Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: March ::
Re: Classical Acting: Decline
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0704  Friday, 8 March 2002

[1]     From:   Nancy Charlton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 07 Mar 2002 08:39:59 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0692 Re: Classical Acting: Decline

[2]     From:   Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 7 Mar 2002 11:52:53 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0692 Re: Classical Acting: Decline

[3]     From:   Paul E. Doniger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 8 Mar 2002 00:01:42 -0500
        Subj:   Fw: SHK 13.0692 Re: Classical Acting: Decline


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nancy Charlton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 07 Mar 2002 08:39:59 -0800
Subject: 13.0692 Re: Classical Acting: Decline
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0692 Re: Classical Acting: Decline

Mike Jensen wrote:

>Hope I spelled Leontine correctly.  I used my Grandmother's spelling,
>not able to remember Ms. Price's.

Actually it's Leontyne Price. And it's Jessye Norman. Odd.

Nancy Charlton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 7 Mar 2002 11:52:53 EST
Subject: 13.0692 Re: Classical Acting: Decline
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0692 Re: Classical Acting: Decline

RE: Martin Steward's Historical Argument Regarding the Perpetuity of
Authorship

It is tempting to agree with your historicisation in general but as you
indicate this was not quite the point of Don's response. That fewer
'poetic' or 'literary' texts were published or survived pre-Shakespeare
(in any form of English) should surely make us more thoughtful about
*why* certain texts either survived or were published at all. Again,
pointing to the remaining (as Gabriel Egan can testify) substantial
amount of very good if unknown Elizabethan drama/ poetry does nothing to
demonstrate *why* or *how* these texts became forgotten / overlooked /
less famous etc. Arguments about the 'greatness' or not of literary
texts are not solved merely by saying that some survived better than
others (or if they can be then we would need evidence as to why / how
the survival mechanism of a text was not purely arbitrary - i.e. that it
was not related to its popularity / repeatability /'greatness').

RE: Karen Petersen's attempt to play J.L. Austin with this thread -
don't - better to leave the philosophy to philosophers...(dead or
otherwise).

Cheers,
Marcus

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul E. Doniger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 8 Mar 2002 00:01:42 -0500
Subject: 13.0692 Re: Classical Acting: Decline
Comment:        Fw: SHK 13.0692 Re: Classical Acting: Decline

Martin Steward writes:

> Don Bloom gamely offers, "if Mr. Steward can point out some poets of
> real greatness that I have overlooked. I just don't know of any. To me
> the total absence of first rate poets for many of the decades between
> 1400 and 1580 is as puzzling as the superabundance of them from 1580 to,
> say, 1630".

I'm somewhat surprised that no one has mentioned Lydgate. He is
considered an important poet, at least historically, and was the first
direct descendant of Chaucer. In addition he was poet laureate for the
court of Henry V (not that poet laureate is a guarantee of greatness).
He was perhaps too imitative of Chaucer to become a major influence, or
even a "great" poet, but he was certainly not mediocre. Shakespeare
found much that he could draw from in Lydgate. What criteria should we
be using to define "greatness"?

Paul E. Doniger

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.