Shakespeare's Demonology: A Dictionary By Marion Gibson and Jo Ann Esra London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Marion Gibson and Jo Ann Esra's dictionary of Shakespeare's demonological language is part of the topic-centered Arden Shakespeare Dictionaries series, edited by Sandra Clark, which also includes such works as Shakespeare's Medical Language, Shakespeare and the Language of Food, and Music in Shakespeare, among others. Though called a dictionary in its subtitle, Shakespeare's Demonology is in some respects more like an encyclopedia, with many longer entries that include not only definitions and examples from the plays but also extensive analytic commentary and selected references to scholarly work on each topic. A lengthy and useful bibliography is provided at the end. The dictionary covers a field with porous boundaries; as the authors point out in their introduction, demonologists of Shakespeare's time were interested in a variety of phenomena in addition to demons and devils, including ghosts, spirits, angels, astrology, witchcraft, magic, divination and prophecy. Indeed, the boundaries between the "demonic" and the "natural" or "divine"--and hence between demons and other types of beings--were exactly what was in dispute and required investigation. Gibson and Esra rightly take an inclusive approach in their dictionary, with richly satisfying results. There is, of course, no particular reason to think that Shakespeare's works were grounded in a distinct and internally consistent demonology, given the range of genres he worked in and the varying cultural and historical settings of his plays. Shakespeare does not offer us one cosmology or a single ideological stance; the Macbeth world is very different from the world of The Merry Wives of Windsor or of Henry IV, Part I, or for that matter, of most of the other tragedies. Nevertheless, this dictionary helps us identify some of Shakespeare's characteristic themes and tendencies and see more clearly the cross-currents of early modern thought that engaged his imagination. In so doing, it very successfully fulfills the authors' wish to provide "both a useful reference point and a stimulus to further scholarly work on key terms and ideas" (6). What, then, are some characteristics of the Shakespearean supernatural that can be teased out from this book? One thing stands out clearly: Shakespeare embraces diversity in his conceptualization of the spirit world, in contrast to the more polarized views of Calvinist contemporaries and indeed, most demonologists, whatever their doctrinal affiliation. As the authors put it in their introduction, the "oversimplifying binary structure" of demonological thought "may perhaps be seen as going against the grain of most of his work" (5). Hence, this dictionary calls our attention not only to demons and angels but to a range of intermediate or indeterminate beings, from the relatively familiar (the fairies of Midsummer Night's Dream, Ariel, the ghost of Hamlet's father) to
{"title":"Shakespeare's Demonology: A Dictionary","authors":"D. Willis","doi":"10.5040/9781472500403","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472500403","url":null,"abstract":"Shakespeare's Demonology: A Dictionary By Marion Gibson and Jo Ann Esra London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Marion Gibson and Jo Ann Esra's dictionary of Shakespeare's demonological language is part of the topic-centered Arden Shakespeare Dictionaries series, edited by Sandra Clark, which also includes such works as Shakespeare's Medical Language, Shakespeare and the Language of Food, and Music in Shakespeare, among others. Though called a dictionary in its subtitle, Shakespeare's Demonology is in some respects more like an encyclopedia, with many longer entries that include not only definitions and examples from the plays but also extensive analytic commentary and selected references to scholarly work on each topic. A lengthy and useful bibliography is provided at the end. The dictionary covers a field with porous boundaries; as the authors point out in their introduction, demonologists of Shakespeare's time were interested in a variety of phenomena in addition to demons and devils, including ghosts, spirits, angels, astrology, witchcraft, magic, divination and prophecy. Indeed, the boundaries between the \"demonic\" and the \"natural\" or \"divine\"--and hence between demons and other types of beings--were exactly what was in dispute and required investigation. Gibson and Esra rightly take an inclusive approach in their dictionary, with richly satisfying results. There is, of course, no particular reason to think that Shakespeare's works were grounded in a distinct and internally consistent demonology, given the range of genres he worked in and the varying cultural and historical settings of his plays. Shakespeare does not offer us one cosmology or a single ideological stance; the Macbeth world is very different from the world of The Merry Wives of Windsor or of Henry IV, Part I, or for that matter, of most of the other tragedies. Nevertheless, this dictionary helps us identify some of Shakespeare's characteristic themes and tendencies and see more clearly the cross-currents of early modern thought that engaged his imagination. In so doing, it very successfully fulfills the authors' wish to provide \"both a useful reference point and a stimulus to further scholarly work on key terms and ideas\" (6). What, then, are some characteristics of the Shakespearean supernatural that can be teased out from this book? One thing stands out clearly: Shakespeare embraces diversity in his conceptualization of the spirit world, in contrast to the more polarized views of Calvinist contemporaries and indeed, most demonologists, whatever their doctrinal affiliation. As the authors put it in their introduction, the \"oversimplifying binary structure\" of demonological thought \"may perhaps be seen as going against the grain of most of his work\" (5). Hence, this dictionary calls our attention not only to demons and angels but to a range of intermediate or indeterminate beings, from the relatively familiar (the fairies of Midsummer Night's Dream, Ariel, the ghost of Hamlet's father) to ","PeriodicalId":39628,"journal":{"name":"Shakespeare Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70510031","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}
