Macbeth an existential nightmare?
bookburn
Shakespeare's tragedies and dark comedies, what his thought is
concerning mankind's predicament in which the Great Chain of
Being and definition of man as a noble piece of work is opposed
by Emperor Worm realities of death and mutability that reveal
disease in the human condition? In Hamlet he shows us a
protagonist who sinks under burdens of not knowing, political
deception, self-doubt, and evil that works through flaws of
nature. Of what kind of reality is Iago a manifestation? What
is the author's statement in _Macbeth_?
The terms and concepts may not have been labeled in Shakespeare's
day, but I do find it useful to keep in mind that the artist then
and now copes with ideal and material understanding of creativity
and forms attitudes of anarchy, nihilism, and existentialism. In
the case of Shakespeare's _Macbeth_, how about "existential
nihilism" as a handle for the dark side in it?
According to The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Nihilism,
in fact, can be understood in several different ways. Political
Nihilism, as noted, is associated with the belief that the
destruction of all existing political, social, and religious
order is a prerequisite for any future improvement. Ethical
nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute
moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and
values addressing such are the product of nothing more than
social and emotive pressures. Existential nihilism is the notion
that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt,
the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today."
It seems to me one can use one of these types of nihilism as a
big D-8 tractor and plow up the Shakespeare landscape pretty
well, possibly turning up villages of thought here and there.
But, for now, going in with a hand spade of "existential
nihilism" just at the point of _Macbeth_ might be enough
gardening for some of the dark stuff.
In point of fact, the IEP gets right to it in showing us Alan
Pratt's patch, as follows.
"In The Dark Side: Thoughts on the Futility of Life (1994), Alan
Pratt demonstrates that existential nihilism, in one form or
another, has been a part of the Western intellectual tradition
from the beginning. The Skeptic Empedocles' observation that "the
life of mortals is so mean a thing as to be virtually un-life,"
for instance, embodies the same kind of extreme pessimism
associated with existential nihilism. In antiquity, such profound
pessimism may have reached its apex with Hegesis. Because
miseries vastly outnumber pleasures, happiness is impossible, the
philosopher argues, and subsequently advocates suicide. Centuries
later during the Renaissance, William Shakespeare eloquently
summarized the existential nihilist's perspective when, in this
famous passage near the end of Macbeth, he has Macbeth pour out
his disgust for life:
Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
So there we are, a statement of Shakespeare's existential
nihilism revealing how misanthropic, skeptical, and cynical he
was in philosophical outlook. Maybe he identifies with defeated
protagonists, and that's why he had his Dark Period.
bookburn
". . . the wag (joker) is wild."
Sir Walter Raleigh, "To His Son."
Tom Reedy
news:u8lq08n...@corp.supernews.com...
A ridiculous statement.
> for instance, embodies the same kind of extreme pessimism
> associated with existential nihilism. In antiquity, such profound
> pessimism may have reached its apex with Hegesis. Because
> miseries vastly outnumber pleasures, happiness is impossible, the
> philosopher argues, and subsequently advocates suicide. Centuries
> later during the Renaissance, William Shakespeare eloquently
> summarized the existential nihilist's perspective when, in this
> famous passage near the end of Macbeth, he has Macbeth pour out
> his disgust for life:
>
> Out, out, brief candle!
> Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
> That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
> And then is heard no more; it is a tale
> Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
> Signifying nothing."
Macbeth didn't start out with that outlook. He got there through the results
of his actions. Notice he doesn't commit suicide, either.
> So there we are, a statement of Shakespeare's existential
> nihilism revealing how misanthropic, skeptical, and cynical he
> was in philosophical outlook.
Being aware of and able to articulate a point of view does not necessarily
make one an adherent. That way lies Bakerism. Do you think the author of
that encyclopedia entry is necessarily a nihilist?
> Maybe he identifies with defeated
> protagonists, and that's why he had his Dark Period.
He had his Dark Period for the same reason we all have had Dark Periods (if
you haven't had yours yet, just wait): he was human.
TR
Dogbrain
Have you read FROM SHAKESPEARE TO EXISTENTIALISM, by Walter Kaufmann? I
haven't read this one, but I have read other books by him and he is a very
interesting writer (and an excellent translator of Goethe, Nietzsche, and
other German poets.)
