2005

New and Improved Lear

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1130  Wednesday, 22 June 2005

From:           John-Paul Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 14:39:13 -0400
Subject: 16.1110 New and Improved Lear
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.1110 New and Improved Lear

 >Leave it to Shakespeare to create dramatic situations that feature
 >clashing values. To say that Cordelia, by not honoring her father,
 >contributes to her fate is not to say that she was totally
 >responsible
 >for her fate.

No one said anything about total responsibility.  David Basch wrote that
Cordelia started it by violating the Biblical injunction to honor the
father.  This injunction would be unfamiliar to Cordelia, who lives in a
Bible-less world.  There are many theological and moral ideas explored
in "King Lear," but Hebraic and Christian monotheism is not one of them.
  Most of the characters are polytheists and Gloucester, at the very
least, believes in astrology.  Judeo-Christianity does not have a
monopoly on the morality of obligation to one's father; however, the Ten
Commandments are in every way external to the play.  We can read them
into the play, but they are as foreign to Lear and Cordelia as they
would be to Priam or Thor.

 >Frank Whigham and John-Paul Spiro, in the spirit of
 >Cordelia,
 >insist that it is her father that must yield to her high principled
 >stand on the nature of her love duties to father and husband and
 >that it
 >is he that must lick his wounds when his favorite daughter shames
 >him, a
 >powerful king, in public.

Actually, I agree that Cordelia is pigheaded and impractical and shares
some of the blame for the events of the play.  I disagree with Mr. Basch
(and Lear himself) not in the spirit of Cordelia but in the spirit of
Kent.  He obviously loves Lear and wants nothing more than to serve him,
yet he speaks up immediately about Lear's folly.  Kent makes it quite
clear that disagreeing with one's betters when they are wrong is a way
of honoring them.  Later in the play, one of Cornwall's insists on
intervening when Cornwall is torturing Gloucester: here, again,
Shakespeare shows that some things are more important than simple loyalty.

 >When Lear is united with Cordelia after she rescues him, Lear is
 >astounded that his daughter loves him even after what he has done,
 >saying that she has "cause" to hate him and but yet doesn't. Lear
 >realizes his mistake. Frank would probably pop up at this time to
 >berate
 >Lear and tell him what a jerk he was for not knowing better, but not
 >Cordelia. Cordelia says, "no cause." Can it be she realizes her
 >mistake
 >in not honoring her father and admits her mistake in not handling
 >the
 >test better? I would note here that honoring of parents seems to
 >have
 >universal acclaim among diverse cultures aside from its affirmation
 >in
 >the Bible, an intuitive recognition of how life enhancing it is as a
 >principle.

Saying "I have no cause to hate you" is not the same as saying, "I was
wrong."  It is, in fact, a way of saying that disagreements need not
involve acrimony.  Her refusal to sing Lear's praises does not mean that
she does not love him: this was her entire point.  It is also important
to look at her asides in 1.1: she is not stubbornly refusing on
principle, but she "can't heave her heart into her mouth."  She is not
capable of lying, even exaggerating.  Lear knows she loves him, but he
wants more than that: the failure to love properly is his own.  I think
Stanley Cavell has written well on this subject.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Anti-Semitism

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1129  Wednesday, 22 June 2005

[1]     From:   Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 15:04:32 +0100 (BST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1123 Anti-Semitism

[2]     From:   John Perry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 16:01:44 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1123 Anti-Semitism

[3]     From:   Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 17:00:52 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1123 Anti-Semitism


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 15:04:32 +0100 (BST)
Subject: 16.1123 Anti-Semitism
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1123 Anti-Semitism

Dear All,

With reference to Hardy's stipulation about technical issues not related
to the Shakespeare theme of this list - I am still intrigued to know
what people actually mean when they discuss 'anti-Semitism' etc in
Merchant of Venice.

I am particularly keen to read an explanation of the following technical
definition made by Joachim Martello as it might be related to
appropriate discourse about the Shakespeare play:

"most experts in the field use the term anti-Semitism, we mean the
modern biological determinist, social Darwinist form of Judeophobia,
which develops in the specific region of historic Poland in the context
of modernization and economic competition and which spreads to Central
Europe."

(1)In what way is Darwinism here taken to be "biological[ly] determinist"?
(2)Is this a commonly accepted definition of 'anti-Semitism'?
(3)What of previous behavioural types of 'racism' towards Jews (etc)?

