What is the difference between 'high' and 'low' comedy?
Dawsons
plays?
Stuart
Mouse
Hi Stuart,
There are several websites which have definitions. Just go to Google
and enter "high comedy" and "low comedy."
Here's just one definition that covers most of the bases from
http://www.geocities.com/blondelibrarian/literaryexplorer/plays.html
"There are different kinds of comedy. One of the major distinctions is
between high comedy and low comedy. High Comedy is recognized as that
which evokes "intellectual laughter," usually through combats of wit
and humor. Low Comedy is that which evokes "belly laughs." The main
devices of low comedy are jokes, gags, slapstick humor, and boisterous,
clownish physical activity."
Best wishes,
Lynne
John W. Kennedy
> What is the difference between 'high' and 'low' comedy in shakespeare
> plays?
It's not a specifically Shakespearean distinction. High comedy features
(mostly) upper-class people saying clever things while trying to figure
out who the devil they're in love with. Low comedy features (mostly)
lower-class people who know perfectly well whom they are lusting after
hitting each other with salamis.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The plays of Shakespeare may be divided into two groups: those in which
the use of a rubber chicken is forbidden, and those in which it is
mandatory."
-- Paul Barry
seaker
Stratford upon Avon, is the sublime ability to mix both high and low
comedy in the same play. Read Love's Labor's Lost, A Midsummer Night's
Dream, As You Like It, and Much Ado About Nothing to see what I mean!
Poor Eddie de Vere spent is whole life a bubble of high comedy. What
did he know about low comedy folks?
Peter Groves
news:1139989542....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Well, he was a renowned public farter -- that's always good for a low comedy
laugh.
Peter G.
John Andrews
We had forgott the fart.
John
"Peter Groves" <Montiverdi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:pOBIf.8565$yK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Mouse
John Andrews wrote:
> Dear Peter
>
> We had forgott the fart.
Your Majesty:
The first folio edition of his [Jonson's] works had appeared in 1616;
posthumously, in a second Jonson folio (1640), appeared Timber: or,
Discoveries, a series of observations on life and letters. Here Jonson
held forth on the nature of poetry and drama and paid his final tribute
to Shakespeare: in spite of acknowledging a belief that his great
contemporary was, on occasion, "full of wind"-sufflaminandus
erat-he declared that "I loved the man, and do honour his memory,
on this side idolatry, as much as any."
http://www.britannica.com/shakespeare/article-3749
:)
Regards,
Lynne
Paul Crowley
news:1140027998.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The first folio edition of his [Jonson's] works had appeared in 1616;
> posthumously, in a second Jonson folio (1640), appeared Timber: or,
> Discoveries, a series of observations on life and letters. Here Jonson
> held forth on the nature of poetry and drama and paid his final tribute
> to Shakespeare: in spite of acknowledging a belief that his great
> contemporary was, on occasion, "full of wind"-sufflaminandus
> erat-he declared that "I loved the man, and do honour his memory,
> on this side idolatry, as much as any."
Thanks for that. That Jonsonian passage has
never rung true. It seems that he was playing
on 'idolatry' in this passage in the same way as
the poet in Sonnet 105:
"Idolatry" = "I do latry" where 'latry' = 'latrine'.
Jonson was saying that he loved the work of
the man, but was not sure about aspects of his
lavatory humour. Of course, in making the
same kind of hidden scatological puns, he is
paying tribute to the poet's style, and denying
the sense of what he would appear to be saying
-- which is already a contradiction of the
superficial sense usually taken.
Very Shakespearean.
Paul.
Peter Groves
news:knOIf.6032$j7.2...@news.indigo.ie...
> "Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1140027998.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The first folio edition of his [Jonson's] works had appeared in 1616;
> > posthumously, in a second Jonson folio (1640), appeared Timber: or,
> > Discoveries, a series of observations on life and letters. Here Jonson
> > held forth on the nature of poetry and drama and paid his final tribute
> > to Shakespeare: in spite of acknowledging a belief that his great
> > contemporary was, on occasion, "full of wind"-sufflaminandus
> > erat-
Is this from the Elizabeth Weir school of Latin translation? Sufflaminare
has nothing whatever to do with wind (could Lynne be thinking of the verb
"sufflare"? Even if we make it a gerundive -- <sufflandus erat> it would
have to mean "he ought to have been inflated"). Rule 1: if you're going to
try to translate Latin, learn the language first.
A <sufflamen> is a bar used for braking wheeled vehicles; <sufflaminandus
erat> therefore means "he should have been slowed down [lit." he was to be
braked']>
> > he declared that "I loved the man, and do honour his memory,
> > on this side idolatry, as much as any."
>
> Thanks for that. That Jonsonian passage has
> never rung true. It seems that he was playing
> on 'idolatry' in this passage in the same way as
> the poet in Sonnet 105:
>
> "Idolatry" = "I do latry" where 'latry' = 'latrine'.
>
> Jonson was saying that he loved the work of
> the man, but was not sure about aspects of his
> lavatory humour.
Given that his most admired play begins with the words "Thy worst -- I fart
at thee!" thuis seems improbable.
Peter G.
Mouse
Peter Groves wrote:
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
> news:knOIf.6032$j7.2...@news.indigo.ie...
