Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0587.  Sunday, 3 July 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Harry Hill <HILHAR@CONU2.BITNET>
        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 e-mail 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 <HILHAR@CONU2.BITNET>
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 e-mail 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 e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 )