Obviously this is a complex subject but I for one think it could do with
some elucidation and discussion of concepts so that perhaps it will be
brought up less by those with less knowledge of the subject (i.e. school
teachers and the like who regularly seem to pick 'anti-Semitism' as a
theme in MOV)

All the best,
Marcus Dahl

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Perry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 16:01:44 -0400
Subject: 16.1123 Anti-Semitism
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1123 Anti-Semitism

Joachim Martillo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >>I have some real qualms about the terminology of this discussion.
 >
 >I am not sure how much a technical discussion of anti-Semitism belongs
 >to a discussion of Shakespeare, but I have a real problem with the
 >attempt to incorporate Shakespeare into the Eastern European ethnic
 >Ashkenazi pogrom and persecution version of Jewish history or into the
 >ethnic Ashkenazi anti-Christian anti-Gentile and anti-Catholic polemic.

I, too, have serious problems with those who mindlessly label anything
that might be interpreted as critical of (whatever the interpreter's
sensitivity is) as "anti...", or "racist", or "...phobic".

Personally, I appreciated reading Dr. Martillo's revelation that there
is a possibility of a definition of a term that's commonly so sloppily
used that it can be applied to MoV, which strikes me (a semi-Evangelical
Christian) as sympathetic to, as much as critical of, Shylock, and even
more critical of the Christians in the play.

Thank you, Dr. Martillo, and Hardy, I hope you can leave some room for
other reasonable comments (whether pro or con) on this and similar subjects.

John Perry

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 17:00:52 -0400
Subject: 16.1123 Anti-Semitism
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1123 Anti-Semitism

I believe that Mr. Martillo's comments went beyond the limits of decency
that one should expect from this site. It has nothing to do with
Shakespeare. The best solution would be to just drop the subject. It is
not necessary to get in the last word/blow.

Best,
Elliott H. Stone

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Oregon Shakespeare Festival's RICHARD III

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1127  Wednesday, 22 June 2005

[1]     From:   Debra Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 09:49:45 -0700
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.1115 Oregon Shakespeare Festival's RICHARD III

[2]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 15:43:14 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1103 Oregon Shakespeare Festival's RICHARD III

[3]     From:   Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 14:32:41 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1103 Oregon Shakespeare Festival's RICHARD III

[4]     From:   Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, June 22, 2005
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1103 Oregon Shakespeare Festival's RICHARD III


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Debra Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 09:49:45 -0700
Subject: 16.1115 Oregon Shakespeare Festival's RICHARD III
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.1115 Oregon Shakespeare Festival's RICHARD III

Thanks for the info on the Anthony Sher characterization.  Do you know
if this 1984 production is available anywhere on video?  All I'm seeing
in the usual online markets is an animated version with Sher's voice.

Regards,
Debra Murphy
www.bardolatry.com

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 15:43:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 16.1103 Oregon Shakespeare Festival's RICHARD III
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1103 Oregon Shakespeare Festival's RICHARD III

The crutch thing was initiated or at least used to great effect by
Antony Sher at the RSC in the early 80s.

But I suppose a truly original idea in Shakespearean production is hard
to come by.

David Evett

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 14:32:41 -0700
Subject: 16.1103 Oregon Shakespeare Festival's RICHARD III
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1103 Oregon Shakespeare Festival's RICHARD III

I was passing through Ashland on my way to Seattle on a day when no
Shakespeare was playing!  But I did have the good fortune to see "Napoli
Millionaria", which was very well-acted but oddly difficult to
describe...lots of very funny moments but not a comedy; yet not tragic.
  A drama of moral choices and ironic circumstances set in Naples in
World War II.  I'm sorry to have missed the RIII, this production sounds
intriguing.

Susan St. John

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Subject: 16.1103 Oregon Shakespeare Festival's RICHARD III
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1103 Oregon Shakespeare Festival's RICHARD III

Stacey Keach was a marvelous Richard at the Folger Shakespeare Theatre
before the company moved to the Lansburgh and was renamed The
Shakespeare Theatre.

Keach wore a leg brace and had crutches. The performance was stunning
for the infectious sense of fun Keach imbued the character with.

I will never forget it.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Designations

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1128  Wednesday, 22 June 2005

[1]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 07:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1121 Designations [ *Christology* ]

[2]     From:   John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 12:17:01 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1121 Designations

[3]     From:   Matthew Baynham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Jun 2005 06:53:51 GMT
        Subj:   Designations


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 07:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.1121 Designations [ *Christology* ]
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1121 Designations [ *Christology* ]

Martin Steward writes, "What exactly does Bill Arnold mean by
'Christology'...? It's always puzzled me."

