>At 10:08 PM +0000 10/12/02, paul murphy wrote:
>>I meant the Victorian obsession with history as the biographies of
>>Great Men. Those Greek and Roman biographers were focusing on
>>supposedly significant personages, but not in the deliberately
>>ideologocial sense that stirred the Victorians.
>
>The ideology may be different, but you can't tell me the Romans
>weren't ideological. What's the Aeneid but a legitimisation of the
>paternity of Empire?
>
>The best essay I've read on Shakespeare is Harold Pinter's _The
>Peopled Wound_. And another short one by Peter Brook talks about
>Shakespeare's prodigious memory, his belief that Shakespeare's mind
>was peculiarly available to him when he wrote (he also believed that
>most of the plays were written very fast, which seems correct). One
>reason for disbelieving that they were written by WS is that no one
>could have written that much, which strikes me as rather
>unimaginative. The question whether the plays were written by a
>canny lucerne farmer or not seems to me irrelevant: somebody wrote
>them, and it was most likely WS; and in the end the plays themselves
>are more interesting than anything else.
>
>Best
>
>A
>--
I still like the position that he was a fox, & the most mighty of them all...
Doug
Douglas Barbour
Department of English
University of Alberta
Edmonton Alberta Canada T6G 2E5
(h) [780] 436 3320 (b) [780] 492 0521
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/dbhome.htm
Speech
is a mouth.
Robert Creeley
|