Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The name isn't the point -- the point is, you haven't read the play. The name of the play is Macbeth, the protagonist's name is Macbeth, and his wife is Lady Macbeth. There is a "Macbeth" on every page, several times over. Had you actually read it, you would not have spelled the name the way you did.
What about them? Catherine de Medici did a pretty good job of securing her family on the throne of France for as long as was humanly possible, in circumstances of utmost adversity. The whole St. Bartholomew's massacre had more to do with the balance of power in France than with religion. In fact, things would be a lot less bloody and turbulent in France if the laws allowed Catherine to become a queen regnant, instead of reserving the throne for males and thereby forcing her to prop up her stupid and ineffectual sons. Yeah, she wasn't a saint. But how about the men who were in power? Didn't the men at the helm of power massacre people for their religion? Didn't they oppress the peasantry? How is anything she did different from what men were doing?
Catherine of Russia fully lived up to her nickname of "enlightened despot". She ruled a country that still clung to feudal traditions and had no history of democracy whatsoever, and she did so pretty effectively. She continued the work of Peter the Great in bringing cultural and scientific enlightenment to Russia. She promoted the arts. She is the one who founded Russia's first two universities. And she fought successful wars with the Ottoman Empire to secure for Russia, first, the much-needed sea access and second, control of areas in the south and east, from which invasions of Russia had been staged for hundreds of years. Catherine II was one of the most competent and successful rulers in European history. Yes, she took lovers, but a lot fewer in number and a lot less scandalously than male rulers at the time were doing. Yes, she possibly had her husband murdered -- but then, why isn't Henry VIII of England, who judicially murdered 2 of his wives and every single minister who had ever served him (with the bare exception of Norfolk) not held as "proof" that men, as a gender, are ruthless and immoral?
Your comments illustrate a curious phenomenon. Male rulers could oppress, murder and torture people and still not be considered "proof" that men are "bad". But female rulers, who merely ruled in the same style as their male counterparts, are cited as illustrations of how women are supposedly "evil". This is the very essence of sexism -- the idea that women are acting outrageously when they merely do the same things that men do.
The only king who was as outrageous as Catherine was Henry VIII. For basically the same thing.
If her lovers failed to satisfy her, she had them killed. If Henry's wife could not produce him an heir, he had her beheaded. Pretty close.
As far as McBeth goes, like I said, it's eytmologically correct--AND one less character to type. No one cares if you say Finn McCool, or Finn mac Cuhal. No one.
The only king who was as outrageous as Catherine was Henry VIII. For basically the same thing.
That is complete nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
If her lovers failed to satisfy her, she had them killed.
This too. What have you been reading? The most she ever did to a lover who offended her was banish him from court. I bet you believe she did it with horses, too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
As far as McBeth goes, like I said, it's eytmologically correct--AND one less character to type. No one cares if you say Finn McCool, or Finn mac Cuhal. No one.
The question isn't whether it's "etymologically" correct -- but whether you read it. Had you read it, you would have spelled it the way the author did. The fact that you spelled it differently is proof that you hadn't read it.
This too. What have you been reading? The most she ever did to a lover who offended her was banish him from court. I bet you believe she did it with horses, too?
The question isn't whether it's "etymologically" correct -- but whether you read it. Had you read it, you would have spelled it the way the author did. The fact that you spelled it differently is proof that you hadn't read it.
When I use a word, it means exactly what I intend it to mean, nothing more and nothing less.
whether I spell the word generalize or generalise, I'm right either way. The two words are--for all intents and purposes--interchangeable. So I spell it the way I want, and am not held to someone else's spelling of the word. I'm not here to curry favour.
Um, read "The Sex Lives of Famous People" sometime.
When I use a word, it means exactly what I intend it to mean, nothing more and nothing less.
whether I spell the word generalize or generalise, I'm right either way. The two words are--for all intents and purposes--interchangeable. So I spell it the way I want, and am not held to someone else's spelling of the word. I'm not here to curry favour.
Sure did. Otello too. Seventh grade, as a matter of fact.
No you did not Othello neither.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The most she ever did to a lover who offended her was banish him from court. I bet you believe she did it with horses, too?
