Humanities desk
< October 8	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 9

Muslim accessories to sin?

Recently there was a news story about a Muslim stonemason whose likeness had been included on a cathedral in France. The story was being reported and discussed in a "there goes Christendom" kind of way. Yawn. I had an entirely different reaction. I was curious to know how a Muslim had been permitted to aid and abet the construction of what was, according to his religion, a pagan temple. Obviously France is a secular country and this stonemason guy might be personally of an ecumenical bent, but even so, would not his participation in the project have aroused the disapproval of his community? That got me thinking about another thing. In the city where I used to live, Cleveland, there was a liquor store owned and staffed entirely by Palestinian Muslims. (Not Palestinian Christians, I happen to know.) I also have first-hand knowledge of a liquor store in Chicago staffed by Arabs, though I can't be sure that they're Muslims. I have spoken to friends, and they inform me (second-hand, no guarantees of verity) of another Palestinian-owned liquor store in Los Angeles, and a Pakistani-owned liquor store in Houston. So here's my question: Is a Muslim allowed to profit from sin as long as long as his clients are predominantly infidels? In other words, would it be "kosher" for a Muslim to market a line of pork sausages, provided that he didn't eat any? Would it be okay for a Muslim to produce pornographic films, as long as the actors were uncircumcised? Etc. etc. (I'm not asking whether the laws of physics permit a Muslim to behave thus. I'm asking whether he would remain more or less respectable in the eyes of his coreligionists.) LANTZY ^TALK 01:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity is not paganism in Islam (nor is Islam paganism, according to Christianity, at least the normal kinds). Of course, it's probably haram to help construct a church, and it definitely is to sell liquor, even to non-Muslims. But you shouldn't assume that all Muslims know or care about the rules of their religion. Do Christians? Do Jews? Certainly not. How many Catholics use birth control? Are they not really Catholic because of it? Etc. Same for Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Bishop (talk • contribs)

True, and I will even go further: the overwhelming majority of "believers" (insert Christians, Muslims, Jews etc) tend not to obey archaic rules which largely lost their reason in the modern world. AFAIK Christians (and Muslims) were not supposed to lend money and collect interest during the Middle Ages - because it was a sin (greed). Jews are supposed not to eat shell-fish. How many people care about such outdated rules these days? Just a tiny minority. Flamarande (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of a bad joke "A Christian, a Jew and a Muslim walked into a bar..." seriously, though, only a small percentage of people in the world obey religious stipulations rigorously, they just happen to be disproportionately loud and annoying. Most people everywhere (regardless of faith) commit the same assortment of minor sins - intoxication, fornication, gluttony, greed, etc. - with very little in the way of guilt. the only real differences are in who they lie to about it and where they go to seek out atonement. Generally speaking business people will sell people what people ask for, so long as its legal; it has more to do with market value and profit margin than religion. It's really kind of funny, in a sad way: if it weren't for that tiny minority of religious fanatics yelling about how we have to obey their rules and despise other faiths, we'd all get along with each other pretty well. --Ludwigs2 04:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, we would simply find other excuses to slaughter each other. Flamarande (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (more-or-less) with all of the above responses. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all the above responses. Note that in South Africa (Cape Town in particular) you wouldn't find a Muslim owning a liquor store, in fact you'd hardly find a Muslim cashier at your local supermarket willing to cash out any liquor purchase (they'd respectfully ask you to go to the next counter). Over here people avoid alcohol or pork at all costs; it's all about access to income and opportunities, if there were no other choice things likely would have been different. There's a large and strong enough Muslim community to make it all sustainable. I found it extremely curious that all over Europe you could buy a Halaal kebab from a Muslim vendor who would also have a fridge stocked with beers. You just wouldn't see that over here, more likely you'd go out of business pretty quickly (in fact you wouldn't get Halaal certification in the first place). Zunaid 06:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A chronicle of the reversals of thought by the major religions in matters of science

Does there exist a chronicle of the reversals of thought due to scientific rationalization by the major religions in their explanation of the world (such as physical or biological phenomena)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.1.136 (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, a listing of the times each major religion had to change its teaching due to scientific advance? This might be found in histories of the churches and religions, but probably not in the systematic way you're looking for. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question seems to contain a Loaded question. You are assuming that religions change their views because they are reacting to the advacements of science. My POV: Science has a long way to catch up to religion... schyler (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One only has to forget the prior history on issues like evolution, the age of the world, the buying of forgivness for sins, equal rights for women, the separation of state from religious authorithy, holy wars, etc. I mean, the priests of the major religions never ever changed their tune when they noticed that their flocks weren't dancing with them anymore. They are truly preaching the very same interpretations (of the holy texts) since the beginning of time (NOT). Flamarande (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply indicates you're not aware of religions doing do such things, but I assure you there are many examples of them doing so. Perhaps the most famous was the Catholic Church's apology for the Galileo affair. --Sean 14:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoned Eucharist

