> Robin says: "The (abstract) Theatre of Memory stuff has bugger all to
> do with the (physical) Globe, and I have to say, confessing bias here,
> that I find Frances Yates' work singularly ... unconvincing."
> Hey Robin, the Theatre of Memory absolutely does impact on the Globe's
> architecture. It was designed as a memory device, based on the shapes
> of the pillars and the positioning of the doors, etc etc. Yates aside,
> it's worth reading Fludd himself on this: he's quite clear about it.
The Burbage brothers had enough bother carting the timbers of their theatre
to a new site when they lost their original lease, to bother about whether
or not they were (re)constructing a Memory Theatre.
This is utter nonsense.
> Sorry for the mistakes, which are a result of imperfect memory. And a
> strange gender bias, clearly.
I'm not sure where the gender-bias comes in here -- I dislike Frances Yates
because I think she's a sloppy and self-indulgent scholar, more than anyone
else like A.L.Rouse, not because she's a woman.
Actually, I'd refine that -- I think her earlier work on Love's Labours Lost
and the School of Night isn't too bad, but as her career goes on -- and
perhaps with a turning-point around _Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic
Tradition_, it becomes progressively more self-indulgent.
But then, I'm someone who thinks that Renaissance Scholarship lost a major
player when Germaine Greer concentrated her focus on feminism rather than