SHAKSPER 2000: Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 01/08/00 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0037  Saturday, 8 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <pgw@idt.net>
        Date:   Thursday, 06 Jan 2000 13:41:16 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0028 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

[2]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net>
        Date:   Thursday, 6 Jan 2000 16:06:34 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0020 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

[3]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net>
        Date:   Thursday, 6 Jan 2000 16:06:34 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0020 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

[4]     From:   Seán Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Thursday, 06 Jan 2000 19:58:48 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0028 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <pgw@idt.net>
Date:           Thursday, 06 Jan 2000 13:41:16 -0500
Subject: 11.0028 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0028 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

Clifford Stetner wrote about primogeniture:

> This system and the mythology on which it depended caused a lot of
> problems throughout the Middle Ages.  One issue was that the eldest was
> in fact often not the noblest, and it was hard to claim that God really
> meant for an elder son of a bitch to inherit while a nobler youngster
> had to go beg.  This gave rise to the debate over true noblesse.

Oliver and Orlando present a case in point; but that is a fairy tale.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net>
Date:           Thursday, 6 Jan 2000 16:06:34 -0600
Subject: 11.0020 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0020 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

Clifford Stetner writes:

<the forces that shaped the English Renaissance went beyond
<the fervent love of God.

Of course I am not denying this obvious fact or impugning your
religion-I am just making an argument for Shakespeare's virtue.  This
argument seems to me to be NEVER made and the opposite ALWAYS implied.
If I get angry or step out-of-bonds, it is not because I don't
understand where YOU are coming from-I am just trying to argue that
Shakespeare might be coming from another angle that that implied in
"Shakespeare in Love."

Judy Craig

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net>
Date:           Thursday, 6 Jan 2000 16:36:33 -0600
Subject: 11.0028 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0028 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

Clifford Stetner writes:

<money is a near substitute in a developing capitalistic <society.

Money as a substitute for nobility in a capitalistic society implies the
Marxist view that no religious or god-fearing people exist in a
capitalist society.  I would argue that that argument is as fallacious
in the sixteenth century as it is now.

Judy Craig

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Seán Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Thursday, 06 Jan 2000 19:58:48 -0800
Subject: 11.0028 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0028 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

I'm not sure that I agree with Clifford.  Surely it requires only the
slightest sort of Platonism to realize that superficial appearance may
not adequately reflect true reality.  Instead of looking for a
"mythology" that provides some sort of ideology for the actual
distribution of goods and services, surely the Renaissance was trying to
look beyond the rather superficial question of who happened to have a
lot of dough to something which at least they considered to be more
fundamental.  As in, yes, so-and-so has a lot of money, but he doesn't
have any breeding, or manners, or education, or whatever.

While this might strike our modern sensibilities as rather classist, it
seems at least preferable to our habit of heaping mindless attention on
even the most undeserving plutocrat.  Apart from actual cash or family
name, anyone can obtain most of the other criteria.  In any case, not
every depth model or appeal beyond material conditions is a
mystification of those same conditions.

Cheers,
Seán.


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