Shakespeare on the University Stage. Edited by Andrew James Hartley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015 Andrew James Hartley's collection Shakespeare on the University Stage brings together sixteen essays that examine the phenomenon of campus Shakespeare from a range of historical, cultural, aesthetic and theoretical perspectives. As Hartley points out in his introduction, such performances provide the primary experience of live Shakespeare for many people around the world (and especially in the United States), yet they are remarkably evanescent and understudied. This impressive book helps to fill what Hartley has elsewhere called "one of Shakespeare criticism's singular blind spots" (Shakespeare Survey 65 [2012], 194). Shakespeare on the University Stage asks a range of searching questions in an attempt to understand the complex variety of university Shakespeare: "How does it uniquely manifest larger cultural concerns, assumptions, and prejudices, and how is it shaped by the pedagogical dimension of its academic context? How do such productions subvert or confirm ideas about theatre in general and Shakespeare in particular that are disseminated through the larger culture in complex and unexamined ways, and what is the relationship of those ideas to their equivalents on the professional stage?" (8-9). The diverse essays in Shakespeare on the University Stage provide an array of answers to these and other questions, and they certainly encourage sustained future scholarship on this neglected topic. The book begins and ends with two leaders in the Shakespeare performance field, Peter Holland and W. B. Worthen, who provide, respectively, a historical context for campus Shakespeare and a theoretical interrogation of it. In between, essays explore the development of Shakespeare performance in a range of international educational traditions. Many consider the cultural status of Shakespeare and the politics implicit in his role in education; several note how campus Shakespeare performances provide a laboratory for current concerns about ideology and identity (especially gender identity). Hartley's concern is not with how performance is used in classroom teaching, a topic much discussed elsewhere, but with actual productions: both those formally mounted by university departments as part of their teaching mission and cultural calendar, and those put on by ad hoc student groups for creative expression, intellectual enrichment, or simply fun. The essays in Shakespeare on the University Stage are not subdivided into labeled sections, but there is a meaningful arc to their organization. The book begins with the history of university Shakespeare in the Anglo-American world, then branches out into a consideration of different global traditions, and ends with a consideration of some of the challenges, and new potentialities, for educational Shakespeare performance today. Holland begins the historical section with a series of snapshots of early campus Sha
大学舞台上的莎士比亚。安德鲁·詹姆斯·哈特利编辑。剑桥:剑桥大学出版社，2015年安德鲁·詹姆斯·哈特利的《大学舞台上的莎士比亚》汇集了16篇文章，从历史、文化、美学和理论的角度研究了校园莎士比亚现象。正如哈特利在前言中指出的那样，这样的表演为世界各地的许多人(尤其是美国人)提供了第一手的现场莎士比亚体验，但它们却非常短暂，而且没有得到充分的研究。这本令人印象深刻的书有助于填补哈特利在其他地方所说的“莎士比亚评论的单一盲点之一”(莎士比亚调查65[2012]，194)。《大学舞台上的莎士比亚》提出了一系列探索性的问题，试图理解大学莎士比亚的复杂多样性:“它是如何独特地体现更大的文化关注、假设和偏见的?它是如何被学术背景的教学维度塑造的?”这些作品是如何颠覆或确认关于戏剧，特别是莎士比亚的观念的，这些观念是如何以复杂和未经检验的方式通过更大的文化传播的，这些观念与专业舞台上的对等物之间的关系是什么?”(8 - 9)。《大学舞台上的莎士比亚》中各种各样的文章为这些问题和其他问题提供了一系列的答案，它们肯定会鼓励未来在这个被忽视的话题上持续的学术研究。这本书的开头和结尾都是莎士比亚表演领域的两位领军人物，彼得·霍兰德(Peter Holland)和w·b·沃森(W. B. Worthen)，他们分别为校园莎士比亚提供了历史背景，并对其进行了理论追问。在此期间，论文探讨了莎士比亚表演在一系列国际教育传统中的发展。许多人认为莎士比亚的文化地位和政治隐含在他的教育角色中;一些人注意到校园莎士比亚表演如何为当前对意识形态和身份(尤其是性别身份)的关注提供了一个实验室。哈特利关注的不是如何在课堂教学中使用表演，这是一个在其他地方被广泛讨论的话题，而是实际的作品:既有大学院系作为教学任务和文化日历的一部分正式安装的，也有学生团体为了创造性表达、智力丰富或仅仅是娱乐而制作的。《大学舞台上的莎士比亚》中的文章并没有被细分成有标签的部分，但它们的组织有一个有意义的弧线。这本书从英美世界大学莎士比亚的历史开始，然后延伸到对不同全球传统的考虑，最后考虑了今天教育莎士比亚表演的一些挑战和新的潜力。霍兰德以一系列早期校园莎士比亚的快照作为历史部分的开始:从波洛尼尔斯对“在大学里演出一次”的回忆，到1610年牛津大学的演出，苔丝狄蒙娜打动了观众的同情，再到剑桥帕纳萨斯戏剧中对莎士比亚、白贝芝和坎普的嘲笑。令人惊讶的是，直到19世纪，英国的大学里似乎都没有定期上演莎士比亚的作品。当它出现时，它是业余和非官方的，由学生戏剧社团表演，与大学课程和专业戏剧都没有联系。最终，随着英语和戏剧/戏剧成为学术学科，它与两者都联系在一起(至少在美国)，每个学科都有自己对莎士比亚的投资。这段短暂而复杂的历史使校园莎士比亚成为“一个矛盾的文化和教育事件”，据霍兰德说:“它在大学和社区之间、教育和娱乐之间相互竞争和不可调和的需求的复杂间隙中发挥作用”(26)。…
{"title":"Shakespeare on the University Stage","authors":"J. Loehlin","doi":"10.5860/choice.190462","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.190462","url":null,"abstract":"Shakespeare on the University Stage. Edited by Andrew James Hartley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015 Andrew James Hartley's collection Shakespeare on the University Stage brings together sixteen essays that examine the phenomenon of campus Shakespeare from a range of historical, cultural, aesthetic and theoretical perspectives. As Hartley points out in his introduction, such performances provide the primary experience of live Shakespeare for many people around the world (and especially in the United States), yet they are remarkably evanescent and understudied. This impressive book helps to fill what Hartley has elsewhere called \"one of Shakespeare criticism's singular blind spots\" (Shakespeare Survey 65 [2012], 194). Shakespeare on the University Stage asks a range of searching questions in an attempt to understand the complex variety of university Shakespeare: \"How does it uniquely manifest larger cultural concerns, assumptions, and prejudices, and how is it shaped by the pedagogical dimension of its academic context? How do such productions subvert or confirm ideas about theatre in general and Shakespeare in particular that are disseminated through the larger culture in complex and unexamined ways, and what is the relationship of those ideas to their equivalents on the professional stage?\" (8-9). The diverse essays in Shakespeare on the University Stage provide an array of answers to these and other questions, and they certainly encourage sustained future scholarship on this neglected topic. The book begins and ends with two leaders in the Shakespeare performance field, Peter Holland and W. B. Worthen, who provide, respectively, a historical context for campus Shakespeare and a theoretical interrogation of it. In between, essays explore the development of Shakespeare performance in a range of international educational traditions. Many consider the cultural status of Shakespeare and the politics implicit in his role in education; several note how campus Shakespeare performances provide a laboratory for current concerns about ideology and identity (especially gender identity). Hartley's concern is not with how performance is used in classroom teaching, a topic much discussed elsewhere, but with actual productions: both those formally mounted by university departments as part of their teaching mission and cultural calendar, and those put on by ad hoc student groups for creative expression, intellectual enrichment, or simply fun. The essays in Shakespeare on the University Stage are not subdivided into labeled sections, but there is a meaningful arc to their organization. The book begins with the history of university Shakespeare in the Anglo-American world, then branches out into a consideration of different global traditions, and ends with a consideration of some of the challenges, and new potentialities, for educational Shakespeare performance today. Holland begins the historical section with a series of snapshots of early campus Sha","PeriodicalId":39628,"journal":{"name":"Shakespeare Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71027750","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}
{"title":"\"Try what repentance can\": Hamlet, Confession, and the Extraction of Interiority","authors":"P. Stegner","doi":"10.1057/9781137558619_4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137558619_4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39628,"journal":{"name":"Shakespeare Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58223102","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}