The existentialist vision in Shakespeare is undeniable and powerful, but
then Shakespeare is a close observer of all phenomena, and he balances the
darkness with light. I don't know of many writers that so successfully play
with the interplay of light and dark imagery. Perhaps he is more of a
Manichaean. His plays seem to be remarkable dramatizations of Manichaean
principles --- "the doctrine of the two contending principles of good
(light, God, the soul) and evil (darkness, Satan, the body)."
I think that the existentialist interpretation, if existentialism is defined
as necessarily nihilistic, blinds us to the other essential elements in
Shakespeare. Nevertheless, when he goes to the bleak side, there is hardly
anything bleaker.
MACBETH has such a powerfully vegetative (green) victory at the end, that I
don't think the play is ultimately nihilistic. MACBETH'S speech at the end
is a model of nihilism, but it is also the speech of a man who has laid
complete waste to his soul.
However, ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, as a story of aging lovers, moves more
powerfully in the direction of a rich Romantic nihilism. And KING LEAR is
completely devastating, even if Edgar finally reappears disguised in shining
armor to set things right; there is hardly anything left, and what's left is
completely exhausted and depleted.
Dogbrain
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u8lq08n...@corp.supernews.com...
bookburn
"Tom Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8_Di8.9693$Vx1.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
The religious existentialists have gotten good mileage out of
Nietzche's negative nihilism, raising questions like "is God
dead?", with positive support that He isn't
Philosopher-novelists dealing with the issue of suicide in terms
of existentialism, like Camus in _Myth of Sisyphus_, are useful
in going toward an open-ended, man-is-free basis for personal
philosophy, it seems. So Empedocles and other pessimists may be
ridiculous but have a role to play in the drama of man working
out his destiny, as the Greeks put it. In Kafka"s _The Trial_
the protagonist in the end is dragged off and executed
meaninglessly by strangers because he never asked leading
questions about himself such as philosophers do.
No, but the lives of some of the great writers do show an awful
correspondence. Was it Rimbaud who deliberately debauched
himself under the influence of Verlaine so he could better see
the stars from the gutter? Poe and Baudelair had their beauty
resulting from the effects of evil (flowers of evil). They were
not only poets but literary critics. And it seems Shakespeare's
aesthetics, too, feeds on the dark side. A Dr. Jeckle and Mr.
Hyde or yin-yang dualism is noticeable even in the best of us.
> > Maybe he identifies with defeated
> > protagonists, and that's why he had his Dark Period.
>
> He had his Dark Period for the same reason we all have had Dark
Periods (if
> you haven't had yours yet, just wait): he was human.
Yeah, Churchill and Hemingway called it "Black Dog" (Hemingway
had a black cocker spaniel that kept him company while he tried
to write in Key West, early in the mornings). But, still, I
wonder if the Anatomy of Melancholy comes close to the mainspring
of creativity and philosophy.
bookburn
bookburn
"Dogbrain" <dwdcny...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:a6f93o$2...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Good topic.
>
> Have you read FROM SHAKESPEARE TO EXISTENTIALISM, by Walter
Kaufmann? I
> haven't read this one, but I have read other books by him and
he is a very
> interesting writer (and an excellent translator of Goethe,
Nietzsche, and
> other German poets.)
I know I looked at that, and remember that it was at least
moderately easy to get into, unlike those philosophy essays that
are like wading through wet sand.
> The existentialist vision in Shakespeare is undeniable and
powerful, but
> then Shakespeare is a close observer of all phenomena, and he
balances the
> darkness with light. I don't know of many writers that so
successfully play
> with the interplay of light and dark imagery.
I think a number of American lit authors are proficient at the
light-dark imagery, thinking of the Puritans who saw everything
as good-evil, darkness as evil, etc. Hawthorne and Cooper pick
up on this. 19th C. British poets did a good deal with
light-dark in their moral geography motifs.
Perhaps he is more of a
> Manichaean. His plays seem to be remarkable dramatizations of
Manichaean
> principles --- "the doctrine of the two contending principles
of good
> (light, God, the soul) and evil (darkness, Satan, the body)."
>
> I think that the existentialist interpretation, if
existentialism is defined
> as necessarily nihilistic, blinds us to the other essential
elements in
> Shakespeare. Nevertheless, when he goes to the bleak side,
there is hardly
> anything bleaker.
