Gaslight digest of discussion for 97-apr-02
----------------------------THE HEADERS---------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 11:21:34 -0500
From: acc00ltr(at)unccvm.uncc.edu (Len Roberts)
Subject: A book that might be of interest. . . [11150]
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 12:28:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Champ
Subject: "Afterwards" [11151]
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 11:50:37 -0500
From: Anne Huey
Subject: unsubscribe [11152]
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 13:34:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Debah(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: "Afterwards" [11151] [11153]
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 13:19:45 -0600
From: "Marsha J. Valance"
Subject: Re: "Afterwards" [11151] [11153] [11154]
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 16:18:35 -0700 (MST)
From: "STEPHEN DAVIES, MT. ROYAL COLLEGE"
Subject: G. MacDonald, et al. re: Lilith [11155]
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 19:04:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Debah(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: "Afterwards" [11151] [11153] [11154] [11156]
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 17:17:45 -0700 (MST)
From: "STEPHEN DAVIES, MT. ROYAL COLLEGE"
Subject: Etext avail: Stephen Crane's "Manacled" [11157]
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 16:16:59 -0800
From: Jeff Sargent
Subject: Re: G. MacDonald, et al. re: Lilith [11155] [11158]
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 17:26:20 -0700 (MST)
From: "STEPHEN DAVIES, MT. ROYAL COLLEGE"
Subject: Tentative Gaslight schedule for 97-apr/may [11159]
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 01:25:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Champ
Subject: About Lilith [11160]
-----------------------------THE POSTS-----------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 11:21:34 -0500
From: acc00ltr(at)unccvm.uncc.edu (Len Roberts)
Subject: A book that might be of interest. . . [11150]
Gassers,
Have the more scholarly (more than me, anyway) heard of this book?
>Chrysal; or the Adventures of a Guinea: By an Adept....=20
> by
>Johnston (Charles)
>London: Printed for Hector McLean, 1821.
>
>3 volumes, old diced calf, marbled end-papers. Some shelf wear, a very good
set.
> Illustrated with15 fine hand-colored plates.
>
>View the book description and ordering information at
>http://www.abebooks.com/cgi/abe.exe/routera=AC_pr=3Doi=AC_ph=3D1=AC_bi=3D17=
65631
>
>The price of the book is US$ 500.00.
I am not even sure if it is fiction or non-fiction.
=20
Len Roberts
acc00ltr(at)email.uncc.edu
phone: (704)547-4110
===0===
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 12:28:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Champ
Subject: "Afterwards" [11151]
So--what happened to Edward Boyne? Was he the victim of an angry
ghost, as Mary believes? Or was Mary herself the victim of a
callous desertion? If the latter is true, then I could see where
Mary might choose to believe the former. She is, as Wharton
keeps telling us, short-sighted--someone who prefers not to be
"in the know" about many things in her life. And being deserted
would be exactly the sort of situation that she would want to hide
from herself.
Bob Champ
rchamp(at)europa.umuc.edu
===0===
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 11:50:37 -0500
From: Anne Huey
Subject: unsubscribe [11152]
unsubscribe annehuey(at)nwlink.com
Thanks
===0===
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 13:34:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Debah(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: "Afterwards" [11151] [11153]
In a message dated 4/2/97 10:48:11 AM, you wrote:
> Or was Mary herself the victim of a
>callous desertion?
All the times I read this I never considered this scenario. Because it was
in a volume of ghost stories I always took it to be the supernatural ending.
The only question I had was "was the ghost always specific to the person?"
Rather than a ghost that went with the house that you were only aware later
it had been a ghost did this house instead "open" a door for the ghost that
would be attracted to you?
Regardless of whether Edward Boyne actually deserted Mary or not--was the
visitation of Robert Elwell the ghost? Well, he was dead. So there is a
supernatural element here. Would Edward Boyne run for it?--or did he leave
with the ghost? I doubt if running from the ghost would help. It was very
persistent. On the other hand--ghosts in themselves are not supposed to be
able to hurt you physically (according to tradition--though there are
exceptions--only if your heart fails you). So all Boyne had to do was face
it down.
Was there no possibility that Elwell was a living person who came for
revenge?
Deborah McMillion
===0===
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 13:19:45 -0600
From: "Marsha J. Valance"
Subject: Re: "Afterwards" [11151] [11153] [11154]
>Was there no possibility that Elwell was a living person who came for
>revenge?
>Deborah McMillion
No, because his death date was established both by the newspaper article
and the attorney. It appears the house was a facilitator, empowering
spirits to reach it's inhabitants. I took Mary's "short-sightedness" to
refer both to her myopia and to her lack of insight into her husband's
business dealings--she accepted the world as she perceived it--limited
tho her perception might be.
And I felt it was the moral force of the injured Elwell that compelled
Edward to accompany him to whatever judgment awaited them both, for as
the attorney said, either could have played fast-and-loose--"it was
business", after all.