Suppose someone put lethal poison into either the wafers or wine of a Roman Catholic communion, and parishgoers died after taking Mass. Would the fact that the consecrated host was poisonous cast any doubt on the doctrine of transubstantiation? 69.120.0.81 (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago in Italy, a parish priest's wine was poisoned by parishioners and he collapsed at the altar during the Mass. He survived and as far as I know is still at the same parish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here in California, a lot of the more progressive Christian churches are using low-carbohydrate hosts. Their saying is, "I can't believe it's not Jesus!" PhGustaf (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I don't see why it would. The doctrine holds that the substances of bread and wine are changed (while the accidents remain unchanged) to the substances of the body and blood of Christ. Any foreign matter present in either the bread or the wine would seem to be extraneous to the process. Deor (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Aquinas addresses this scenario in his Summa Theologica part III, q.83. He says: "If it be discovered that the wine has been poisoned, the priest should neither receive it nor administer it to others on any account, lest the life-giving chalice become one of death, but it ought to be kept in a suitable vessel with the relics: and in order that the sacrament may not remain incomplete, he ought to put other wine into the chalice, resume the mass from the consecration of the blood, and complete the sacrifice." He appears to be saying that the contaminated wine must still be treated as the blood of Christ; therefore one can infer that he thinks transubstantiation is unaffected by the poisoning. If people drink it and die it's the cup of death, but the poison is merely an adjunct to the consecrated wine and does not affect its sacred nature. Ka renjc 09:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But suppose the priest doesn't know that that the Eucharist is tainted. Does the Church really think that all of a sudden Christ's body and blood has become poisonous if parishgoers start dying? 69.120.0.81 (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIUI the doctrine holds that the spiritual prperty of the bread and wine is changed, whereas the physical property of them remains the same. Presumably any toxins would be on the physical side of things. In the Anglican Church, transubstantiation is a concept accepted only by a minority. However, during the recent Swine flu pandemic scare, an order went out from Lambeth Palace to the effect that communion should be bread only to avoid passing the flu virus around with the chalice [1]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the physical property too, you're really supposed to be ingesting Christ, but only the actual bread itself is Christ. If it's poisoned, the poison is not part of the bread (or the wine, which works the same way), so there is no transubstantiation of the poison into Christ. That's what Aquinas is saying, as Karenjc pointed out. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Minor spoiler:) The (mistaken) idea that the doctrine of transubstantiation implies that a poisoned host would not be poisonous was used as a plot element in V for Vendetta. Marnanel (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the nub of the question is "would the Church assume Christ's body and blood has become poisonous if the parishioners start keeling over at the altar rail, rather than waiting for the lab results and the fingerprint check on the bottle", I'd suggest the answer is no. Clerics may believe in some really way-out stuff, but that doesn't mean they all lack basic common sense. Ka renjc 19:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been one of the greatest difficulties for Catholicism that the doctrine of transubstantiation seems ludicrous to anybody who is not predisposed to believe it -- this was one of the major themes of the Protestant Reformation. Scenarios like this don't really make it any more ludicrous than it already is. Looie496 (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question if a poisoned eucharist would "cast any doubt on the doctrine of transubstantiation," it may. Of course there are many people who love doctrines more than actual dogma, that is, facts about God. This is something I run in to in the ministry: you can show someone all the Bible-based evidence that contradicts a teaching and they will not give up their misplaced love for and faith in handed-down doctrine. schyler (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite aside from both the question of whether transubstantiation is true and the question of whether it may be supported from scripture, if a poisoned eucharist does "cast any doubt on the doctrine of transubstantiation", then the doctrine has not been correctly understood. There is no claim that the bread and wine become literal human flesh and human blood in any form which can be found by experimentation: this is what is meant by the sentence in our article which says "there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine". If you could poison a wafer, consecrate it, and swallow it with no ill effects, then there would have been a change in the empirical appearance of the bread and wine (since you tested it with your digestive system). Marnanel (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And anyway you do know of course, 69.120.0.81, that all sacramental wine has alcohol in it, right? It'll get you drunk, even post-consecration – and it'll kill you if you drink enough of it! One assumes Catholics have always been aware of this, and it doesn't seem to bother them that the Blood of Christ might be "bad" for you if not used as directed. Please see also Eucharistic theology#Theories of the real presence. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some relevant philosophical consideration of such things as substantial form, essence, and substance. Surely a Catholic believer must taste bread, rather than meat (in the modern sense of the word); I suppose that certain qualities such as the taste and appearance are unaffected by the process, and I don't see an obvious reason why the functional effect of poison couldn't be among these. Such a discordance is no more strange than the idea, for example, that a visible man could have a divine essence, or that the chance events of life elaborate a divine plan, or that a living person is greatly different than a monkey, or someone newly dead. But I don't know the twists and turns of such philosophy. To me such distinctions are mostly the stuff of dreams, where it is common for me to know that something is a tiger even though it looks like a lion or that someone is my mother even though she looks very different and comes from another country. But surely power attributed to God must be capable of anything that can happen in a dream. Wnt (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tastes like paper, really. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to bring poison into the picture. People with allergic reactions to bread (Or alcohol) already have issues with communion that are not solved by transubstantiation. APL (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai, Missouri