"Bleak" seems eupheumistic, when you consider the tragedies,
identifying with the protagonists. Shakespeare, to me, appears
to be exploring the nature of evil, and the effect is horrific.
Dr. Samuel Johnson, the great Shakespeare editor, scholar, and
graduate of the school of hard knocks, comparible to Ben Jonson,
was reduced to profound angst by _King Lear_ and couldn't finish
it.
>
> MACBETH has such a powerfully vegetative (green) victory at the
end, that I
> don't think the play is ultimately nihilistic. MACBETH'S
speech at the end
> is a model of nihilism, but it is also the speech of a man who
has laid
> complete waste to his soul.
" . . . and then is heard no more." What happened to Iago.
Seems nihilistic to me.
> However, ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, as a story of aging lovers,
moves more
> powerfully in the direction of a rich Romantic nihilism. And
KING LEAR is
> completely devastating, even if Edgar finally reappears
disguised in shining
> armor to set things right; there is hardly anything left, and
what's left is
> completely exhausted and depleted.
Interesting to try to chart the progression of Shakespeare's
optimism-pessimism in the canon. The plays do seem to reveal a
Dark Period, followed by a more mild maturity, they say. The
extent of Shakespeare's own interest in the development of a
personal philosophy seems to come through in the parallel
structures of the plays, parallel characters and plots, his
thoughts expressed in poetry with elevated tone and noble
diction, etc. In his poetry, some of which, to me, is an
abstract puzzle of philosophical imagery, the sonnets seem to
involve metaphors bearing on a basis for his aesthetics, and
arguments about love, meaning, and transcience that are
revealing.
bookburn
Dogbrain
> Yeah, Churchill and Hemingway called it "Black Dog" (Hemingway
> had a black cocker spaniel that kept him company while he tried
> to write in Key West, early in the mornings).
I hadn't heard that about Churchill and Hemingway, although I did know they
were dog people. Mephistopheles, in Goethe's FAUST, disguises himself as a
black poodle.
>But, still, I
> wonder if the Anatomy of Melancholy comes close to the mainspring
> of creativity and philosophy.
If you haven't read any of her work, you should check out Frances Yates.
She was an historian who wrote about the history of the occult, although she
said she was not an occultist. She wrote several books on Shakespeare's
plays and on his theatre (the symbolism in the architecture), and she also
wrote on the Art of Memory (also about symbols in architecture as an aid to
Memory and Meaning), Giordano Bruno, the Rosicrucians, and John Dee.
Here are the titles of some of her books---
The Art of Memory
Astraea, The Imperial Theme in the Sixteenth Century
French Academies of the Sixteenth Century
Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition.
The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age
The Rosicrucian Enlightenment.
Theatre of the World
Shakespeare's Last Plays
A Study of Love's Labour's Lost.
The Valois Tapestries.
In THE OCCULT PHILOSOPHY IN THE ELIZABETHAN AGE,
she talks quite a bit about Melancholy. She says the Elizabethans believed
in two distinct forms of Melancholy --- one was destructive and led to
madness and often death, and the other was a source of creativity. Very
fascinating stuff. She also writes, in the same book, that THE MERCHANT OF
VENICE echoes the then current attempts to Christianize the Kabblah.
Dogbrain
Dogbrain
>
> "Dogbrain" <dwdcny...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:a6f93o$2...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> > Good topic.
> >
> > The existentialist vision in Shakespeare is undeniable and
> powerful, but
> > then Shakespeare is a close observer of all phenomena, and he
> balances the
> > darkness with light. I don't know of many writers that so
> successfully play
> > with the interplay of light and dark imagery.
>
> I think a number of American lit authors are proficient at the
> light-dark imagery, thinking of the Puritans who saw everything
> as good-evil, darkness as evil, etc. Hawthorne and Cooper pick
> up on this. 19th C. British poets did a good deal with
> light-dark in their moral geography motifs.
