This is not the same article as Hannah Cruze's - it actually has nothing in particular to do with The Knight of The Burning Pestle. Rather, it provides some useful terminology and background to understanding instrumentation and music in drama.
It does, of course, include references to specific plays which themselves reference particular instruments, and suggests historical meanings for why specific instruments or songs may have been chosen.
The article discusses what we so commonly see in Shakespeare and other plays in the stage directions - i.e. hautboy plays or loud music. It gives the general understanding of what this meant at the time. The most interesting thing to me, I think, is that some of these stage directions actually indicate a much greater use of music than what we might perceive them to mean today. I read somewhere else that it is quite possible that The Tempest was much more like a musical, in terms of how much music was played and sung during production, than a regular stage play at the time. It's not something that I could include in my paper, but I just found it super interesting.
Fitzgibbon, H. Macaulay. "Instruments and Their Music in the Elizabethan Drama." The Musical Quarterly 17.3 (Jul. 1931): 319-329. JSTOR. 4 May 2015.
Friday, May 15, 2015
Music in Elizabethan Private Theatres
This article, written by John Scott Colley and taken from The Yearbook of English Studies Vol. 4, offered useful background information on the reputation of private theatre music, and the difference between public and private music (a relevant topic in regards to the Knight of the Burning Pestle, by the way.)
An interesting section of the article talks about how "the new playwrights of the revitalized boys companies are said to have emphasized the singing and musical talents of their troupes because the children were unable to compete effectively with adult acting ability and adult stage presence" (62). This indicates that the focus in artistocratic or upper-class private theatres was, in fact, on singing and music, as opposed to acting.
I was reading somewhere else - I can't remember right now, but perhaps it was in Stephen Orgel's The Illusion of Power - that even the language used to describe theatre was more focused on the musicality rather than the physical performance itself. The words "audience" and "auditorium" indicate the favor placed on music over staging or acting. I just thought that was a fascinating point, and perhaps relevant to some future research of mine, because I was really interested in my topic this semester.
Colley, John Scott. "Music in the Elizabethan Private Theatres." The Yearbook of English Studies Vol. 4 (1974): 62-69. JSTOR. 10 May 2015.
"The Origins of European Thought"
In Richard Broxton Onians book, The Origins of European Thought About the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time, and Fate he discusses the complexity of Renaissance thinking and how some of their thoughts or concepts were connected or correlated with both Greek and Indian concepts.
The majority of the book focuses on Greek thought and he brings in many different Greek terms. He discusses passages of Homer to look at the Greek thought process and how their tales of the gods and the myths and legends played a major role in the structure of their society.
Chapter 12, titled, "Hindoo Conceptions of the Soul" discusses the process of sacrifice for the Hindu culture. It goes into detail about how the Hindu's held high regard for the soul and that the head was the most important part of any being. He discusses important details that were used in the Hindu culture in order to ensure that the head and the spirit were in the right commune for either a sacrifice, a child birth, or a death.
He also discusses the particulars of how a dead body was to be dealt with, whether they were cremated, buried, or left to be eaten by birds. He goes on further to discuss the feet and how they are important as well in the Indian culture and how that plays itself into the European thought.
He does not spend much time on the European aspects but briefly brushes over them so it is a little difficult to understand how these concepts work together.
The majority of the book focuses on Greek thought and he brings in many different Greek terms. He discusses passages of Homer to look at the Greek thought process and how their tales of the gods and the myths and legends played a major role in the structure of their society.
Chapter 12, titled, "Hindoo Conceptions of the Soul" discusses the process of sacrifice for the Hindu culture. It goes into detail about how the Hindu's held high regard for the soul and that the head was the most important part of any being. He discusses important details that were used in the Hindu culture in order to ensure that the head and the spirit were in the right commune for either a sacrifice, a child birth, or a death.
He also discusses the particulars of how a dead body was to be dealt with, whether they were cremated, buried, or left to be eaten by birds. He goes on further to discuss the feet and how they are important as well in the Indian culture and how that plays itself into the European thought.
He does not spend much time on the European aspects but briefly brushes over them so it is a little difficult to understand how these concepts work together.
"The Tempest and the Renaissance Idea of Man"
In James E. Phillips article, "The Tempest and the Renaissance Idea of Man", from Shakespeare Quarterly Phillips brings up the concept of the "tripartite", man having three stages within himself, in order to describe the relationship among Prospero, Ariel, and Caliban.
Phillips discusses that the "tripartite" is the three stages that make up man: Caliban, vegetative, Ariel, sensitive/supernatural, and Prospero, the rational side. The vegetative self, or the quickening of the soul, held the functions of "nourishment, growth, elimination, reproduction, and the other instinctive physiological process." It was used to supply the basic needs to the body. The sensitive/supernatural is where the emotional aspects of the person are held. There are moments of feeling, of imagination or fantasy or the feelings of passions and emotions. The third area of the tripartite was the rational soul. It was seen as the highest part of humanity. This third area is what separates humanity and uplifts it above everything else. It is where there is reason and will, it knows and wants to do good.
