Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: January ::
The Renaissance Horse": A Call for Contributors
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0143  Tuesday, 25 January 2005

[1]     From:   Edward Brown <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 24 Jan 2005 14:32:10 -0600
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0135 The Renaissance Horse": A Call for Contributors

[2]     From:   Kevin De Ornellas <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 24 Jan 2005 22:04:26 +0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0135 The Renaissance Horse": A Call for Contributors

[3]     From:   William Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 24 Jan 2005 13:46:11 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0135 The Renaissance Horse": A Call for Contributors


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edward Brown <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 24 Jan 2005 14:32:10 -0600
Subject: 16.0135 The Renaissance Horse": A Call for Contributors
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0135 The Renaissance Horse": A Call for Contributors

How does anyone know what the Elizabethan/Renaissance nose knew?
"sensorium" indeed, lmfao.
BTW I lived in NYC for 30 years and it stunk like you can only imagine
the black hole of Calcutta. "third world" odors, lmfao. Get a grip white
folks from USA and Britain, yours stinks too.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kevin De Ornellas <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 24 Jan 2005 22:04:26 +0000
Subject: 16.0135 The Renaissance Horse": A Call for Contributors
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0135 The Renaissance Horse": A Call for Contributors

 >The 'history of stench' is indeed complex. The
 >relationship between the components of the early
 >modern sensorium was by no means identical with
 >our own. The decisive privileging of the sense of
 >sight-a consequence of the development of literacy--
 >is a relatively recent development. Subtle and complex
 >communicative modes involving a different ordering
 >of all the senses-including smell-were undoubtedly a
 >feature of the culture which produced Shakespeare.
 >
 >T. Hawkes

Absolutely. Similar points are made in the chapter, "Following the Scent:

 From the Middle Ages to Modernity", in a book that I heartily
recommend: Constance Classen, David Honer, and Anthony Synott, "Aroma:
The Cultural History of Smell" (Routledge, 1994).

Kevin De Ornellas
Queen's University Belfast

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 24 Jan 2005 13:46:11 -0500
Subject: 16.0135 The Renaissance Horse": A Call for Contributors
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0135 The Renaissance Horse": A Call for Contributors

Terry Hawkes claims that the "decisive privileging of the sense of
sight" is "consequence of the development of literacy" and is a
"relatively recent development."

I see. Actually "I see" for "I know" has a long history in European
culture, but perhaps Terry meant "cultural literacy," and not just
"reading skills." In any case, the primacy of sight for homo sapiens
sapiens seems well established in the historical period. Of course,
"relatively recent" may mean within the last forty thousand years or so.
Nevertheless, I wonder how a presentist living in 2005 can be so sure
that "Subtle and complex communicative modes involving a different
ordering of all the senses--including smell--were undoubtedly a feature
of the culture which produced Shakespeare." Undoubtedly different from
what? And how can anyone prove difference when an early modern subject
is not available for questioning and complex brain imaging?

We must, perforce, interpret the past from the present, and this means
that we should put our cards on the table (as Terry advises us in
another place) and admit that interpreting the past is a matter of iffy
reconstruction not certitude. "Undoubtedly" is a word that should not be
in our critical jargon. I wonder why Terry uses it.

Bill Godshalk

_______________________________________________________________
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.