You're right about Hawthorne and the British poets. I don't know much
about Cooper. Hawthorne deals with some very fascinating material. I
still believe the music of Shakespeare's language is a much deeper
exploration of light and dark. I agree with Shaw, who said
Shakespeare's music was on a par with Mozart or Beethoven. Actually,
many of the Elizabethan and Jacobean writers had a great feel for the
music in the English language. I love most of the British and American
poets, but there aren't many who equal the sparkling Elizabethan
facility in capturing the sounds of light and dark, and splicing them
together in such a fine and shimmering weave. One poet who does achieve
this is Gerard Manley Hopkins, especially in THE LEADEN ECHO and THE
GOLDEN ECHO. These kinds of sounds and rhythms also come back with the
Jazz Age, but Shakespeare was doing TAKE FIVE four hundred years before
Brubeck.
> Perhaps he is more of a
> > Manichaean. His plays seem to be remarkable dramatizations of
> Manichaean
> > principles --- "the doctrine of the two contending principles
> of good
> > (light, God, the soul) and evil (darkness, Satan, the body)."
> >
> > I think that the existentialist interpretation, if
> existentialism is defined
> > as necessarily nihilistic, blinds us to the other essential
> elements in
> > Shakespeare. Nevertheless, when he goes to the bleak side,
> there is hardly
> > anything bleaker.
>
> "Bleak" seems eupheumistic, when you consider the tragedies,
> identifying with the protagonists.
I guess Bleak is a more powerful word for me, reminding me of deserts,
barren mountains, and arctic tundra. Ingmar Bergman described working on
Lear as trying to explore a huge awesome geography of hot and cold.
>Shakespeare, to me, appears
> to be exploring the nature of evil, and the effect is horrific.
Absolutely, there is profound evil and horror, but there is also more
than that. The final scenes between Cordelia and Lear are so stunning
in their beauty, that they are a powerful counterpoint to the tragedy.
I can't remember who said it, but one writer described those scenes, and
the willow scene between Desdemona and Emilia, as giving the feeling
that God had grabbed the pen and written the lines. This seems silly,
but whenever I hear the lines spoken out loud, I get the same feeling.
> Dr. Samuel Johnson, the great Shakespeare editor, scholar, and
> graduate of the school of hard knocks, comparible to Ben Jonson,
> was reduced to profound angst by _King Lear_ and couldn't finish
> it.
I can understand that. There is a paranoia and terror in the courts of
Lear and Claudius that are unbelievable. The blasted heath and the
pirates are a consolation and relief. TITUS talks to the stones because
they give better comfort than humans living in society.
> > MACBETH has such a powerfully vegetative (green) victory at the
> end, that I
> > don't think the play is ultimately nihilistic. MACBETH'S
> speech at the end
> > is a model of nihilism, but it is also the speech of a man who
> has laid
> > complete waste to his soul.
>
> " . . . and then is heard no more."
I think Shakespeare drew his villains so powerfully, that we can't help
but identify with them, which is why the plays strike us as nihilistic.
However, the green themes start to enter with the scene in England (no
accident there), and like the growing spring (April is the cruelest
month) everyone rises up against the bloody King to kill him and cut off
his head. The woods themselves move in on him. How can such a
vegetative victory be nihilistic, in the way that we use the term? It
could be called Christian or Pagan, but I'm not sure it could be called
nihilistic.
>What happened to Iago.
> Seems nihilistic to me.
Wow. Iago. That's a whole different kettle of fish. Of all
Shakespeare's villains, Iago is the closest to being a genuine portrait
of a devil, perhaps Satan himself. He's stabbed at the end. He doesn't
die. He retreats into proud silence. Can you get closer to the Prince
of Darkness? Iago is there to tell us that it is not enough to be good,
you also have to be smart as well. In the New Testament, it says that
sometimes you have to be clever as a fox to be gentle as a dove. That's
what Iago has to teach. Iago is like the Brighella figure in the
commedia who takes Othello/Pantalone for a long and ultimately
humiliating ride. Macbeth is clumsy nouveau riche in comparison to
Iago's fine artistry. Iago paints illusions that everyone
believes---this is the Devil's strongest skill.
Shakespeare's villains show a definite progression, or at least change.
Richard III is a bit of a Punch and Judy show. He is funny like Iago,
but he's a one trick pony, and people get the trick, but fall for it all
the same. He seduces, then kills. Macbeth is a mover and shaker who
over reaches himself, but once committed, he stays committed, much like
Richard. He also has basically one trick --- murder. He's not very good
at seduction. Both Richard and Macbeth return too many times to their
one trick, and finally they die for it. Iago is a snake, with all that
that implies, holding the keys to the tree of knowledge, having the
capacity to throw off his skin and come alive again. Iago has many
tricks, but he chooses one and plays it out with infinite variations.
