Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: December ::
Re: Tillyard
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.1336  Sunday, 27 December 1998.

[1]     From:   David Lindley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 22 Dec 1998 16:17:14 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1329  Re: Tillyard

[2]     From:   T. J. Sellari
        Date:   Wednesday, 23 Dec 1998 00:34:13 +0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1329 Re: Tillyard

[3]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 22 Dec 1998 11:37:51 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1329  Re: Tillyard

[4]     From:   Hugh Grady <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 22 Dec 1998 22:02:50 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1329  Re: Tillyard


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lindley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Dec 1998 16:17:14 GMT
Subject: 9.1329  Re: Tillyard
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1329  Re: Tillyard

I wonder why, Terry Hawkes, you feel the need to replay the same message
(as first seen about three weeks ago)? As I understand Robin
Headlam-Well's post, it is far from being a version of 'we know this
already', rather a request, in reasonable, scholarly terms, that we
don't too easily simplify the past history of criticism in order to
boost our own claims for novelty.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           T. J. Sellari
Date:           Wednesday, 23 Dec 1998 00:34:13 +0800
Subject: 9.1329 Re: Tillyard
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1329 Re: Tillyard

"Dear Robin: Thank you for a spirited rendition of 'We Know This
Already.' As ever, it moved me almost to tears. Your 'Surely This Is All
In Coleridge's Biographia Literaria' cannot now be long delayed. We are
agog."

I never cease to admire the way sarcasm almost completely disguises the
lack of an argument. Saves us so much time that way, too. Hurriedly,
T.J. Sellari

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Dec 1998 11:37:51 -0800
Subject: 9.1329  Re: Tillyard
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1329  Re: Tillyard

Penny Rixon:

> Maybe things are
> different in other countries, but I suspect that Tillyard has had a
> major influence on the British public, not least because his views were
> favoured by a conservative establishment.

Maybe, though I tend to think that if anyone took Tillyard's great chain
of being seriously, it would have hopelessly separated the old theories
from the neo-liberals, effectively abolishing the conservative party.

His effect is still felt around here, as well, and I tend to think that
it follows from the fact that Tillyard is so simple and political.  It's
an appeal that others, more recently, are also capitalizing on.

For Terry:

> Dear Robin: Thank you for a spirited rendition of 'We Know This
> Already.' As ever, it moved me almost to tears. Your 'Surely This Is All
> In Coleridge's Biographia Literaria' cannot now be long delayed.  We are
> agog.

And I suppose that you'll be spending the new year more or less like the
last, doing unacknowledged covers of other people's songs, punctuated by
staccato and off-tempo abuse of anyone who dares point this out.

Cheers,
Sean.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hugh Grady <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 22 Dec 1998 22:02:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 9.1329  Re: Tillyard
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1329  Re: Tillyard

Ed Taft expressed much of the longer answer on Tillyard I was thinking
of in response to Robin H. Wells's remarks and Terry Hawkes as always is
unsurpassable in sardonic barbs. Perhaps here all I should say is, as Ed
Taft alluded to, that so much am I in agreement with one level of Wells'
complaint about some cultural materialist oversimplifications of the
previous generation of Shakespeare criticism that I wrote a book on it,
and in the spirit of Prof. Wells' call for a return to the survey of
literature on a subject (a practice I myself still recommend and try to
follow), let me here call attention to the chapter on the rise and fall
of Tillyard in my 1991 "The Modernist Shakespeare." Certainly Tillyard's
hegemony was never absolute. It is clear from his "The Muse in Chains"
that his most influential works grew out of his distaste for F. R.
Leavis and were meant to be an alternative to the broader New Critical
movement (to use the American term) altogether. As a whole, Shakespeare
studies in the 50s and 60s were probably more "New Critical" than
"Tillyardian." But as we have learned in recent posts, Tillyard's
influence was remarkably strong in UK secondary education, and as late
as a work published in 1975, David Bergeron wrote that Tillyard's work
on the histories "has become the traditional interpretation"
("Shakespeare: A Study and Research Guide).

Best wishes,
Hugh Grady
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.