SHAKSPER 2006: Dying Unshriven
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@shaksper.net)
Date: 12/09/06
- Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Ideal Reading of a Sonnet?"
- Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Making Publics "Making Publics""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.1088 Saturday, 9 December 2006
[1] From: Kenneth Chan <kckc@pacific.net.sg>
Date: Thursday, 07 Dec 2006 02:05:02 +0800
Subj: Re: SHK 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
[2] From: Jeffrey Jordan <jjordan@ptsi.net>
Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 2006 12:44:16 -0600
Subj: Re: SHK 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
[3] From: Elliott Stone <elliott.stone@comcast.net>
Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 2006 15:49:43 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
[4] From: David Bishop <dvbishop@mindspring.com>
Date: Thursday, 7 Dec 2006 02:18:45 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
[5] From: Joseph Egert <quixote46@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 07 Dec 2006 18:35:22 +0000
Subj: RE: SHK 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Chan <kckc@pacific.net.sg>
Date: Thursday, 07 Dec 2006 02:05:02 +0800
Subject: 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
Comment: Re: SHK 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
In response to Will Sharpe's comments, perhaps I can amend my statement
(which is a response to an earlier comment by Donald Bloom) by adding
four words at the end. The more important point I was trying to make was
that any interpretation of a Shakespearean play should be based on the
entire play and not only on arbitrarily selected portions of it. The
point is that it is extremely difficult to find an interpretation that
fits every line of the play. So if one can be found, surely we should
take note of it.
Anyway, I am interested to find out whether this amended statement is
now acceptable or not. If not, I would be grateful to learn why not. The
whole amended statement now reads as follows:
"Donald Bloom writes:
"In "Hamlet" even more than in most of the plays you tend to find what
you look for, and say more about yourself than about the title character
or any of the others"
This is definitely true if we selectively use only the portions of the
play that suit our interpretation, while ignoring the rest. On the other
hand, if we have to fit our interpretation to the entire play - every
portion of it, without leaving anything out - we will find that there is
actually very little room for multiple varying interpretations. Then,
and only then, will we come close to the meaning of the play as
Shakespeare intended if he intended any."
Regards,
Kenneth Chan
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Jordan <jjordan@ptsi.net>
Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 2006 12:44:16 -0600
Subject: 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
Comment: Re: SHK 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
Replying to Paul E. Doniger.
> I can accept the possibility that Horatio's
> comment may be seen as a criticism ...
As the wording in the play actually stands, it's no harsh criticism from
Horatio, and the "go to it" line can even be read as approval by
Horatio. Horatio could nod thoughtfully as he says his line, and it
would play alright, as far as that line, itself, goes.
It's notable that Hamlet's "make love - employment" line is only in the
Folio, not in the Second Quarto published in the author's lifetime.
Then, the use of "man" in the line is a departure from its use elsewhere
in the dialogue, throughout the play. Further, it's discordant that
Hamlet abruptly calls Horatio "man" after calling him "sir" earlier in
the passage. Hamlet's "employment" line may not be authorial. It's at
least suspicious. It may be editorial, added by the Folio editor(s),
thinking Hamlet needed more excuse. The possibility deserves mention.
It's impossible to be certain, but I suggest at least a little
skepticism about that "employment" line. There's some argument that it
isn't authorial. We do know the Folio was bowdlerized to some extent,
in comparison to Q2, although the only certainty on that is in the
oaths that were changed.
> Also, it could be quite simply a quiet reaction
> that carries no reproof at all. Horatio is
> something of a stoic who is "not passion's
> slave;" consequently, it's quite probable that
> his comment carries no judgment in it at all.
That's a credible position.
> Hamlet's self-defense (if that's what it is) may
> come from his own inner turmoil or sense of
> guilt and not at all from Horatio's personal reaction
> to the news.
And may also, in the Folio-only "employment" line, come from a Folio
editor who was uncomfortable with Hamlet's cavalier attitude. It's
possible.
Replying to Will Sharpe.
> It is very unlikely that we are ever going to find
> Shakespeare's diary ... , and even less likely
> that we are going to find his mind, so we can say,
> I feel confident, with absolute certainty that we
> are never going to know 'the meaning of the
> play as Shakespeare intended'. ...
The way to know the meaning of the play, as Shakespeare intended, is to
look at the words he actually used to write the play. He intended what
he wrote. It would not be rational to suppose he wrote wording he
didn't intend. He certainly did intend the play to have meaning - as a
play!
But it's extremely doubtful he intended Hamlet to be a guidebook on
philosophy, religion, politics, or how to buy a used car. Where one
gets into trouble is when he departs from Hamlet as a play, and ventures
into something like philosophy, or politics, etc. based on Hamlet. We
can be sure the Bard did not write Hamlet to support one's favorite
notions of 21st century utopia.
But if one denies ALL meaning of Hamlet, it denies the author was
anything but a monkey at a keyboard, and that can't possibly be right.
We know he wasn't. Of course Hamlet has meaning, as a play, and was so
written. The difficulty of Hamlet is no argument against.
