The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0287 Tuesday, 13 May 2008
[1] From: Kristen McDermott <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 9 May 2008 15:06:02 -0400
Subj: RE: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
[2] From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 09 May 2008 15:10:59 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
[3] From: Bob Grumman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 08 May 2008 16:36:51 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0273 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
[4] From: Jason Rhode <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 9 May 2008 14:30:10 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
[5] From: Robert Projansky <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 11 May 2008 16:05:51 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kristen McDermott <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 9 May 2008 15:06:02 -0400
Subject: 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
Comment: RE: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
Abigail Quart quote rightly wonders about the state of the Shakespeare
marital bed:
>My sticking point is always the children. One. Then
>twins. Then nothing.
And I agree that it would have been natural for them to want an heir.
However, given the facts of early modern midwifery, the birth of twins
-- rarer in Shakespeare's time than today, but even today much more
dangerous to both mother and infants than a single birth -- could very
well have resulted in an injury that could have impaired Anne's ability
to carry any more children. One could also speculate that, if the
experience of delivering the twins was physically traumatic, her loving
husband may have chosen not to further endanger her. So a lack of
children after the twins could just as likely have been evidence for
husbandly devotion as for husbandly indifference.
Happy Mother's Day --
Kris McDermott
Associate Professor of English
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 09 May 2008 15:10:59 -0400
Subject: 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
Personally, I don't give a damn. But Abigail is probably right that 400
year old gossip is just as much fun as contemporary gossip. (Who the
hell is Lindsey Lohan anyway?) After all, James Joyce made good use of it.
But Abigail's speculations just don't raise suspicions. What's wrong
with only three kids? Besides, after Judith and Hamnet were born Will
was productively occupied elsewhere and probably did not get home very
often. As for any burning desire for male posterity to bear the newly
minted Shakespeare escutcheon, he had one: Hamnet did not die until
Anne was past normal child bearing age.
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Grumman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 08 May 2008 16:36:51 -0500
Subject: 19.0273 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0273 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
According to Brian Willis, "Part of Ron's point, and a very judicious
one, is that a preponderance of evidence doesn't exist to evaluate the
state of Will's love life." If that's his very judicious point,
fine--but he shouldn't claim that there's no evidence Shakespeare loved
his wife. I would add that marriage is without question evidence that
the two people involved love each other. The fact that sometimes people
who don't love each other nonetheless marry each other does not make it
non-evidence of that, merely inconclusive evidence.
As I said in my post, we lack sufficient evidence in the matter to say
anything conclusive. I am most certainly not trying to determine
important issues about the biography of Shakespeare. I am only popping
off at a foolish statement by someone who seems not to know what
"evidence" means, something that occurs too often in discussions about
Shakespeare.
--Bob G.
[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jason Rhode <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 9 May 2008 14:30:10 -0500
Subject: 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
I'm brand new to SHAKSPER, but Abigail's reply was the only one that
didn't come off as mean. Is it really impossible for so many smart
people to not be rude to each other? There's no need to accuse other
folks of being stupid or snotty. Would you say any of these things to
the other person's face in real life? Maybe Hardy should just strike out
messages which contain snark. It would keep at least a few of us from
receive poisoned letters in our mailbox twice a week.
[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Projansky <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 11 May 2008 16:05:51 -0700
Subject: 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
Regarding Sonnet 145 (and the others, too): Once upon a time in a
lifetime long ago, I was enamored of a poetess and her poetry. One of
her just-published poems was about young love, a drive-in movie theater,
Ohio. When I asked her some question about the poem (I already knew her
family had owned an Ohio drive-in movie theater many years before), she
told me it was fiction. Fiction? In poetry? Really? I was amazed and
felt a little stupid. I thought poetry was about experience plus
imagination -- it had never ever occurred to me that non-dramatic poetry
could be a medium for writing fiction. (Later I realized her answer
might have been a fiction.) You just never know about these things.
Bob Projansky
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
