SHAKSPER 2000: Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 01/04/00 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0020  Tuesday, 4 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Monday, 03 Jan 2000 11:08:42 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0010 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

[2]     From:   Cliffird Stetner <cstetner@liu.edu>
        Date:   Monday, 3 Jan 2000 22:44:57 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0010 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Monday, 03 Jan 2000 11:08:42 -0800
Subject: 11.0010 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0010 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

Judy Lewis sensibly observes that:

> Michelangelo sculpted for money.  Raphael and
> Leonardo and Rembrandt painted for money.  Mozart composed for money.
> Even geniuses have to eat.

But do they paint to live, or live to paint?  That's the central issue,
IMHO.

Cheers,
Seán.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Cliffird Stetner <cstetner@liu.edu>
Date:           Monday, 3 Jan 2000 22:44:57 -0500
Subject: 11.0010 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0010 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

Judith Matthews Craig writes that my:

>...version of the Protestant ethic had its origin is 20th century
>American scholarship, not 16th century men who loved virtue.

The examples of the debate over true noblesse in Renaissance humanism
are too numerous to cite.  Take for example Fulgens and Lucrece, one of
the earliest pieces of Tudor drama performed for Henry VII.  Here
Lucrece of rape fame is courted by her future husband:

"Gaius Flaminius, a plebeian; 'his ancestors were of full poor degree,'
and he is 'of small possession and great scarceness, ...but for all that
many a fair day through his great wisdom and virtuous behavior he ruled
the commonweal to his great honor...[and] for the victories that [he
has] done...[he has returned] to this noble city twice or thrice crowned
with laurel as it is the guise.'"

and

Publius Cornelius, a patrician; 'there is not within all this city a man
born of a better blood...[whose] progenitors and ancestors have been the
chief aid and defense of this noble city' and to him have they 'left
many a castle and tower which in their triumphs they rightfully
won...[and] all their treasure.'  His life, however, 'is so voluptuous
and so bestial...[that] he weeneth...by his proud countenance...his
great oaths...his rioutous disports and play...his sloth...and other
excess...by these things only [to] have noblesse... Why should he those
goods spare sith he labored never therefor?'"

<snip>

>I never knew the principle of primogeniture was the foundation of
>anything, except hereditary kingship.

Was it not the foundation of all inheritance of property and titles
among the aristocracy? Although Flaminius is called poor, I believe it
is generally acknowledged among historical critics that his winning of
the hand of Lucrece is allegorical of the rise of the untitled gentry
and bourgeoisie in Tudor times often personified in Thomas More.

> Love of God is the primary commandment, and I believe anyone in our time
looking at any Renaissance
>literature finds so many references to this mode of thought (largely
>unknown in the 20th century) that he is lost unless he has some
>familiarity PRACTICING it.  Hence the problems of reading literature
>created in a religiously based society from the perspective of one not
>religiously based.

Am I mistaken, or have I just been accused of being a godless atheist?
Given the frightening rise of fundamentalism and religious bigotry in
America and abroad, are you really claiming that love of God is unknown
in the 20th (excuse me 21st) century?

My own religious convictions are immaterial and were nowhere offered to
your polemical indulgence.

Whatever they may be, they do not prevent me from recognizing that the
forces that shaped the English Renaissance went beyond the fervent love
of God.  As I recall, there was a little matter of Henry VIII and his
holy desire for a male heir (presumably to carry on the holy work of
Protestantism).

Clifford Stetner


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2002, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.