Pub Date : 2020-08-10DOI: 10.4324/9781003057192-16
Liza Blake, K. Santos
{"title":"What Does the Wolf Say?","authors":"Liza Blake, K. Santos","doi":"10.4324/9781003057192-16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003057192-16","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":230771,"journal":{"name":"The Routledge Handbook of Shakespeare and Animals","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122197550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-10DOI: 10.4324/9781003057192-14
Keith M. Botelho
Insects have traditionally been marked, according to Eric Brown, as “humanity’s Other,” “imaginatively as well as apparently (spatially, temporally) different,” often viewed as adversaries to man as they elicit unease (xi–xv). Early modern literary accounts of insects demand a consideration of mankind’s relationship to miniature life forms. After all, size matters in the Renaissance. Natural historians, poets, and theologians alike during the period wondered and marveled at the tiniest of earth’s creatures in relation to both four-footed beasts and man. In his Preface to The Theater of Insects (1634, 1658), Thomas Moffett asks, “Where is nature more to be seen than in the smallest matters, where she is entirely all?” (Ffff5r), while Johannes Jonstonus’s An History of the Wonderful Things of Nature Set Forth (1657, tr. John Rowland) notes that there is “no where a more remarkable piece of Nature’s Workmanship; and Nature is no where total, more than in the least Creatures … in these that are so small, and almost as nothing, what reason, what force, what unspeakable perfection is there?” (Hhr1). Perfection can be seen, in other words, by looking at the complexity of miniature life. However, in recent critical conversations the insect rarely makes an appearance, despite evidence of this fascination with insects in Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Early moderns lived with insects on a daily basis, as they were the domestic creature (despite being undomesticated and uncontrollable), and are certainly at odds with charismatic megafauna and other larger life forms. Insects are often implied creatures on the early modern stage, not visible but certainly omnipresent, and Shakespeare’s plays often magnify the diminutive. The chapter considers the Shakespearean insect theater, or what Moffett called a “School of Insects” (Ggggv), paying particular attention to the issues of scale and magnitude. I seek to answer how we should read “real” insects in the plays—the fly (Titus Andronicus), the flea (1 Henry IV), and the butterfly (Coriolanus)—in relation to imagined insects or those used as rhetorical devices or character names—the bee (Henry V), the ant (King Lear), the beetle (The Tempest), and Moth, a diminutive page in Love’s Labour’s Lost and a fairy in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. This chapter thus examines the actual and imagined space the smallest of earth’s creatures occupy on Shakespeare’s stage and considers how audiences, no strangers to insect life themselves, might have related to the plethora of insect references in his plays.
根据埃里克·布朗(Eric Brown)的说法，昆虫在传统上被视为“人类的他者”，“在想象上以及在空间上、时间上都明显不同”，经常被视为人类的对手，因为它们会引起不安(xi-xv)。早期现代文学对昆虫的描述要求考虑人类与微型生命形式的关系。毕竟，在文艺复兴时期，尺寸很重要。在那个时期，自然历史学家、诗人和神学家都对地球上最小的生物与四足动物和人类的关系感到惊讶和惊奇。托马斯·莫菲特(Thomas Moffett)在《昆虫剧场》(The Theater of insect, 1634,1658)的序言中问道:“还有什么地方比在最细微的事物中更能看到大自然，在那里她是全部?”(Ffff5r)，而Johannes Jonstonus的《大自然奇妙事物的历史》(1657,tr. John Rowland)指出，“没有比这更了不起的大自然的杰作了;在这些渺小的、几乎一无所有的生物中，有什么理由、什么力量、什么不可言说的完美呢?”(Hhr1)。换句话说，通过观察微型生命的复杂性，我们可以看到完美。然而，在最近的批评性谈话中，昆虫很少出现，尽管有证据表明莎士比亚和他同时代的人对昆虫很着迷。早期的现代人每天都和昆虫生活在一起，因为它们是家养的生物(尽管它们是未被驯化和不受控制的)，当然，它们与有魅力的巨型动物和其他更大的生命形式是不一致的。在早期的现代舞台上，昆虫通常是一种隐含的生物，不可见，但肯定无处不在，莎士比亚的戏剧经常放大这种微小的生物。这一章考虑了莎士比亚的昆虫戏剧，或者莫菲特所说的“昆虫学派”(Ggggv)，特别关注了规模和规模的问题。我试图回答我们应该如何解读戏剧中“真实的”昆虫——苍蝇(提图斯·安多尼克斯)、跳蚤(《亨利四世》)和蝴蝶(科里奥兰纳斯)——与想象中的昆虫或那些用作修辞手段或人物名字的昆虫——蜜蜂(《亨利五世》)、蚂蚁(《李尔王》)、甲虫(《暴风雨》)，以及《爱情的徒劳》中的小页蛾和《仲夏夜之梦》中的仙女——的关系。因此，本章考察了地球上最小的生物在莎士比亚的舞台上所占据的实际和想象的空间，并考虑了对昆虫生活并不陌生的观众如何与他戏剧中过多的昆虫相关。
{"title":"Swarm Life","authors":"Keith M. Botelho","doi":"10.4324/9781003057192-14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003057192-14","url":null,"abstract":"Insects have traditionally been marked, according to Eric Brown, as “humanity’s Other,” “imaginatively as well as apparently (spatially, temporally) different,” often viewed as adversaries to man as they elicit unease (xi–xv). Early modern literary accounts of insects demand a consideration of mankind’s relationship to miniature life forms. After all, size matters in the Renaissance. Natural historians, poets, and theologians alike during the period wondered and marveled at the tiniest of earth’s creatures in relation to both four-footed beasts and man. In his Preface to The Theater of Insects (1634, 1658), Thomas Moffett asks, “Where is nature more to be seen than in the smallest matters, where she is entirely all?” (Ffff5r), while Johannes Jonstonus’s An History of the Wonderful Things of Nature Set Forth (1657, tr. John Rowland) notes that there is “no where a more remarkable piece of Nature’s Workmanship; and Nature is no where total, more than in the least Creatures … in these that are so small, and almost as nothing, what reason, what force, what unspeakable perfection is there?” (Hhr1). Perfection can be seen, in other words, by looking at the complexity of miniature life.\u0000 However, in recent critical conversations the insect rarely makes an appearance, despite evidence of this fascination with insects in Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Early moderns lived with insects on a daily basis, as they were the domestic creature (despite being undomesticated and uncontrollable), and are certainly at odds with charismatic megafauna and other larger life forms. Insects are often implied creatures on the early modern stage, not visible but certainly omnipresent, and Shakespeare’s plays often magnify the diminutive. The chapter considers the Shakespearean insect theater, or what Moffett called a “School of Insects” (Ggggv), paying particular attention to the issues of scale and magnitude. I seek to answer how we should read “real” insects in the plays—the fly (Titus Andronicus), the flea (1 Henry IV), and the butterfly (Coriolanus)—in relation to imagined insects or those used as rhetorical devices or character names—the bee (Henry V), the ant (King Lear), the beetle (The Tempest), and Moth, a diminutive page in Love’s Labour’s Lost and a fairy in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. This chapter thus examines the actual and imagined space the smallest of earth’s creatures occupy on Shakespeare’s stage and considers how audiences, no strangers to insect life themselves, might have related to the plethora of insect references in his plays.","PeriodicalId":230771,"journal":{"name":"The Routledge Handbook of Shakespeare and Animals","volume":"133 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132553585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：