![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 1998: Re: Aesthetic Effects!
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu) Date: 03/12/98
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0216 Thursday, 12 March 1998.
[1] From: Harry Hill <HILHAR@vax2.concordia.ca>
Date: Wednesday, 11 Mar 1998 07:40:48 +0000 (HELP)
Subj: Re: SHK 9.0208 Re: Aesthetic Effects!
[2] From: Sean Kevin Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date: Wednesday, 11 Mar 1998 12:28:02 -0800
Subj: Re: SHK 9.0208 Re: Aesthetic Effects!
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Hill <HILHAR@vax2.concordia.ca>
Date: Wednesday, 11 Mar 1998 07:40:48 +0000 (HELP)
Subject: 9.0208 Re: Aesthetic Effects!
Comment: Re: SHK 9.0208 Re: Aesthetic Effects!
Stendhal, of course, not Balzac. Sorry. But the sites are right.
Harry Hill
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean Kevin Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date: Wednesday, 11 Mar 1998 12:28:02 -0800
Subject: 9.0208 Re: Aesthetic Effects!
Comment: Re: SHK 9.0208 Re: Aesthetic Effects!
This doesn't really have to do with Stendhal's syndrome, but a chap at
the latest MEMSOP where I was giving a paper picked up on my etymology
of "ravish", and pointed out that in a lot of early exploration
narratives, the Europeans are ravished by the beauty of their
surroundings. In a few, in fact, this is a tactical disadvantage, since
they don't notice the indigenous people sneaking up to attack them.
Being "moved" by art is hardly unique to a Romantic sensibility, it
would seem.
Cheers,
Sean.
|
|
|||||