Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 174.  Tuesday, 16 March 1993.
 
(1)     From:   Kay Stockholder <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 16 Mar 93 07:24:40 PST
        Subj:   Re: Rs: Juliet's Drowse; Surnames; Q: Shakespeare's Verse
 
(2)     From:   Rick Jones <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 16 Mar 1993 11:50:10 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   RE: SHK 4.0173
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kay Stockholder <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 16 Mar 93 07:24:40 PST
Subject:        Re: Rs: Juliet's Drowse; Surnames; Q: Shakespeare's Verse
 
The answer must lie in original sin.
 
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rick Jones <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 16 Mar 1993 11:50:10 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 4.0173
Comment:        RE: SHK 4.0173
 
A brief response to William Proctor Williams's final question:
 
>And why is some of the "verse" given to prophetic characters (e.g.,
>Fool in +Lear+) frequently incomprehensible?
 
I hadn't thought to put the question in these terms before, but it
strikes me that doing so actually takes us a long way toward the
answer.  The incomprehensibility is indeed directly linked to the
phophetic nature of the character... this is a time-honored dramatic
(and historiographic) trope: qv. Teiresias, the Delphic Oracle, even
late medieval dumb-shows (such as the ones in _Gorboduc_)...  All
would seem to be variations on the same theme.
 
Rick Jones
Cornell College