The Poetics of Piracy: Emulating Spain in English Literature By Barbara Fuchs Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013 What would the discipline of Anglo-Spanish literary relations look like if the lost play Cardenio by William Shakespeare and John Fletcher, based on Miguel de Cervantes's Don Quijote, were discovered? As Barbara Fuchs explains in the introduction to her exceptional book, The Poetics of Piracy: Emulating Spain in English Literature, Cardenio is the Holy Grail and the "absent presence" (1) of Anglo-Spanish culture. The Poetics of Piracy is, in many ways, a response to the surge of high-profile interest in this "absent center" (1), as seen in endeavors ranging from Stephen Greenblatt's The Cardenio Project (2003) through Gregory Doran's rewriting of Cardenio for the RSC (2011) to an Arden edition of Lewis Theobald's Double Falsehood (2010), an eighteenth-century adaptation of Cardenio. In the introduction and final two chapters of the book, Fuchs engages directly with the textual history of Cardenio, offering sustained critiques of recent bibliographic, academic, and creative approaches to the play in order to question its centrality to the discipline and to demonstrate how its prominence is rooted in both Hispanophobia and good, old-fashioned Bardolatry. Yet, Fuchs's project is much more than an intervention in the debate surrounding the absence of this lost play; The Poetics of Piracy skillfully and cogently exposes "the Spanish connection that makes sense of Cardenio" (1), the vibrant, sustained, and often paradoxical networks of relations between English and Spanish culture. The early modern period represents an era of tension between Spain and England, with especially strained feelings mounting at pivotal moments such as the hostilities culminating in the Armada; piracy, privateering, and the feud for wealth and power in the New World; the failed courtship of Prince Charles and the Spanish Infanta; and the Thirty Years' War. These incidents affected the reception of Spanish texts in surprising ways. As a Catholic superpower, Spain posed significant political and ideological threats to England. English racial bigotry impacted the perception of Spaniards, who were feared not only for their Catholicism but also for their supposed Moorish or Jewish heritage. Essential to the national imagination and to the self-construction of Englishness was a differentiation from Catholic continental Europe and a perception of England as a strong, unique Protestant nation. Paradoxically, despite the abundance of documented hostility towards Spain, readers continued to enjoy Spanish literature throughout the period and steadily increasing numbers sought to learn the language. As Fuchs explains, "The cultural fascination with Spain never waned, even when it was most inconvenient in military or religious terms" (9). Spanish literary genres, forms, and plots inspired myriad Elizabethan and Jacobean writers, including many studied by Fuchs
{"title":"The Poetics of Piracy: Emulating Spain in English Literature","authors":"J. Boro","doi":"10.5860/choice.51-2517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.51-2517","url":null,"abstract":"The Poetics of Piracy: Emulating Spain in English Literature By Barbara Fuchs Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013 What would the discipline of Anglo-Spanish literary relations look like if the lost play Cardenio by William Shakespeare and John Fletcher, based on Miguel de Cervantes's Don Quijote, were discovered? As Barbara Fuchs explains in the introduction to her exceptional book, The Poetics of Piracy: Emulating Spain in English Literature, Cardenio is the Holy Grail and the \"absent presence\" (1) of Anglo-Spanish culture. The Poetics of Piracy is, in many ways, a response to the surge of high-profile interest in this \"absent center\" (1), as seen in endeavors ranging from Stephen Greenblatt's The Cardenio Project (2003) through Gregory Doran's rewriting of Cardenio for the RSC (2011) to an Arden edition of Lewis Theobald's Double Falsehood (2010), an eighteenth-century adaptation of Cardenio. In the introduction and final two chapters of the book, Fuchs engages directly with the textual history of Cardenio, offering sustained critiques of recent bibliographic, academic, and creative approaches to the play in order to question its centrality to the discipline and to demonstrate how its prominence is rooted in both Hispanophobia and good, old-fashioned Bardolatry. Yet, Fuchs's project is much more than an intervention in the debate surrounding the absence of this lost play; The Poetics of Piracy skillfully and cogently exposes \"the Spanish connection that makes sense of Cardenio\" (1), the vibrant, sustained, and often paradoxical networks of relations between English and Spanish culture. The early modern period represents an era of tension between Spain and England, with especially strained feelings mounting at pivotal moments such as the hostilities culminating in the Armada; piracy, privateering, and the feud for wealth and power in the New World; the failed courtship of Prince Charles and the Spanish Infanta; and the Thirty Years' War. These incidents affected the reception of Spanish texts in surprising ways. As a Catholic superpower, Spain posed significant political and ideological threats to England. English racial bigotry impacted the perception of Spaniards, who were feared not only for their Catholicism but also for their supposed Moorish or Jewish heritage. Essential to the national imagination and to the self-construction of Englishness was a differentiation from Catholic continental Europe and a perception of England as a strong, unique Protestant nation. Paradoxically, despite the abundance of documented hostility towards Spain, readers continued to enjoy Spanish literature throughout the period and steadily increasing numbers sought to learn the language. As Fuchs explains, \"The cultural fascination with Spain never waned, even when it was most inconvenient in military or religious terms\" (9). Spanish literary genres, forms, and plots inspired myriad Elizabethan and Jacobean writers, including many studied by Fuchs","PeriodicalId":39628,"journal":{"name":"Shakespeare Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71143655","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}
