Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: January ::
Re: Language; Literature; Marlowe; Globe; Plagarism
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0003  Sunday, 3 January 1999.

[1]     From:   Julie Blumenthal <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 31 Dec 1998 12:53:08 PST
        Subj:   Re: Language and Syntax

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 31 Dec 1998 18:24:41 -0500
        Subj:   Re: The Value of Literature

[3]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 1 Jan 1999 03:00:32 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1348 Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe

[4]     From:   H. R. Greenberg <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 1 Jan 1999 19:35:23 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1353 Re: SHK 9.1330 Restored Globe

[5]     From:   Alan Pierpoint <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 1 Jan 1999 13:09:15 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1339 Re: Plagiarism


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Julie Blumenthal <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 31 Dec 1998 12:53:08 PST
Subject:        Re: Language and Syntax

Just for the heck of it, a sixties-inspired reference to add to the
fray: Dr. Timothy Leary preferred to use SHe (she/he) and Hir
(his/her).  Rather like a cross between hyphenating two newlyweds' last
names and choosing a new one to avoid the issue of gender, paternalism,
etc altogether...  It's a fun alternative, but distinctly visual;
unfortunately I don't think his spelling distinction would be audible,
so there'd have to be an additional (spoken) alternative...

Julie

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 31 Dec 1998 18:24:41 -0500
Subject:        Re: The Value of Literature

Louis Swilley writes

> Teaching people to appreciate the art of literature is not
> essentially different from teaching them to appreciate the
> art of music, the plastic arts, film, etc.  These are
> subjects that liberate the mind, urging it to consider eternal
> values and define itself and its end.

I've obviously missed the exchange (initiated by Jason Mical,
apparently) which led to this comment. I wonder if Louis Swilley could
elaborate on this connection between literature and music and sculpting.
(I'll leave out film for now, as I can accept it by analogy with drama.)
I'm puzzled because the raw material of literature is, presumably, words
and I am happy with the idea that meaning is generated in exchanges of
words.

But the idea that meaning is generated in the exchange of musical notes
and visual images bothers me. I need to see an agreed system of signs to
accept that meaning is being generated. Just what is the 'langue' of
music? Likewise, what's the 'langue' of visual art?

I can make sense of certain works of musical and visual art by locating
them in the context of their creation and can be convinced, for example,
that a particular Mondrian work is significant in manifesting his
increasing simplification. Likewise I can see that Punk Rock manifested
a rejection of traditional means of popular musical production-highly
expensive, technically elaborate, essentially non-lyrical-and
established alternative forms of production. But in both cases the 'art'
has only meta-artistic significance: it's meaningful only in the very
local context of previous production in the same genre. Just what the
devil Mondrian or Rotten/Cook/Jones/Matlock/Vicious were going on about
in the wider sense remains mysterious.

Or, contrary to my scepticism, can one paint/sculpt/play signs?

Gabriel Egan

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 1 Jan 1999 03:00:32 -0000
Subject: 9.1348 Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1348 Re: Shakespeare and Marlowe

Ed Taft writes:

>Shakespeare is able to compliment Marlowe and
>to outdo him, and he knows that. Anxious, no. Aware of Marlowe's
>greatness (and even more aware of his own), yes.

Or even a couple of Young Turk dramatists carving up the territory
between them (with Ben Jonson, just those few significant years younger,
joining in behind).

Marlowe floats the idea of historical drama (among other things) with
Tamburlaine 1 in 1585.

Shakespeare ripostes with English history in the Henry VI cycle (however
we sequence the three), and has Richard in 3 Henry VI do his "I am a
Machiavel" bit.

Marlowe picks up on the Machiavel idea to kick-start Jew of Malta
(prologue by Machiavel, and Barabas passim), and redefines the nature of
the history play in Edward II.

Shakespeare redefines the Richard of Gloucester figure in the light of
Marlowe's Barabas in Richard III.

Marlowe yawns twice, writes Doctor Faustus, and gets stabbed through the
eye-socket in a Depford tavern by Walsingham's bully-boys in 1593,
leaving Shakespeare more than a little brassed-off that the dialogue has
been interrupted.
Shakespeare post-CM, reworks EII as RII (1595), JM as _The Merchant of
Venice_ (1598ish?), and in between does a homage to Marlowe in _As you
Like It_ -- only writer Bill +ever+ quotes in the entire 36 plays:

(Phoebe)  Dead Shepherd, now I find thy words of might,
               "Who ever loved, who loved not at first sight."

and Touchstone's bad-taste joke, "strikes a man more dead than an
infinite reckoning in a little room".

-- quotations not checked.

Older and more established and maybe nostalgic, Shakespeare remembers
the Marlowe plays he never got a chance to deal with, and gives us his
reply to Marlowe's god-man Tamburlaine in Coriolanus, and right at the
end another view of magic in The Tempest.  Perhaps he also has _Dido
Queen of Carthage_ in mind when he writes Antony and Cleopatra.

I won't bother to elaborate the Jonson links, but they would run Volpone
recaps Jew of Malta with a side-swipe at Lear; The Alchemist sends up
both Doctor Faustus and The Tempest [and locally, 1 Henry IV, in the
"venture tripartite" verbal/situational echo]; and Bartholomew Fair
gives us an (in-part) ultra-naturalistic counter to the (in part)
ultra-symbolic Winter's Tale and Tempest.

Neither Shakespeare or Jonson seem (to me, at least) particularly
concerned with _The Massacre at Paris_.

Nearly forgot -- Venus and Adonis ripostes Hero and Leander -- not much
else to do with the Plague around-and isn't it one of life's little
ironies that HL gets finished off by the man who will later be
immortalised as the Rival Poet?

Details could be added, but that's the bones of it.

Robin Hamilton

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           H. R. Greenberg <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 1 Jan 1999 19:35:23 EST
Subject: 9.1353 Re: SHK 9.1330 Restored Globe
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1353 Re: SHK 9.1330 Restored Globe

I would very much appreciate a copy of this paper.

Downloading a version at aol is uncertain.   If possible send to HR
GREENBERG MD
320 W 86th St  NYC, NY l0024-3l39  USA.   Indicate postage.  Thanks.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Alan Pierpoint <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 1 Jan 1999 13:09:15 EST
Subject: 9.1339 Re: Plagiarism
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1339 Re: Plagiarism

You make a good point, Sally.  Our concern about failure later on is one
reason why we teachers are so concerned about academic honesty.  We see
it as our job to prepare students for their futures, against their
immediate wishes, if necessary.

Habits of plagiarism and other forms of cheating can become ingrained,
especially if they are allowed to succeed.  Believe it or not, some
students continue to cheat their way through college, and never get
caught.  (That says something about the state of education generally,
doesn't it).  I hope you stay on the list in '99.

-Alan Pierpoint
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.