 |
 |
Hmmm... a criticism of Tillyard, I take it? I wonder could we have a re-appraisal of Tillyard in one of the SpR's promised "retro-reviews"? The more I see "cosmic" structural patterns in Shakespeare (and Sp, too) the more I think T's gotten a bad name in the last two generations. Not that I've been thinking properly (or at all) for more than one. Because you're reductive doesn't mean you're wrong. Part of the reason structural patterns are in Shakespeare is because of Spenser, I suspect. Is Tillyard relevant for Sp Studies? Regards, --Tom ________________________________ From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Dennis Moore [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 6:15 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: a comment by David Miller "Put Away the World-Picture" is the final chapter of Herbert Howarth's The Tiger's Heart: Eight Essays on Shakespeare (Oxford 1970). I owned the book back then as a student, but that's the only chapter I remember. I haven't seen it for a long time, but it struck me then as an excellent critique of a certain reductive style of historicism. Dennis Moore On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Harry Berger Jr <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: What, specifically, is the "Tudor ideology"? If it's the far-fetched legendary stuff that was used to add legitimacy to the Tudor royal line, then I agree with David [Miller] that it's not something I want to see resuscitated in interpretation. -Jon Quitslund Jon, what about this phrase: "contemporary critiques of Tudor ideology." Are there such critiques? If so, don't they constitute what they critique by critiquing it??? Well, it's the weekend and the sun is out. On Jul 14, 2012, at 12:40 PM, [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote: Jim and All, I hope this query galvanizes some members of the list, so we can have a lively discussion of the basic issue that Jim B. touches upon. What, specifically, is the "Tudor ideology"? If it's the far-fetched legendary stuff that was used to add legitimacy to the Tudor royal line, then I agree with David that it's not something I want to see resuscitated in interpretation. I do, however, see perennial value in many aspects of the historical contexts for Tudor literature. I think we each have to work with what makes sense to us as we write within our present-day contexts, and some of what we might see, or want to see, in Spenser (for example) is refutable, or rendered unlikely, by what was demonstrably part of the world as Spenser knew it. Alas, I haven't seen Dreams of the Burning Child, and I have no memory of the phrasing that Jim is looking for. But perhaps there is something else that would suit Jim's purpose. I have a vague memory of a polemical article published, I think, late in the 60s: the title, I think, is "Put Away Your World Picture." Maybe others on the list can provide more than the title, and offer an opinion on its relevance. (Perhaps, in the light of later developments, it's not only dead but rotten.) Jon Quitslund ________________________________ From: James Broaddus <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Sent: Fri, July 13, 2012 11:04:52 AM Subject: a comment by David Miller I remember that David Miller commented somewhere or other that he was not interested in The Faerie Queene as a reflection of the decayed body of what in the sixteenth century were dominant discourses. I emailed David about where I could find such a comment—I am engaged in one of my 1960-ish projects and would like to quote him. David responded that he had said something on that order at different times and referred me to the phrase, “dead body of Tudor ideology” on pp. 13-14 in Dreams of the Burning Child. But my memory is of a more graphic phrase, something more suggestive of decay and perhaps even rotten. David said it would be ok if I queried the discussion list about the matter. Thanks, Jim Broaddus