Shakespearean Sensations: Experiencing Literature in Early Modern England Edited by Katharine A. Craik and Tanya Pollard Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013 Shakespearean Sensations joins an ongoing conversation in the field of early modern studies about the logic of the senses, the affects, and conditions of embodied subjectivity in and around the plays and poems of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. The volume offers ten new essays by distinguished and innovative scholars that consider, collectively, the "sensations aroused by imaginative literature" (3) or more concretely, how Shakespeare and his contemporaries may have understood the impact of drama and poetry on audiences and readers. The editors, who have each produced sustained studies of literature and forms of sensory response, Katherine A. Craik (Reading Sensations in Early Modern England) and Tanya Pollard [Drugs and Theater in Early Modern England), seem an ideal team to open up new directions in this field. Indeed, in the company of several thoughtful edited collections in recent years, including Knowing Shakespeare: Senses, Embodiment and Cognition, edited by Lowell Gallagher and Shankar Raman (2010), Embodied Cognition and Shakespeare's Theatre: The Early Modern Body-Mind, edited by Laurie Johnson, John Sutton and Evelyn Tribble (2014), and the earlier Reading the Early Modern Passions, edited by Gail Kern Paster, Katherine Rowe, and Mary Floyd-Wilson (2004), Craik and Pollard's volume offers a timely contribution to scholarship on intersecting histories of literature, affect, and embodiment. Shakespearean Sensations, however, sets itself apart from this developing body of scholarship by calling for an intensive focus on "literature's effects," or imagined effects, on early modern audiences and readers. "How did early modern writers," ask Craik and Pollard at the outset of the Introduction, "imagine the effects of plays and poems on minds, bodies, and souls?" (1). They further refine the scope of the volume by asking their contributors to consider, or reconsider, "the period's investment in imagining literature's impact on feeling" (1). While re-familiarizing readers with early discourses concerned with both literary impact and "the physiology of affect," including classical and renaissance rhetoric, philosophy and medicine, debates about religion, and treatises on the powers and dangers of theater and poetry, Craik and Pollard ask their contributors to consider early modern discourses of literary impact in new ways. For in light of both the "affective turn" in a number of disciplines within and beyond the humanities and the need for scholars to articulate the value of literary study, the editors stress the importance of historicizing "literature's shaping impact on audiences" in order to deepen our understanding of "the period's beliefs about how and why literature mattered" (25). By emphasizing the urgency of excavating "the historical specificities of the period's vocab
莎士比亚的感觉:体验文学在早期现代英国编辑凯瑟琳A.克雷克和坦尼娅波拉德剑桥:剑桥大学出版社，2013年莎士比亚的感觉加入了一个正在进行的对话在早期现代研究领域的感官的逻辑，影响，和体现主体性的条件在莎士比亚和他同时代的戏剧和诗歌。这本书收录了十篇由杰出的、有创新精神的学者撰写的新论文，这些学者共同探讨了“由富有想象力的文学唤起的感觉”，或者更具体地说，探讨了莎士比亚和他同时代的人是如何理解戏剧和诗歌对观众和读者的影响的。两位编辑凯瑟琳·a·克雷克(Katherine A. Craik)(《英国早期现代的阅读感受》)和坦尼娅·波拉德(Tanya Pollard)(《英国早期现代的毒品和戏剧》)都对文学和感觉反应形式进行了持续的研究，他们似乎是在这一领域开辟新方向的理想团队。事实上，近年来，在一些有思想的编辑文集中，包括洛厄尔·加拉格尔和尚卡尔·拉曼编辑的《认识莎士比亚:感官、体现和认知》(2010)、《体现认知和莎士比亚戏剧》:由劳里·约翰逊、约翰·萨顿和伊夫林·特里布尔编辑的《早期现代身心》(2014年)，以及由盖尔·科恩·帕斯特、凯瑟琳·罗和玛丽·弗洛伊德-威尔逊编辑的《早期现代激情》(2004年)，克雷克和波拉德的这本书为文学、情感和体现的交叉历史的学术研究做出了及时的贡献。然而，《莎士比亚的感觉》与这一发展中的学术体系不同，它呼吁集中关注“文学的影响”，或对早期现代观众和读者的想象影响。“早期的现代作家，”克雷克和波拉德在前言的开头问道，“是如何想象戏剧和诗歌对思想、身体和灵魂的影响的?”他们进一步细化了这本书的范围，要求他们的贡献者考虑或重新考虑，“这一时期在想象文学对感觉的影响方面的投资”(1)。在让读者重新熟悉与文学影响和“情感生理学”有关的早期话语的同时，包括古典和文艺复兴时期的修辞学，哲学和医学，关于宗教的辩论，以及关于戏剧和诗歌的力量和危险的论文，克雷克和波拉德要求他们的贡献者以新的方式考虑文学影响的早期现代话语。鉴于人文学科内外许多学科的“情感转向”，以及学者们需要阐明文学研究的价值，编辑们强调了将“文学对受众的塑造影响”历史化的重要性，以加深我们对“那个时期关于文学如何以及为什么重要的信念”的理解(25)。通过强调挖掘“描述消费者文学体验的那个时期词汇的历史特殊性，以及这些描述挑战我们自己对文学是什么和做什么的假设的方式”的紧迫性(5)，他们进一步提高了收藏的风险。接下来的十篇文章在很多方面都围绕着“影响”和“效果”的基本问题，而在主题和论点上有很大的不同。文章包括艾莉森·p·霍布古德对《麦克白》及其周围的恐惧(或“恐惧症”)的影响的分析，以及马修·斯特格尔对莎士比亚剧院及其周围的鼓掌的修辞和戏剧化的研究。这两篇文章都考察了演员和观众之间的相互关系，但却揭示了早期现代戏剧中“感觉”的完全不同的画面。霍布古德的第一篇文章《在麦克白中感受恐惧》(Feeling fear in Macbeth)将恐惧作为一种情感传染形式，与麦克白及其周围的身体疾病联系在一起(包括这部剧臭名昭著的不稳定的制作历史)。…
{"title":"Shakespearean Sensations: Experiencing Literature in Early Modern England","authors":"Carla Mazzio","doi":"10.5860/choice.51-3713","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.51-3713","url":null,"abstract":"Shakespearean Sensations: Experiencing Literature in Early Modern England Edited by Katharine A. Craik and Tanya Pollard Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013 Shakespearean Sensations joins an ongoing conversation in the field of early modern studies about the logic of the senses, the affects, and conditions of embodied subjectivity in and around the plays and poems of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. The volume offers ten new essays by distinguished and innovative scholars that consider, collectively, the \"sensations aroused by imaginative literature\" (3) or more concretely, how Shakespeare and his contemporaries may have understood the impact of drama and poetry on audiences and readers. The editors, who have each produced sustained studies of literature and forms of sensory response, Katherine A. Craik (Reading Sensations in Early Modern England) and Tanya Pollard [Drugs and Theater in Early Modern England), seem an ideal team to open up new directions in this field. Indeed, in the company of several thoughtful edited collections in recent years, including Knowing Shakespeare: Senses, Embodiment and Cognition, edited by Lowell Gallagher and Shankar Raman (2010), Embodied Cognition and Shakespeare's Theatre: The Early Modern Body-Mind, edited by Laurie Johnson, John Sutton and Evelyn Tribble (2014), and the earlier Reading the Early Modern Passions, edited by Gail Kern Paster, Katherine Rowe, and Mary Floyd-Wilson (2004), Craik and Pollard's volume offers a timely contribution to scholarship on intersecting histories of literature, affect, and embodiment. Shakespearean Sensations, however, sets itself apart from this developing body of scholarship by calling for an intensive focus on \"literature's effects,\" or imagined effects, on early modern audiences and readers. \"How did early modern writers,\" ask Craik and Pollard at the outset of the Introduction, \"imagine the effects of plays and poems on minds, bodies, and souls?\" (1). They further refine the scope of the volume by asking their contributors to consider, or reconsider, \"the period's investment in imagining literature's impact on feeling\" (1). While re-familiarizing readers with early discourses concerned with both literary impact and \"the physiology of affect,\" including classical and renaissance rhetoric, philosophy and medicine, debates about religion, and treatises on the powers and dangers of theater and poetry, Craik and Pollard ask their contributors to consider early modern discourses of literary impact in new ways. For in light of both the \"affective turn\" in a number of disciplines within and beyond the humanities and the need for scholars to articulate the value of literary study, the editors stress the importance of historicizing \"literature's shaping impact on audiences\" in order to deepen our understanding of \"the period's beliefs about how and why literature mattered\" (25). By emphasizing the urgency of excavating \"the historical specificities of the period's vocab","PeriodicalId":39628,"journal":{"name":"Shakespeare Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71145406","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}
