• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Holden Biography"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0063  Wednesday, 12 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Terence Hawkes <hawkest@compuserve.com>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Jan 2000 12:50:45 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 11.0057 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

[2]     From:   Seán Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Jan 2000 09:55:27 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0057 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <hawkest@compuserve.com>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Jan 2000 12:50:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Henry V (and Branagh)
Comment:        SHK 11.0057 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

Dear Judy Craig,

What on earth makes you think that Marx denied religion a central role
in capitalist society? I recall that he made quite a  precise analysis
of its function in that fervent, god-fearing context. Words like 'opium'
and 'people' come to mind.

Terence Hawkes

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Seán Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Jan 2000 09:55:27 -0800
Subject: 11.0057 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0057 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

Hi, Clifford.

I suppose that the question of the relation between grace and money
becomes one of whether exterior signs are true reflections of interior
virtues.  Both their similitude and their distance can be justified on
either platonic or theological grounds.  Plato's works seem to revolve
around the irony of the ideals being different from what we
prejudicially call the "real world", though starting with the Timaeus
and certainly carrying through Plotinus, the idea of a chain of being,
linking the ideal to the actual, comes into effect.  This is sometimes
associated (unnecessarily, IMHO) to Christianity, in all the usual
rhetoric about kings being gods on earth, and so on.  But there's also
an oppositional position within theology.  Milton wrote of "civil
idolatry", for instance, and the Protestant polemicists liked to talk
about the true piety of the unlearned, rather idealizing simple peasants
along the way.

In other words, riches could be seen as a sign of divine favour, but
poverty could also be seen as an indicator of suffering for one's faith,
or just of the simplicity and authenticity of one's faith, like the
Lollards which John Foxe considered to be martyrs.

BTW, isn't it curious that the same issue of the relation between the
signier and the signified remains vexed in our own time?

Cheers,
Seán.

• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Holden Biography"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: 3rd Murderer in Macbeth"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]