![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 1993: Re: The Paradox of Historicizing Shakespeare
From: Hardy M. Cook (hmcook@boe00.minc.umd.edu) Date: 12/09/93
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 914. Thursday, 9 December 1993. From: Martin Green <p00968@psilink.com> Date: Wednesday, 08 Dec 93 11:27:20 -0400 Subject: 4.0908 Re: The Paradox of Historicizing Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 4.0908 Re: The Paradox of Historicizing Shakespeare Poor Leo Daugherty! [FN 1] How can he possibly believe that the sensible and intelligible approach to Shakespeare studies urged by him has any chance of prevailing in the near future, while we still have active a generation of writers [FN 2] who, on the basis of flawed premises obfuscated [FN 3] by incomprehensible, but impressive, jargon, have found ways to rationalize designating as "Shakespeare studies" [FN 4] their writings about their own phantasies [FN 5] and interests, and those of their friends, and in which approach they all have a vested [FN 6] interest? But who knows? It may indeed be better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. Good luck, Leo Daugherty! Martin Green FN 1. I owe this verbal formulation to Joseph Cantor, who has often used this phrase in reference to me. FN 2. The concept of writers within a generation-group having common characteristics was suggested to me in a personal conversation by Thomas F. Bastow. FN 3. This word was brought to my attention by Florence Packer, who owns a very good thesaurus. FN 4. Jerome M. Fleming is the source of this phrase as a way of describing writings purporting to deal with the well-known Elizabethan playwright. FN 5. Using this semi-semiotic spelling to reenforce the "Renaissance" character of this message was the idea of Snigdha Prakash. FN 6. I am indebted to Emma Brumfield who, by alerting me to the possibility of this being construed as an allegation of cross-dressing, affords me the opportunity to negate the implication, and hence, I trust, the inference.
|
|
|||||