Barbarous Antiquity: Reorienting the Past in the Poetry of Early Modern England By Miriam Jacobson Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014 Early in Miriam Jacobson's impressive new study of Eastern imports and English poetry, she contrasts our contemporary approach to the reading of poetry with the early modern approach: Although poetry is always drawing attention to its sinews and musculature, today we are supposed to wrestle through this infrastructure to arrive at a poem's meaning ... But early modern language was neither transparent nor fixed in meaning, nor was composition distanced from the physical exertion of writing and printing as much as it is in our digital age. Though this could be said about all poetry, early modern writers and readers in particular demonstrated a heightened awareness of the "thingness" of words, not only as building blocks of text but also as marks on a page and as imports from other countries and cultures. (15) Barbarous Antiquity examines the nature of early modern English poetry--above all, its semantic flexibility and "thingness"--at a crucial moment in its development. In the late sixteenth century, Jacobson argues, the growth of English trade with the Ottoman Empire coincided with a waning in the authority of Greek and Roman literary models. The fruits of this trade (new goods from Constantinople, Persia, and India) furnished English poets with new words and images that they, in turn, imported into their representations of classical antiquity. In the poetic imagination, then, the eastern Mediterranean became a kind of palimpsest, with visions of the classical world bleeding through at one moment and visions of the Ottoman world blotting them out at another. Although English writers generally found the growth of Ottoman power disturbing, many also found this double vision of the East useful as they progressed from close imitation to freer adaptation of classical literary models. "In this way," Jacobson writes, "the classical antiquity represented in early modern English poetry became newly barbarous" (1). In each chapter, Jacobson "reorients" a central text by focusing on the imported words and images that helped its author to "remediate" the classical past. Chapter 4, for instance, explores Shakespeare's descriptions of Arabian horses and Turkish bulbs in Venus and Adonis, images that mark the poem's main points of departure from its Ovidian source. Other chapters uncover connections between George Puttenham's The Arte of English Poesie and sugar, Ben Jonson's Poetaster and inkhorn terms, Shakespeare's The Rape of Lucrece and the lately introduced concept of zero. In the final chapter, Christopher Marlowe and George Chapman's Hero and Leander oozes with pearls, dyes, and ink. Tracing the etymology of key words, the origin of imports (e.g., sugar from Crete, the concept of zero from India), and their presence in English life, Jacobson develops a rich picture of a cosmopolitan literary culture eage
《野蛮的古代:在早期现代英国诗歌中重新定位过去》作者:Miriam Jacobson费城:宾夕法尼亚大学出版社，2014年在Miriam Jacobson关于东方进口和英国诗歌的令人印象深刻的新研究中，她将我们当代的诗歌阅读方法与早期现代的诗歌阅读方法进行了对比:虽然诗歌总是把注意力吸引到它的肌肉和肌肉组织上，但今天我们应该通过这种基础结构来达到诗歌的意义……但早期的现代语言既不透明，也没有固定的意义，也不像在我们的数字时代那样，写作和印刷与体力消耗之间的距离如此之远。虽然这适用于所有诗歌，但早期现代作家和读者尤其表现出对文字“物性”的高度认识，它们不仅是文本的组成部分，而且是页面上的标记，是来自其他国家和文化的舶来品。(15)《野蛮的古代》考察了早期现代英语诗歌的本质——首先是它的语义灵活性和“物性”——在其发展的关键时刻。雅各布森认为，在16世纪晚期，英国与奥斯曼帝国贸易的增长与希腊和罗马文学模式权威的衰落相一致。这种贸易的成果(来自君士坦丁堡、波斯和印度的新商品)为英国诗人提供了新的词汇和形象，反过来，他们将这些词汇和形象输入到他们对古典古代的表现中。因此，在诗意的想象中，东地中海成为了一种重写本，古典世界的景象时而流淌，奥斯曼世界的景象又时而抹去。尽管英国作家普遍认为奥斯曼帝国的权力增长令人不安，但许多人也发现这种对东方的双重看法很有用，因为他们从密切模仿到更自由地适应古典文学模式。“通过这种方式，”雅各布森写道，“早期现代英语诗歌所代表的古典古代变得新的野蛮”(1)。在每一章中，雅各布森通过关注那些帮助作者“修复”古典过去的舶来词和图像，来“重新定位”中心文本。例如，第四章探讨了莎士比亚在《维纳斯》和《阿多尼斯》中对阿拉伯马和土耳其灯泡的描述，这些形象标志着这首诗与奥维德起源的主要区别。其他章节揭示了乔治·普特纳姆(George Puttenham)的《英国诗歌艺术》与糖、本·琼森(Ben Jonson)的《诗人》与墨角术语、莎士比亚的《强奸卢克蕾斯》(The Rape of Lucrece)与最近引入的零概念之间的联系。在最后一章中，克里斯托弗·马洛和乔治·查普曼的《英雄与利安德》充满了珍珠、染料和墨水。通过追踪关键词的词源、进口商品的起源(例如，来自克里特岛的糖、来自印度的零的概念)以及它们在英国生活中的存在，雅各布森描绘了一幅丰富的世界主义文学文化的画面，描绘了渴望“奇怪的事物和奇怪的词汇”(4)。为了表达这种文化，她不仅邀请了诗人和剧作家，还邀请了早期现代的君主、商人、博物学家和旅行者，以及园艺、烹饪和养马手册的作者。为什么会有这些东西和文本?《野蛮的古代》认为进口的物品和技术符合布鲁诺·拉图尔的社会媒介范畴，这些东西通过物质变化“重新配置”了它们(被)进口的市场和文化(128)。拉图尔对比了中介人与中介人，后者“通过抽象的、象征性的关系表明了一种变化”(16)。用雅各布森的例子来说，丝袜曾经是“上流社会奢侈品的象征”;然后尼龙，这种材料的发展使长袜更广泛地使用，并改变了它们的象征价值，作为调解人出现(16)。…
{"title":"Barbarous Antiquity: Reorienting the Past in the Poetry of Early Modern England","authors":"A. Shapiro","doi":"10.5860/choice.188141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.188141","url":null,"abstract":"Barbarous Antiquity: Reorienting the Past in the Poetry of Early Modern England By Miriam Jacobson Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014 Early in Miriam Jacobson's impressive new study of Eastern imports and English poetry, she contrasts our contemporary approach to the reading of poetry with the early modern approach: Although poetry is always drawing attention to its sinews and musculature, today we are supposed to wrestle through this infrastructure to arrive at a poem's meaning ... But early modern language was neither transparent nor fixed in meaning, nor was composition distanced from the physical exertion of writing and printing as much as it is in our digital age. Though this could be said about all poetry, early modern writers and readers in particular demonstrated a heightened awareness of the \"thingness\" of words, not only as building blocks of text but also as marks on a page and as imports from other countries and cultures. (15) Barbarous Antiquity examines the nature of early modern English poetry--above all, its semantic flexibility and \"thingness\"--at a crucial moment in its development. In the late sixteenth century, Jacobson argues, the growth of English trade with the Ottoman Empire coincided with a waning in the authority of Greek and Roman literary models. The fruits of this trade (new goods from Constantinople, Persia, and India) furnished English poets with new words and images that they, in turn, imported into their representations of classical antiquity. In the poetic imagination, then, the eastern Mediterranean became a kind of palimpsest, with visions of the classical world bleeding through at one moment and visions of the Ottoman world blotting them out at another. Although English writers generally found the growth of Ottoman power disturbing, many also found this double vision of the East useful as they progressed from close imitation to freer adaptation of classical literary models. \"In this way,\" Jacobson writes, \"the classical antiquity represented in early modern English poetry became newly barbarous\" (1). In each chapter, Jacobson \"reorients\" a central text by focusing on the imported words and images that helped its author to \"remediate\" the classical past. Chapter 4, for instance, explores Shakespeare's descriptions of Arabian horses and Turkish bulbs in Venus and Adonis, images that mark the poem's main points of departure from its Ovidian source. Other chapters uncover connections between George Puttenham's The Arte of English Poesie and sugar, Ben Jonson's Poetaster and inkhorn terms, Shakespeare's The Rape of Lucrece and the lately introduced concept of zero. In the final chapter, Christopher Marlowe and George Chapman's Hero and Leander oozes with pearls, dyes, and ink. Tracing the etymology of key words, the origin of imports (e.g., sugar from Crete, the concept of zero from India), and their presence in English life, Jacobson develops a rich picture of a cosmopolitan literary culture eage","PeriodicalId":39628,"journal":{"name":"Shakespeare Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71026828","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 : 2008-01-01DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511481437.004