[Editor's Note: Regarding "The way to know the meaning of the play, as
Shakespeare intended, is to look at the words he actually used to write
the play," please tell me what Shakespeare intended when he wrote,
What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet. (Rom. 2.2.82-85, Oxford)
Or
Is it e'en so? Then I defy you, stars. (Rom. 5.1.24, Oxford)]
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elliott Stone <elliott.stone@comcast.net>
Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 2006 15:49:43 -0500
Subject: 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
Comment: Re: SHK 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
Gentlemen,
"the meaning of the play as Shakespeare intended".
I believe Prince Hamlet had some excellent thoughts on that subject.
Hamlet II.ii 522 "Good my lord, will you see the players well bestow'd?
Do you hear, let them be well us'd, for they are the abstract and brief
chronicles of the time."
Hamlet III.ii 20 "--the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the
first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature: to
show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body
of the time his form and pressure."
We do not have Shakespeare's newspaper. We have his play which is a
"brief chronicle of the time".
We do know that one of the greatest "pressures" of Shakespeare's time
was the struggle with the Old Faith.
It does not seem unreasonable to me to look at Elizabethan History to
come to an understanding of what this play is telling us. It may be that
this story is not one we want to hear or that is quite different then
the story we heard years ago when we were undergraduates, but
nevertheless it does not follow that such an examination is not worth
pursuing.
Best,
Elliott H. Stone
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Bishop <dvbishop@mindspring.com>
Date: Thursday, 7 Dec 2006 02:18:45 -0500
Subject: 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
Comment: Re: SHK 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
Will Sharpe disapproves of those who "witter on about [Shakespeare's
meaning] in the hope of convincing others of [their] interpretations."
He approves of "hard research and considered opinions". How exactly do
we tell the difference?
Hardy is against those who push "their own pet theory that they are
convinced is the one and only way to interpret the meaning of the work,
the TRUTH. Will has well expressed the futility of such efforts here."
But what is in question here? What's the difference between a theory and
a pet theory? It seems a pet theory is one whose author is ever ready to
repeat it, and claims that it's the TRUTH. But I can stamp my foot all I
want, and say that my theory is the one and only possible truth, and it
won't make that theory any more true or any more false.
I may argue that Shakespeare intended such and so, and my argument may
be more or less competent, plausible, or interesting. That is what
literary criticism is. We can't call up Shakespeare and ask what he
intended (and if we could, should we believe him?), but he left us some
evidence: his work. I would argue, for example, that if your theory is
that Shakespeare intended us to believe that Gertrude secretly murdered
Ophelia, you are reading very badly. Am I not allowed to say that
because I can't consult Shakespeare in person? Can I read without
interpreting? It seems doubtful to me. Can I read and interpret wrongly?
Undoubtedly.
Best wishes,
David Bishop
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Egert <quixote46@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 07 Dec 2006 18:35:22 +0000
Subject: 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
Comment: RE: SHK 17.1082 Dying Unshriven
Once more into the breach.
Will Sharpe writes:
>... I feel confident, with absolute certainty that
>we are never going to know 'the meaning of the play as Shakespeare
>intended'.[...] we can
>see the fruitlessness of the exercise of striving for authentic
>meaning, [...] we
>should have round-table discussions, with guest moderators, that
>might actually involve hard research and considered opinions on
>published work. That way, this forum might become what it was
>intended to be: a way of using technology to maintain a scholarly
>community, a sort of year-round conference that allows ideas to be
>swapped without needing to all fly to a particular city. Sadly, it
>seems to be going the way of most things on the internet, where any
>old thing can get published.
Who is stopping Will Sharpe from committing scholarship on this List? Is
it Hardy, who sifts and plants only those seeds available to him? Is it
those nasty enthusiasts, who bring energy and passion (if at times
obsessive) along with their pet theories?
In the subject at hand, Jeffrey Jordan's roll of unshriven deaths in
HAMLET omits King Fortinbras, the "first corse" of this play. Are we
permitted to speculate whether King Hamlet's victim died unshriven (of
sword envenomed by Old Norway, perhaps)? Was it customary for the lords
and kings of feudal Den-way or Renaissance Europe to confess their sins
before butchering each other in honorable combat? Jordan's roll goes on
to include Gertrude. Yet didn't the Prince, acting as her priestly
confessor, shrive the Queen at least partially during their closet
encounter, forcing her to confront her own sins. By Catholic or
Protestant lights, did this constitute a sufficient shriving despite the
absence of formal clergy or detailed recitation? Finally, would such a
shriving carry a shelf life, its efficacy expiring before Gertrude
herself expired?
To this member, all roads lead to theme. Textual, historicist,
performative, and other forms of critique are all helpful in explicating
the meanings probably intended by their authors, as interpreted by
audiences and critics down the years. Such groups will necessarily even
if unconsciously mould and appropriate these meanings to conform with
their own background, values and objectives. Granted, we can never fully
recapture "original" meaning. Does it follow then, we should no longer
aspire to the Grail? no longer seek to solve the puzzles Shakespeare
explicitly poses for us over and over again in all his plays?
Let the eagle soar!
Joe Egert
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
- Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Ideal Reading of a Sonnet?"
- Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Making Publics "Making Publics""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |