![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 1999: Re: Hamlet and Marriage Practices
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu) Date: 10/04/99
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1675 Monday, 4 October 1999.
[1] From: Larry Weiss <pgw@idt.net>
Date: Saturday, 02 Oct 1999 15:10:03 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 10.1667 Re: Hamlet and Marriage Practices
[2] From: Dana Shilling <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Saturday, 2 Oct 1999 20:56:08 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 10.1667 Re: Hamlet and Marriage Practices
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <pgw@idt.net>
Date: Saturday, 02 Oct 1999 15:10:03 -0400
Subject: 10.1667 Re: Hamlet and Marriage Practices
Comment: Re: SHK 10.1667 Re: Hamlet and Marriage Practices
Robin Hamilton wrote:
>Incidentally, the marriage of a brother to a deceased brother's wife
>only became legal in England in the early 1900s-there's a Shaw play, I
>misremember which, which turns on this point, as it was legal earlier in
>Australia.
There is also a joke in G&S's Iolanthe about this being a perennial
legislative nettle.
Larry Weiss
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dana Shilling <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Saturday, 2 Oct 1999 20:56:08 -0400
Subject: 10.1667 Re: Hamlet and Marriage Practices
Comment: Re: SHK 10.1667 Re: Hamlet and Marriage Practices
The Shaw play referred to is "Major Barbara," where Adolphus Cusins
wants to take over the Undershaft cannon factory, which can only be
inherited by a "foundling." He gets over the difficulty of his
respectable (albeit Australian) birth by pointing out that his mother is
his father's second wife-the sister of his deceased first wife. I think
the enabling legislation dealt specifically with deceased wives'
sisters, not in-laws in general. By the way, I suspect that the Danish
court had a pretty shrewd idea of what had happened, and decided to keep
their mouths shut about marital irregularities by anyone who might still
have some leftover cursed hebanon.
Dana (Shilling)
|
|
|||||