R. Weimann, Douglas Bruster
WITH THE ADVENT OF MARLOWE the aims of representation in the Elizabethan theater were sharply redefined. As the prologues to Tamburlaine suggested, the dramatist literally felt authorized to "lead" the theater to a new horizon of legitimation, one against which the hero could more nearly be viewed as a self-contained "picture." Such a portrait would "unfold" the scene "at large"; the character "himself in presence" would dominate the performance. This at least is how the Prologue to The Second Part of Tamburlaine the Great proceeded to elucidate the uses of "this tragic glass" in the earlier Prologue: But what became of fair Zenocrate, And with how many cities' sacrifice He [Tamburlaine] celebrated her sad funeral, Himself in presence shall unfold at large.(1) As promised on the title page, the heroic character's "presence" continued to be felt in "his impassionate fury." As Richard Jones, the printer, assumed in his Preface to the Octavo and Quarto editions of 1590, these fruits of a literary imagination would have appealed "To the Gentlemen Readers and others that take pleasure in reading Histories." Moving easily from stage to page, these eminently readable representations, forthwith available in print, recommended themselves in terms of what "worthiness" the "eloquence of the author" could profitably deliver to a gentle preoccupation with "serious affairs and studies." The flow of authority now seemed to be not simply from text to performance, but--an even closer circuit--from the dramatic writing--via the printing--into the studies of those familiar with "reading Histories." Or so at least Jones, a not entirely unbiased observer, would have it. London theater audiences, even when hugely thrilled by Edward Alleyn's portrait of Tamburlaine, appeared to take a different view, even when what they "greatly gaped at" did not find its way into the printed text. Here, to recall the partisan position ]ones betrays in his Preface provides us with an illuminating foil against which to read the treatment, between Marlowe and Shakespeare, of how comic or grotesque "jestures" were mingled, or otherwise, with the "worthiness of the matter itself." In Marlowe's plays it was possible, at least in print, to view serious matter as incompatible with such "graced deformities" as performances on public stages entailed. Participating in the countermanding flow of authority, even snatching part of it for himself as a discriminating reader, the printer, apparently without intervention on the part of the dramatist, saw fit radically to cancel out the most gaped-at elements of performance. Since, obviously, the latter were viewed as having no authority of their own, the tragical discourse was not to be contaminated by "some fond and frivolous" traces of mere players; these needed to be refined out of existence, as befitted "so honorable and stately a history." Unfortunately, we can do little more than conjecture Marlowe's perspective on the issue of this cultural diff
{"title":"Shakespeare and the Power of Performance: Mingling vice and “worthiness” in King John","authors":"R. Weimann, Douglas Bruster","doi":"10.1017/CBO9780511481437.004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481437.004","url":null,"abstract":"WITH THE ADVENT OF MARLOWE the aims of representation in the Elizabethan theater were sharply redefined. As the prologues to Tamburlaine suggested, the dramatist literally felt authorized to \"lead\" the theater to a new horizon of legitimation, one against which the hero could more nearly be viewed as a self-contained \"picture.\" Such a portrait would \"unfold\" the scene \"at large\"; the character \"himself in presence\" would dominate the performance. This at least is how the Prologue to The Second Part of Tamburlaine the Great proceeded to elucidate the uses of \"this tragic glass\" in the earlier Prologue: But what became of fair Zenocrate, And with how many cities' sacrifice He [Tamburlaine] celebrated her sad funeral, Himself in presence shall unfold at large.(1) As promised on the title page, the heroic character's \"presence\" continued to be felt in \"his impassionate fury.\" As Richard Jones, the printer, assumed in his Preface to the Octavo and Quarto editions of 1590, these fruits of a literary imagination would have appealed \"To the Gentlemen Readers and others that take pleasure in reading Histories.\" Moving easily from stage to page, these eminently readable representations, forthwith available in print, recommended themselves in terms of what \"worthiness\" the \"eloquence of the author\" could profitably deliver to a gentle preoccupation with \"serious affairs and studies.\" The flow of authority now seemed to be not simply from text to performance, but--an even closer circuit--from the dramatic writing--via the printing--into the studies of those familiar with \"reading Histories.\" Or so at least Jones, a not entirely unbiased observer, would have it. London theater audiences, even when hugely thrilled by Edward Alleyn's portrait of Tamburlaine, appeared to take a different view, even when what they \"greatly gaped at\" did not find its way into the printed text. Here, to recall the partisan position ]ones betrays in his Preface provides us with an illuminating foil against which to read the treatment, between Marlowe and Shakespeare, of how comic or grotesque \"jestures\" were mingled, or otherwise, with the \"worthiness of the matter itself.\" In Marlowe's plays it was possible, at least in print, to view serious matter as incompatible with such \"graced deformities\" as performances on public stages entailed. Participating in the countermanding flow of authority, even snatching part of it for himself as a discriminating reader, the printer, apparently without intervention on the part of the dramatist, saw fit radically to cancel out the most gaped-at elements of performance. Since, obviously, the latter were viewed as having no authority of their own, the tragical discourse was not to be contaminated by \"some fond and frivolous\" traces of mere players; these needed to be refined out of existence, as befitted \"so honorable and stately a history.\" Unfortunately, we can do little more than conjecture Marlowe's perspective on the issue of this cultural diff","PeriodicalId":39628,"journal":{"name":"Shakespeare Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57049512","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}
