Johann Gregory
You can view my academic portfolio here: http://johanngregory.wordpress.com/
less
Related Authors
Danièle Moyal-Sharrock
University of Hertfordshire
Galen Strawson
The University of Texas at Austin
Stephen Di Benedetto
Michigan State University
Richard P Martin
Stanford University
Alejandra B Osorio
Wellesley College
Andrea Peto
Central European University
Cristiana Facchini
Università di Bologna
micaela latini
University of Ferrara
David Seamon
Kansas State University
J. H. Chajes
University of Haifa
InterestsView All (66)
Uploads
Papers by Johann Gregory
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0013838X.2013.778622?src=recsys
W. R. Elton explique que Troilus and Cressida comporte deux fois plus de références à la nourriture, à la cuisine et aux arts de la table que n’importe quelle autre pièce de Shakespeare. Cela peut sembler surprenant de prime abord, pourtant force est de constater que cette pièce utilise le vocabulaire de la nourriture pour créer une poétique de l’attente et du goût. Bien que le comportement de Thersite soit qualifié de « fromage » devant être « servi à la table d’Achille » pour favoriser sa « digestion », la pièce n’est pas consommée immédiatement par ses spectateurs. Dans une confusion des sens, la nourriture devient une métaphore visuelle représentant l’appétit dramatique des spectateurs ainsi que diverses affaires de goût. Ceux-ci sont invités à considérer Troilus and Cressida comme un monstre qui dévore entre ses mâchoires la notion de chevalerie et les faits d’armes que de plus anciennes versions de l’histoire – héritées des épopées et des romans courtois – ont cherché à valoriser. Le prologue nous promet que ces traditions du passé vont être « digérées dans la pièce ». Cette étude vise à découvrir si cette pièce accommode seulement les quelques « restes, fragments et reliques graisseuses » du passé, ou si Shakespeare avait à l’esprit de mijoter une tout autre chose.
stage-play that is highly sensitive to the role of the book in shaping expectations
of its theatre audience. The argument takes from Lukas Erne
the notion that when Shakespeare wrote many of his plays, he was
aware that they were making their way into print, but aims to qualify the
idea of Shakespeare as a literary dramatist who arranges his work for
publication by considering the ways in which Troilus and Cressida as a
stage-play is already literary to begin with. Focusing on the scene in
which Achilles and Ulysses discuss an author and his book, it explores
the poetics of reflection that seems to be at work between characters,
authors, and audiences, the page and the stage. Emphasising ways in
which Shakespeare responds to Jonson’s construction of an author, the
essay questions the distinction between Shakespeare as the author of
strictly theatrical or literary texts by considering how the book can be
performative and the theatre literary."
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0013838X.2013.778622?src=recsys
W. R. Elton explique que Troilus and Cressida comporte deux fois plus de références à la nourriture, à la cuisine et aux arts de la table que n’importe quelle autre pièce de Shakespeare. Cela peut sembler surprenant de prime abord, pourtant force est de constater que cette pièce utilise le vocabulaire de la nourriture pour créer une poétique de l’attente et du goût. Bien que le comportement de Thersite soit qualifié de « fromage » devant être « servi à la table d’Achille » pour favoriser sa « digestion », la pièce n’est pas consommée immédiatement par ses spectateurs. Dans une confusion des sens, la nourriture devient une métaphore visuelle représentant l’appétit dramatique des spectateurs ainsi que diverses affaires de goût. Ceux-ci sont invités à considérer Troilus and Cressida comme un monstre qui dévore entre ses mâchoires la notion de chevalerie et les faits d’armes que de plus anciennes versions de l’histoire – héritées des épopées et des romans courtois – ont cherché à valoriser. Le prologue nous promet que ces traditions du passé vont être « digérées dans la pièce ». Cette étude vise à découvrir si cette pièce accommode seulement les quelques « restes, fragments et reliques graisseuses » du passé, ou si Shakespeare avait à l’esprit de mijoter une tout autre chose.
