The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0957 Sunday, 29 October 2006
[1] From: Bob Lapides <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 2006 10:01:12 EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0949 The Demise of the Coward
[2] From: Bruce Young <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 2006 11:57:06 -0600
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0949 The Demise of the Coward
[3] From: V. K. Inman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 2006 20:19:31 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0949 The Demise of the Coward
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Lapides <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 2006 10:01:12 EDT
Subject: 17.0949 The Demise of the Coward
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0949 The Demise of the Coward
It took some courage for Sam Small to equate taking action against
global warming with "supporting the grossly corrupt Green industry," as
he put it. But he sidestepped my main point, which was that established
values and goals are now so widely distrusted that it's not easy to say
what is cowardly and what is simply self-preservation. Nor do we today
have many public examples of heroism to measure cowardice against. Which
present-day member of the ruling class would die for the reasons Philip
Sidney did? Perhaps when a militant opposition to the current
establishment emerges, and we hear louder calls to act on principle, we
will again worry about our own cowardice.
Bob Lapides
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce Young <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 2006 11:57:06 -0600
Subject: 17.0949 The Demise of the Coward
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0949 The Demise of the Coward
I'm sure Shakespeare's plays include cowards of the usual sort and
suspect they are presented more or less unsympathetically--though
somehow the idea that "it would be permissible for [cowards of this
sort] to be attacked at will" seems unShakespearean to me, more
Jonsonian maybe. In my way of reading and viewing Shakespeare, even the
villains are not presented simply to be attacked or dismissed at will.
Something more complicated is going on; some more complicated response
is called for that usually includes a degree of self-reflection.
I'll leave it to others to come up with examples of the sort of
Shakespearean coward Sam Small is looking for. But what I find
interesting is another Shakespearean character type: the character who
claims to be courageous enough to do evil and who sometimes denigrates
conscience as a source of cowardice. Examples include Richard III,
whose fear and self-loathing the night before the battle of Bosworth
Field are produced by at least a trace of conscience (in 5.3, he refers
to "coward conscience" and says "conscience is but a word that cowards
use"); the murderers Richard has kill his brother Clarence in 1.4
(talking themselves into being "resolute," they say it's best to get rid
of conscience since "it makes a man a coward"); Macbeth once he deadens
his conscience ("What man dare, that I dare"); perhaps the captain who
agrees to hang Cordelia (in Lear 5.3.31-32, Edmund tells him, "to be
tender-minded / Does not become a sword"). And note similar sentiments
from Dionyza (Pericles 4.1.4-8) and Antonio in The Tempest (2.1.275-80).
Sometimes a more sympathetic figure, like Laertes, denounces conscience
("Conscience and grace, to the profoundest pit! I dare damnation")--yet
not, I think, with our unmixed approval. Claudius uses Laertes's
"bravery" for his own purposes, and, in the last scene, as Claudius
encourages him to do Hamlet in, Laertes says, "And yet it is almost
against my conscience."
And of course, Hamlet himself asserts that "conscience does make cowards
of us all." (By the way, I'm one of those who doesn't think the play
celebrates Hamlet's quest for revenge.)
If I'm right, then along with any of the laughable or even despicable
cowards in Shakespeare (maybe Falstaff, Pistol, or Parolles?), there is
a whole class of Shakespearean characters who might have done better to
listen to "coward conscience." My point is that cowardice is not a
simple thing in Shakespeare, not something we can simply "attack at will."
Bruce Young
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: V. K. Inman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 25 Oct 2006 20:19:31 -0400
Subject: 17.0949 The Demise of the Coward
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0949 The Demise of the Coward
Quoting: Sam Small <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>>
>What I was looking for was the Shakespearean coward. That rotten fellow
>who sees that a good thing should be done by him but is not prepared to
>take the personal risk in doing it. The reason he does not do it is
>because he trembles with fear at the harm that may come to him.
>Certainly in Shakespeare it would be permissible for this fellow to be
>attacked at will. Someone beyond the pale. If today we admire courage -
>why don't we dislike cowardice?
V. K. Inman says: As a veteran of the U. S. Marine Corps who served in
combat for a year during the Vietnam War as a lieutenant, platoon
commander, I really searched my memories for an example of such a
coward. There were no persons I knew in combat who were "Shakespearean"
cowards. There were marines who were scared, nervous, and cried. There
were marines who argued with me that certain missions should be called
off as too dangerous. There were marines who could not bring themselves
to aim at an enemy soldier and fire. But there were no Shakespearean
cowards. It was Hal's band of brothers if anything.
Where did all the cowards go? I remember fellow students in college,
before my Vietnam tour who were vehemently in favor of the war. They
wore pins that said things like, 'bomb Hanoi' or "nuke 'em". These
student's however were not signed up for ROTC and the one's that I still
know of today, never served in Vietnam. If they served at all it was in
the National Guard. Aren't these Shakespearean cowards? If they
believed in the war, that so many of us who actually served did not
believe was just and good cause, and yet failed to go to the war when
they had an opportunity is to me the vilest form of cowardice!
Former Vice President Dan Quayle was such a student. George W. Bush was
not actively pro-war that I am aware of, but failed to go to war when he
had the opportunity. The United States of America elected them to office
while failing to elect decorated Veterans in both parties. Yes, I
believe no one cares about cowardice any more. I can't tell you why, but
I still give a damn about the band or brothers I served with and will be
reuniting with some of them this coming Veteran's day.
Lt. Col V. K. Inman, USMC (Ret)
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