The second episode of Ken Burns' series The Civil War opens in 1862, and describes the state of that war, saying "war had spread along a 1000 mile line, from Manassas, Virginia to Shanghai, Missouri." I'm trying to figure out where Shanghai, Missouri is. There's no such article (which means Rambot didn't find a US Census Dept. record for it) and no mention in Shanghai (disambiguation). So I'd guess either that Shanghai, MO was renamed something else later, or that it's one of those places that never grew big enough to warrant being mentioned again (e.g. a farm, crossroads, creek, etc.). This page (one of those useless machine-generated portals) lists it as being in Vernon County, Missouri (that's not evidence of much, other than it appears in whatever geo-database the portal makers used); I can't see any mention of it there, and none of the communities in that county, for which we have an article, lists Shanghai has being a former name or a constituent part (that said, most are essentially Rambot-only, so they wouldn't).This page also puts it in Vernon County, but doesn't give its location. This New York Times dispatch from 1861 talks about "Defeat of the Rebels at Shanghai, Missouri" (so it's not just Burns' imagination). If we could figure out which battle the NYT is describing, that might help locate Shanghai, which is turning into the Brigadoon of the midwest. The NYT article (really only the headline, as I can't see further copy that corresponds with this encounter) is dated 15 October 1861; that seems terribly late to report the First Battle of Lexington (which finished September 20) and the next engagement in the Missouri campaign, that Wikipedia has an article for, isn't until the Battle of Fredericktown, which is later in October. So my researches conclude inconclusively; it seems there might once have been somewhere in Missouri named Shanghai, but there doesn't seem to be now (or have been for very long). Can anyone figure out where Burns' and the NYT mean, or do we have to wait until 2061 for it to magically reappear? -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sesquicentennial next year might be soon enough. If I lived anywhere near Shanghai, Mo., and had any interest in history, I'm sure I'd be anticipating and probably preparing for the 150th anniversary of this engagement, wherever the battlefield's (or encampment's) location may lie within today's Missouri. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This book of official Civil War correspondence, says Shanghai was in Barton County, Missouri, about twenty-five miles from Fort Scott. That book implies was action there September 27, 1864, but another book says the fighting there was Sept 27, 1861. [2] says Barton County was south of Vernon County. [3] from 1914 lists 15 towns and villages in the county, not including Shanghai. Edison (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon County, Missouri still exists, and it's still north of Barton County, Missouri. The county seat (just to confuse everyone) is Nevada, Missouri. It was organized in 1855, having previously been partly or wholly governed within Bates County to its north. In 1860, its population was just under 5,000; in 1870 just under 12,000; in 1990 just over 19,000; and in 2000 just over 20,000. In 2004, it voted for Pres. George W. Bush's re-election by a vote of 5,732 to 3,206 over the candidacy of Sen. John F. Kerry; in 2008, it cast 5,334 Presidential votes for Sen. John McCain and 3,381 for Sen. Barack Obama. In 2000, it voted for Gov. Bush over Vice President Al Gore. In the 3-way races of 1992 and 1996, it voted for Bill Clinton, having previously voted for Vice Pres. George H.W.Bush in 1988 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. While it turned against Pres. Jimmy Carter in 1980, it had supported his first election in 1976. (It thus voted against Missourian Bob Dole twice, in 1976 and 1996.) From 1952 to 1972 (although only by 33 votes in 1968), Vernon County voted for Eisenhower and Nixon, but against Barry Goldwater in 1964. My incomplete collection of old almanacs also tells me that the county voted against Calvin Coolidge in 1924 but for Herbert Hoover in 1928. It supported FDR's reelection in 1936 and 1940. After the Civil War, Republican politicians and publicists urged Union veterans to "vote as you shot"; if Vernon County was a border community, then its voting seems to reflect that division.—— Shakescene (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I dragged out (and for the first time made some use of) a gigantic Atlas compiled to accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, and given to me several years ago by my brother. Shanghai, Missouri, is on the Big Dogwood River, very close to and due east of Fort Scott, Kansas, and rather north of Carthage, Missouri. A little simple Googling of "Shanghai missouri civil war" and a little patience will yield at least two engagements near opposite ends of the War, one on 1 December 1861 and the other near Shanghai on 27 May 1864. The plate (66:1) in the Civil War Atlas indicates that Shanghai was along Sterling Price's route in 1864 when he was being engaged by Union Major Gen. S.R.Curtis. And Googling also indicates that Shanghai, Missouri, does indeed seem still to exist under that name, as a young person from that location (unless she invented the name or is making some cute allusion to Chinese and Midwestern affinities) is seeking friendship through "OKCupid". —— Shakescene (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The USGS has a "Shanghi Ch[urch]" in Vernon County at about 37.66728N, 94.365W. This corresponds to the location of a town called Shanghai described on this local history page. Doesn't look like anyone lives there now, though, and it's not on a creek, so may not be the Civil War battle location.--Cam (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's roughly where I figured too. Google Maps' terrain view shows a watercourse running roughly N-S a couple of miles west of there. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shakescene and Edison both for your efforts. To confound normal googleation, it seems there were several places named Shanghai in Missouri:

