Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: August ::
Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1409  Friday, 26 August 2005

[1] 	From: 	Joseph Egert <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 17:53:18 +0000
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. [3]

[2] 	From: 	V. K. Inman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 11:01:43 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

[3] 	From: 	John W. Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 14:28:00 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

[4] 	From: 	Kenneth Chan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Friday, 26 Aug 2005 08:54:45 +0800
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

[5] 	From: 	Kenneth Chan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Friday, 26 Aug 2005 09:21:54 +0800
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Joseph Egert <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 17:53:18 +0000
Subject: 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. [3]
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. [3]

In the quest for Hamlet's father, Jim Blackie is tempted but cannot let 
belief take hold of him. In my view Myriad Man tantalizes us with each 
of the candidates listed. The ambiguity is deliberate. Once again, the 
key clue may be the emphatic synchrony of King Fortinbras' death and 
Prince Hamlet's birth. Shakespeare was of course steeped in mythologic 
lore and the Pythagorean theory of metempsychosis or transmigration of 
souls. Both the Saviour's Nativity and the avenger's fateful birth are 
clear examples.

Regards,
Joe Egert

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		V. K. Inman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 11:01:43 -0400
Subject: 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1380 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

"Kenneth Chan writes:

 >Shakespeare's plays are an invaluable gift to humanity because of the
 >profound messages contained in them. It is therefore important that this
 >strife-ridden world hears his messages and acknowledges them.

V. K. Inman responds:

This is the crux of it.  I disagree with the basic premise-that 
Shakespeare was in the business of profound messages, and that the 
'strife-ridden world' needs to hear them.  I have always seen 
Shakespeare as primarily an entertainer.  Profound messages are included 
when they are fundamental to the entertainment.  That is why they are 
not always clear and simple.  Just as long as my point is respected, we 
can just agree to disagree.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John W. Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Thursday, 25 Aug 2005 14:28:00 -0400
Subject: 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

Joseph Egert <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

 >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.

I am, to say the least, unacquainted with any theory to the effect that 
Cerdig was the same person as the man who defeated him at Mt. Badon, and 
the connection between Amlawdd Wledig (who /is/ Arthur's grandfather) 
and Hamlet is controversial.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Kenneth Chan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Friday, 26 Aug 2005 08:54:45 +0800
Subject: 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

Stephen Rose writes:

 >"I think [Shakespeare] 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."

In the end, what we arbitrarily choose to think of Shakespeare is 
irrelevant, and how we arbitrarily choose to view his plays does not 
change the facts. We have, instead, to look carefully at the actual 
evidence itself. And the evidence from his works clearly shows that 
Shakespeare was no ordinary playwright. He was a uniquely advanced being 
and a highly spiritual one. In his plays, he has left an invaluable gift 
to humanity, a gift meticulously and artistically crafted to guide us to 
a better path.

It is time we recognize Shakespeare for what he has done, and time we 
learn to benefit from the wonderful legacy he has left us. To continue 
to deny the truth about Shakespeare simply by refusing to look at the 
evidence makes a mockery of the priceless gift he has left us. For the 
sake of humanity, we need to acknowledge what his plays mean.

Please look at the evidence. Those interested can go to my previous post 
on the Shaksper Forum at 
<http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2004/1716.html>where I outlined why 
the evidence from the text of Hamlet is so compelling. A lot of the 
actual evidence can then be found at my website at 
<http://homepage.mac.com/sapphirestudios/qod>, evidence that has already 
been read by thousands of students.

With best wishes,
Kenneth Chan

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Kenneth Chan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Friday, 26 Aug 2005 09:21:54 +0800
Subject: 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1395 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

Kevin De Ornellas writes:

 >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". ...
 >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".

Of course, there is no such thing as an "average person." As Feste puts 
it, "Words are grown so false, I am loath to prove reason with them." 
Unfortunately, in order to communicate, we have no choice but to use 
words. So, to understand each other, we have to try to catch the meaning 
that is being communicated by looking at the context in which those 
words are being used.

Anyway, my apologies if I had failed to express myself clearly. Kindly 
allow me to try saying what I mean again:

We tend to miss Shakespeare's messages because they are generally of a 
deep spiritual nature. Most of us do not live in accordance with the 
spiritual principles that the messages convey. So we get uncomfortable 
when we hear them. As a result, we tend to resist hearing the messages 
because a true acceptance of them would mean that we have to change our 
perspective in life and even our lifestyles, and we do not wish to change.

Because most of us are affected in this way, I use the term "average." 
Shakespeare's messages are uniquely directed at the vast majority of us. 
This is because the vast majority of us ("the average lot") still need 
to hear his messages, since we still have something to learn from them. 
That is what I mean by stating that Shakespeare directs his messages at 
the "average person."

This differentiates Shakespeare from many other authors whose messages 
and themes do not affect us in this manner - i.e. we do not have to make 
changes in our lives to accept the messages from these other authors. 
Their messages are thus unnecessary for most of us ("the average") 
because we already abide by the principles they propound.

Without the need to make changes in our lives, we have no problem 
recognizing the messages of these other authors. Shakespeare's messages, 
on the other hand, are specifically aimed at getting us to change, so we 
may have problems acknowledging them.

I hope this makes my meaning clearer.

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.