stage-play that is highly sensitive to the role of the book in shaping expectations
of its theatre audience. The argument takes from Lukas Erne
the notion that when Shakespeare wrote many of his plays, he was
aware that they were making their way into print, but aims to qualify the
idea of Shakespeare as a literary dramatist who arranges his work for
publication by considering the ways in which Troilus and Cressida as a
stage-play is already literary to begin with. Focusing on the scene in
which Achilles and Ulysses discuss an author and his book, it explores
the poetics of reflection that seems to be at work between characters,
authors, and audiences, the page and the stage. Emphasising ways in
which Shakespeare responds to Jonson’s construction of an author, the
essay questions the distinction between Shakespeare as the author of
strictly theatrical or literary texts by considering how the book can be
performative and the theatre literary."
The character of the fool is often read as a symbol of the theatre, but this paper briefly explores the theatrical symbolism of Portia in The Merchant of Venice, Cressida in Troilus and Cressida and Cordelia in King Lear. It argues that Shakespeare’s characterisation of these three women can be seen to foreground issues of theatrical value and currency: Portia’s characterisation invites the audience to reflect on the power of a (financed) theatre; the characterisation of Cressida negotiates the theme of the theatre as prostitution; and, in Cordelia, King Lear seems to bewail the apparent failure of theatre to communicate its value. The paper thus responds to critical thinking on the making of theatrical value (Paul Yachnin), fictions of cultural production (Patrick Cheney), and the question of Shakespeare’s autonomy (Stephen Greenblatt / Richard Wilson).
two women who had beene at church both before and after noone, did but walke into the fields for their recreation, and they were put to their choice, either to pay sixpence apiece (for prophane walking,) or to be laid one houre in the stocks; and the peevish willfull women (though they were able enough to pay) to save their money and jest out the matter, lay both by the heeles merrily one houre.
Whether this event occurred as reported or not, issues of transmission and transgression are writ large in Taylor’s story; the implication seems to be that it was expected the women would want to pay the fine rather than be humiliated, although according to Taylor the women had the last laugh. The paper will contextualise this passage in terms of Taylor’s often entertaining travel writing – and the larger representation of Puritans and “willfull women” – in order to address the implications for Taylor’s account of apparent transgression through punishment.
all his virtues
[…………………………….…]
Do in our eyes begin to lose their gloss,
Yea, like fair fruit in an unwholesome dish,
Are like to rot untasted.
The simile is part of a poetics that visualises spectatorship and expectation in culinary terms. Although Thersites’s performances are figured as a “cheese” to aid Achilles’ “digestion” that should be “served in to [his] table”, on the whole the drama is actually not consumed immediately by the audience. Rather, in a confusion of the senses, food becomes a visual metaphor for thinking an audience’s appetite for a play and other matters of taste. The audience is invited to watch Troilus and Cressida as a monster that eats up, in its mastic jaws, the notion of chivalry and “glorious deeds” that past versions of the story – in epic and romance – had been so keen to emphasise; it is these past traditions, the prologue promises, which “may be digested in a play”. The paper seeks to discover whether the play leaves us with “fragments, scraps, the bits, and greasy relics” of past literature, or if Shakespeare was cooking up something else.
Please submit abstracts and brief CVs, or register as an auditor, by emailing the organizers at [email protected] before 1 May, 2015 (auditors may register before 15 May)
Shakespeare and the Future of Theory convenes internationally renowned Shakespeare scholars, and scholars of the Early Modern period, and presents, discusses, and evaluates the most recent research and information concerning the future of theory in relation to Shakespeare’s corpus. Original in its aim and scope, the book argues for the critical importance of thinking Shakespeare now, and provides extensive reflections and profound insights into the dialogues between Shakespeare and Theory. Contributions explore Shakespeare through the lens of design theory, queer theory, psychoanalysis, Derrida and Foucault, amongst others, and offer an innovative interdisciplinary analysis of Shakespeare’s work. This book was originally published as two special issues of English Studies.
https://johntaylorwaterpoet.wixsite.com/home
This month Steve and I have been in contact and meeting with a number of researchers across the university, and I am keen to hear from more academics at Cardiff...