He doesn't murder. He tortures. In the end, he does murder to save his
ass, but he's clumsy when he has to hold the knife himself. Things fall
apart for him once he picks up a knife. His real skill lies in
torturing others until they murder or commit suicide. Again, traits of
the devil.
> > However, ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, as a story of aging lovers,
> moves more
> > powerfully in the direction of a rich Romantic nihilism. And
> KING LEAR is
> > completely devastating, even if Edgar finally reappears
> disguised in shining
> > armor to set things right; there is hardly anything left, and
> what's left is
> > completely exhausted and depleted.
>
> Interesting to try to chart the progression of Shakespeare's
> optimism-pessimism in the canon. The plays do seem to reveal a
> Dark Period, followed by a more mild maturity, they say. The
> extent of Shakespeare's own interest in the development of a
> personal philosophy seems to come through in the parallel
> structures of the plays, parallel characters and plots, his
> thoughts expressed in poetry with elevated tone and noble
> diction, etc.
It is now being clearly acknowledged that the resurgence of Classical
thought emerged from the Arab libraries during the Crusades, and that
the sophisticated blending of Fables and Filosophie and Music comes from
the Sufis and from the Jewish traditions --- both populations came to
England in a big wave of immigration after the ethnic cleansing of
Spain.
>In his poetry, some of which, to me, is an
> abstract puzzle of philosophical imagery, the sonnets seem to
> involve metaphors bearing on a basis for his aesthetics, and
> arguments about love, meaning, and transcience that are
> revealing.
Yes, the sonnets are about time and its effects. It seems that he
believes in Art as having the generative power to bestow eternal life,
or at least eternal fame. It's a bit like Babe Ruth pointing to the
outfield and then hitting a home run. I wonder if any other poets
claimed the power and didn't live up to it. I'm not sure this
conviction about the powers of art held out under the pressures from the
Dark Lady. He seems to become more human and fallible by then.
Dogbrain
bookburn
>
> "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:u8nckbi...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Yeah, Churchill and Hemingway called it "Black Dog"
(Hemingway
> > had a black cocker spaniel that kept him company while he
tried
> > to write in Key West, early in the mornings).
>
> I hadn't heard that about Churchill and Hemingway, although I
did know they
> were dog people. Mephistopheles, in Goethe's FAUST, disguises
himself as a
> black poodle.
Come to remember, Hemingway's black cocker spaniel was with him
in Cuba, and was killed by Castro's troops when they came to take
over his "finca." The dog tried to defend the place and was
bashed with a rifle butt.
Interesting, thanks for the clue.
bookburn
>
> Dogbrain
>
>
>
bookburn
One Elizabethan poet, beside Shakespeare, who is into fusing one
sense with another, is Spenser, who in "Epithalamion" has stuff
like "the bells ring/ and the woods do shine."
I can't say I see the Devil in the mix, just evil as a cancer on
the human spirit and an indifferent deity ("Like flies to wanton
boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport.") In this
respect I see Shakespeare ahead of Marlowe and his temptation of
Faust; Shakespeare seems modern in his use of a psychological
perspective, what with interior monologues and all, which advance
a perspective of existential anguish in the protagonists
struggle. Yet the author seems to show us without getting into
plumbing the depths of emotions (bathos).
> > arguments about love, meaning, and transience that are
> > revealing.
>
> Yes, the sonnets are about time and its effects. It seems that
he
> believes in Art as having the generative power to bestow
eternal life,
> or at least eternal fame. It's a bit like Babe Ruth pointing to
the
> outfield and then hitting a home run. I wonder if any other
poets
> claimed the power and didn't live up to it. I'm not sure this
> conviction about the powers of art held out under the pressures
from the
> Dark Lady. He seems to become more human and fallible by then.