Golly, Martin, go into any major university and walk into the stacks
marked *C* and you will find rows and rows and rows and rows and rows
and rows and rows [that's for Hem-emphasis from "Hills like white
elephants  :)  ] of books under/on/about *Christology* [ ! ]

I googled the following for you using *Christology.*

Book results for Christology
        Christology - by Hans Schwarz - 364 pages

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Christology
Christology is that part of theology which deals with Our Lord Jesus Christ.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm - 53k - Cached - Similar pages

Christology
Several articles on Christology. A source of information for deeper
understanding of religious subjects.
mb-soft.com/believe/text/christol.htm - 42k - Cached - Similar pages

Christology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christology is that part of Christian theology that studies and defines
who Jesus ... Christology may also cover questions concerning the
Trinity, and what, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology - 18k - Jun 19, 2005 - Cached -
Similar pages

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Christology
Jack Dean Kingsburg, The Christology of Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: ...
Rudolph Schnackenburg, Jesus in the Gospels: a Biblical Christology,
trans. ...
camellia.shc.edu/theology/Christology.htm - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

Christ Jesus, Christology, Solus Christus, Prophet, Preist, King The
Threshold is a navigation tool to the best Christ-centered resources on
the web. The user is directed to classic articles and resources of
historical ...
www.monergism.com/thethreshold/ articles/topic/christ.html - 104k -
Cached - Similar pages

Grace Online Library | Puritan, Reformed and Calvinistic Articles
Christian articles and resources from a Reformed or Puritan perspective
on subjects like Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Election, and the
Christian Home.
www.graceonlinelibrary.org/theology/christology.asp - 21k - Cached -
Similar pages

Bible Truth Discussion Forum ->Christology
Bible Truth Discussion Forum ->The Armoury ->Christology ...
Soteriology, - Christology, ---- New Testament, ---- Old Testament, ----
Historical ...
www.thechristadelphians.org/ forums/index.php?showforum=16 - 36k -
Cached - Similar pages

Jesus - Resources for Catholic Educators
List of links on Jesus and christology. ... Christ, Lunatic or GOD;
Christology - Internet Theology Resources Systematic Theology;
Christology Outline ...
www.silk.net/RelEd/christ.htm - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

CHRISTOLOGY
Christology is that part of theology which deals with Our Lord Jesus
Christ. ... We shall here briefly review the Christology of St. Paul, of
the Catholic ...
www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/CE_CHRIS.HTM - 38k - Cached - Similar pages

What is Christology?
What is Christology? What does the Bible teach about the Person and work
of Jesus Christ?
www.gotquestions.org/Christology.html - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

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

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 12:17:01 -0400
Subject: 16.1121 Designations
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1121 Designations

John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >I'm sorry, Hardy, but you are wrong here - the Roman Catholics don't
 >accept the term "Apocrypha".  The term "deutero-canonical" was invented
 >as one that everyone could agree upon!

Actually, no. "Deutero-canonical" is only acceptable to Roman Catholics
-- and perhaps to the Eastern Orthodox, as well. But Roman Catholics
/do/ use the word to refer to spurious books, otherwise usually known as
"pseudepigrapha".

Protestants,        Roman Catholic        Eastern
Anglicans

Apocrypha           Deutero-canonical     ?

Pseudepigrapha      Apocrypha or          Apocrypha or
                     Pseudepigrapha        Pseudepigrapha

Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >I do not believe we are splitting hairs here.  Job as cited from the KJV
 >has many who allege it stops at any number of Bible stations going back
 >to the Septuagint.
 >
 >The Book of Job came from the Septuagint which according to history was
 >a document translated by 70 Hebrew scholars who used their Hebrew texts.
 > I cannot read Hebrew and cannot testify to what you state with
 >conviction.  It seems perfectly fine to me to cite Job from the Old
 >Testament of the KJV because that is where I find it, and although
 >others-maybe you and David Basch read Hebrew-find it elsewhere, I would
 >be remiss in citing a text I have not read, nor understand, nor am sure
 >is the same as the text I do cite.  Finally, I assure you that
 >Christians consider the Old Testament as half of their Judaic-Christian
 >Christian Scripture.  It resides in the first half of the KJV, and
 >always shall as a monument of the Shakespearean Age.

You seem confused. The Septuagint is indeed a late-Hellenistic-era Greek
translation of the Hebrew scriptures, which includes some passages and
books which were, subsequent to the foundation of Xtianity, rejected by
all Jews, and, much later, by Protestants. But the Septuagint is not the
underlying text of the KJV (alias AV), except in the section known to
Protestants as "The Apocrypha", for which (for the most part) there is
no other source. At any rate, Job is to be found in a Hebrew text that
is older than the Septuagint.

One might also add that the Old Testament constitutes a great deal more
than half of the Christian Bible.

Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >What exactly does Bill Arnold mean by "Christology"...?

I don't know about Bill Arnold, but in small-o orthodox Xtian theology,
it is the study of the nature of the God-Man union in Christ.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Matthew Baynham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Jun 2005 06:53:51 GMT
Subject:        Designations

Whilst I respect the sensitivities of Jewish people to the term 'Old
Testament', I don't think that one can make a universal rule that
'Hebrew Scriptures' is the only acceptable usage in academic writing or
in general.

