Just imagine Darcy and Elizabeth each having recently read this
soliloquizing of Benedick's.....
"...One woman is fair, yet I am well; another is wise, yet I am well;
another virtuous, yet I am well; but till all graces be in one woman, one
woman shall not come in my grace. Rich she shall be, that's certain; wise, or
I'll none; virtuous, or I'll never cheapen her; fair, or I'll never look on
her; mild, or come not
near me; noble, or not I for an angel; of good discourse, an excellent
musician, and her hair shall be of what colour it please God.".....
....just before this memorable exchange that is obviously winking broadly
at Benedick's words:
¡°It is amazing to me,¡± said Bingley, ¡°how young ladies can have patience to
be so very accomplished as they all are.¡±
¡°All young ladies accomplished! My dear Charles, what do you mean?¡±
¡°Yes, all of them, I think. They all paint tables, cover screens, and net
purses. I scarcely know any one who cannot do all this; and I am sure I
never heard a young lady spoken of for the first time, without being
informed that she was very accomplished.¡±
¡°Your list of the common extent of accomplishments,¡± said Darcy, ¡°has too
much truth. The word is applied to many a woman who deserves it no
otherwise than by netting a purse or covering a screen; but I am very far from
agreeing with you in your estimation of ladies in general. I cannot boast
of knowing more than half-a-dozen in the whole range of my acquaintance
that are really accomplished.¡±
¡°Nor I, I am sure,¡± said Miss Bingley.
¡°Then,¡± observed Elizabeth, ¡°you must comprehend a great deal in your idea
of an accomplished woman.¡±
¡°Yes; I do comprehend a great deal in it.¡±
¡°Oh, certainly,¡± cried his faithful assistant, ¡°no one can be really
esteemed accomplished who does not greatly surpass what is usually met
with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing,
dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and, besides all
this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of
walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word
will be but half deserved.¡±
¡°All this she must possess,¡± added Darcy; ¡°and to all she must yet add
something more substantial in the improvement of her mind by extensive
°ù±ð²¹»å¾±²Ô²µ.¡±
¡°I am no longer surprised at your knowing *only* six accomplished women. I
rather wonder now at your knowing *any*.¡±
¡°Are you so severe upon your own sex as to doubt the possibility of all
³Ù³ó¾±²õ?¡±
¡°*I* never saw such a woman. *I* never saw such capacity, and taste, and
application, and elegance, as you describe, united.¡±
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 12:11?PM Arnie Perlstein <arnieperlstein@...>
wrote:
Then Ellen and I agree about this point of Shakespeare being read as well
as performed.
The scholarly irony of those 3 particular acrostics I presented is that
all 3 were all discovered over 100 years ago by a Baconian named Booth (no
relation, apparently, to the famous Booth Shakespeare family) who was
intent on proving that Shakespeare was really Bacon in disguise.
In the midst of a huge number of so-called acrostic signatures of Bacon
that he collected from Shakespeare's plays, most of which seem straight out
of A Beautiful Mind in their implausibility, there was this tiny handful of
actual Shakespeare acrostics that were not signatures at all, and had
nothing to do with Bacon.
I first heard about the Titania acrostic in this Janeites group in 2005
when Eugene McDonnell (remember him, Nancy and Ellen?) mentioned it when I
started posting about Austen's wordplay in Emma. However Eugene identified
a later Shakespeare scholar named Leigh Mercer as the one who discovered it
around 1940, but he must've read it in that earlier book by Booth.
And now I wonder, as to any of the handful of scenes in Austen's novels in
which characters are reading an unspecified book, whether they might be
reading plays?
I'm particularly thinking about P&P - wouldn't it be wonderful if
Elizabeth and Darcy were each separately reading Much Ado About Nothing
while hanging out in the Netherfield salon?
And finally, the irony about the above discussion vis a vis Austen, is
that the majority of those who love Austen today are people who have never
read her novels, but have seen a movie or play adaptation. So novels she
wrote to be read are instead being experienced as if they were plays!
ARNIE
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:47?AM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:
I disagree even vehemently with Kishor because what she asserts is so
often asserted. No. NO. Shakespeare's plays, especially when printed
in folios, were meant to be read. Readers in the 17th and 18th century
read plays. Early 19th century too. They are meant to be played and
read silently to the self
Ellen Moody
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 7:19?AM Kishor Kale via groups.io
<k.a.kale@...> wrote:
the same is generally true about Shakespeare as well ¨C the vast
majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably not read a word of
Shakespeare¡¯s plays ever, or at least since one course in high school or
college. But they do go to see him now and then in the theater or in film
adaptations.
Shakespeare¡¯s plays were intended to be performed, not read.
On 10 Nov 2024, at 22:20, Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:
Ellen, it¡¯s usually a woman, onlybecause men generally are so tuned
out about Austen. Better to be an Austen only-film lover than not to care
about Austen at all.
As I think about t, I think the same is generally true about
Shakespeare as well ¨C the vast majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably
not read a word of Shakespeare¡¯s plays ever, or at least since one course
in high school or college. But they do go to see him now and then in the
theater or in film adaptations.
All things considered, better to have the larger tent in each case,
which enables film adaptations to be made, even if not all of them are of
the highest quality.
Arnie
On Nov 10, 2024, at 11:45?AM, Ellen Moody via groups.io
<ellen.moody@...> wrote:
?At the large JASNAs and local groups. it's not been unommon for me
to meet a woman (usually a woman) who has only read Pride and Prejudice and
seen the other books in their movie form -- as if they were the same. So
also people who don't distinguish watching a movie from reading a book.
People taking adult ed courses in Austen who don't think it's necessary the
instructor have read MP -- to me unless you've read MP, you don't know this
author, and since Austen's oeuvre is so small (you can fit the fiction into
one fat volume), there's no excuse not to have read them all -- if you are
presenting yourself as someone who knows Austen.
Ellen
Arnie Perlstein