September
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1456 Monday, 5 September 2005 From: Harry Keyishian <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 4 Sep 2005 11:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "In Shakespeare Day": Shakespeare Colloquium in New Jersey 13th Annual Shakespeare Colloquium at Fairleigh Dickinson University. "In Shakespeare's Day: Society, Politics, and Theater" is the topic of the annual Shakespeare colloquium to be held at the Madison, NJ campus of Fairleigh Dickinson University on October 29 from 9:30-3:30 in room S-11 (Science Building). This will be the thirteenth in this series of programs. They are free and open to the public. Four speakers will be featured. James P. Bednarz, Professor of English at CW Post College of Long Island University, will discuss the relationship between "serious" literature and commercial theater in Shakespeare's early years as a playwright. Professor Chris Fitter of Rutgers University will argue that Shakespeare's works reflect radical and skeptical traditions of the Renaissance. Margaret Mikesell of John Jay College will explore "advice" books written in Shakespeare's time and how they illuminate his plays, with particular focus on Hamlet. June Schlueter of Lafayette College will share her research into unpublished travel albums kept by foreign travelers to Shakespeare's London and explore their potential as new sources of history. Each talk will be followed by a discussion period and questions. The final program will be available in a few weeks. The colloquia are organized by Harry Keyishian, Professor of English. For further information, call 973-443-8714 or write him at MS3-01, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, NJ 07940 or by e-mail toThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.1456 Saturday, 3 September 2005 [1] From: Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 02 Sep 2005 00:28:05 +0800 Subj: Re: SHK 16.1444 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. [2] From: Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 02 Sep 2005 06:50:48 +0800 Subj: Re: SHK 16.1444 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. [3] From: David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 02 Sep 2005 11:19:20 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 16.1444 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 02 Sep 2005 00:28:05 +0800 Subject: 16.1444 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. Comment: Re: SHK 16.1444 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. Apparently, a few of us are unhappy with my plea to look at the evidence that Shakespeare's plays are crafted to convey deep spiritual messages. My only concern about this is whether or not they really know what I mean by "the evidence." With all due respect to Basch and Amit, the evidence I am referring to is very different from those presented by them. For example, this evidence (that I am referring to) does not rely, in any way, on speculations as to what certain terms may be secretly alluding to, or on any need to read between the lines, or on any need to speculate on hidden actions. The evidence is, instead, all based on exactly what Shakespeare openly presents to us in his script. Shakespeare is very dramatic in conveying his message, and he continually repeats his point, in some plays, up to ten times or more. In other words, the message is actually staring us in the face. The problem is we often choose not to see it. Shakespeare makes no attempt to hide his meaning at all, and he generally crafts every part of the play to fit the message. This includes all those scenes that do not move along the action and may thus even appear unnecessary to the play. These scenes are, in fact, included to help impart the message. If anyone is not sure what I mean, or doubt my words, please go to my previous post at <http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2004/1716.html>, and then look at what I have posted on my website at <http://homepage.mac.com/sapphirestudios/qod>. It costs nothing, and is only one or two clicks away. My apologies if I am annoying some forum members by repeating all this. I do hope, however, that there are others who will seriously consider what I am saying. It is important that Shakespeare's priceless legacy is not lost on us. With best wishes, Kenneth Chan [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 02 Sep 2005 06:50:48 +0800 Subject: 16.1444 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. Comment: Re: SHK 16.1444 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. Bill Arnold writes: >"I would be careful of making Will Shakespeare's >works into a work of scriptural doctrine and its >author a son of God, unless you grant we are all >daughters and sons of God!" Thank you, Bill, for giving me this opportunity to clarify. I am in no way suggesting that Shakespeare is the "chosen one" or anything of that kind; Shakespeare is not innately different from any of us. Neither am I suggesting that his works are scriptural doctrines to be accepted on faith. What makes Shakespeare different from us, however, is that he has actually undertaken the arduous task of transforming his life and personality towards the spiritual ideal that he can perceive. This is a process any of us, without exception, can undertake. All we have to do is simply this: Take every step we know we have to take in order to transform into a