Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: August ::
Re: Tillyard (Again)
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1625  Monday, 18 August 2003

[1]     From:   David Lindley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 15 Aug 2003 16:03:19 GMT0BST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1617 Re: Tillyard (Again)

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Aug 2003 14:32:30 -0700
        Subj:   SHK 14.1617 Re: Tillyard (Again)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lindley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 15 Aug 2003 16:03:19 GMT0BST
Subject: 14.1617 Re: Tillyard (Again)
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1617 Re: Tillyard (Again)

John Drakakis writes:

>With hindsight we can see that Tillyard has a specific cultural project
>in mind, and he wasn't the only one.

Indeed not, John.  And with hindsight all of us will be shown to have
had a specific cultural project in mind.  It's certainly true that
Dollimore and Sinfield in their attacks on Tillyard wished - as why
should they not - to substitute their cultural project for his; your own
influential Alternative Shakespeares had a very specific cultural
project in mind, 'the demystification of the "myth" of Shakespeare'.

This aim, surely, had its foundation in the cultural moment of English
studies in the 1980s just as surely as Tillyard in that of the 40s?  I
attack neither project for being so embedded - that's the condition of
criticism and of any kind of historical writing.

Perhaps the more interesting question is why one can return with
pleasure to some critical writing from the past, and find it still
provocative and stimulating, even whilst recognising and perhaps
disowning the ideological project in which it found its being, whilst
other critical texts, once influential, seem dead and utterly
time-bound.

Isn't this in some way parallel to the fact that we can all trot off and
read sixteenth-century texts of spectacular tedium in order to find out
more about the commonplaces of the period; but when we return to
Herbert, Donne, or Shakespeare, for example, we get considerably more
from the experience?

One of the valuable things that the various kinds of historical
criticism of the 80s did was to break down the separation of privileged
literary text from 'background' wheeled in to 'explain' it. What it
failed to do, however, was to account for the fact that Montaigne, or
Shakespeare, or (nominate your own) obstinately remain more interesting,
stimulating, challenging, than Breton, Niccolls or Glapthorne.

David Lindley
Leeds University

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 16 Aug 2003 14:32:30 -0700
Subject: Re: Tillyard (Again)
Comment:        SHK 14.1617 Re: Tillyard (Again)

I enjoyed Gabriel's description of Marx's definitions of ideology, a
subject I don't know enough about.  I'm worried, though, that in seeking
a definition that includes conscious ideas, feelings, unconscious
impulses and habits of behaviour, we're arriving at a definition that's
so all-inclusive that it pretty much fails to be a definition at all.
Labelling something "ideology" would be to make a distinction without a
difference.  On the other hand, if ideology is so broad, then it becomes
(in principle) impossible to talk about anything else.

As usual, I see a parallel with twentieth-century phenomenology, where
"being" includes everything (including nothingness) and thinking the
otherwise than being becomes almost impossible.

Yours,
Sean.

_______________________________________________________________
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.