Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: July ::
Re: "What's in a name?"
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1732  Wednesday, 11 July 2001

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Jul 2001 08:02:52 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1728 Re: "What's in a name?"

[2]     From:   Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Jul 2001 13:27:58 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 12.1720 Re: "What's in a name?"

[3]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 10 Jul 2001 18:35:34 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1728 Re: "What's in a name?"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Jul 2001 08:02:52 -0700
Subject: 12.1728 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1728 Re: "What's in a name?"

I made a typo.

>Not that I have an understanding of Mr. Taylor's character

should have been, NOW that I have an understanding.  My apology.

Abigail, Abigail, Abigail, if Shakespeare wanted roses to be so noted in
1H6, he was incompetent.  He should have done a much better job pointing
out this meaning, if that meaning was intended.  Without giving a single
clue, save the very obscure roses themselves, there is no way to come to
your conclusion, except to read a whole paragraph between the lines.  As
was pointed out previously, just because a word can have multiple
meanings does not mean reading all of them is always warranted.  Don't
forget, it was called the Wars of the Roses for a reason other than the
reason you suggest.

Must tell you my embarrassing orchid story sometime.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Jul 2001 13:27:58 -0400
Subject: Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        SHK 12.1720 Re: "What's in a name?"

Today's Guardian reviews a new play by Steven Berkoff, 'The Secret Love
Life of Ophelia'. In a key moment, it seems that Ophelia advises the
Prince of her desire to ' squeeze thy balls like juicy persimmons'. Why
such a woman later has recourse to mere rosemary for remembrance remains
a mystery.

T. Hawkes

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 10 Jul 2001 18:35:34 -0400
Subject: 12.1728 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1728 Re: "What's in a name?"

>Not that I have an understanding of Mr. Taylor's character, I assumed >he would get nasty

This debate has become unseemly, and its not as if it is about anything
of enormous importance.

By the way, Abigail is right: "rose" can only be slang for vulva, not
vagina. The vagina is an internal organ, and the only thing floral about
it is yeast.

_______________________________________________________________
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>
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.