebanier shows the strengths and weaknesses
 >in Wilson's thesis. I believe when you are done, you will side more
 >with Grebanier and less with Wilson on the play and character.

Sounds fascinating, but it is both out of print and (where available) 
way too expensive for me. I could not even find anything on the web 
about the author or book...

You make it sound both repulsive yet intriguing at the same time. "Warm 
and fuzzy?" Not sure I could take that. ; )

Jim Blackie

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 1 Sep 2005 06:04:07 -0400
Subject: What Happens in "Hamlet"
Comment: 	SHK 16.1413 What Happens in "Hamlet"

It would be a shame if, in his enthusiasm for the writings of Dover 
Wilson, Jim Blackie did not see that they offer a far from neutral 
account of what happens in Hamlet or anything else.  Literary criticism 
does not take place in a political, moral or historical vacuum, nor does 
our reading of it. Wilson's essay argues a distinct political case from 
a particular political position. That in no way detracts from its 
persuasiveness. But it's as well to get a grip on what he's being 
persuasive about.

T. Hawkes

_______________________________________________________________
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.