The first Christians were, obviously enough, Messianic Jews: devout Jews
who were looking for the fulfilment of scriptural prophecy - and later
Messianic expectation - in their own days. They became convinced that
the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures had been fulfilled in the person
and work of Jesus of Nazareth; and this was a vital strand of their
first preaching, which was by Jews to Jews. There is little doubt that,
after Jesus' death, they expected his imminent return, in line with
Jewish apocalyptic expectation, of which the second half of the book of
Daniel is an early example.

Most Jews disagreed with all this; as do the overwhelming majority of
Jews now. When the canon of the Christian bible was to decided upon, by
now by a Christian church most of whom were not Jewish, there were those
who would not have included an Old Testament, but the view that the
fulfilment of the Hebrew scriptures in Jesus of Nazareth was essential
to the Christian tradition prevailed.

In brief, I feel comfortable using the term Old Testament because these
scriptures are an essential and deeply valued part of my Christian
tradition, first reverenced by the Jew Jesus of Nazareth himself and
then by his first Jewish followers in respect of him. With regard to
Shakespeare scholarship, I usually use the term 'Old Testament' because
of this and because Shakespeare and his culture were part of that
tradition too: so that, for example, in my MPhil dissertation I used
this term throughout. But at the point of first usage I inserted a
footnote explaining that I wanted to acknowledge at the outset that
these narratives did not first belong to Christians.

Matthew Baynham

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Celebrity and the Theatre of Idols

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1126  Wednesday, 22 June 2005

[1]     From:   John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 09:05:33 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1119 Celebrity and the Theatre of Idols

[2]     From:   Jan Pick <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 17:23:33 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1119 Celebrity and the Theatre of Idols

[3]     From:   John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 17:01:49 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1119 Celebrity and the Theatre of Idols


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 09:05:33 -0400
Subject: 16.1119 Celebrity and the Theatre of Idols
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1119 Celebrity and the Theatre of Idols

Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >I have been pondering these lines from Timon of Athens (1.1.83-88) for
 >this past week, including as the Michael Jackson verdict was announced.
 >It occurs to me that Timon is something like a celebrity, and that the
 >idolatry that appends to him resembles the use of "idol" in current
 >popular discourse-teen idol, screen idol, American Idol, etc. I also
 >recall that early modern anti-theatrical discourse speaks of the
 >theatres as encouraging a kind of idolatry. My questions: (a) Whom else
 >would we regard among theatrical characters as celebrities? Cleopatra
 >comes to mind, but I'm not sure of others. (b) Was there a notion of
 >celebrity in early modern culture?

The OED, s.vv. "celebrate" and "celebrity" should give a clue.

 >(c) Were performers and/or
 >playwrights becoming celebrities?

Mine host was full of ale and history,
And in the morning when he brought us nigh
Where the two Roses join'd, you would suppose
Chaucer never made the Romaunt of the Rose.
Hear him. See ye yon wood? There Richard lay
With his whole army. Look the other way
And, lo! where Richmond in a bed of gorse
Encamp'd himself o'er night, and all his force:
Upon this hill they met. Why, he could tell
The inch where Richmond stood, where Richard fell
Besides what of his knowledge he could say,
He had authentic notice from the play;
Which I might guess by 's mustering up the ghosts,
And policies not incident to hosts;
But chiefly by that one perspicuous thing
Where he mistook a player for a king.
For when he would have said, King Richard died
And call'd, A horse! a horse! he Burbage cried.
-- CORBET, RICHARD, 1617, Iter Boreale.

 >(d) Is there a way to tie the
 >antitheatrical arguments equating theatre and idolatry to notions then
 >current of celebrity?

Surely that is best determined by reading the texts in question. (But I
think not.)

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jan Pick <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 17:23:33 +0100
Subject: 16.1119 Celebrity and the Theatre of Idols
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1119 Celebrity and the Theatre of Idols

I would add Coriolanus to the celebrity list, and probably Antony as
well as Cleo.

Jan

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jun 2005 17:01:49 -0400
Subject: 16.1119 Celebrity and the Theatre of Idols
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1119 Celebrity and the Theatre of Idols

Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >POET: All those which were his fellows but of late--
 >Some better than his value--on the moment
 >Follow his strides, his lobbies fill with tendance,
 >Rain Aacrificial whisperings in his ear,
 >Make sacred even his stirrup, and through him
 >Drink the free air.

Jack, consider also: JC I-2:

"Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
like a Colossus; and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep
about to find ourselves dishonourable
graves."

Lots of idolatry and anti-idolatry in the works of WS.

_______________________________________________________________
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.