March
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0611 Friday, 1 March 2002 From: Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 17:36:23 -0000 Subject: 13.0589 Re: Medium & Message, Fact and "History" Comment: Re: SHK 13.0589 Re: Medium & Message, Fact and "History" Sean Lawrence, responding favourably to a previous post by R. A. Cantrell, asked, "could we even recognize a "(truer) world" without some sense of the true? Can we have comparatives without at least some intuition of absolutes?" R. A. Cantrell replied, "See Augustine, St. THE UTILITY OF BELIEF; Heidegger, M. Sein und Zeit". I am amused to imagine every list member scurrying away to get copies of Heidegger in the original German. On the Augustine, I would oppose Cantrell's selection with the passages about the non-existence of evil in Book VII of "Confessions", especially xii and xiii (pp.124ff. in the World's Classics edition translated by Henry Chadwick, 1992). As for "Being and Time", I'm not sure Heidegger's pre-Socratic phenomenology replaces its destruction of "intuition of absolutes" with a sense of "comparatives". Was not the notion that there were categories that could be put to the service of comparison just the sort of Aritotelian (or, more to the point, Kantian) paradigm that this sort of hermeneutics was developed to challenge? I think my namesake agrees with Sean on that one (but who would dare to suggest they know what Heidegger actually means...?) Sean wrote that R. A. Cantrell "quoted British pop culture", which got the response, "Not of a purpose I didn't, Mr. Dillon". I think that was because Sean forgot that it was I who quoted from "1066 and all That", mischievous source of the quote which has led rather surprisingly to this abstruse discussion and these frightening references. Sellars and Yeatman would be highly amused. But that is no more than they deserve! m _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0610 Friday, 1 March 2002 [1] From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 08:53:57 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 13.0590 Re: Shakespeare's Will [2] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 14:36:50 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 13.0590 Re: Shakespeare's Will [3] From: Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 1 Mar 2002 14:49:05 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: Shakespeare's Will [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 08:53:57 -0800 Subject: 13.0590 Re: Shakespeare's Will Comment: Re: SHK 13.0590 Re: Shakespeare's Will Philip Tomposki asks, logically enough, whether "a handwriting expert has ever compared the Will to Hand D in "Thomas More"?" I have a related question: did people in the Renaissance ever have more than one type of handwriting? I hope that this isn't as silly as it sounds. Certainly friends of mine both write and print, and their writing and printing often look quite different. In an age of secretary and italic hands, could a writer not have more than one way of writing? Need all the handwriting samples therefore resemble one another? Cheers, Se
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0609 Friday, 1 March 2002 [1] From: David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 17:45:27 GMT0BST Subj: Re: SHK 13.0593 Re: Die as a Metaphor for Sex [2] From: Paul Swanson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 14:00:21 -0600 Subj: SHK 13.0593 Re: Die as a Metaphor for Sex [3] From: Jill Phillips <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 19:58:13 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 13.0593 Re: Die as a Metaphor for Sex [4] From: Sophie Masson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 1 Mar 2002 20:46:21 +1100 Subj: Re: SHK 13.0593 Re: Die as a Metaphor for Sex [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 17:45:27 GMT0BST Subject: 13.0593 Re: Die as a Metaphor for Sex Comment: Re: SHK 13.0593 Re: Die as a Metaphor for Sex Does anyone know of an instance in the period where "die" means have an orgasm and could not also mean "cease to live" in context? Yes, Nashe's 'Choice of Valentines', which describes a case of premature ejaculation. The sight of naked female flesh: ... makes the fruites of love eftsoone be rype; And pleasure pluckt too tymelie from the stemme To dye ere it hath seene Jerusalem. Oh Gods, that ever anie thing so sweete So suddenlie should fade awaie and fleete. Hir armes are spread, and I am all unarm'd Lyke one with Ovid's cursed hemlock charm'd, So are my limms unwealdie for the fight, Professor David Lindley Head, School of English [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Swanson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 14:00:21 -0600 Subject: Re: Die as a Metaphor for Sex Comment: SHK 13.0593 Re: Die as a Metaphor for Sex Andy White touches on Ian McKellan's inferential connection of Romeo's "dying" in Juliet's lap. Numerous readers see both Romeo and Juliet's "die" references, and