Phillips describes that when all three aspects of a human work together in harmony in the way that God intended them than life will be good and what God intended. But because of the fall and sin the body "short cuts itself" and the tripartite is unsuccessful. Reason is now in control of attempting to wrangle and keep both the vegetative and spiritual together and working together.
Phillips goes further to describe each section of the tripartite, Caliban, Ariel, and Prospero in further detail.
Phillips discusses that the "tripartite" is the three stages that make up man: Caliban, vegetative, Ariel, sensitive/supernatural, and Prospero, the rational side. The vegetative self, or the quickening of the soul, held the functions of "nourishment, growth, elimination, reproduction, and the other instinctive physiological process." It was used to supply the basic needs to the body. The sensitive/supernatural is where the emotional aspects of the person are held. There are moments of feeling, of imagination or fantasy or the feelings of passions and emotions. The third area of the tripartite was the rational soul. It was seen as the highest part of humanity. This third area is what separates humanity and uplifts it above everything else. It is where there is reason and will, it knows and wants to do good.
Phillips describes that when all three aspects of a human work together in harmony in the way that God intended them than life will be good and what God intended. But because of the fall and sin the body "short cuts itself" and the tripartite is unsuccessful. Reason is now in control of attempting to wrangle and keep both the vegetative and spiritual together and working together.
Phillips goes further to describe each section of the tripartite, Caliban, Ariel, and Prospero in further detail.
"Hamlet and Counter-Humanism"
In Ronald Knowles article, "Hamlet and Counter-Humanism" from Renaissance Quarterly he discusses Shakespeare's play Hamlet and through the lens of the human condition.
In the article Knowles discusses through five sections different ideas and concepts that are used in Hamlet. The first section, "Alexander Died" focuses on the question within the play. Sections two and three expand upon the "later Middle Ages, Humanism, and skepticism" and section four discusses the rhetoric that is used throughout the writing of the play. There is a fifth section present where he discusses role playing and how that affects Hamlet throughout his journey.
The main section that was the most useful to me was the second, titles, "The Goodly Frame". Within this section he discusses, specifically Act II Scene II where Hamlet, talking to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, looks at humanity as dust and seen as dust but how he contemplates that understanding by stating, "What a piece of work is a man" thus stating, and Knowles goes on to explore this idea, how much more complex humanity is than just dust. Knowles discusses that this concept and idea is holding both pessimism and optimism, macrocosm and microcosm, and humanism and skepticism. Because Hamlet questions this idea of man and what he is he goes into a deeper theological thought.
Knowles then goes onto explain older thinkers who were important to the development to the thought that Shakespeare is presenting through his character Hamlet. It discusses sin and man's separation from the divine and if that in anyway disrupts the small epiphany that Hamlet has within his monologue.
This was a very interesting article and can be found on JSTOR.
In the article Knowles discusses through five sections different ideas and concepts that are used in Hamlet. The first section, "Alexander Died" focuses on the question within the play. Sections two and three expand upon the "later Middle Ages, Humanism, and skepticism" and section four discusses the rhetoric that is used throughout the writing of the play. There is a fifth section present where he discusses role playing and how that affects Hamlet throughout his journey.
The main section that was the most useful to me was the second, titles, "The Goodly Frame". Within this section he discusses, specifically Act II Scene II where Hamlet, talking to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, looks at humanity as dust and seen as dust but how he contemplates that understanding by stating, "What a piece of work is a man" thus stating, and Knowles goes on to explore this idea, how much more complex humanity is than just dust. Knowles discusses that this concept and idea is holding both pessimism and optimism, macrocosm and microcosm, and humanism and skepticism. Because Hamlet questions this idea of man and what he is he goes into a deeper theological thought.
Knowles then goes onto explain older thinkers who were important to the development to the thought that Shakespeare is presenting through his character Hamlet. It discusses sin and man's separation from the divine and if that in anyway disrupts the small epiphany that Hamlet has within his monologue.
This was a very interesting article and can be found on JSTOR.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
"The Human Body as Microcosm in India, Greek Cosmology, and 16th Century Europe"
Alex Wayman's article, "The Human Body as Microcosm in India, Greek Cosmology, and 16th Century Europe" from History of Religions explores and discusses the usage of the zodiac signs within the human body, specifically the head, heart, and feet. It talks about the certain overlaps that are found in Indian and Greek thinking and how they both correlate together and then how that is presented within the though of England during the 16th century.
He begins his argument by addressing, what he calls, as "the problem". Which is understanding how, we as humans, can be seen as in the image of God. How is that possible and feasible. He then addresses the same issue found in Indian culture, where in the Upanisad, beginning religious concepts for Hinduism, the atman, or self, expresses "Thou art that". (Similar concept of being confused with how we are in the image of God. Did/can we make mountains or rivers because we are "thou art that"?) And lastly he connects the same problem to Greek thought, in that we are connected to the cosmos or that the cosmos are in us, which brings up the problem that we, as humans, die whereas the universe does not.
