1999

Re: Sonnets

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1420  Thursday 12 August 1999.

[1]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 11 Aug 1999 16:06:17 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1414 Re: Sonnets

[2]     From:   John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 12 Aug 1999 09:14:31 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 10.1413 Re: Sonnets


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 11 Aug 1999 16:06:17 -0400
Subject: 10.1414 Re: Sonnets
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1414 Re: Sonnets

>Both Dante and Petrarch (to go back no further) predate
>the Platonic revival in the West.  Certainly commentaries on Petrarch's
>sonnets tend to accrete Platonic interpretations, and there are aspects
>of this in Sidney, but ...

Since Neo-Platonism was alive and well in Italy during St. Augustine's
time (fourth and fifth centuries), I wonder if it ever really died, thus
needing to be revived.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 12 Aug 1999 09:14:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Sonnets
Comment:        SHK 10.1413 Re: Sonnets

Clifford Stetner writes:

>The only real precedent I can find among sonnets are those of
>Michaelangelo which certainly
>appear to be addressed to real men.

But is there any precedent, in all of literature, for a man writing a
whole series of poems to another man encouraging him to get married and
have children?

Renaissance/Modernism

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1419  Thursday 12 August 1999.

From:           Andre Schueller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 11 Aug 1999 17:31:57 +0200
Subject:        Subject: Renaissance/Modernism

Hi there,

As a PhD student working on T. S. Eliot, I'd like to get in touch with
people working on the interconnections between Modernist and Renaissance
writing.

Is any one out there??

Andre Schueller
WWU Muenster

Re: Is this British

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1417  Wednesday 11 August 1999.

From:           David Knauer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Aug 1999 10:57:46 CDT
Subject:        Re: Is this British?

Clifford Stetner writes:

>The movement of twentieth century criticism away from the search for
>historical allusion is related more to political conflicts within the
>academy than to the consensus that such allusions (if present and
>discoverable) are of no value to the decoding of Shakespeare's texts.
>Specific allusions, of course, make reference to authorial
>intentionality, which is an issue that postmodern critics have (in my
>view, unsuccessfully) tried to dance around since Foucault.  The >death of
>the author seems to me to be a metaphysical exercise which >denies the most
>obvious truths about the nature of literature, truths >upon which even
>postmodernist criticism somewhat hypocritically >depends.

>Certainly British cultural materialism, like American New Historicism >is a
>form of "contemporary interpretation," but there is a line drawn
>between textual and personal allusions that seems to me artificial >and at
>variance with the principle of heterogeneity of interpretation
>valorized by postmodernists.

This doesn't seem to me to be an accurate depiction of the history or
present of twentieth-century literary criticism, American or British.
First of all, I think it's misleading to conflate "historical allusion"
with "intentionality."  Writers might certainly reproduce the
assumptions, ideologies, etc. of their historical moment
unintentionally.

Secondly, the critique of intentionality predates postmodernism or
Foucault:
Wimsatt and Beardsley's "The Intentional Fallacy" (1954).  And that
essay doesn't dispute the existence of a historical, biographical,
linguistic context for the literary work, but stipulates that such
material's relevance can only be judged after we accept a work of
literature as existing first and foremost within public language.  This
shift of emphasis marks a break with expressive, Romantic criticism and
its scenarios of inspired genius.  In one sense, postmodernity carries
on the formalist critique of the unified subject or origin, but extends
it to the literary work's coherent signification.  I don't think
postmodernists argue that history or authors are of no value in
interpretation, just that they, too, exist in public, heterogeneous
language.

Apologies to all if this seems pedantic.

Dave Knauer

Re: Routledge First Folio

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1418  Wednesday 11 August 1999.

From:           Pervez Rizvi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Aug 1999 23:13:38 +0100
Subject: 10.1406 Q: Routledge First Folio
Comment:        RE: SHK 10.1406 Q: Routledge First Folio

A couple of years ago on this list I asked about F facsimiles. You can
find the discussion in the SHAKSPER archives. The consensus of the list
then was that there is no substitute for the Norton.

I've seen the Routledge facsimile and I don't recommend it. It's a
reprint of Halliwell-Phillipps' facsimile from the 19th century. It
seemed to me to have been manually altered in places, presumably where
the photos didn't turn out well. Nothing exceptional about that (even
today magazines and newspapers alter photographs, using software) but it
kind of defeats the point of having a facsimile. Louis Marder pointed
out in the last discussion, on Fredson Bowers' authority, that as
recently as 1955, the Yale facsimile was manually altered after they saw
how the photos turned out.  Some of the introductory material in the
Routledge seemed distinctly dodgy to me: I recall that at one point in
the Introduction, the reader is told that when compositors had set too
much type on a page, some of it had to be disposed of, and this disposal
process was known as casting-off!

Even without these defects, you should consider whether you would be
able to use any facsimile other than the Norton for scholarly purposes.
You could hardly quote from it in your work, not just because of the
absence of TLN, but because the Norton has (deservedly) become the
standard to such an extent that it's no exaggeration to say that when
scholars talk of 'the Folio of 1623' they usually mean 'the Folio of
1968'.

In sum, there is no substitute for the Norton. The fact that Routledge
bothered to put out a clearly inferior product should tell the Norton
marketing people that there is a market out there that they have priced
themselves out of.

Re: Hoghton Tower Controversy

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1416  Wednesday 11 August 1999.

From:           Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Aug 1999 11:03:53 -0400
Subject: 10.1407 Re: Hoghton Tower Controversy
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1407 Re: Hoghton Tower Controversy

I know you are scholars, and I am a mere tourist: but when I was in
Stratford, the docent at the church pointed out Wm Shakespeare's name on
the list of vestrymen after his retirement from the theatre, and said
that the office entitled him to be buried in the church. At this point
in his career, WS shouldn't have had to worry about conforming outwardly
to Anglicanism to stay out of trouble-he had managed to stay out of
trouble quite well for years, in a much more exposed position.

Now, WS might have taken on the church office because as an actor he
loved hearing the sound of his own voice applied to poetry, and once
retired he could only exercise it if he were a lay reader.  Or he might
have signed up to annoy his wife, who may have plagued him with
accusations that in spite of his ill-gotten wealth he was nothing but an
ungodly adulterous flibertygibbet of a common player.  But that would
make him quite a hypocrite. Isn't the simplest explanation- that WS
found the established church spiritually satisfying-best?

Geralyn Horton, Playwright
Newton, Mass. 02460
<http://www.tiac.net/users/ghorton>

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.