> > "Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:1140027998.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > The first folio edition of his [Jonson's] works had appeared in 1616;
> > > posthumously, in a second Jonson folio (1640), appeared Timber: or,
> > > Discoveries, a series of observations on life and letters. Here Jonson
> > > held forth on the nature of poetry and drama and paid his final tribute
> > > to Shakespeare: in spite of acknowledging a belief that his great
> > > contemporary was, on occasion, "full of wind"-sufflaminandus
> > > erat-
>
> Is this from the Elizabeth Weir school of Latin translation? Sufflaminare
> has nothing whatever to do with wind (could Lynne be thinking of the verb
> "sufflare"? Even if we make it a gerundive -- <sufflandus erat> it would
> have to mean "he ought to have been inflated"). Rule 1: if you're going to
> try to translate Latin, learn the language first.
Tell Encyclopaedia Britannica, Peter, not me. I found it ages ago, and
thought it would be fun to use when the right situation presented
itself; however, I must admit that "wherein he flowed with that
facility that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped" does go
to the same point, as it were.
:)Lynne
Peter Groves
I've just found the reference:
http://www.britannica.com/shakespeare/article-3749
Frankly, it's shocking that Britannica should peddle this kind of ignorance.
Sensible people are wary of what they read on the Web, but they have a right
to feel reasonably confident when the page is headed Encyclopaedia
Britannica. One doesn't expect translation by guesswork.
Peter G.
Tom Reedy
You can blame Clifford Leech, Professor of English at the University of
Toronto, 1963-74, for that bit of guesswork. He wrote part of the article
and edited the rest of it.
Unfortunately, Prof. Leech died in 1977, so there's no way he can correct
his mistake. It is now perpetually enshrined on the Internet, and doubtless
will be foot-noted verbatim by antiStrafordians and Stratfordians alike for
centuries to come.
TR
Mouse
He died the year I started graduate work at U of T.
L.
John W. Kennedy
> Frankly, it's shocking that Britannica should peddle this kind of ignorance.
> Sensible people are wary of what they read on the Web, but they have a right
> to feel reasonably confident when the page is headed Encyclopaedia
> Britannica. One doesn't expect translation by guesswork.
It's regrettable, but, after all, considering that an entire bogus
religion owes its origin to a mistake in the 1929 Britannica that
they're still apologizing for, it's not all that surprising.
I hear (but have not checked to see for myself) that they've also drunk
Charles Hamilton's "Cardenio" Kool-Aid.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Tom Reedy
news:1UQIf.1609$2m3...@fe10.lga...
> Peter Groves wrote:
>> Frankly, it's shocking that Britannica should peddle this kind of
>> ignorance.
>> Sensible people are wary of what they read on the Web, but they have a
>> right
>> to feel reasonably confident when the page is headed Encyclopaedia
>> Britannica. One doesn't expect translation by guesswork.
>
> It's regrettable, but, after all, considering that an entire bogus
> religion owes its origin to a mistake in the 1929 Britannica that they're
> still apologizing for, it's not all that surprising.
OK, I'll be the one to ask.
What bogus religion? There are many of them, but I haven't heard of this
one.
TR
Jim KQKnave
> You can blame Clifford Leech, Professor of English at the University of
> Toronto, 1963-74, for that bit of guesswork.
A Perfesser! But Perfessers are *never* wrong,
right Groves?
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1UQIf.1609$2m3...@fe10.lga...
>> Peter Groves wrote:
>>> Frankly, it's shocking that Britannica should peddle this kind of
>>> ignorance.
>>> Sensible people are wary of what they read on the Web, but they have a
>>> right
>>> to feel reasonably confident when the page is headed Encyclopaedia
>>> Britannica. One doesn't expect translation by guesswork.
>> It's regrettable, but, after all, considering that an entire bogus
>> religion owes its origin to a mistake in the 1929 Britannica that they're
>> still apologizing for, it's not all that surprising.
>
> OK, I'll be the one to ask.
>
> What bogus religion? There are many of them, but I haven't heard of this
> one.
>
> TR
Answered offline.
lackpurity
Mouse wrote:
> John Andrews wrote:
> > Dear Peter
> >
> > We had forgott the fart.
>
> Your Majesty:
>
> The first folio edition of his [Jonson's] works had appeared in 1616;
> posthumously, in a second Jonson folio (1640), appeared Timber: or,
> Discoveries, a series of observations on life and letters. Here Jonson
> held forth on the nature of poetry and drama and paid his final tribute
> to Shakespeare: in spite of acknowledging a belief that his great
> contemporary was, on occasion, "full of wind"-sufflaminandus
> erat-he declared that "I loved the man, and do honour his memory,
> on this side idolatry, as much as any."
>
> http://www.britannica.com/shakespeare/article-3749
>
> :)
>
> Regards,
> Lynne
>
Ben Johnson must have had an inkling of what Shakespeare really was.
Even the word "idolatry," is used. Idolatry, regarding a Living
Master, a Sat Guru, is known as Sat Guru Bhakti. Then, he added, "as
much as any." Shakespeare, obviously, had some advanced disciples, so
Ben Johnson could have been one of them. The more we advance, the more
we revere the Master. A Bhakta is a lover or devotee. Bhakti means
love or devotion, for those not familiar with the word. This dovetails
with his use of the word idolatry.
Michael Martin