I found the story very effective.
Marsha in Milwaukee
===0===
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 16:18:35 -0700 (MST)
From: "STEPHEN DAVIES, MT. ROYAL COLLEGE"
Subject: G. MacDonald, et al. re: Lilith [11155]
What was the fascination with Lilith toward
the end of the century? I see "Lilith"
mentioned in many titles, as the subject of a
poem or as the allusory theme of a novel.
Stephen D
Sdavies(at)mtroyal.ab.ca
===0===
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 19:04:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Debah(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: "Afterwards" [11151] [11153] [11154] [11156]
In a message dated 4/2/97 1:09:56 PM, you wrote:
>And I felt it was the moral force of the injured Elwell that compelled
>Edward to accompany him to whatever judgment awaited them both, for as
>the attorney said, either could have played fast-and-loose--"it was
>business", after all
I was troubled by Elwell's committing suicide, his easy way out but he also
left a wife with a weak heart caring for children and a mother. They
couldn't take that easy way out. So, no matter how much the frustration and
the loser that he might have been it says something about his character as
well that he was capable of leaving them. Mary "may" have been left by
Edward for supernatural reasons or base reasons but Elwell just as surely and
rather callously left his wife (and kids and mother) as well. I'm sorry that
he was so distressed but that didn't excuse him in my eyes on a moral level.
So who was he to come fetch Edward--? This is a little outside the
perameters of the story but it didn't make me feel sympathetic towards him.
If he'd died due to his health failing (like his wife's was) then I would
have been. But a botched suicide attempt that must have really taxed his
wife with him lingering two months--sorry, no. It's just pathetic and
selfish.
I agree with Marsha, too, that Mary was very short sighted but that sort of
thing was prevalent in the stories of this era either because husbands didn't
wish to trouble their pretty little heads (rightly or wrongly) or their
pretty little heads didn't wish to be bothered. It's surprising how much of
it I still see today.
Still...the story is very eerie for the final effect, the line echoing in her
head "not till long afterwards." I would find it interesting to have a book
full of the other stories to do with this house, eh? How many "afterwards"
were there up to this time period?--and how personal were they, some good,
some bad, etc. Interesting idea.
Deborah McMillion
debah(at)aol.com
http://www.primenet.com/~bucanek/
===0===
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 17:17:45 -0700 (MST)
From: "STEPHEN DAVIES, MT. ROYAL COLLEGE"
Subject: Etext avail: Stephen Crane's "Manacled" [11157]
MANACLED.SHT 8 kb
A short but powerful story by Stephen Crane will
be discussed next week, starting Mon. 97-apr-07.
This would probably be a good introduction to a
discussion of realism in the theatre.
Prepared by Klaus Johansen
Send to: mailserv(at)mtroyal.ab.ca
the following command:
send [gaslight]manacled.sht
or catch the story on the Gaslight website:
www.mtroyal.ab.ca/programs/arts/english/gaslight/manacled.htm
Stephen D
Sdavies(at)mtroyal.ab.ca
===0===
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 16:16:59 -0800
From: Jeff Sargent
Subject: Re: G. MacDonald, et al. re: Lilith [11155] [11158]
On Apr 2, 4:18pm, STEPHEN DAVIES, MT. ROYAL COLLEGE wrote:
> Subject: G. MacDonald, et al. re: Lilith [11155]
> What was the fascination with Lilith toward
> the end of the century? I see "Lilith"
> mentioned in many titles, as the subject of a
> poem or as the allusory theme of a novel.
Fear/facination surrounding the growing power and independence of women would
be my guess. Lilith was the original Eve after all; made as the equal of Adam,
independent of him, with powers and responabilities bestowed upon her. The
early bible "editors" didn't much like a powerful woman (a tradition down
through the ages) and had her dumped, and gave us Eve as an offshoot of Adam,
an accessory. Lilith became the Mother of All Evil, a prototype for the power
of women that must be restrained.
Just the basic problems that come from trying to spot-weld a variety of
different myth cycles together (see: Arthur, King).
I daresay Victorian/Edwardian artists, wrestling with shifts in society, and
trying to express their collisions with the "new" woman naturally returned to
the the classical model (this is why we also see a fair amount of Athena
popping up - the virginal, but potent alternative. Equally forceful as Lilith,
Athena lacked the carnal aspects).
Must dash.
Cheers!
