2010

Use of Catholic?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0044  Saturday, 30 January 2010

From:         Nicole Coonradt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         January 15, 2010 12:37:04 PM EST
Subject: 21.0035  Use of Catholic?
Comment:      Re: SHK 21.0035  Use of Catholic?

Clarification?

I would be curious to know what "essentially a Protestant art-form" means.

If the audience included those who were "Catholic," they'd be largely the recusant variety.

Does Briggs give dates for "at this time." (Sorry, if I've jumped into this conversation belatedly, the thread looked new.)

Best,
Nicole Coonradt
University of Denver


_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakespeare's Literary "Intentions"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0038  Friday, 15 January 2010

From:       Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Friday, 15 Jan 2010 06:48:06 -0500
Subject: 21.0032 Shakespeare's Literary "Intentions"
Comment:    Re: SHK 21.0032 Shakespeare's Literary "Intentions"

 >Since Steve Roth hasn't defended the following statement, shall we attack
 >it a little further?
 >
 >(As Erne points out, prior to 1603, every one of
 >his plays that was not somehow constrained -- by a competing/preceding
 >stationer's registration or the like -- was in fact published, generally
 >within a year or two of staging.)

Anything Erne points out should be attacked.

 >In what way were the following plays "constrained" -- and what is 
special about 1603 anyway?

James took the throne, and Shakespeare's company took a step up in 
prestige and -- probably -- power, the latter, one would think, allowing 
it better to protect its plays.

  -- Bob

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Begging the Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0036  Friday, 15 January 2010

[1] From:   Mario A. DiCesare <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:   Thursday, 14 Jan 2010 12:58:54 -0500
     Subj:   Re: SHK 21.0029 Begging the Question

[2] From:   Conrad Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:   Friday, 15 Jan 2010 02:52:46 -0500
     Subj:   Begging the Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Mario A. DiCesare <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Thursday, 14 Jan 2010 12:58:54 -0500
Subject: 21.0029 Begging the Question
Comment:    Re: SHK 21.0029 Begging the Question

I agree fully with Anthony Burton. I remember how I listened with horror 
as a colleague actually used "mitigate against" when he clearly meant 
"militate against." I said nothing publicly at the time but did said the 
young man a note to clear things up. I think we should actively resist 
all such corruptions of the language.

Mario A. DiCesare

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Conrad Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Friday, 15 Jan 2010 02:52:46 -0500
Subject:    Begging the Question

Anthony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>wrote:

 >...Despite the proliferation of idiocies such as this one, most of
 >them are likely as not to be verbal fads which, with any luck will drop
 >out of currency in a year or so and abandon the phrase once  again only
 >to informed users.

That may happen. Some years ago, I found people tripping everywhere over 
imply - infer confusion. But question-begging confusion has been going 
on for longer.

It may instead happen that the meaning of the phrase changes. That 
happened, for example, with "the exception that proves the rule." If I 
remember, that was originally a French, and it meant, of course, that 
one exception *breaks* a rule. Tests it and renders it invalid. But 
through some confusion in rendering that meaning in a sufficiently 
snappy way, it came to mean the opposite.

 >Remember (or reread) Orwell's great "Politics and the English Language,"
 >the optimistic conclusion of which is that the decline of careful usage
 >and its consequent harm to clear thinking is something that can be 
reversed.

That may be, *if* enough energy is put out. The people on this list 
*could* start a kind of public education effort, writing in to various 
forums, blogs, and advice columns, explaining it in simple, 
attention-catching language to those who don't know.

Could be entertaining.

But there's no reason to think it will happen on its own. Most people 
don't understand it's the name of a fallacy, and often the people who 
unwittingly promulgate its misuse don't know what a fallacy is.

Conrad.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Good Marriages in Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0037  Friday, 15 January 2010

From:       Justin Alexander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Friday, 15 Jan 2010 01:51:47 -0600
Subject: 21.0010 Good Marriages in Shakespeare
Comment:    Re: SHK 21.0010 Good Marriages in Shakespeare

David Basch wrote:

 >I take note of this because, as Lynn focuses on their marriage, the
 >character of Hamlet emerges here in higher relief than in other
 >situations. Hamlet shows by his reactions he is a person who is
 >altogether over righteous. He is straitlaced and proper to a fault, as
 >he describes the love of Gertrude and Claudius from his eyes, that
 >of a priggish, stunted adolescent, as Lynn observes.

To play a bit of devil's advocate here: The play strongly implies that 
Hamlet isn't the only one criticizing the marriage. We are, in fact, 
introduced to Claudius as he gives a political speech which carefully 
justifies the relationship. And even Gertrude describes it as an 
"o'erhasty marriage".

 >This situation is important in revealing Hamlet's character flaw of
 >"over righteousnes" that interferes with his capacity to act with
 >wisdom to the opportunities and dangers that confront him. Thus,
 >his perpetual over righteousness gets the better of him in wanting
 >the perfect punishment for Claudius. He therefore fails to act when
 >he has the opportunity to mete out justice to Claudius, enabling
 >Claudius to live and turn the tables on him.

I'm honestly skeptical of giving to Claudius ("no place indeed should 
murder sanctuarize") the ethical summary of the play. Villains typically 
don't get to play that role; in fact, it's usually the reverse.

Justin Alexander
http://www.american-shakespeare.com

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Use of Catholic?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0035  Friday, 15 January 2010

From:       Ira Zinman<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Thursday, 14 Jan 2010 15:17:53 EST
Subject: 21.0031 Was Shakespeare a member of a guild?
Comment:    Re: SHK 21.0031 Was Shakespeare a member of a guild?

John Briggs in his reply to William Sutton stated that: (It is a paradox 
that the theatre at this time was essentially a Protestant art-form, but 
many of those taking part in it were Catholics.)

Does anyone know when the term and "Catholic" was commonly used?

Many thanks,
Ira

_______________________________________________________________
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.