I'M TRYING TO IMAGINE what it might mean to buy a book "at the Ben Johnson's Head in Thredneedle-street" in 1656. I stumble upon this shop sign in reading a list of plays available in print--a list published at the end of The Old Law, a play attributed on its title page to Middleton, Rowley, and Massinger. Advertised as "An Exact and perfect CATALOGUE of all the PLAIES that were ever printed; together, with all the Authors names; and what are Comedies, Histories, and Interludes, Masks, Pastorels, Tragedies,"(1) and running to sixteen pages and 622 titles, this list groups plays alphabetically by title and includes a column noting the genre of each play--comedy, tragedy, interlude, masque--by abbreviation (C, T, I, M), and a column that sometimes attributes authorship. "All these Plaies," the catalogue promises, "you may either have at the Signe of the Adam and Eve, in Little Britain; or, at the Ben Johnson's Head in Thredneedle-street, over against the Exchange."(2) The Jonson's Head was the sign for Robert Pollard's shop from 1655 until at least 1658;(3) a later list, published in 1661 by Francis Kirkman, advertises as one of its locations for the buying and selling of plays "the John Fletchers Head."(4) I want to ask what it means to place a playwright's head on a shop sign--to sell under its sign, or to read it, in an advertisement or in the street. What kind of sign do these head signs represent? Part of an answer lies in the formatting of the play catalogues themselves. As they emerge in the 1650s, '60s, and '70s, the catalogues seem to me to trace the rising (though still tentative) importance of authorship as a visible category for organizing printed drama. To the extent that they engage authorship (and they do so to different degrees), the catalogues seem not as interested in consistency with even the other available printed attributions as they are in promoting a growing interest in plays associated with recognizable names.(5) The first extant list, published with The Careless Sheperdes in 1656, is organized to facilitate locating plays alphabetically by title, with occasional authorial identifications following in italics. There is no separate column for authors.(6) The Old Law catalogue likewise lists plays alphabetically by title, with a column for genre, and then a column with more frequent notation of authorship in italics.(7) A 1661 list--Francis Kirkman's initial effort, published in an old interlude--places an author column first ("Names of the Authors"), but continues to arrange/group the plays alphabetically by title ("Names of the Playes").(8) In the layout of Kirkman's page, authorship is thus marked more prominently than in the earlier catalogues, but title remains the organizing principle. Kirkman's second list, published with a translation of Corneille's Nicomede in 1671, uses the same column arrangement, but in its "Advertisement to the Reader," the publisher bestows great attention on what he calls "the placing of names,
我试着想象1656年“在针街的本·约翰逊书店”买一本书可能意味着什么。我是在阅读一份已出版的戏剧清单时偶然发现这个招牌的——这份清单发表在《旧法》(the Old Law)的末尾，该剧的扉页上注明作者是米德尔顿、罗利和马辛格。广告上写着“所有已印刷的戏剧的精确而完美的目录;连同所有作者的姓名;以及什么是喜剧、历史、插曲、假面剧、杂耍剧、悲剧”(1)。这个列表有16页，622个标题，按照标题的字母顺序排列，包括一栏，用缩写(C, T, I, M)标出每部戏剧的类型——喜剧、悲剧、插曲、假面剧，还有一栏有时注明作者。“所有这些戏剧，”目录上写道，“你可以在小不列颠的亚当和夏娃的标志处找到;或者,在Thredneedle-street本·约翰逊的头,对著交换。”(2)琼森的头是罗伯特·波拉德的商店的标志从1655年至少到1658年;(3)后面的列表,弗朗西斯教徒在1661年出版,广告作为它的一个位置的买卖扮演“约翰·弗莱彻头”。(4)我想问意味着什么地方一个剧作家的头在店铺招牌——出售其符号,或阅读它,在一个广告或者在街上。这些头部的标志代表什么?部分答案在于戏剧目录本身的格式。在17世纪50年代、60年代和70年代出现的目录，在我看来，似乎追溯了作者身份作为组织印刷戏剧的可见类别的重要性日益上升(尽管仍是尝试性的)。在某种程度上，它们涉及作者身份(它们在不同程度上这样做)，目录似乎对与其他可用的印刷署名的一致性不感兴趣，他们更感兴趣的是促进人们对与可识别的名字有关的戏剧的日益增长的兴趣。(5)第一个现存的目录是在1656年与《漫不经心的谢泼德斯》一起出版的，它的组织是为了方便按标题字母顺序定位戏剧，偶尔作者身份以斜体显示。(6)旧法目录同样按标题字母顺序列出戏剧，其中一栏为类型，然后一栏用斜体字更频繁地标记作者。(7)1661年的列表-弗朗西斯·柯克曼最初的努力，发表在一个旧的插曲中-将作者列在首位(“作者的名字”)，但继续按标题字母顺序排列/分组(“剧本的名字”)。作者身份因此被标记更突出比在早期的目录，但标题仍然是组织原则。柯克曼的第二份目录是在1671年出版的，与高乃依的《尼科米德》的翻译一起出版，使用了相同的列排列，但在“给读者的广告”中，出版商非常关注他所谓的“名字的排列”，他认为这种系统是一种创新。(9)柯克曼解释说，在1671年的目录中，他把最多产的剧作家的剧本按字母顺序排列在每个字母的开头:虽然我在上一份目录中煞费苦心地有条不紊地列出了这些名字，但现在我又采取了一种更好的方法，这样列出了这些名字。首先，我要从莎士比亚说起，他总共写了48部作品。然后是博蒙特和弗莱彻五十二岁，约翰逊五十岁，雪莉三十八岁，海伍德二十五岁，米德尔顿和罗利二十七岁，马森格十六岁，查普曼十七岁，布罗梅十七岁，达文南十四岁;这样，这十个人一共写了304篇。其余的都是少于10的作品，因此我把它们当作旧目录中的作品。(10)柯克曼的系统是戏剧作者作为一个类别出现的一个重大创新:在一个对印刷戏剧收藏感兴趣的新兴的爱书文化的时刻，(11)他开始专注于发现/生产具有可识别的、可定义的语库的作者——他们的剧本可以分组的作家。．．．
{"title":"Ben Jonson's Head","authors":"J. Masten","doi":"10.1093/nq/s6-ii.30.75d","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/nq/s6-ii.30.75d","url":null,"abstract":"I'M TRYING TO IMAGINE what it might mean to buy a book \"at the Ben Johnson's Head in Thredneedle-street\" in 1656. I stumble upon this shop sign in reading a list of plays available in print--a list published at the end of The Old Law, a play attributed on its title page to Middleton, Rowley, and Massinger. Advertised as \"An Exact and perfect CATALOGUE of all the PLAIES that were ever printed; together, with all the Authors names; and what are Comedies, Histories, and Interludes, Masks, Pastorels, Tragedies,\"(1) and running to sixteen pages and 622 titles, this list groups plays alphabetically by title and includes a column noting the genre of each play--comedy, tragedy, interlude, masque--by abbreviation (C, T, I, M), and a column that sometimes attributes authorship. \"All these Plaies,\" the catalogue promises, \"you may either have at the Signe of the Adam and Eve, in Little Britain; or, at the Ben Johnson's Head in Thredneedle-street, over against the Exchange.\"(2) The Jonson's Head was the sign for Robert Pollard's shop from 1655 until at least 1658;(3) a later list, published in 1661 by Francis Kirkman, advertises as one of its locations for the buying and selling of plays \"the John Fletchers Head.\"(4) I want to ask what it means to place a playwright's head on a shop sign--to sell under its sign, or to read it, in an advertisement or in the street. What kind of sign do these head signs represent? Part of an answer lies in the formatting of the play catalogues themselves. As they emerge in the 1650s, '60s, and '70s, the catalogues seem to me to trace the rising (though still tentative) importance of authorship as a visible category for organizing printed drama. To the extent that they engage authorship (and they do so to different degrees), the catalogues seem not as interested in consistency with even the other available printed attributions as they are in promoting a growing interest in plays associated with recognizable names.(5) The first extant list, published with The Careless Sheperdes in 1656, is organized to facilitate locating plays alphabetically by title, with occasional authorial identifications following in italics. There is no separate column for authors.(6) The Old Law catalogue likewise lists plays alphabetically by title, with a column for genre, and then a column with more frequent notation of authorship in italics.(7) A 1661 list--Francis Kirkman's initial effort, published in an old interlude--places an author column first (\"Names of the Authors\"), but continues to arrange/group the plays alphabetically by title (\"Names of the Playes\").(8) In the layout of Kirkman's page, authorship is thus marked more prominently than in the earlier catalogues, but title remains the organizing principle. Kirkman's second list, published with a translation of Corneille's Nicomede in 1671, uses the same column arrangement, but in its \"Advertisement to the Reader,\" the publisher bestows great attention on what he calls \"the placing of names,","PeriodicalId":39628,"journal":{"name":"Shakespeare Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/nq/s6-ii.30.75d","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61352877","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 : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1887/0750305711/b639c6
