Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: April ::
Re: The Topic
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0733  Monday, 10 April 2000.

[1]     From:   Ed Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 05 Apr 2000 11:19:10 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   The Topic

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 05 Apr 2000 10:11:04 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0711 Re: The Topic

[3]     From:   Alex Houck <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 05 Apr 2000 19:56:47 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0711 Re: The Topic


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 05 Apr 2000 11:19:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        The Topic

Thanks for giving me your views on the subtext of 5.2, Judy.  I see your
point. I also wonder if the subtext of WT 5.2 and the naming of the
artist (Julio Romano) might have something to do with the years of
celibacy that presumably both Leontes and Hermione have endured. If so,
there certainly is REAL joy and wonder in their immediate future!

PS: I don't think Leontes deserves it, though!

--Ed Taft

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 05 Apr 2000 10:11:04 -0700
Subject: 11.0711 Re: The Topic
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0711 Re: The Topic

Gabriel Egan writes:

> If I've got my Saussure right (and Leonard Jackson's The
> Dematerialization of Marx made me wonder), we can trace to him the
> necessary antecedents (about arbitrary signifier-signified relations,
> and about the absence of positive terms) of the modern idea that
> language doesn't  merely reflect or denote the world but also
> constitutes it.

I think that John Lee wasn't so much contesting the claim that language
isn't entirely neutral, as the need to summon the shade of Saussure from
Hades to argue this.  In fact, I'm not even sure that the idea that
language "doesn't merely reflect or denote the world but also
constitutes it" is particularly "modern".  Ernesto Grassi finds this
Heideggerian (!) idea in Italian humanists.  Personally, I think that
it's rather implicit in Adam's naming the animals in Paradise Lost, or
the creation of the world by the word of God, for that matter.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.