• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "A Problem of Access"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0287  Tuesday, 13 May 2008

[1] 	From:	Kristen McDermott <mcder1k@cmich.edu>
	Date:	Friday, 9 May 2008 15:06:02 -0400
	Subj:	RE: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List

[2] 	From:	Larry Weiss <larry@lweiss.net>
	Date:	Friday, 09 May 2008 15:10:59 -0400
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List

[3] 	From:	Bob Grumman <bobgrumman@nut-n-but.net>
	Date:	Thursday, 08 May 2008 16:36:51 -0500
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0273 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List

[4] 	From:	Jason Rhode <jasonrhode@gmail.com>
	Date:	Friday, 9 May 2008 14:30:10 -0500
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List

[5] 	From:	Robert Projansky <rprojansky@comcast.net>
	Date:	Sunday, 11 May 2008 16:05:51 -0700
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Kristen McDermott <mcder1k@cmich.edu>
Date:		Friday, 9 May 2008 15:06:02 -0400
Subject: 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
Comment:	RE: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List

Abigail Quart quote rightly wonders about the state of the Shakespeare 
marital bed:

 >My sticking point is always the children. One. Then
 >twins. Then nothing.

And I agree that it would have been natural for them to want an heir. 
However, given the facts of early modern midwifery, the birth of twins 
-- rarer in Shakespeare's time than today, but even today much more 
dangerous to both mother and infants than a single birth -- could very 
well have resulted in an injury that could have impaired Anne's ability 
to carry any more children. One could also speculate that, if the 
experience of delivering the twins was physically traumatic, her loving 
husband may have chosen not to further endanger her. So a lack of 
children after the twins could just as likely have been evidence for 
husbandly devotion as for husbandly indifference.

Happy Mother's Day --

Kris McDermott
Associate Professor of English

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Larry Weiss <larry@lweiss.net>
Date:		Friday, 09 May 2008 15:10:59 -0400
Subject: 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List

Personally, I don't give a damn. But Abigail is probably right that 400 
year old gossip is just as much fun as contemporary gossip. (Who the 
hell is Lindsey Lohan anyway?)  After all, James Joyce made good use of it.

But Abigail's speculations just don't raise suspicions. What's wrong 
with only three kids? Besides, after Judith and Hamnet were born Will 
was productively occupied elsewhere and probably did not get home very 
often. As for any burning desire for male posterity to bear the newly 
minted Shakespeare escutcheon, he had one:  Hamnet did not die until 
Anne was past normal child bearing age.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Bob Grumman <bobgrumman@nut-n-but.net>
Date:		Thursday, 08 May 2008 16:36:51 -0500
Subject: 19.0273 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0273 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List

According to Brian Willis, "Part of Ron's point, and a very judicious 
one, is that a preponderance of evidence doesn't exist to evaluate the 
state of Will's love life." If that's his very judicious point, 
fine--but he shouldn't claim that there's no evidence Shakespeare loved 
his wife. I would add that marriage is without question evidence that 
the two people involved love each other. The fact that sometimes people 
who don't love each other nonetheless marry each other does not make it 
non-evidence of that, merely inconclusive evidence.

As I said in my post, we lack sufficient evidence in the matter to say 
anything conclusive. I am most certainly not trying to determine 
important issues about the biography of Shakespeare. I am only popping 
off at a foolish statement by someone who seems not to know what 
"evidence" means, something that occurs too often in discussions about 
Shakespeare.

--Bob G.

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Jason Rhode <jasonrhode@gmail.com>
Date:		Friday, 9 May 2008 14:30:10 -0500
Subject: 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List

I'm brand new to SHAKSPER, but Abigail's reply was the only one that 
didn't come off as mean. Is it really impossible for so many smart 
people to not be rude to each other? There's no need to accuse other 
folks of being stupid or snotty. Would you say any of these things to 
the other person's face in real life? Maybe Hardy should just strike out 
messages which contain snark. It would keep at least a few of us from 
receive poisoned letters in our mailbox twice a week.

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Robert Projansky <rprojansky@comcast.net>
Date:		Sunday, 11 May 2008 16:05:51 -0700
Subject: 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0281 FYI Ron Rosenbaum's Shakespeare List

Regarding Sonnet 145 (and the others, too): Once upon a time in a 
lifetime long ago, I was enamored of a poetess and her poetry. One of 
her just-published poems was about young love, a drive-in movie theater, 
Ohio. When I asked her some question about the poem (I already knew her 
family had owned an Ohio drive-in movie theater many years before), she 
told me it was fiction. Fiction? In poetry? Really? I was amazed and 
felt a little stupid. I thought poetry was about experience plus 
imagination -- it had never ever occurred to me that non-dramatic poetry 
could be a medium for writing fiction. (Later I realized her answer 
might have been a fiction.) You just never know about these things.

Bob Projansky

_______________________________________________________________
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.

• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "A Problem of Access"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]