One in Barton County, that Edison found, above.
One in Carroll County, four miles south of Norborne (ref)
One in Johnson County, also called Cornelia. (ref)
One in Vernon County, part of Drywood Township. (ref) Following his description of it being a 1.5 miles south of Avola (and Avola just shows up on Google Maps) would put us about three miles west of Sheldon. So surely that's the one Shakescene's atlas describes.

buuut - the county line (dividing Barton from Vernon, at least according to Bing Maps) runs E-W just south of Sheldon, so surely the Barton and Vernon Shanghais are the same one; and this approximate location is ~25 miles SE of Fort Scott, which matches the description Edison found (I confess I can't find the Big Dogwood River). One thing I think we can safely say is that this encounter (indeed all of the two or maybe three encounters at Shanghai) was, in the grand grisly scheme of the war, barely worth a mention ;( -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to complicate matters further, I looked for that body of water, and the closest I could find was Dogwood Creek, where the 3rd Wisconsin Cavalry operated against Sterling Price's Raid on Missouri on 16 May 1864. Like Shanghai, the Dogwoods or Dogwood Canyons (no doubt like the tree) cover the Show-Me State, with Dogwood, Mo. near Cape Girardeau, at almost exactly the wrong end. So I'm not certain if this is the same Dogwood Creek (which does indeed run roughly north to south and just south of, without intersecting the east-west Marmaton R.) that's on my Civil War atlas's plate. By the way, Yahoo! Maps & MSN Maps (classic) showed nothing, while Bing! (MSN) Maps nearly crashed my browser; maybe others will have better luck with other mapping services than Google's. Google shows Shanghai's location near the intersection of US Routes 54 and 71, between the Bushwhacker Lake Recreation Area and the Drywood Conservation Area. As if we weren't confused enough, there's a nearby Barton City Township in Vernon County, on the other, eastern side of Highway 43, as opposed to Barton County. And Finlay McWalter's right; just as in the 20th and 21st centuries, it's hard to pin down in either time or place, things like cavalry raids and guerrilla/counter-guerrilla operations in sparsely-settled rural areas. Missouri, like Kentucky, even had Senators and Congressmen in both the U.S. and Confederate Congresses. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¶ But all that, unfortunately, doesn't really answer Finlay McWalter's original question, which was about the line of confrontation that extended to Shanghai, Mo., in 1862. Which Shanghai was it, the one that figured in Sterling Price's 1864 raids (which was mapped in my Civil War atlas), or one of the others (or yet a different one from all of them)? Ken Burns' main source for The Civil War (TV series) was Shelby Foote, who is sadly no longer with us. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well post this map of Vernon County, Missouri, although it must have been printed after Shanghai vanished. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which country has the fewest restrictions on free speech?

