Talk:Antony and Cleopatra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia's Elizabethan theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
 |
Antony and Cleopatra is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
The article as it stands contains the sentence:
Frequently vain, self-dramatizing and histrionic, the audience must sometimes laugh at her, but other times consider her a true tragic heroine.
Can we fix this? As it stands, it says that the audience is vain, self-dramatizing and histrionic, not Cleopatra, as presumably intended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.179.168.52 (talk • contribs).
Contents |
[edit] Freemasonry
fireteddy: in my edit I removed the link "proving" Antony & Cleopatra has a masonic subtext, as it is conspiracy theorist mumbojumbo useless to an information-based article in an encyclopedia. If whoever first posted it needs it to be there, I'd recommend that it be placed in the External Links and not in the main body of the text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fireteddy (talk • contribs).
- Fireteddy could you please tell me the grounds for your assumed expertise on Elizabethan Freemasonry? As a matter of fact, there is good evidence that literary patrons such as the Lord Admiral, Lord Derby, the Earl of Oxford, King James and William Herbert were all deeply involved in Freemasonry. There is also evidence that Shakespeare's literary peers, such as Thomas Nashe, John Lyly and Gabriel Harvey, were very familiar with the craft [1]. It is against this background that I interpret some of the esoteric allusions in the play to have a Masonic raison d'etre. I believe the two quotations from the (apocryphal) book of Esdras cited in my article are profoundly important keys to an understanding of the play. This is not useless 'conspiracy theorist mumbojumbo' at all, but based on reasoned argument. Do you have any knowledge of the occult philosophy in the Elizabethan age? Shakespeare is not so precious a literary icon that he cannot be subjected to interdisciplinary research. He was a man of his times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kit Marlowe (talk • contribs)
- If people want to delete large sections of text from the page to which this discussion relates, would they kindly attempt to justify their actions beforehand. Unmerited deletion is a form of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kit Marlowe (talk • contribs)
This is a blatant violation of WP:V. I hope I don't have to argue about that with you. 68.166.50.142 17:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfC
This article has been listed on WP:RFC/ART for the Freemasonry conflict (so this section should already have been created). Personally, I don't think the sources cited by User:Kit Marlowe at present qualify as reliable sources, so this should not be included.Trebor 20:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The first source [2] cited by Kit Marlowe is a self-published website and thus not acceptable in an encyclopedia (see WP:V). Kit needs to find a peer reviewed article on the subject. The second source [3] might be more acceptable if The Hermetic Review is peer reviewed, but since it doesn't refer to Antony and Cleopatra it's not very relevant here . The Singing Badger 20:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- (Here via RfC.) These don't pass my idea of WP:V (well, okay, I suppose I could write off for the Hermetic Review CD) and WP:NOR. There are some more details about The Hermetic Review at the Alchemy website. Although I don't need the assistance of Google to recognise the name of one of the regular contributors to the magazine as a published author in the field of occultism, I don't think the magazine is peer-reviewed in the way Wikipedia likes. If this is a common theory (and there was something about Shakespeare and freemasonry in The Independent newspaper this weekend, oddly enough; although it was in the context of "batty theories about Shakespeare" in a piece presumably timed for his birthday, and not terribly helpful here), there ought to be something else from the field of English literature or drama which can be cited to support this. Telsa (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
There is not a great deal of need for those ignorant of The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age (a seminal work by Frances Yates) to lose hair over the status of the peer reviewed Hermetic Journal. If any one bothered to read the article cited they would see that it refers to unambiguous primary sources by the likes of Thomas Nashe and Gabriel Harvey, discussing their personal involvement with a "sworn brotherhood" tagged "maisonry" whose aim is to build up a spiritual temple, and whose jargon they clearly understand. These people would also do well to dip a toe in David Stevenson's book (CUP), The Origins of Freemasonry - Scotland's century 1590 - 1710'. They would also do well to ponder the Masonic symbolism carved into the walls of Rosslyn Chapel near Edinburgh. The only inscription in that building contemporaneous with its 15th century construction is the quotation from the book of Esdras cited in the Masoncode.com article as being a noticeable influence on the subtext of Antony and Cleopatra.
There is a large literature on the esoteric content of Shakespeare's plays, just as there is an even larger literature on the esoteric content of the Renaissance world. The self-appointed defenders of Shakespearean purity would do well to acknowledge this and open their minds to criticisms of Shakespeare that address the spiritual and intellectual aspirations of his time. The fact that esoteric philosophy is denigrated by the rational minds of today is no excuse for ignoring its prevalance or the esteem in which it was held by the intellectual elite of Shakespeare's day.--Kit 17:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well that's great. So what we need for the Antony and Cleopatra article is page references to books that specifically discuss the masonic material in that play. The Singing Badger 22:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dissing Octavia
In Act 3 Scene 3 servants reassure Cleopatra that Octavia has "brown" hair, which is not a sign of beauty in Elizabethan terms; today that's not necessaraily unattractive; the nearest I could come in modern English is "bad hair". Feel free to improve it! rewinn 06:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pompey the Pirate?
"in order to help him fight against Pompey (Sextus Pompeius), Menacretes, and Menas, three notorious pirates."
I'm no expert but I'm quite sure Pompey wouldn't look too kindly on his being described as a pirate. Wasn't he given the job of clearing pirates from Roman seas? I could be wrong...
[edit] Revert Threats by AndyJones
Andy - to quote Wiki policy on NPOV: "For instance, that Shakespeare is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there is a strong case to make that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was his contemporary Christopher Marlowe." Imagine my surprise - even the wiki policy page on NPOV cites the authorship question as a valid debate that "in the interests of neutrality" should be discussed. You need to stop trying to prevent opposing views from appearing on Wikipedia. Threatening to revert all edits that represent an opposing view is simply not justified. It is also clearly not the NPOV policy. Smatprt 06:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
