“Motions and Spaces: What Collides in Ben Jonson's Epigrams,” reads Jonson's epigrams in terms of the distinct ways they manage fluid social forms. Drawing on the new formalist theory of Caroline Levine, the essay defines Jonson's epigrams as short poems that transform collisions, turning the rhythms and motions of social forms into whole and still literary forms. Jonson's epigrams are – despite his demurrals – narratives, telling stories of how figures of shame or praise were instituted out of conflict. Movements of social forms are transformed into poetic and whole forms. The critical heritage on the epigrams can be mapped in terms of an emphasis upon movement or stillness, and the essay proceeds through a range of poems in order to see how movement produces stillness; process and structure, or motion and space, become co-constitutive of the poems. Reading several satiric epigrams and several epigrams of praise, the essay attempts to shift understanding of the epigrams from thinking about people and social relations as they are toward thinking about people and social relations as they become. Jonson's translation of Horace's The Art of Poetry stakes out poetry's purpose: “Things sacred from profane to separate; / The public from the private,” and this essay explores how that process works in Jonson's epigrams.
{"title":"Motions and Spaces: What Collides in Ben Jonson's Epigrams","authors":"W. Kerwin","doi":"10.3366/BJJ.2018.0223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/BJJ.2018.0223","url":null,"abstract":"“Motions and Spaces: What Collides in Ben Jonson's Epigrams,” reads Jonson's epigrams in terms of the distinct ways they manage fluid social forms. Drawing on the new formalist theory of Caroline Levine, the essay defines Jonson's epigrams as short poems that transform collisions, turning the rhythms and motions of social forms into whole and still literary forms. Jonson's epigrams are – despite his demurrals – narratives, telling stories of how figures of shame or praise were instituted out of conflict. Movements of social forms are transformed into poetic and whole forms. The critical heritage on the epigrams can be mapped in terms of an emphasis upon movement or stillness, and the essay proceeds through a range of poems in order to see how movement produces stillness; process and structure, or motion and space, become co-constitutive of the poems. Reading several satiric epigrams and several epigrams of praise, the essay attempts to shift understanding of the epigrams from thinking about people and social relations as they are toward thinking about people and social relations as they become. Jonson's translation of Horace's The Art of Poetry stakes out poetry's purpose: “Things sacred from profane to separate; / The public from the private,” and this essay explores how that process works in Jonson's epigrams.","PeriodicalId":40862,"journal":{"name":"Ben Jonson Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81693128","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the trope of dance in Orchestra or a Poem of Dancing, specifically the ways in which dance functions as a form of rhetoric and, ultimately, out-performs the seduction rhetoric of Antinous. Presented literally and metaphorically, dance as the subject of Antinous' rhetoric repels Penelope, while the image of dance that appears in Love's mirror enraptures her so strongly that she esteems the weaving and unweaving of bodies above her own weaving and unweaving of thread. This activity of chaste waiting is attended to also in metaphorical terms, as it provides a parallel with the ongoing weaving and simultaneous unweaving of Antinous' argument that Penelope should dance with him. The conclusion reached is that the verbal rhetoric of Antinous, while theoretically sound in its rhetorical characteristics and presentation, fails to sway Penelope. Ultimately, it is dance that proves the successful rhetor, as it performs eloquently and persuasively to move Penelope's mind toward accepting dance as a virtuous and noble activity, indeed moves her to be “rapt with sweet pleasure” at the sight of its measured oration. Framed in a delineation of the shared qualities of rhetoric and dance, this argument relies upon classical and Renaissance rhetoric and dance treatises, as well as the work of modern rhetoric, dance, and literature scholars.