better person. Every one of us knows at least one step that we can take to transform into a better person. That is the step we have to take. It has nothing to do with blind faith; each of us already knows what he or she has to do next. As we accomplish each step, we will realize the next step following that. If we continue this process, we will eventually attain the same realizations (and more) that Shakespeare has tried so hard to convey to us in his plays. All of us can prove this for ourselves by simply following this path. The real question is whether or not we want to do it. What we need to realize, however, is that this is the most important thing we have to do in life. That is why Shakespeare goes to so much trouble to impart his messages to us. It is to encourage us to take this path; he knows that it will make a huge difference to our lives. That is also why I persist in trying to inform people of Shakespeare's intent. Do you think I actually enjoy attracting negative comments to myself? All this negativity is unfortunately inevitable and is, in fact, part of the process. What I am happy to say, however, is that the process is working. Already, thousands of students, around the world, have read the evidence that Shakespeare's plays do contain deep messages to humanity, and thousands more will continue to do so. This is the internet generation. The message is slowly but surely getting through, and the process cannot be stopped because the message makes sense. Those who refuse to listen will eventually get left behind in the years to come. With best wishes, Kenneth Chan http://homepage.mac.com/sapphirestudios/qod [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 02 Sep 2005 11:19:20 -0400 Subject: 16.1444 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. Comment: Re: SHK 16.1444 Shylock, Hamlet, et al. Our list has its objectors to seeing a Shakespeare with great spiritual depth, preferring to see someone more involved with making a buck and a reputation, and whose observable great depth in understanding human beings and their dilemmas is just a happy accidental outcome of this terrestrial activity. No doubt, this kind of Shakespeare fits in with their own world view too, a world view that is seized upon by these persons with such zeal that they cannot entertain the possibility that Shakespeare is nothing like themselves and the narrow secularist that they with to see him as. They are of course entitled to their opinion but this sets limits to what they are able to see and understand in the poet's work. It could truly be said of them that they dream of less things than there are in heaven and earth and would deserve Hamlet's criticism of such types as he expresses to Horatio: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy." The point of Hamlet's comment is that, after having experienced a strange phenomenon of a visitation from another world, we must leave open our minds to a strange universe that is not bounded by limiting philosophical formulas that rationalists are prone to. This limitation of vision is why rationalists again and again attempt to create technocratic utopias supposedly founded on scientific socialism but which are not scientific nor do they produce the social benefits envisioned since these formulations cannot encompass the breadth of complexity and downright mysteriousness of our universe. Again let me reiterate that this is the kind of world recognized by Ecclesiastes and which Shakespeare sought to depict in his play and in his character Hamlet. In the play, Hamlet represents "man under the sun," a phrase that appears 29 times in Ecclesiastes, a man with all his idealism and human flaws as surrounded by the venality and corruption, the flies in the ointment the Ecclesiastes describes as giving off a putrid smell, that accounts for the rottenness in Denmark Ecclesiastes is a King that ruminates on life. Since he was king, he was able to do and to enjoy pleasures, riches, and experiences that other men can only dream about and to find out where these lead. As he declares in Ecc 7:25: I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness: I gave numerous parallels between Hamlet and Ecclesiastes in earlier postings. I will give a few others. A confident Hamlet is warned by Horatio that he will lose the wager with the king in his sport with Laertes. Hamlet disregards Horatio's warning. What have we here? Horatio is a poor man, identified as one who has "only his good spirits to feed and clothe him." So when he advises Hamlet and his advice rebuffed, it is right out of Ecclesiastes, who observes that "the wisdom of the poor is despised and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes also observes that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. Interestingly, all parties connected with the dueling contest think they are the swift. Claudius and Laertes think they have the game in the bag and that Hamlet must be the loser. Hamlet weighs his odds and thinks that he will be the winner, though the game he is trying to win is not the game that is actually being played. As Ecclesiastes states: For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them. (Ecc 9:12) Hamlet in the play is an over righteous man who is wise over much, characteristics that Ecclesiastes identifies as sure to bring a man to self-destruction and we see this in the play. He over righteously spares Claudius in his obsession with eventually giving Claudius