Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: June ::
Re: Why Shakespeare
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1557  Tuesday, 19 June 2001

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 18 Jun 2001 19:38:30 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1527 Re: Why Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 14 Jun 2001 14:01:05
        Subj:   Re: Why Shakespeare

[3]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 Jun 2001 06:21:27 +0100
        Subj:   SHK 12.1527 Re: Why Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 18 Jun 2001 19:38:30 +0100
Subject: 12.1527 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1527 Re: Why Shakespeare

> Mike Jensen wrote:
>
> > Also, I know Gabriel was not an Archangel.  Not sure why I wrote it that
> > way.  Sorry again.
>
> Pardon my confusion, but should I assume here that you are referring to
> your fictional character Gabriel, as opposed to the biblical Gabriel,
> who is indeed an archangel?
>
> Leslie

Of the nine orders of Celestial Beings --

Seraphim
Cherubim
Thrones
Dominations
Virtues
Powers
Principalities
Archangels
Angels

-- Gabriel is, indeed, traditionally assigned to the second-lowest rung
of the hierarchy, as an Archangel.  However, as this subdivision of
immaterial creatures is severely post-biblical (stemming from the work
of Pseudo-Dionysius in the Twelfth Century), the +biblical+ Gabriel (as
Mike Jensen notes, correcting himself) is strictly a generic angel, pure
and simple.

Robin Hamilton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Takashi Kozuka <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 14 Jun 2001 14:01:05
Subject:        Re: Why Shakespeare

Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 > suggests:

>Strange things happen in the process of sending, receiving, and
>re-sending.

>I realize that when the misspelled word is central to
>the point, one has a problem, but I still feel that the best policy is
>to make the change to the correct form and assume that the incorrect one
>was just a quirk of the transmission process.

Thanks for your advice. It's true that unexpected things do happen while
messages are being sent. But I assume that Sam's typo had nothing to do
with the e-mail technology. When I *quote* a passage or phrase (as I was
in my previous posting), I prefer to be accurate. If I make any change,
I use a square blanket [ ] just to be accurate. Online we may not have
to be as strict as in printed forms. But since I don't know what the
regulations are (if there is any) I simply follow the usual rules. (Sam
-> No ill intention in my use of "(sic)".) We also use quotation marks
when we refer to certain words-when we verbally speaks these words, we
often do so while using a gesture with fingers making quotation marks.
My use of "fiction" (in quotation marks) was the latter case. In this
sense, " " were my (small) fingers.

Takashi Kozuka

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Jun 2001 06:21:27 +0100
Subject: Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        SHK 12.1527 Re: Why Shakespeare

> Maybe the word 'universal' has its limits, as it were, but I perfectly
> understand Sam Small's point of view.

It surely does.  First of all we have to extract from the equation
China, Africa and India (outside of the English educated elite), the
Middle East ...

So we're (setting up a decent context) talking about "universal" in the
context of post-Renaissance Western European culture, at the most.

Even within this limited historical and cultural context, "universal" is
a peculiarly contested concept, and shouldn't be used with such bland,
unthought inconsequence.

I too, think I understand (though perhaps not perfectly) Sam Small's
statements.  It's just that I find them nonsensical-the sweet
particularities of Shakespeare's words rendered down into an amorphous
soup of clich

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.