{"title":"“Rapt with sweet pleasure”: The Rhetoric of Dance in Sir John Davies’ Orchestra or A Poem of Dancing","authors":"Melissa Hudler","doi":"10.3366/BJJ.2018.0222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/BJJ.2018.0222","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the trope of dance in Orchestra or a Poem of Dancing, specifically the ways in which dance functions as a form of rhetoric and, ultimately, out-performs the seduction rhetoric of Antinous. Presented literally and metaphorically, dance as the subject of Antinous' rhetoric repels Penelope, while the image of dance that appears in Love's mirror enraptures her so strongly that she esteems the weaving and unweaving of bodies above her own weaving and unweaving of thread. This activity of chaste waiting is attended to also in metaphorical terms, as it provides a parallel with the ongoing weaving and simultaneous unweaving of Antinous' argument that Penelope should dance with him. The conclusion reached is that the verbal rhetoric of Antinous, while theoretically sound in its rhetorical characteristics and presentation, fails to sway Penelope. Ultimately, it is dance that proves the successful rhetor, as it performs eloquently and persuasively to move Penelope's mind toward accepting dance as a virtuous and noble activity, indeed moves her to be “rapt with sweet pleasure” at the sight of its measured oration. Framed in a delineation of the shared qualities of rhetoric and dance, this argument relies upon classical and Renaissance rhetoric and dance treatises, as well as the work of modern rhetoric, dance, and literature scholars.","PeriodicalId":40862,"journal":{"name":"Ben Jonson Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90877594","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Individual works of poetry and drama often contribute to a conversation that spans centuries, but A Midsummer Night's Dream contains a very specific dialogue in which Shakespeare takes the Jesuit priest-poet Robert Southwell for an interlocutor. Shakespeare creates this conversation by echoing Southwell's published work. By the first staging of A Midsummer Night's Dream, around 1595 or 1596, Southwell had endured a martyr's death; but that didn't stop Shakespeare from responding to the prescriptions laid down by Southwell about the proper way for Christian poets to write. His prefatory letter and introductory poem to the posthumous volume St. Peters Complaint make clear that Christian poets whose poems are not overtly devotional are squandering their talent. He remonstrates with such poets – one in particular, whom Southwell addresses as his “belov'd cousen” – to chasten themselves and to write poetry more in the vein of the reverent and improving verses included in Southwell's own volume. Through the character of Theseus, especially, and in the structure of the play, more generally, Shakespeare replies to Southwell. Shakespeare doesn't simply reject Southwell, but rather evokes an understanding of piety and poetry consistent with the pre-Reformation, late medieval Church. This understanding is one that allows room for juxtaposing the sacred and the profane as opposed to championing one at the expense of the other.
{"title":"Of Lunatics, Lovers, and Poets: The Conversation about Poetry in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream","authors":"Donald Carlson","doi":"10.3366/BJJ.2018.0224","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/BJJ.2018.0224","url":null,"abstract":"Individual works of poetry and drama often contribute to a conversation that spans centuries, but A Midsummer Night's Dream contains a very specific dialogue in which Shakespeare takes the Jesuit priest-poet Robert Southwell for an interlocutor. Shakespeare creates this conversation by echoing Southwell's published work. By the first staging of A Midsummer Night's Dream, around 1595 or 1596, Southwell had endured a martyr's death; but that didn't stop Shakespeare from responding to the prescriptions laid down by Southwell about the proper way for Christian poets to write. His prefatory letter and introductory poem to the posthumous volume St. Peters Complaint make clear that Christian poets whose poems are not overtly devotional are squandering their talent. He remonstrates with such poets – one in particular, whom Southwell addresses as his “belov'd cousen” – to chasten themselves and to write poetry more in the vein of the reverent and improving verses included in Southwell's own volume. Through the character of Theseus, especially, and in the structure of the play, more generally, Shakespeare replies to Southwell. Shakespeare doesn't simply reject Southwell, but rather evokes an understanding of piety and poetry consistent with the pre-Reformation, late medieval Church. This understanding is one that allows room for juxtaposing the sacred and the profane as opposed to championing one at the expense of the other.","PeriodicalId":40862,"journal":{"name":"Ben Jonson Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87961176","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"David Oliver Davies', Milton's Socratic Rationalism: The Conversations of Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost","authors":"Dwight A. Lindley","doi":"10.3366/BJJ.2018.0229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/BJJ.2018.0229","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40862,"journal":{"name":"Ben Jonson Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79657775","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Jerusalem Syndrome: A Commentary on “If Infinite Worlds, Infinite Centers” by Margaret Cavendish","authors":"Kazim Ali","doi":"10.3366/bjj.2018.0228","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/bjj.2018.0228","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40862,"journal":{"name":"Ben Jonson Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73829863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Four Hamlets and Hamlets have evolved from recent text-editorial practice, corresponding with, respectively, Q1 1603, Q2 1604–05, F 1623, and the composite received text combining Q2 and F. Q2 is the fullest and most authoritative text, F is a slightly shorter, cut revision containing passages omitted in Q2. At present, Q1—half the length of Q2—is either young Shakespeare's first version or, more likely, a later derivative of F1's ancestor (c. 1601–03). Although the most recent editors (of Arden 3 and the New Oxford Shakespeare) favor individual editions of Q1, Q2, and F, there remains much to be said for the received composite text that intercuts longer passages omitted in Q2 and F as a reader's text of the whole literary Hamlet. This Hamlet benefits from full dialogue by and about the Prince, including his important speeches cut in F and in most productions, 1.4.17–38 (notably “So oft it chances”), and his last soliloquy, 4.4.32–66 (“How all occasions do inform against me”). The whole Hamlet is a salutary corrective to the post-Romantic Hamlet-as-Coleridge and Olivier's voice-overed “man who could not make up his mind.” Not mad, he feigns well in prose that serves as easily in genial conversation with those of lower social station—guards, players, gravediggers—and like much else shows him something of a mensh. Hamlet was every inch a king-in-waiting (not much longer: “This is I, Hamlet the Dane”), and he dies, politically responsible, casting his vote for Fortinbras. In the perspective of our own time, “His greatest operational weapon is his humanity.”