the exact punishment he deserves. And Hamlet becomes so sure that he understand God's ways that he can accept whatever God will deliver to him and that he need not take charge of his actions to try to make conditions unfold in accordance with justice and morality right here on earth. Here Hamlet overlooks the caution of Ecclesiastes who tells: As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all. (Ecc 11:5) And these observations are only the tip of this iceberg, with such delicious lines as Hamlet responding to Polonius upon being asked what he reads: "Words, words, words." This is a rendering of Ecclesiastes comment that "there is no end to the writing of books." The only reason that our learned scholars do not take account of the many, many such parallels to Ecclesiastes is that they have the preconception of Shakespeare as a man who is not involved in such things and in creating cautionary tales that flesh out Biblical wisdom and the real human condition to which the Bible responds to. David Basch _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.1455 Saturday, 3 September 2005 From: Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 01 Sep 2005 12:08:03 -0700 Subject: 16.1441 Wager Comment: Re: SHK 16.1441 Wager Marcus Dahl wrote: >I say that at least '1RichII' is clear and has textual precedent, >whereas 'Woodstock' is editorially later and rather misleading. >Again I re-iterate - which play does Al read? 'Twelfe Night' >or 'What You Will'? What you will, indeed! Shakespeare *is* a free-for-all and I do not mean this ironically. For authenticity, for truth in the words, perhaps we should retreat to a kind of primitivism by taking a liberal view of all texts--what you will--and just going ahead and performing them in this way and that. There is so much room for interpretation there--and license is taken--that our microscopic discussion can become absurd. (I believe I am not the first to think this of academics and involved amateurs like me.) I am reminded of the title given a set of essays by Beckett and other friends of Joyce while he was publicly laboring on Finnegan's Wake: _Our Exagmination Round His Factification For Incamination Of Work In Progress_ (1929). As for the title question in question (my, how these things multiply), I for one will stick with the conservative majority of editors in the last century and use "Woodstock" so as not to assume too much about who wrote the play or even its structural relationship to Sh.'s Richard II. The other title question? My daughter stage-managed a HS production of Twelfth Night last year. A good time was had by all, as they say, and no one worried about the text. WWSD. That's "What Would Shakespeare Do?" I can get a deal on T-shirts and bumperstickers... :) Cheers, Al Magary _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.1454 Saturday, 3 September 2005 [1] From: Jim Blackie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Sep 2005 12:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Subj: RE: What Happens in Hamlet [2] From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Sep 2005 12:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 16.1443 What Happens in "Hamlet" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Blackie <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Sep 2005 12:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RE: What Happens in Hamlet Terence Hawkes sayeth: "It would be a shame if, in his enthusiasm for the writings of Dover Wilson, Jim Blackie did not see that they offer a far from neutral account of what happens in Hamlet or anything else. Literary criticism does not take place in a political, moral or historical vacuum, nor does our reading of it. Wilson's essay argues a distinct political case from a particular political position. That in no way detracts from its persuasiveness. But it's as well to get a grip on what he's being persuasive about." Thanks to Mr. Hawkes who reminds me to consider everything written as a product of the historical and political clime of that time. I agree; it is important and, ironically, stands as one of Wilson's very own tenets when reading/viewing WS's work. I am aware of the time period in which Wilson's work was written (1931-ish) and the impact that the "war to end all wars" had on his comparisons and metaphors used to clarify his points. I did not, however, uncover any overt political leaning that colored his analysis - an analysis that I found refreshing, intuitive and almost faultless. (No one is perfect) If Terence Hawkes would be good enough to elucidate on the meaning of his own comments concerning "What Happens in Hamlet," I'd be most appreciative. As the message above stands, it seems indicate that Wilson is trying to get at "something" without explaining what that something might be. Well, to my poor senses, anyway. Most especially the curious statement "[b]ut it's as well to get a grip on what he's being persuasive about." This has me puzzled. Am I to get a grip on what Wilson is saying, or was Wilson to get a grip on what he is saying? I need help parsing this out. Thanks again, Jim Blackie [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Sep 2005 12:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 16.1443 What Happens in "Hamlet" Comment: Re: SHK 16.1443 What Happens in "Hamlet" Jim Blackie quotes me, in part, "Well then, you ought to read Bernard Grebanier's The Heart of Hamlet which covers Hamlet the play