The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1395 Thursday, 25 August 2005
[1] From: Stephen Rose <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 24 Aug 2005 05:38:53 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
[2] From: Kevin De Ornellas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 24 Aug 2005 13:44:34 +0000
Subj: RE: SHK 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
[3] From: Jim Blackie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 24 Aug 2005 12:23:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1358 Shylock, Hamlet, et al
[4] From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 24 Aug 2005 18:00:12 +0000
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Rose <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 24 Aug 2005 05:38:53 -0700
Subject: 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Kenneth Chan Writes:
In the end, I believe we would be more likely to interpret Shakespeare
correctly if we accept that he did intend to convey profound messages,
and that he did carefully craft his plays for this purpose. END QUOTE
I think he crafted his plays to entertain, that he was a genius who
brought his mind to the entertainment, that his brilliance is so diffuse
that it is prodigal. And that he therefore left us with a surfeit. I do
not think there are that many authors who say I will try to convey a
profound message and craft my play to do so. Maybe Mao had he written
plays. I think Shakespeare had a more open mind and thought many things
about many things. A moralist he was not. Goddard remains the best
interpreter of his general drift and I do think that comports with
Kenneth's general drift. Best, S
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kevin De Ornellas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 24 Aug 2005 13:44:34 +0000
Subject: 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: RE: SHK 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Kenneth Chan insists: "I am trying to make the important point that
Shakespeare's messages are directed squarely at us (including myself),
the average person".
Could Kenneth Chan define exactly what an "average person" is? What sort
of qualities does one need to become "average". How does one qualify to
join this club of the "average"? What sort of person is excluded from
this "average" status? In a poem addressed to Kingsley Amis' infant
daughter, Philip Larkin expresses his hope that the subject will develop
into an "ordinary" person with "average" attributes. Like Kenneth Chan,
Larkin refers casually to - but fails to define - the precise nature of
the "average". One of the most exciting things about Shakespearean
scholarship over the past decade or so has been the dignification and
validation of many different audiences' responses to Shakespeare.
Different audiences in different geographical and social contexts and at
different historical moments react very differently to Shakespeare. To
write vaguely about a Shakespearean impact upon "the average person"
seems to jar with the academy's new-found appreciation of variegated,
unapologetically subjective responses to Shakespearean performances and
texts. I don't think that there is any such thing as an "average"
response to Shakespeare; indeed, I don't believe that there is any such
thing as an "average person".
Kevin De Ornellas
Queen's University, Belfast
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Blackie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 24 Aug 2005 12:23:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 16.1358 Shylock, Hamlet, et al
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1358 Shylock, Hamlet, et al
Joseph Egert asked us "WHO then is Hamlet's father?"
I readily enjoyed the surmises and implications that Mr. Egert gave us -
food for thought. And while I might entertain the notion that Claudius
may be such a candidate, supported by some evidence given by the ghost
consisting of his wife's cheating on him (as the song asks, "How long
has this been going on?"), the reactions of Gertrude toward Claudius
throughout, the "o'er hasty marriage" and other little "clues;" I still
wonder about what the impact would be if considered in light of the
entire "ghostly visitation" scenes? I assume the ghost would know the
parentage truth as well as he knows of his own murder? Would he be as
invested in Hamlet's avenging his death as he is? Perhaps, in that it
gives perverse satisfaction to the ghost that he has his brother
murdered by his brother's son... This is a new notion and I appreciate
the thought behind it and the fact that it led me to follow my own
rationale in re-examining the play in light of the possibility.
But Polonius? Are you being facetious, Mr. Egert? I confess I can't
tell. Then the "Changeling" and "Nativity" considerations?! This seems
tongue-in-cheek and follows a circuitous path throughout not the play,
but much of everything else. I just cannot believe that there is nothing
that was intended for the audience to know or suppose that is not
clearly extant in the body of the play itself. We can read things into
the play and these thoughts are as wonderful and fun to enjoy as the
"real thing" but surely these more outlandish interpretations could
never have been on the Bard's mind as he dipped pen in ink? I find the
possibility frightening, because I will NEVER be able to decipher these
plays without someone providing me a road map.
Gee, I just got into this about a year or so ago and thought I was doing
pretty well... Now I don't know.
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 24 Aug 2005 18:00:12 +0000
Subject: 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Stuart Manger asks, "Does it matter who the hell Hamlet's father is/was?"
It clearly mattered to Hamlet and Brutus, to their creator, and to his
audience then (and now?). In fact, both Renaissance Humanism and the
Reformation can be seen as quests for the authentic classical and sacred
Father with Hamlet caught in these struggles (a Luther/Essex/Sydney figure).
Let's push the hare along.
The "King that was and is the question of these Wars" may have been
Henry VIII, the"bloat king" and "puff'd reckless libertine"--the levir
for his late childless brother Arthur. Henry had his own Round Table
designed with his royal mug as legendary King Arthur. The intricate
issues of bastardy, incest, and temporal/religious usurpation
surrounding Henry and his many unloves are clearly reflected in the play
and have no doubt been aired in this Forum. I'd only note that
Shakespeare deviated from his sources in naming both father and son
Hamlet, as was customary in levirate marriage where the son was named
after his late childless father. Is Claudius the levir here to childless
King Hamlet? "Claudius" also recalls of course the Roman emperor, uncle
to the incestuous brother/sister pair Caligula and Drusilla (Hamlet and
Ophelia?). Finally, {WARNING: SPECULATION ALERT} some scholars believe
the original King Arthur (the illegtimate Cerdig of Wessex) may have
been grandson to the original Hamlet (Amlawdd) in Welsh tradition.
On with the hunt!
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.