Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2014 :: March ::
Trevor Nunn: 'The Bard is more relevant than the Bible’

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 25.150  Monday, 24 March 2014

 

[1] From:        Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         March 21, 2014 at 3:23:00 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Bible 

 

[2] From:        Nick Ranson < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         March 21, 2014 at 3:40:05 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Bible 

 

[3] From:        Tom Reedy < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         March 22, 2014 at 11:09:44 AM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Bible 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         March 21, 2014 at 3:23:00 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Bible

 

>As to Hamlet, many commentators refuse to see in the events 

>of this play enactments of the wisdom of the Bible’s Ecclesiastes.

 

What next?  Is someone going to tell us that the Pyramus and Thisbe episode in MND is really an allegorical passion play?  Or am I behind the times?

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Nick Ranson < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         March 21, 2014 at 3:40:05 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Bible

 

There seems to me to have been considerable work on the Shakespeare/Bible question over the years. But for now, aren't Peter Milward and Steven Marx recent critics with persuasive observations? 

 

Nick Ranson

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Tom Reedy < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         March 22, 2014 at 11:09:44 AM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Bible

 

I am happy to be the instigator of such an interesting conversation. I have no problem recognizing that Shakespeare’s works are steeped in the Biblical culture of his time, nor that Biblical references and themes can be found—it would be highly unusual if none were present. But I clearly make a distinction between a source upon which Shakespeare based a play and his Biblical allusions. As Hannibal Hamlin writes, the distinction is often not so clear, but to my mind, anyway, a source and an allusion are two separate things, and the source of an allusion is not the same as the source of a play. To say that Shakespeare used the Bible as an important source for his plays is to say that the allusions to Hercules in Antony and Cleopatra, Hamlet, and several other plays proves he used the myth as a major source. I hope that clears up what I had in mind.

 

And the real point of Dr. Waugaman’s comment—to anyone who bothered to Goggle it and read the entire remark, since he strangely neglected to furnish a link—was to sneak around the topic ban of this forum and to call attention to the dishonesty of scholars who downplay Shakespeare’s Biblical allusions because they help prove the authorship of the Earl of Oxford.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/william-shakespeare/10701368/Trevor-Nunn-Shakespeare-is-100-times-more-relevant-than-the-Bible.html

 
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.