and the character like a warm and fuzzy bear rug. Along the way, Grebanier shows the strengths and weaknesses in Wilson's thesis. I believe when you are done, you will side more with Grebanier and less with Wilson on the play and character." Then Jim Blackie writes, "Sounds fascinating, but it is both out of print and (where available) way too expensive for me. I could not even find anything on the web about the author or book...You make it sound both repulsive yet intriguing at the same time." Hey, Jim, look in Hardy's archives, as we have discussed this at length. Also: go to: http://www.abebooks.com and http://www.bookfinder.com and you will get the book on the cheap. As to my making Grebanier sound "repulsive yet intriguing at the same time" I do plead guilty, and hide behind the fact I am a writer, who sought to do that, precisely. Bon voyage! Bill Arnold http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.1453 Saturday, 3 September 2005 [1] From: Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Sep 2005 16:52:11 +0100 Subj: SHK 16.1437 Caliban's Island [2] From: Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Sep 2005 16:09:19 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 16.1437 Caliban's Island [3] From: David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 02 Sep 2005 10:12:20 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 16.1437 Caliban's Island [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Sep 2005 16:52:11 +0100 Subject: Caliban's Island Comment: SHK 16.1437 Caliban's Island >Yes, the text eliminates the Bermoothes (read as Bermudas). Here is Ariel: > >"...once / Thou call'dst me up at midnight to fetch dew / From the >still-vex'd Bermoothes..." > >This line cannot possibly refer to a tempest-vexed Bermoothes, for even >Ariel would find it difficult to fetch dew in a violent storm. The image >here is of a Bermoothes vexed by stillness, quite opposite to an island amid >a tempest tossed sea. No shipwrecks here, but an absolutely calm sea, the >dew gathering overnight on the island in the stillness. > >Thomas Hunter, Ph.D. Was this a joke??? Dr. M [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 1 Sep 2005 16:09:19 -0400 Subject: 16.1437 Caliban's Island Comment: Re: SHK 16.1437 Caliban's Island >>David Lindley quotes, 'Of course the Bermudas remain central to The >Tempest'. >> >>Then David Lindley writes, "Sorry, no, they don't. The Bermoothes are >>mentioned in one comment by Ariel as a place from which he was sent >>to 'fetch dew' during a speech which refers to the ships of Alonso's >>retinue as 'upon the Mediterranean float'. The play is clearly set >>somewhere between Naples and Tunis." > >Yes, the text eliminates the Bermoothes (read as Bermudas). Here is Ariel: > >"...once / Thou call'dst me up at midnight to fetch dew / From the still-vex'd Bermoothes..." The Bermudas are still clearly central to The Tempest. The island in The Tempest is not a real island. It is a make-believe island fantasized to be in the Mediterranean, and having qualities in common with a host of other islands, real and fictional. It is most based on the island that Strachey was shipwrecked on, however. Or so I assert. --Bob G. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 02 Sep 2005 10:12:20 -0400 Subject: 16.1437 Caliban's Island Comment: Re: SHK 16.1437 Caliban's Island May I suggest another source for Prospero's description of himself as called to the attention of our list by Peter Farey? Here are the lines as they are in the play: I have bedimm'd The noontide sun, call'd forth the mutinous winds, And 'twixt the green sea and the azured vault Set roaring war: to the dread rattling thunder Have I given fire and rifted Jove's stout oak With his own bolt; the strong-based promontory Have I made shake and by the spurs pluck'd up The pine and cedar: graves at my command Have waked their sleepers, oped, and let 'em forth By my so potent art. Whatever other sources can be listed, there is its sources in the Psalms and the bible. Thus Psalm 29 describes the Lord Who "thundereth" and Who "is upon many waters" and Who "breaketh the cedars" and "shaketh the wilderness." While the elements referred to are different in detail in the psalm, the actions are the same. Elsewhere in the Bible, the Lord restores life as in the resurrection of the dry bones and the episode of Elisha and the young boy brought back to life. In all, the powers of Prospero are that of the Lord. But this should not be surprising to those familiar with scholars like Colin Still and one of the commentators on the Tempest in Monarch Notes (or in the other college review book), who have alleged that Prospero is an allegoric representation of God. Colin still, who wrote more than 60 years ago, shed light on the device whereby Prospero plays a dual role, a mortal, deposed duke taking refuge on an island and the Lord when he dons his cloak and becomes "robed in majesty" as described in Psalm 93. There are signs of this divine identity everywhere in the play as I have presented in an article and chapter on this play. For example, there is actually an arraignment scene in the play in which Prospero brings the characters to judgment. This stamps the island as not a real location but as allegorical of the world, the world in miniature, and its flawed inhabitants. David Basch _______________________________________________________________ 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.