He address these issues first by looking at India and how they recognize the microcosm and the macrocosm. Stating that in India "truth is reached by going within, especially within the heart" (174) and he goes further to address that in Indian culture there are specific elements of the body that are praised above the other. For example the head and the upper part of the body are more important however the feet hold some of the same significance as the head. It also comments on the idea of the mandala which is found within the head, a symbol representing the universe, thus the universe is within the head. He relates this the Greeks influence of the zodiac into Indian cultures.
He focuses more on the implications that the microcosm has in England toward the end of his article. He specifically focuses on Jacob Boehme, who he describes as the "Protestant Mystic" and how the idea of the microcosm is used in order to understand and "the problem" within Christian thinking. Thus stating that the there are two bodies, the physical body and then the spiritual body and within that ideal the spiritual body is the part of us that is considered "in God's image".
Plenty more is discussed in this article and it gives good insight into how the microsom is used in English thought but then also the other regions and areas that use this same concept in order to help fix "their problem". This article can be found in JSTOR.
He begins his argument by addressing, what he calls, as "the problem". Which is understanding how, we as humans, can be seen as in the image of God. How is that possible and feasible. He then addresses the same issue found in Indian culture, where in the Upanisad, beginning religious concepts for Hinduism, the atman, or self, expresses "Thou art that". (Similar concept of being confused with how we are in the image of God. Did/can we make mountains or rivers because we are "thou art that"?) And lastly he connects the same problem to Greek thought, in that we are connected to the cosmos or that the cosmos are in us, which brings up the problem that we, as humans, die whereas the universe does not.
He address these issues first by looking at India and how they recognize the microcosm and the macrocosm. Stating that in India "truth is reached by going within, especially within the heart" (174) and he goes further to address that in Indian culture there are specific elements of the body that are praised above the other. For example the head and the upper part of the body are more important however the feet hold some of the same significance as the head. It also comments on the idea of the mandala which is found within the head, a symbol representing the universe, thus the universe is within the head. He relates this the Greeks influence of the zodiac into Indian cultures.
He focuses more on the implications that the microcosm has in England toward the end of his article. He specifically focuses on Jacob Boehme, who he describes as the "Protestant Mystic" and how the idea of the microcosm is used in order to understand and "the problem" within Christian thinking. Thus stating that the there are two bodies, the physical body and then the spiritual body and within that ideal the spiritual body is the part of us that is considered "in God's image".
Plenty more is discussed in this article and it gives good insight into how the microsom is used in English thought but then also the other regions and areas that use this same concept in order to help fix "their problem". This article can be found in JSTOR.
"The Elizabethan Idea of Empire"
In David Armitage's article, "The Elizabethan Idea of Empire" from Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, he discusses how he believes that the rule of Elizabeth was "derivative, belated and incoherent" (269). Frankly he discusses the negative aspects of Elizabeth's reign, a different outlook on England that is usually seen.
Throughout the article Armitage discusses the viewpoints of three different men. The first, Fernand Braudel. He discusses that Braudel believed that England had become an "island" an "autonomous unit distinct from continental Europe" (269). Armitage states that this idea omits both Scotland and Ireland and instead shows that England was more interested in their endeavor to cross the Atlantic and colonize the New World. He discusses how England became inclusive but that somehow took on the persona of expansion. The second person he brings into for the discussion is Carl Schmitt who has the same ideals and thoughts about England's expansion as Braudel. The last person he brings in is A. L. Rowse.
All three of these scholars he brings in are in the same mind set of an "inside-out Empire" and Armitage argues the negative aspects of this mind set and how it detached England from the rest of Europe, creating it's own entity on the outskirts of the country. He discusses that since Elizabeth was so focused on looking over seas she missed out on specific relationships and gains that she could have made with the other countries directly next to England. He also discusses that Elizabeth acquired many things for the empire outside of England and through trade even though it would have been more beneficial and easier to trade with closer countries who had stronger ties with the empire.
Armitage has a very interesting view that could possibly be beneficial when looking at the differences between Elizabeth and James's reign. This article can be found on JSTOR.
Throughout the article Armitage discusses the viewpoints of three different men. The first, Fernand Braudel. He discusses that Braudel believed that England had become an "island" an "autonomous unit distinct from continental Europe" (269). Armitage states that this idea omits both Scotland and Ireland and instead shows that England was more interested in their endeavor to cross the Atlantic and colonize the New World. He discusses how England became inclusive but that somehow took on the persona of expansion. The second person he brings into for the discussion is Carl Schmitt who has the same ideals and thoughts about England's expansion as Braudel. The last person he brings in is A. L. Rowse.
All three of these scholars he brings in are in the same mind set of an "inside-out Empire" and Armitage argues the negative aspects of this mind set and how it detached England from the rest of Europe, creating it's own entity on the outskirts of the country. He discusses that since Elizabeth was so focused on looking over seas she missed out on specific relationships and gains that she could have made with the other countries directly next to England. He also discusses that Elizabeth acquired many things for the empire outside of England and through trade even though it would have been more beneficial and easier to trade with closer countries who had stronger ties with the empire.
Armitage has a very interesting view that could possibly be beneficial when looking at the differences between Elizabeth and James's reign. This article can be found on JSTOR.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)