January
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.