Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: February ::
Greenblatt Discussion Forum
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0247  Monday, 7 February 2005

[1]     From:   Julia Crockett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 5 Feb 2005 02:58:23 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0238 Greenblatt Discussion Forum

[2]     From:   Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 5 Feb 2005 14:21:56 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0238 Greenblatt Discussion Forum

[3]     From:   Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 5 Feb 2005 15:24:29 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0238 Greenblatt Discussion Forum


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Julia Crockett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 5 Feb 2005 02:58:23 -0000
Subject: 16.0238 Greenblatt Discussion Forum
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0238 Greenblatt Discussion Forum

The striking quality of Fowler's article is his casual display of
learning. It's as though he's wearing it on his sleeve. His homing in on
theatricality is almost certainly a reference to a seminal work of
Greenblatt's RSF. His insistence on overlooking Greenblatt the writer is
circumscribed by his own
agenda.

Fowler's [mis]reading of new historicism as a reaction to "the vacuous
textuality of deconstruction" fails to locate new historicism as
embedded in deconstruction. Greenblatt invents a the style of writing
after Lacan, Foucault and Derrida. The word is an of the cuff tag
[Greenblatt freely admits]. He named his way of writing new historicism
to counter the ubiquitous formalism. Much of his talent lies in his
writing. It is sometimes a case of don't blame the messenger.

PS: Sorry I forgot to put Foucauld, Geertz and Barthes on Greenblatt's
list. WAS SHAKESPEARE BOOKISH?

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 5 Feb 2005 14:21:56 -0000
Subject: 16.0238 Greenblatt Discussion Forum
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0238 Greenblatt Discussion Forum

John Briggs writes ...

 >Unfortunately, Fowler pours scorn on the suggestion that Polonius's
 >"'beautified' is a vile phrase" is a reference to Greene's "upstart
 >crow" jibe.  Was that conjecture current before Peter Bridgman made it
 >here on 24 May 2004?  If not, did Greenblatt get it from SHK 15.1106?

John Briggs is too kind.  I find it hard to believe that the link I made
last May ("Beautified with our feathers?  That's a vile phrase") hasn't
occurred to others before.

However, if the Arden editors want to credit me in their Third Series
Hamlet, I raise no particular objections.

Peter Bridgman

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 5 Feb 2005 15:24:29 -0000
Subject: 16.0238 Greenblatt Discussion Forum
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0238 Greenblatt Discussion Forum

David Basch writes ...

 >Peter Bridgman asks about the Tetragramaton. In the Hebrew, it is
 >represented by the letters Yud Heh Vav Heh, the cognate of our letters
 >YHVH. This is pronounced with the V sounded as a V or a W, depending on
 >community. The Bishops and Geneva Bibles, according to Peter,
 >transliterated the name as 'Iehouah' with the "I" representing the "Y."

I did not ask about the tetragrammaton.  My point was that Tyndale's
transcription (IEHOUAH), adopted by Bishops and Geneva bible editors,
would have been the only form recognisable to WS.

In his 70's Shakespeare biography, Anthony Burgess claimed that WS
suffered from myopia.  Burgess was of course short-sighted himself.  In
much the same way David Basch's determination to find Hebraisms
encrypted in the canon tells us more about Mr. Basch than it does about WS.

Peter Bridgman

_______________________________________________________________
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.