1994

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0587.  Sunday, 3 July 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Harry Hill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 01 Jul 1994 10:00:02 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0585  Re: "wood"/"woo'd"
 
(2)     From:   Diana Akers Rhoads  <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 2 Jul 1994 21:49:33 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0581  Qs: "wood"/"woo'd"
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Harry Hill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 01 Jul 1994 10:00:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0585  Re: "wood"/"woo'd"
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0585  Re: "wood"/"woo'd"
 
A tiny reminder to Douglas Lanier that "I love *thee* not" as a line-reading
onstage would go quite against the metre, which is of course in itself the best
guide to the clean interpretation of such moments.
 
        Harry Hill
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Diana Akers Rhoads  <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 2 Jul 1994 21:49:33 -0400
Subject: 5.0581  Qs: "wood"/"woo'd"
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0581  Qs: "wood"/"woo'd"
 
In Elizabethan times *wood* meant "madness" as well as "forest."  Love often
was seen as a kind of madness, and so your rendering of the word fits nicely
with this Elizabethan alternative.
 
Diana Akers Rhoads (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.