2005

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1764  Tuesday, 18 October 2005

[1] 	From: 	John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 17 Oct 2005 13:07:05 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1752 Growth of Shakespeare's Imagery

[2] 	From: 	David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 17 Oct 2005 23:20:26 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1752 Growth of Shakespeare's Imagery


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 17 Oct 2005 13:07:05 -0400
Subject: 16.1752 Growth of Shakespeare's Imagery
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1752 Growth of Shakespeare's Imagery

Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >What do people think? Have I failed to read some key text or critic
 >here (a favorite form of academic anxiety)?

It is not quite the hare you seem to be hunting, but when it comes to 
Shakespeare's technique with images, you might want to look at C. S. 
Lewis's "Variation in Shakespeare and Others", which deals with his 
trick of using scattershot images within speeches (such as M*cb*th's on 
Sleep).

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 17 Oct 2005 23:20:26 -0400
Subject: 16.1752 Growth of Shakespeare's Imagery
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1752 Growth of Shakespeare's Imagery

I think Tom Bishop is right that the fontes et originis of modern image 
study in Shakespeare did not provide much if any historical foundation 
for their enterprise. It's been many years since I last looked at 
Rosemond Tuve, but you might give her stuff a glance.

Richard Lanham says that "The term 'imagery,' as it is used today in 
literary criticism, was not part of the traditional rhetorical 
nomenclature. The pictorial (visual image-making) part of its meaning 
was expressed by the various subdivisions of Energia . . . ." (Handlist, 
59; Paul Alpers' brilliant treatment of energia and energaia in The 
Poetry of the Fairie Queene may have some signposts). Raymond Williams 
asserts that "from C17 on there was an important specialized use [of the 
word "image"] in discussions of literature, to indicate a 'figure' of 
writing or speech" (Key Words 158).  . The implication is that 
traditional rhetoric was not Shakespeare's training ground.

I would be disposed to think about Ovid; the organizational principle of 
the Metamorophoses creates strings of recurrent motifs, individually 
modulated by their changing contexts but gathering concerted force and 
resonance as the poem unfurls.

David Evett

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.