Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: January ::
Re: TN; Moon; Vendler; RSC; circummured and cised
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0025  Wednesday, 7 January 1998.

[1]     From:   Moray McConnachie <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 06 Jan 1998 16:19:44 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0020  Re: *Twelfth Night*

[2]     From:   Brad Morris <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 6 Jan 1998 15:09:32 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.1261  Re: The inconstant moon

[3]     From:   Christopher Warley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 6 Jan 98 15:32:33 EST
        Subj:   Vendler

[4]     From:   Mike LoMonico <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 06 Jan 1998 16:18:06 -0500
        Subj:   RSC Tour Correction

[5]     From:   Syd Kasten <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 6 Jan 1998 23:49:00 +0200 (IST)
        Subj:   circummured and cised


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Moray McConnachie <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 06 Jan 1998 16:19:44 +0000
Subject: 9.0020  Re: *Twelfth Night*
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0020  Re: *Twelfth Night*

]At 10:17 06/01/98 -0500, Carl Fortunato wrote:

>I think that here Viola almost gives herself away with "I am all the
>daughters of my father's house", realizes that she has, and clumsily
>tries to cover it up.

I haven't been following this discussion closely, so excuse me if this
is off the point, but isn't this sentence a classic dramatic irony?

'I am all the daughters of my father's house', to a character in the
play, means that my father's house has no daughters, it's a joke. To the
audience it's ironic because it hears Viola cast off her disguise
briefly in a way that cannot be penetrated by the other characters.

'And all the brothers too' ought to be delivered pensively, because it
is, for the audience, a reference to the death of her own brother (and
therefore a further speaking out of disguise), and indeed to her
familyless state (as she perceives it - of course it is a further stage
of irony for an audience, which knows that her brother is not dead, nor
she familyless): this would be quite lost on the characters in the play,
who would take it only to mean 'I am an only child'.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brad Morris <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 6 Jan 1998 15:09:32 EST
Subject: 8.1261  Re: The inconstant moon
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.1261  Re: The inconstant moon

In a message dated 97-12-29 10:43:31 EST, Marilyn A. Bonomi writes:

> Brad Morris suggests adding RII to the MND/R&J mix.  While I can see
>  pairing the comedy/tragedy duo, I don't see the connection otherwise.
>  Richard is no adolescent, nor is Bullingbrook.  There are no parallel
>  feud/love pairings, no fairies nor flights.  Divine right of kings does

Perhaps it's too late to continue this thread (the holidays bogged me
down), but let me clarify what I meant by "adolescent play."

I did not mean to imply that Richard was a teenager (and after I read my
post, I thought to myself, "Brad, you weren't very clear"). Rather, the
word "adolescent" refers to Shakespeare himself-though not a teenager,
he was in his adolescence as a playwright, no? This adolscence, at least
in my mind, accounts for the rash actions that tie these three plays
together.

Thanks for listening (reading, whatever).

Brad

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Christopher Warley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 6 Jan 98 15:32:33 EST
Subject:        Vendler

I want to respond briefly to the excellent discussion of Vendler's book,
and particularly to the responses by Peter Herman, Laura Fargas, and
Curtis Perry.  I thoroughly agreed with Fargas' description of Vendler's
project, that it is not intended to be historical, but at the same time
it is precisely this position which opens up Vendler to the charge of a
historical critic like Herman.  In claiming to read "ahistorically,"
Vendler (in Fargas' defense) is being extremely "historical" by
employing a conception of "the poet's mind" which dates from the 19th,
if not the 20th, century.  The claim to ahistory, in other words, is a
particularly modern, and modernist, one.  I wonder whether such a
conception of the "poet" is really applicable to someone writing in
1609.

This position also opens up a consideration of Curtis Perry's timely
objection that Vendler is unfairly dismissing feminist criticism.  Perry
cites Nancy Vickers hugely influential article" Diana Described," which
subtly argues that Petrarch's use of the Actaeon myth functions to
silence the female object. I like Vicker's reading very much, but it is,
after all, a reading of Petrarch alone.  To suggest, somehow, that poems
written over 200 years later in radically different circumstances
function necessarily in the same way seems unlikely at best.  The
invocation of "the Petrarchan sonnet sequence" as a genre only begs the
question of what a "Petrarchan sonnet sequence" might be, and it tells
us very little about Shakespeare's sequence since it may or may not be
"Petrarchan" (I would say probably not) and may or may not be a
"sequence" (I would say yes with the qualification that "sequence" and
"narrative" are not the same thing).  Perry's use of Vickers and
Petrarch functions similarly to Vendler a la Fargas' use of the "poet,"
as a claim to ahistoricity, or at least  trans-historicity, which again
sounds suspiciously modern, and historical, to me.

Christopher Warley
Rutgers University

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike LoMonico <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 06 Jan 1998 16:18:06 -0500
Subject:        RSC Tour Correction

The RSC Tour is bringing Henry VIII not Henry VII (as I previously
wrote)  to the Brooklyn Academy of Music in May.  More information is
available at 800.223.7565.

By the way, the Hamlet on the tour is Alex Jenning's which got so much
praise last year.

Mike LoMonico, editor
Shakespeare magazine
http://www.shakespearemag.com

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Syd Kasten <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 6 Jan 1998 23:49:00 +0200 (IST)
Subject:        circummured and cised

On Dec. 1 (SHK 8.1211)John Velz wrote:

"As for *circummured*,  Sh had a lot more Latin than is needed for this
neologism.  There are some hundreds of such words in the canon, most of
them surviving today, that he seems to have been first to use.  This one
did not survive, or at least I have never seen it outside this play. It
is orotund, and maybe that is why it never got used in later years.  Syd
does not approve of the sound of "walled 'round".  This is because the
phrase as printed does not scan.  Try "wall

 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.