• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: "Doctors""
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Author Search"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0069  Thursday, 13 January 2000.

[1]     From:   John Briggs <JWBRIGGS@dera.gov.uk>
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Jan 2000 15:25:25 -0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 11.0063 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

[2]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net>
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Jan 2000 15:44:08 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0057 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

[3]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net>
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Jan 2000 16:22:16 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0063 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

[4]     From:   Seán Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Jan 2000 16:46:49 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0063 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <JWBRIGGS@dera.gov.uk>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Jan 2000 15:25:25 -0000
Subject: 11.0063 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)
Comment:        RE: SHK 11.0063 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

Marx saw religious ideas as the product of social and economic causes.
Weber tried to argue the opposite i.e. that capitalism (or its social
and economic effects) was the result of the Protestant Work Ethic (or a
religious idea).  We now realise that he was wrong and Marx was right:
those with the "work ethic" (who lived in cities and worked in
industries) chose their own religion (Protestantism, where they had the
choice).  The Dutch Revolt, for example, began in the great wool towns
of the Southern Netherlands which were recaptured by the Spanish and the
Protestants had to flee to Holland and Zealand in the North.  I don't
know if any of this is relevant to the point at issue, but I thought I
would say it anyway!

John Briggs

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Jan 2000 15:44:08 -0600
Subject: 11.0057 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0057 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

Clifford Stetner writes:

<Becoming a nobleman may therefore have
<involved no more than being able to pass yourself off as <one, to
hobnob
<with them without standing out.  The more literary <references you
knew,
<the better, no doubt, and, no doubt, the more cash you <had, the more
<convincing you could be.

How does Shakespeare's attitude toward Cloten in Cymbeline fit with this
adulation of noblemen?  Cloten's own compatriots laugh at him behind his
back, and Imogen detests him as compared with Posthumus:

              His mean'st garment,
        That ever hath but clipp'd his body, is dearer
        In my respect, than all the hairs above thee . . . .
                        (2.3.132-34)

Cloten's cheap trick to deceive her in Posthumus' clothes only results
in his death and makes his look stupider than ever.

I think Shakespeare's attitude toward the nobility was as cynical as
anyone's, but I don't know why you consistently accuse him of buggering
up the money ladder.  And what about Elizabeth's consistent use of the
Psalms in her writings:

    Let Tyrants fear, I have always so behaved myself that
    under God I have placed my chiefest strength and
    safeguard in the loyal hearts and good will of my
    subjects.  And therefore I am come amongst you as
    you see at this time not for my recreation and disport,
    but being resolved in the midst and heat of the battle to
    live or die amongst you all . . . .I know I have the body of
    a weak and feeble woman but I have the heart and
    stomach of a King, and of a King of England too . . . .
        Tilbury speech (The Word of a Prince, Maria Perry,
                208-9)

Surely this woman who "rode through all the Squadrons of her army as
Armed Pallas" (208) did not crassly manipulate a cynical people into
battle against a superior force out of a love for money or degrading
love of "disport."

Judy Craig

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Jan 2000 16:22:16 -0600
Subject: 11.0063 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0063 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

Sean Lawrence writes:

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

Oh signor, senor, signier I never knew, why we must still study the old
folks?

Judas the Idiot

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Seán Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Jan 2000 16:46:49 -0800
Subject: 11.0063 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0063 Re: Henry V (and Branagh)

Terence Hawkes writes:

>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.

Actually, Marx's famous dictum explains religion away-which is to say,
fails to explain it.  Or rather, it explains religion in the strictly
materialist terms with which Marx liked to explain everything.  This is
fundamentally to remove religion, in its ordinary, anti-materialist
sense, from the picture altogether.  It's elephants all the way down, or
materiality, to be only slightly more subtle.

With such a totalizing habit of thought behind it, it's no wonder
Marxism tends towards totalitarianism.

Cheers,
Seán.

• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: "Doctors""
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Author Search"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]