![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 1993: Re: Margaret, Lilith, and Shakespeare
From: Hardy M. Cook (hmcook@boe00.minc.umd.edu) Date: 06/11/93
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 365. Friday, 11 June 1993. From: Naomi Liebler <LIEBLER@apollo.montclair.edu> Date: Thursday, 10 Jun 93 10:54:00 EST Subject: 4.0362 Re: Margaret, Lilith, and Shakespeare Comment: RE: SHK 4.0362 Re: Margaret, Lilith, and Shakespeare The logic of the connection between Margaret, Lilith, and ant-semitism escapes me. It is apparently dependent on a number of assumptions: IF Margaret is a figure of Lilith, and IF that figure must be received negatively, and IF all such negative receptions must be read as "anti"-SOMETHING, and IF a negative reference to an O. T. figure (mind you, an apocryphal one at that) must imply anti-semitism, then perhaps the logic works. But that's many too many IFs for me. Moreover, why would any representation of an angry old woman with an ax to grind necessarily imply anything but an angry old woman with an ax to grind (which Margaret certainly is by the time of R3)? And maybe, just maybe, she's got good reason to grind that ax? By the same creative logic--though I hesitate even to suggest it--we'd have to read the Weird Sisters as a representation of 3 Liliths, thus triple anti-semitism. God forbid! My guess is that the retention of a single character through 4 plays marks something other than demonization--perhaps it marks a kind of homage? After all, Shakespeare only granted such retention to three other figures, so far as I know: Henry IV and the guy who became the mirror of all Christian princes, and Falstaff. And Margaret has them all beat, 4 plays to 3. P.S.--while we're on the subject of strange logic, one of my students told me yesterday that one of my colleagues told HER that Henry V's anger over the slaughter of the "poys and the luggage" was a clear sign of Henry's--and thus also of Shakespeare's--pedophilia! Anybody want to take that up?
|
|
|||||