《四个哈姆雷特》和《哈姆雷特》是从最近的文本编辑实践演变而来的，分别对应于Q1 1603, Q2 1604-05, F 1623，以及将Q2和F结合在一起的合成文本。Q2是最完整和最权威的文本，F是一个稍短的删减版，包含了Q2中省略的段落。目前，q1——长度为q2的一半——要么是年轻的莎士比亚的第一个版本，要么更有可能是F1的祖先(约1601-03年)后来的衍生版本。虽然最近的编辑(Arden 3和新牛津莎士比亚)更喜欢Q1, Q2和F的单独版本，但对于所收到的复合文本，将Q2和F中省略的较长段落作为整个文学哈姆雷特的读者文本，仍然有很多话要说。这部《哈姆雷特》得益于王子本人和关于王子的完整对话，包括他用F段和大多数作品剪辑的重要演讲，1.4.17-38(尤其是“So oft it chance”)，以及他最后的独白，4.4.32-66(“所有场合都对我不利”)。整部《哈姆雷特》是对后浪漫主义时代的哈姆雷特的有益纠正——柯勒律治和奥利维尔的旁白是“无法下定决心的人”。他没有发疯，他的散文写得很好，很容易与那些社会地位较低的人——警卫、球员、掘墓人——进行亲切的交谈，就像其他很多事情一样，他表现出了一些卑鄙的一面。哈姆雷特是个不折不扣的准国王(不久之后:“这是我，丹麦人哈姆雷特”)，他死时为政治负责，把票投给了福廷布拉斯。从我们这个时代的角度来看，“他最大的作战武器是他的人性。”
{"title":"Whither Hamlet's “Words, Words, Words”? Notes on Dialogue and Designs in Hamlet","authors":"T. Clayton","doi":"10.3366/bjj.2018.0225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/bjj.2018.0225","url":null,"abstract":"Four Hamlets and Hamlets have evolved from recent text-editorial practice, corresponding with, respectively, Q1 1603, Q2 1604–05, F 1623, and the composite received text combining Q2 and F. Q2 is the fullest and most authoritative text, F is a slightly shorter, cut revision containing passages omitted in Q2. At present, Q1—half the length of Q2—is either young Shakespeare's first version or, more likely, a later derivative of F1's ancestor (c. 1601–03). Although the most recent editors (of Arden 3 and the New Oxford Shakespeare) favor individual editions of Q1, Q2, and F, there remains much to be said for the received composite text that intercuts longer passages omitted in Q2 and F as a reader's text of the whole literary Hamlet. This Hamlet benefits from full dialogue by and about the Prince, including his important speeches cut in F and in most productions, 1.4.17–38 (notably “So oft it chances”), and his last soliloquy, 4.4.32–66 (“How all occasions do inform against me”). The whole Hamlet is a salutary corrective to the post-Romantic Hamlet-as-Coleridge and Olivier's voice-overed “man who could not make up his mind.” Not mad, he feigns well in prose that serves as easily in genial conversation with those of lower social station—guards, players, gravediggers—and like much else shows him something of a mensh. Hamlet was every inch a king-in-waiting (not much longer: “This is I, Hamlet the Dane”), and he dies, politically responsible, casting his vote for Fortinbras. In the perspective of our own time, “His greatest operational weapon is his humanity.”","PeriodicalId":40862,"journal":{"name":"Ben Jonson Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76956100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","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：