The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1331 Wednesday, 17 August 2005
Date: Tuesday, 16 Aug 2005 01:02:37 +0100
Subject: Shakespeare's Will
[Editor's Note: Once again, let me remind members, old and new, that I
do not permit postings on the so-called "authorship" question. If you
wish to contend that William Shakespeare of Stratford was not the author
of the plays and poems generally associated with him, then you have
subscribed to the wrong list. Other authorship issues are acceptable,
including apocrypha, collaborative writing, and possible misattributions
such as <I>A Lover's Complaint</I>. This is an academic list and I as an
educator have a responsibility not to distribute posting that I view as
misleading or scholarly unsound. A number of years ago, I gave
Anti-Stratfordians the floor to air their arguments. The ensuing
discussions threatened to consume the list, so I ended them. There are
plenty of places to have such discussions; SHAKSPER is just not one of
them. I will regard any (and please I am overburdened and in a great
deal of pain and physical discomfort as it is) responses to this
Editor's Note as PERSONAL e-mail to me and I will NOT post them or
respond to them. They will be quietly deleted.
Hardy M. Cook (Editor, Owner, Moderator), whose time and money make this
list possible with no other assistance except from webmaster and
technical advisor Eric Luhrs and the members of the SHAKSPER Advisory
As a new subscriber to Shaksper I would like to know how many people
have had a look at William Shakespeare of Stratford-Upon-Avon's will. It
can be found on the following link to the National Archives.
Having studied it, my view is that the bequest of
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1329 Wednesday, 17 August 2005
Date: Friday, 12 Aug 2005 21:07:39 -0400
Subject: Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
One thing I have learned from reading SHAKSPER is that, of all of
Shakespeare's works, "The Merchant of Venice" and "Hamlet" attract the
most commentary and the least insight.
W. R. Elton always used to say to me, "400 years and we still don't have
one good book about 'Hamlet'!" He was right. It seems near-impossible
to say anything even sensible about the play. Why is this?
I can understand why people get passionate (and thus unreasonable) about
"Merchant." But why are so many people so silly about "Hamlet"? Is it
because they don't understand the textual issues, or do the textual
issues only make matters more confusing?
Both plays have plenty of mysteries and interpretive dilemmas. Norman
Rabkin once compared reading "Henry V" to the duck-rabbit problem
(wherein one can see a certain drawing as a picture of a duck or as a
picture of a rabbit but not both at the same time), but "Henry V" at
least allows for a simple binary. Is he this or is he that? "Hamlet"
and "Merchant," on the other hand, allow for many more possibilities.
Is he crazy or isn't he? Is he a villain or isn't he? Well, what do
you mean by "crazy" and "villain"? And what about the other people in
the play? And what about this interesting generalization we can make
about the time period?
If the plays stimulate so many possibilities for interpretation, it's
probably because they were supposed to. Perhaps Shakespeare meant them
as puzzled to be solved if you find the right clues, but I don't think
so. There are many dark spaces in these two plays; shedding light on
them means they're not dark spaces anymore, which means the plays aren't
what they are anymore.
I don't mean that we should stop asking questions and making arguments
about the plays. That said, I'm probably not the only person on this
list who prefers silence to reductive ranting.
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
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.