The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1376 Tuesday, 5 June 2001
[1] From: Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 04 Jun 2001 21:38:52
Subj: Re: Why Shakespeare
[2] From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 04 Jun 2001 22:28:26 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1316 Re: Why Shakespeare
[3] From: Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 5 Jun 2001 07:33:30 EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1356 Re: Why Shakespeare
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 04 Jun 2001 21:38:52
Subject: Re: Why Shakespeare
Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> writes:
>But if he wanted to trumpet some fashionable religious philosophy he
> >simply didn't do a very good job of it. Particularly in the speeches >of
>the "bad guys" we see an insight and fullness of description that >many
>modern writers baulk at.
I'm not sure what Sam exactly means by "some fashionable religious
philosophy". But if he is referring to "some fashionable religious
philosophy" in Tudor and early Stuart England here, then the issue is
extremely complicated -- so complicated that we cannot simply say that
Shakespeare "didn't do a very good job of it". Whether or not he wanted
to is also problematic. The more state papers, letters from and to the
Privy Council, and other manuscripts in the 16-17th centuries you read
(as I am now...), the more complicated you find religion (or "religious
philosophy" in Sam's words) of this period.
Feeling as if I were in Purgatory,
Takashi Kozuka
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 04 Jun 2001 22:28:26 -0400
Subject: 12.1316 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1316 Re: Why Shakespeare
> >it is commonly accepted today that the author
> >who wrote Not marble, nor the gilded monuments of princes shall oulive
> >this powerful rhyme, couldn't care less if his sonnets or Hamlet was
> >ever published. . . .
Anybody know enough about Hollywood culture to know whether
screenwriters customarily go out of their way to see to it that their
screenplays get published and archived and otherwise preserved for
posterity separately from the movies made from them?
Dave Evett
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 5 Jun 2001 07:33:30 EDT
Subject: 12.1356 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1356 Re: Why Shakespeare
I like Gabriel Egan's style but I'm not sure that Dostoyevsky would have
agreed that The Brothers Karamazov (a novel) "proved" the
indefensibility of Christian thought (he was after all a committed
Christian and most adherents (even of Religion) do not consciously
consider their own positions to be false. It is surely only anachronism
on Gabriel's part to consider that Dostoyevsky thought his book a
refutation of even a Christian "ethos". D's work is more like say,
George Herbert whose artistic agenda represents a negotiation of
Christian values and belief in a world that often seems so painfully
antagonistic to them. This argument over Dostoyevsky's work rather
parallels some views of Bach's St.Mathews Passion which suggest that
because of the exquisite and seemingly all-encompassing rendering of the
'why hast thou forsaken me' episode, Bach must have believed that Christ
did not rise again on the third day. This kind of 'snapshot is the
whole' view of music is merely reductive and as a method of analysis is
inadequate to any deeply considered art-form. Gabriel's reading also of
course resembles the Romantic mis-reading of Milton (Satan is the hero
etc etc). Moreover, novels (as Gabriel with his apparent knowledge of
Latinate rhetoric will know) do not and cannot "prove" anything. Surely
if one is convinced by an argument or rhetorical device in a work of
fiction then one is convinced by THAT ARGUMENT and not by any putative
author or 'the work as a whole'. Poets are liars anyway...
Cheers,
Marcus.
_______________________________________________________________
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 Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>