M. D. Grazia
IS A WORD A THING? It depends, of course, on what is meant by thing. If sensible properties constitute thingness, then a word is certainly a thing. It exists either as a sound to be heard or a mark to be seen. There is a long tradition, however, of denying words the status of things. In the short essay that follows, I will suggest that this tradition begins when words are required to represent things or matter. If words are to give a clear representation of things (empirical or notional), they must forego their own thingness. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Bacon draws a strong line between words and things. To emphasize the inferiority of words to things, he compares words to three forms of representation:(1) a flourish on the initial letter of a patent or limned book; the statue Pygmalion fell in love with; a painting like Zeuxis's famous still life of grapes that looked so real a blackbird tried to peck them.(2) This mistaking of the unreal for the real is what Bacon terms "Pygmalion's frenzy," a madness like idolatry that fixates on the image rather than the thing the image represents. In all three instances, the forbidden graven image is imagined as being itself immaterial. It offers up nothing of its own to read, to embrace, to eat. But, of course, all these forms of representation do have substance of their own, though it is not the same as that of the thing they represent. The flourish is made of ink on paper, the statue of stone, the painting of canvas and pigment. If these images were granted materiality, they would themselves become things worthy of the desire (to study, love, eat) that is the due of what they represent. Their pursuit then would be impelled not by a mad "frenzy" but by perfectly reasonable interest. If words are to serve as transparent representations of things, their own thinglike or sensible properties must be overlooked. Or else remade in the image of what they represent. Thus Bacon hinted at an alternative system of notation that would work "without the help or intervention of words."(3) Its characters, he speculated, would resemble the things they represented, either physically as pictographs or conceptually as ideographs. In the second half of the century, Bacon's suggestion materialized in the project sponsored by the Royal Society to devise an artificial language. John Wilkins, for example, in his 800-page An Essay Toward a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language (1668) describes a set of characters intended to represent directly the objects or notions common to all men.(4) Each character stands for a thing or an idea, and when properly distributed and combined they are to correspond with empirical observation or philosophical ordering. In these attempts, characters are designed in the likeness of the things they represent; their own material attributes are forged to match what they stand for. Words, it might be said, have been phased into things. Indeed it is not much of a leap to Swift's sat
{"title":"Words as Things","authors":"M. D. Grazia","doi":"10.1887/0750305711/b639c6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1887/0750305711/b639c6","url":null,"abstract":"IS A WORD A THING? It depends, of course, on what is meant by thing. If sensible properties constitute thingness, then a word is certainly a thing. It exists either as a sound to be heard or a mark to be seen. There is a long tradition, however, of denying words the status of things. In the short essay that follows, I will suggest that this tradition begins when words are required to represent things or matter. If words are to give a clear representation of things (empirical or notional), they must forego their own thingness. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Bacon draws a strong line between words and things. To emphasize the inferiority of words to things, he compares words to three forms of representation:(1) a flourish on the initial letter of a patent or limned book; the statue Pygmalion fell in love with; a painting like Zeuxis's famous still life of grapes that looked so real a blackbird tried to peck them.(2) This mistaking of the unreal for the real is what Bacon terms \"Pygmalion's frenzy,\" a madness like idolatry that fixates on the image rather than the thing the image represents. In all three instances, the forbidden graven image is imagined as being itself immaterial. It offers up nothing of its own to read, to embrace, to eat. But, of course, all these forms of representation do have substance of their own, though it is not the same as that of the thing they represent. The flourish is made of ink on paper, the statue of stone, the painting of canvas and pigment. If these images were granted materiality, they would themselves become things worthy of the desire (to study, love, eat) that is the due of what they represent. Their pursuit then would be impelled not by a mad \"frenzy\" but by perfectly reasonable interest. If words are to serve as transparent representations of things, their own thinglike or sensible properties must be overlooked. Or else remade in the image of what they represent. Thus Bacon hinted at an alternative system of notation that would work \"without the help or intervention of words.\"(3) Its characters, he speculated, would resemble the things they represented, either physically as pictographs or conceptually as ideographs. In the second half of the century, Bacon's suggestion materialized in the project sponsored by the Royal Society to devise an artificial language. John Wilkins, for example, in his 800-page An Essay Toward a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language (1668) describes a set of characters intended to represent directly the objects or notions common to all men.(4) Each character stands for a thing or an idea, and when properly distributed and combined they are to correspond with empirical observation or philosophical ordering. In these attempts, characters are designed in the likeness of the things they represent; their own material attributes are forged to match what they stand for. Words, it might be said, have been phased into things. Indeed it is not much of a leap to Swift's sat","PeriodicalId":39628,"journal":{"name":"Shakespeare Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67687085","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：