Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Quiz on plot in Hamlet
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Peter Groves  
View profile  
 More options Apr 8 2011, 2:00 am
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
From: Peter Groves <metrical...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Apr 8 2011 2:00 am
Subject: Re: Quiz on plot in Hamlet
On Apr 7, 4:07 pm, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 6, 6:31 pm, nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> > In article <4d992343$0$21500$607ed...@cv.net>,
> >  John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:

> > > On 2011-04-03 17:59:58 -0400, neonprose said:
> > > > On Mar 29, 9:35 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >> On 2011-03-29 03:17:12 -0400, neonprose said:

> > > >>> Divine Providence is a Calvinist notion

> > > >> No, it is a Jewish/Christian/Moslem commonplace. It is a Calvinist
> > > >> obsession.
> > > > Logically, it can be both a Calvinist notion and
> > > > a Jewish/Christian/Moslem commonplace. A
> > > > notion and a commonplace can co-exit in the
> > > > same space-time.
> > > My point is that one cannot reason:
> > >    Calvinists believe in Providence.
> > >    Hamlet believes in Providence.
> > >    Therefore, Hamlet is a Calvinist.
> > > One might as well reason:
> > >    Stalinists tell lies.
> > >    Rush Limbaugh tells lies.
> > >    Therefore, Rush Limbaugh is a Stalinist.
> > > Or:
> > >    Eugene O’Neill’s father is an alcoholic.
> > >    George W. Bush is an alcoholic.
> > >    Therefore, George W. Bush is Eugene O’Neill’s father.

> >    Careful, John -- this may not be the best way to explain your point
> > to Elizabeth.  After all, Elizabeth believes that the princess
> > Elizabeth Tudor was the mother of the Earl of Oxford, so she might
> > well believe that George Bush is Eugene O'Neill's father!

> > > >> If any specific point of Jacobean religious controversy is present in
> > > >> “Hamlet”, it is the question of Purgatory, and the play comes down
> > > >> squarely on the RC side of it. On the other hand, it is hard to believe
> > > >> that a Roman Catholic would have presented Thomas Cranmer as the
> > > >> saintly prophet he is in “Henry VIII”.

> > > > After you mentioned Cranmer I devoted three hours to
> > > > reading about Cranmer on Wikipedia.  I swear to God
> > > > that the article is a 67 screens long.  I just clicked them
> > > > off.

> > > > I think Cranmer's problem (in terms of his legacy, if that's
> > > > the right word) were his recantations at the end of his life.
> > > > They make him look like an equivocator.  He certainly was
> > > > an equivocator on his way to the stake.  I think Cranmer's
> > > > problem was that the English Protestants and Catholics were
> > > > far from finding a via media.
> > > I do not think you know what “equivocator” means.

> >    I'm pretty sure that she doesn't.

> > > In any case, none of this has anything to do with the fact that, from
> > > Rome’s viewpoint, Cranmer was a schismatic and heresiarch, whereas the
> > > play “Henry VIII” presents him as a divinely inspired prophet and a
> > > saintly man.
> > > > Of course that didn't satisfy the consummate scholars who
> > > > produced the famous 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia. They
> > > > thought the author was Protestant but if Shacksper wrote
> > > > the works he would have to be ready, like Littré, to give
> > > > confession and receive absolution on his death bed.
> > > Committing a sin while thinking, ”It’s OK, I’ll repent later,” makes
> > > the original sin worse and, in most cases, makes the repentance
> > > worthless.

> And you've read Sir John McLane's biography
> of Sir Thomas Seymour, Baron of Sudeley, and
> I have not.

Amazing!  By Elizabeth's standards this is *almost* a reference.  "Sir
John McLane" is not a thousand miles away from John McLean, a
Victorian biographer of Seymour.

Peter G.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.