Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: May ::
Mixed Responses
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0812  Tuesday, 4 May 1999.

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 3 May 1999 11:05:23 +0100
        Subj:   Re: Connotations of "get stuffed"

[2]     From:   David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 03 May 1999 12:07:53 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0790 Re: Chooseth

[3]     From:   C. David Frankel <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 3 May 1999 19:32:00 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 10.0789 Re: Shakespeare and Glamour

[4]     From:   Frank Whigham <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 03 May 1999 13:23:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0803 Sages and Parsley


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 3 May 1999 11:05:23 +0100
Subject:        Re: Connotations of "get stuffed"

>By the way, "get stuffed" in the modern context is used to/about men,
>based on the supposedly shocking idea that the recipient is liable to be
>penetrated by another man. The imputation is much less insulting when
>used of a man.

I recently checked the various dictionaries of slang on this (Cassell,
Oxford, Partridge), and the consensus would seem to be that [in Britain,
at least] while the origin may have been sexual, current usage makes it
primarily pejorative.  The Glasgow equivalent might run, "Go bile yir
heid."

Robin Hamilton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 03 May 1999 12:07:53 -0400
Subject: 10.0790 Re: Chooseth
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0790 Re: Chooseth

The matter of gift-giving is an important and highly vexed issue in
contemporary thought in several fields, esp. philosophy and sociology
(s.v. altruism), and anthropology, biology, economics, and psychology
(s.v. reciprocity); at this stage, as far as I am aware after quite a
lot of work, there is not unassailably logical answer to the question
whether all human giving involves the tacit expectation of a subsequent
getting-more or less assertive versions of the Hobbesian obligations
Sean Lawrence cites, though if you just count heads the proponderance of
the authorities inclines to the Hobbesian rather than the Montaignesque
view.  In our lives the process is modulated in a very complex way by
emotion as well as reason (see the economist Robert Frank's lucid
analysis, Feeling Within Reason)--thus the mild flush of pleasure I
experienced yesterday when I gave a New York cab driver whom I would in
all likelihood never see again a generous tip for a perfectly routine
trip.  A major question is whether those feelings are in some sense
innate (evolved as part of our evolution as mutually dependent social
animals), or learned, and if learned how taught.  In representing
actions such as Orlando's defense of Oliver Shakespeare seems to endorse
the possibility of altruism (that play offers several other instances).
But Harry Berger and others have, indeed, explored economies of tacit
and explicit reciprocation, and it may well be in Shakespeare the matter
is (as usual) richly contextual.

Altruistically,
Dave Evett

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           C. David Frankel <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 3 May 1999 19:32:00 -0400
Subject: 10.0789 Re: Shakespeare and Glamour
Comment:        RE: SHK 10.0789 Re: Shakespeare and Glamour

I'm late responding, so perhaps this has already come up, but Elizabeth
Taylor's perfume "Passion" was advertised on T.V. by Liz saying "Passion
is catching.  Shakespeare.  I hope so."  Or something close to that.

cdf

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Frank Whigham <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 03 May 1999 13:23:49 -0500
Subject: 10.0803 Sages and Parsley
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0803 Sages and Parsley

Aside from the irresistible temptation to seize the chance to write this
subject line, it also seems mildly worth observing that for all of
Shakespeare's nominally infinite riches, some folks still feel fine
about presenting their own views of him as the "real" answer (though of
course Dana Shilling very properly says "I think").

I'm happy, of course, to acknowledge Seneca's importance, and happier to
learn that today's lowly garnish is descended from more lofty
employment. I wonder if Shilling has a reference handy? Further, do all
salad greens make for green gowns? Cucumbers too, I think Burton says
somewhere, though shape as well as color seems at work there. It might
be useful to compile a list of early modern aphrodisiacs, along with
related items such as the labor-stimulating and/or emetic apricots that
Bosola gives the Duchess of Malfi. Probably it'd be easier to make a
list of vegetables that don't serve so somewhere.

Frank Whigham

[snip]

>Check out the real source of gift-giving in Shakespeare, translated in
>1578, Senecas De Beneficiis, now available at www.stoics.com, my web
>site.  A real gift has no strings.
>
>Yours ever
>BEN SCHNEIDER
>
>[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
>From:           Dana Shilling <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
>Date:           Sun, 2 May 1999 20:02:20 -0400
>Subject:        Parsley Stuffing
>
>I think the alleged funny part in the TS joke about a wench getting
>married on the way to get parsley to stuff a rabbit was the parsley, not
>the stuffing.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.