--70.245.189.11 (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930918.html and Freedom of the Press (report) may be worth a look. I seem to remember there being an index of freeness but can't find it (can't quite remember the name), i'll try find a free speech based one but they'll be a reasonable start - especially the freedom of the press one. ny156uk (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is what you were thinking of: List of indices of freedom ? Dismas|^(talk) 23:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Press Freedom Index may be of interest, to the extent that press freedom and free speech are related. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several freedom indices, like the Freedom in the World (report) [4], like Ny156uk suggested. However, most of them tend to focus on all areas of the world, so everything at the top just sort of gets squished together as "free". You can also look at the Press Freedom Index, as Finlay McWalter suggested, but I'm having a hard time finding how those numbers were compiled, so I'm not sure how much we can read into them (and again, everything near the top is more or less "free", so it's hard to make distinctions between them). However, the reason that it's generally hard to make distinctions among the most free countries is that in reality, there isn't much difference in Freedom between countries at the top of such a list. Pretty any much any so-called "liberal democracy" will have laws protecting political criticism. Most will also have some restrictions on what can be broadcast on TV or radio (vulgarity or nudity generally, rather than political speech), and many will have some laws against hate speech. Most countries will have some sort of libel laws, the restrictiveness of which will vary from country to country. The trouble is, with all sorts of different types of speech freedom, how do you create a strict ranking? The United States is known for having very strong protections for political speech, and a pretty high tolerance for hate speech. However, it also has pretty significant restrictions on what can be shown on TV. Canada has looser restrictions of broadcasting, but very stringent hate speech prohibitions. I think that if you want to be a political activist, many western and northern European nations would be pretty darn safe. If you want to express your belief in the superiority of the white race, you're probably better off in the United States. Pretty much every western nation prohibits the production of child pornography (which might be considered "speech" by some), so if you want to make child porn, you're better off going to what's usually considered a less free nation that just has bigger problems to deal with. Buddy431 (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet

I have two plot questions concerning Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Shakespeare's Hamlet. Question 1: Why do the two continue on to England, after the pirate attack? Their mission from Claudius was to escort Hamlet from Denmark to England to get executed. Once their ship gets captured by pirates (and Hamlet is kidnapped), Rosencrantz and Guildenstern should return to Denmark for advice from Claudius. They should not continue on their voyage to England, as they (now) have no need to go to England. Can anyone explain this plot point? Am I missing something here? Question 2: At the very end of the play, why does someone (the Ambassador) mention that "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead" in the scene where the more major (more important) characters are found dead (Claudius, Gertrude, Hamlet, and Laertes)? In other words, after all these important characters die, what is the significance of (chronologically) mentioning the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern later? It would seem like a trivial matter and rather anti-climactic, given the deadly scene in the Castle. So, I am wondering if there is some literary importance to its mention and placement in that final scene. Surely, the fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead could have been brought up at some other point in the play. Why did Shakespeare wait until that moment (when the "main characters" are found dead), to mention these two additional deaths? It almost makes their deaths seem just as important and mention-worthy as the other four deaths in the Castle scene. But, that can't be ... can it? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

To your first question: one could argue that they continued on because Hamlet was expected in England, and so were they. Perhaps by a certain time. Thus, better to soldier on and say "oops, pirates," than to keep someone else waiting. Claudius could then be notified and an alternate plan formed. To your second, I have two answers. One, that R&G were such instrumental parts of the plot to eliminate Hamlet--could, in fact, be seen as his adversaries in some ways--that their death needed to be mentioned along with all the others to tie up the loose ends. Second, to provide the title of a truly wonderful play ;) These questions are what makes Shakespeare still so popular after so long. We all know the basic stories, but the details truly matter, and nobody can agree on them. If you want to see a really, really wonderful insight into Hamlet (as well as the Scottish play and Lear), rent or buy Slings & Arrows. Absolutely wonderful TV show. → ROUX ₪ 23:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, they weren't aware that Hamlet was going to be executed. They were given letters to deliver, but they weren't told what was in those letters, so as far as they knew the letters still needed to be delivered. Regarding the second line, I think it's significance lies in the impact it has on you when you hear it. It's not for nothing that Shakespeare is considered the best playwright ever. You might enjoy looking at the play Roux alluded to, Tom Stoppard's wonderful Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Looie496 (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course right. It's been years since I've seen or read Hamlet. My bad. → ROUX ₪ 00:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the insights. Much appreciated! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]