1999

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0014  Tuesday, 6 January 1999.

[1]     From:   Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Jan 1999 00:22:33 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0010  Re: Tillyard and Presentism

[2]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Jan 1999 16:04:23 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0010  Re: Tillyard and Presentism

[3]     From:   R. D. H.Wells <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Jan 1999 14:57:38 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Coleridge


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Jan 1999 00:22:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 10.0010  Re: Tillyard and Presentism
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0010  Re: Tillyard and Presentism

To the list of "contemporaries" of Tillyard who also questioned the
reduction(ism?) of his thesis, we could add Muriel Bradbrook who circa
51 or 52 wrote something like "I think Mr. Tillyard would be the first
to agree that there IS no Elizabethan World Picture." Either that's
brilliant understated (sly) criticism, or she knew that Tillyard
genuinely agreed with her here....  and (possibly) that the TITLE of
that book was but a marketing device, like many book titles today as
well....
          chris stroffolino

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Jan 1999 16:04:23 -0000
Subject: 10.0010  Re: Tillyard and Presentism
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0010  Re: Tillyard and Presentism

>Why not try the true Prince of
>Presentism, Pierre Menard?

>T. Hawkes

Surely you're thinking of Funes?  PM had to (re)construct it, whereas
the Memorius lived it (albeit his own).

God also seems to have been involved in this debate, if we're to believe
D.J.Enright --

    ("Why can't I ever live in the present?'
     He would grumble. 'Never in the present.')

Robin (2) H.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. D. H.Wells <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Jan 1999 14:57:38 +0000 (GMT)
Subject:        Coleridge

May I correct Robin Hamilton on a small point. On 3 January he wrote:
'Tangentially, I am becoming increasingly concerned over the obsession
which Professors Wells and Hawkes share with Coleridge's Biographia
Literaria'. As far as I know I do not share any of Terry Hawkes'
obsessions; certainly I have never mentioned Coleridge or the Biographia
on SHAKSPER. (I admit that I did think of Coleridge when Terry said that
his long and closely reasoned account of Presentism had somehow got lost
in the post, but thought it kinder not to say so. Perhaps the essay got
misdirected to Porlock?)

Robin Headlam Wells

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.