Sarge
--
Comper Sarge Jeffery L. N. Sargent
Tippett Studios 2741 Tenth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 649-9711
sarge(at)tippett.com jefs(at)dnai.com
-----------------------------------------
Boredom is a vital problem for the moralist, since
at least half of the sins of mankind are caused by
the fear of it. - Bertrand Russell
===0===
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 17:26:20 -0700 (MST)
From: "STEPHEN DAVIES, MT. ROYAL COLLEGE"
Subject: Tentative Gaslight schedule for 97-apr/may [11159]
A number of people are contributing to make up the next
reading list. Here it is tentatively, pending approval
of the listmembers:
1. Stephen Crane's "Manacled" (Prepared by Klaus Johansen)
2. Robert Chambers' "The purple emperor" (Original supplied
by John Squires)
3. Thomas Ingoldsby's "The spectre of Tappington"
(Original supplied by Len Roberts)
4. Arthur Reeves' Craig Kennedy in "The invisible ray"
(Prepared by Bob Champ)
May:
1., 2., & 3. Three tales of the American South, including
Ellen Glasgow and Kate Chopin (Prepared by Deborah
McMillion)
4. Conrad's _Heart of darkness_ (original supplied by Ruth
Jeffries; Prepared by Cindy Kogut)
Stephen
SDavies(at)mtroyal.ab.ca
===0===
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 01:25:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Champ
Subject: About Lilith [11160]
I think that we might locate several reasons for the appeal of
Lilith in our period, although the treatment of her throughout is far
more complex than the one suggested by Jeffery. We might, for
instance, point to her as a creature of the Decadence, very much
like Salome; writers and artists of the Decadence, as we know,
delighted in portraying the darker side of women. Indeed, the
Decadence pursued everything perverse, and it should be no cause
for wonder that she should have caught their attention. Second,
Lilith is, in legend, a vampire. As we know, the vampire legend
was consequential throughout nineteenth century literary history.
We have, on Gaslight, seen her in works as early as Coleridge's
"Christabel" and Keats's "Lamia" (in fact, some scholars identify
Lilith and the lamia), and we know her especially well from
LeFanu's novella, _Carmilla_. In the latter half of the century, I
suspect that any story with a vampire twist would have created an
impression--especially after the success of Stoker's _Dracula_.
One with roots as ancient as this one would have been especially
intriguing, I would imagine. Third, the image of the Garden of
Eden had been a major source of literary inspiration since at least
the seventeenth century. The story of Lilith was a complicating
factor that many writers of our period might have viewed as an
opportunity to revisit that source. (One does not give up a rich
vein lightly--even Mark Twain, reputed atheist, was constantly
embellishing the Garden of Eden story in his later works,
although he had no use for Lilith).
Such reasons are at least part of the explanation for the persistence
of the Lilith story in our era, even if they aren't the only ones.
As for Lilith herself, she was a Babylonian demon--not a good start,
to say the least. In addition, it is interesting to note that she does
not appear in the Bible at all. In the only place in which the name
_might_ occur (Isaiah 34), the translation is in dispute. The story
of Lilith that is commonly handed down--that she and Adam were
created as equals (in fact, they were a hermaphroditic pair) and that
the origin of their final quarrel had to do with who should be on top
in lovemaking--is a Jewish folktale, introduced long after the Bible
was written In fact, the whole legend of Lilith in the Garden is an
interpolation of later writers, not all of them friendly to Judaism. Some
modern authors have traced it to the ancient Rabbinical Midrash,
an attribution sometimes used by feminists to illustrate the rabbinical
attitude toward women. It most probably originates, however, in
a medieval work called "The Alphabet of Ben-Sira," which can
at best be described as an attempt to undermine Jewish traditions, since
it paints the heroes of the Bible (and the Talmud) in the worst light
possible.
In short, when Jeffery speaks of mixing myths from different cultures,
he cannot be referring to anything Biblical or anything within the
bounds of either Jewish or Christian orthodoxy.
Finally, to give an example of the kind of work Stephen is no doubt
talking about, I offer a poem by Dante Gabriel Rossetti :
Lilith
(For a Picture)
also titled "Body's Beauty"
This was meant to appear in connection with Rossetti's 1868 painting,
"Lilith."
Of Adam's first wife, Lilith, it is told
(The witch he loved before the gift of Eve,)
That, ere the snake's, her sweet tongue could deceive,
And her enchanted hair was the first gold.
And still she sits, young while the earth is old,
And, subtly of herself contemplative,
Draws men to watch the bright net she can weave,
Till heart and body and life are in its hold.
The rose and poppy are her flowers; for where
Is he not found, O Lilith, whom shed scent
And soft-shed kisses and soft sleep shall snare?
Lo! as that youth's eyes burned at thine, so went
Thy spell through him, and left his straight neck bent,
And round his heart one strangling golden hair.
It seems to me that, far from illustrating the growing independence of
women, Rossetti here depicts women in an old, familiar role--that of
the irresistible temptress (more like Acrasia in the Bower of
Bliss than the New Woman). But then again, there are many ways
of presenting Lilith. Of MacDonald's treatment of her, which is
a complex thing indeed, I will say nothing, since it has been many years
since I read the book. Others, I'm sure, can give a much better
explication, if so moved.
Bob Champ
rchamp(at)europa.umuc.edu
End of Gaslight digest.