What he says in the sonnets about transmutation, poetic fame, and
poetics does seem to bear on a concept of creativity that makes a
big difference in his personal philosophy, but he's got these
problems about losing his source of inspiration, apparently bound
up in need for human love, but that gets star crossed, or
something.
bookburn
>
> Dogbrain
>
>
Dogbrain
>
> "Dogbrain" <dwdcny...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:a6gn74$2...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> >
> > "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:u8nf9i3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Dogbrain" <dwdcny...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > > news:a6f93o$2...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> > > > Good topic.
> > > >
>
> sense with another, is Spenser, who in "Epithalamion" has stuff
> like "the bells ring/ and the woods do shine."
>
This doesn't sound like an indifferent deity, but one who gets a kick
out of suffering.
There are lots of little lines that point to the devil interpretation,
the most striking is Iago saying ---
"I am not what I am."
It's an inversion of the name of Yahweh, which means---
"I am that I am," or, "I am what I am."
I'm not up on Othello right now, but there are other similar references.
>In this
> respect I see Shakespeare ahead of Marlowe and his temptation of
> Faust;
Way ahead. Very true.
>Shakespeare seems modern in his use of a psychological
> perspective, what with interior monologues and all, which advance
> a perspective of existential anguish in the protagonists
> struggle.
This is all true as far as it goes. This doesn't mean one can reduce
him down to modern psychological principles. If anything, he's ahead of
modern psychology. Freud admitted that. He said that scientists are
always trying to catch up with the artists.
>Yet the author seems to show us without getting into
> plumbing the depths of emotions (bathos).
I agree that there is a very modern sensibility, but there is also
something very ancient and classical about his work. Most innovative
artists reach in both directions. It's not a linear progression, in my
mind.
<snip>
> > Yes, the sonnets are about time and its effects. It seems that
> he
> > believes in Art as having the generative power to bestow
> eternal life,
> > or at least eternal fame. It's a bit like Babe Ruth pointing to
> the
> > outfield and then hitting a home run. I wonder if any other
> poets
> > claimed the power and didn't live up to it. I'm not sure this
> > conviction about the powers of art held out under the pressures
> from the
> > Dark Lady. He seems to become more human and fallible by then.
>
> What he says in the sonnets about transmutation, poetic fame, and
> poetics does seem to bear on a concept of creativity that makes a
> big difference in his personal philosophy, but he's got these
> problems about losing his source of inspiration, apparently bound
> up in need for human love, but that gets star crossed, or
> something.
I think Shakespeare is modern because he stands right in the middle of a
major shift from Medieval to Renaissance values. I think we are still
wrestling with that division between our need for an open and honest
field of battle (where the opponents are Good and Evil, or perhaps even
two great and good warriors), and our heavy reliance on Machiavellian
acts of Realpolitick, where your friend may stab you in the back.
Shakespeare does both. He can't be reduced to one or the other. This
is what separates him from Marlowe. Though Marlowe's actions were in
the world of Machiavelli, his theatre seems to me to be firmly set
within old world values.
Dogbrain
John W. Kennedy
> He had his Dark Period for the same reason we all have had Dark Periods (if
> you haven't had yours yet, just wait): he was human.
See Charles Williams' "The English Poetic Mind" for this.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
John W. Kennedy
> "Bleak" seems eupheumistic, when you consider the tragedies,
> identifying with the protagonists. Shakespeare, to me, appears
> to be exploring the nature of evil, and the effect is horrific.
> Dr. Samuel Johnson, the great Shakespeare editor, scholar, and
> graduate of the school of hard knocks, comparible to Ben Jonson,
> was reduced to profound angst by _King Lear_ and couldn't finish
> it.
Lear also broke Verdi.
John W. Kennedy
scene.
Sabyha
HLAS for a long time. I really enjoyed reading the dialogue
Jodie
>"Dogbrain" dwdcny...@concentric.net
>Date: 11/03/02 2:44 pm E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <a6hco2$d...@dispatch.concentric.net>
Jodie - Australia
http://members.aol.com/powtied/power1.html
Power of Will
bookburn
"Sabyha" <sab...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020328210040...@mb-me.aol.com...
> Thank you for this thread. It has been one of the most
thought-provoking on
> HLAS for a long time. I really enjoyed reading the dialogue
>
> Jodie
> http://members.aol.com/powtied/power1.html
We never did address what must be the most obvious connection
between the playwright's "nightmare" and the motif of sleep and
dreams in the play, and how dark it is. bookburn