Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: October ::
Re: Leah
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2391  Friday, 19 October 2001

[1]     From:   Jane Drake Brody <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 10:00:49 EDT
        Subj:   Leah

[2]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 11:51:09 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2372 Re: Merchant

[3]     From:   Graham Hall <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 21:36:39 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2372 The Ring Cycle


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jane Drake Brody <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 10:00:49 EDT
Subject:        Leah

> Leah, although it has been implied by several correspondents in this
> thread, need not necessarily be Jessica's mother - or for that matter,
> Shylock's wife.

If she is not his wife, we are implying that Shakespeare just dropped
the name into the text with no reason to do so.  Why on earth would he
discuss "Leah" if she were not Jessica's mother?  Or is there a missing
play concerning Leah, sister-in-law of Shylock.  It seems reasonable to
assume, that Shylock would value the ring given to him by his dead wife
before marriage above other treasures and that it would naturally go to
their daughter.  Its being given to a monkey mocks his marriage and his
love of his daughter.  If "Leah" is simply an old girl friend, the power
of the ring is lost.

Jane Drake Brody

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 11:51:09 -0400
Subject: 12.2372 Re: Merchant
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2372 Re: Merchant

Larry Weiss writes:

 >"I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor" conjures up
>a matrimonial connection.  Are we to assume that Leah was Shylock's
>maiden aunt?

Some auditors (e.g., many of my students) tell me that they think
Shylock is referring to a pre-marital lover. Leah is a former
girlfriend, the one he did NOT marry.  Leah left him, and now Jessica
leaves him.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 18 Oct 2001 21:36:39 +0000
Subject: 12.2372 The Ring Cycle
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2372 The Ring Cycle

From: Larry Weiss

[...]"I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor" conjures up a matrimonial
connection.[...]

[...] Are we to assume that Leah was Shylock's maiden aunt?[...]

An eastern talisman pursues:

Which is?...and, no. Also, there is the question of sterility and
turquoise (Boswell, SQ 14, ) - although my personal belief is he was
confusing the issue with Superman and Kryptonite.

___Best wishes, Graham Hall

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.