their actual deaths, as sexually metaphorical. "Thus," Romeo says, "with a kiss I die." Juliet ends her life with "O happy dagger / This is thy sheath; there rust, and let me die." Who knows. Even Freud knew that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but the phallic and sexual images seem readily understandable here. Paul [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jill Phillips <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 19:58:13 -0500 Subject: 13.0593 Re: Die as a Metaphor for Sex Comment: Re: SHK 13.0593 Re: Die as a Metaphor for Sex Has anyone mentioned _A Dictionary of Shakespeare's Sexual Puns and their Significance_, by Frankie Rubinstein? Although speculative at times, and amazingly without a reference for either "kill" or "die," the dictionary lists many other words re: sexual implications (372 pp). It received a good review from Jay Halio in Shakespeare Quarterly when it first came out (1984) and was reissued in 1989. It's really a lot of fun to peruse. Jill Phillips Department of English University of Virginia [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sophie Masson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 1 Mar 2002 20:46:21 +1100 Subject: 13.0593 Re: Die as a Metaphor for Sex Comment: Re: SHK 13.0593 Re: Die as a Metaphor for Sex Orgasm is known as 'la petite mort' in French, but I'm not at all sure when the expression first came about. Sophie Masson Author site: http://www.northnet.com.au/~smasson _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0608 Friday, 1 March 2002 [1] From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 09:38:57 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 13.0596 Re: Olivier [2] From: Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 11:18:19 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 13.0596 Re: Olivier [3] From: Janet Costa <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 18:49:33 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 13.0596 Re: Olivier [4] From: Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 1 Mar 2002 14:09:33 -0000 Subj: Stage, Screen, TV or Radio? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 09:38:57 -0800 Subject: 13.0596 Re: Olivier Comment: Re: SHK 13.0596 Re: Olivier Ruth Ross has a modest proposal, >There should be a rule: you can't act in a >Shakespearean play on stage unless you've appeared on a stage before. >Period. Should we reverse it, as well? No movie productions unless you're used to cutting down on the overacting? Cheers, Se
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0607 Friday, 1 March 2002 [1] From: Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 12:35:42 -0500 Subj: SHK 13.0583 Re: Education [2] From: Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 11:13:57 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 13.0598 Re: Education [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 12:35:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Education Comment: SHK 13.0583 Re: Education What on earth does Andy White mean by 'a linguistic monoculture'? Is it different from a mono-linguistic culture? The United States is neither. T. Hawkes [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Feb 2002 11:13:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: 13.0598 Re: Education Comment: Re: SHK 13.0598 Re: Education I took Latin in high school because I felt that it would offer a better perspective on the etymology and basic functions of the English language. I didn't really learn much of it well and I ended up mostly translating The Aeneid for the last three years. However, bizarrely enough, I soaked up enough of it that I felt in latter years and even to this day that it has enhanced my grasp of the English language. The comparison is that Shakespeare might have had less Latin that his contemporaries (certainly less than Ben Jonson in his humble opinion). Certainly, with the experience I had, and the raw genius that he happened to be born with, he could have written what he did. And I think a less thorough Latin education in his time was still ten times more thorough than mine. He would have been immersed in Latin rhetoric and grammar and the Greco-Roman tradition of which even we still freely quote today. Certainly enough to parody those traditions as he does so often in the comedies. It is also important to remember the loose rules of the English language then. He was writing it as he went along! And I think the amount of Latin he had, even if not as complete as a university level, was certainly enough to grasp whatever English linguistics there were and to adapt them to his will. As far as educational standards, certainly our expectations have plummeted. I think there is TOO much catering to those who take the easier way out, who find reading boring and only "watch movies". Of course, I should also say that we do not have nearly enough teachers, classrooms, funding or even support to do what needs to be done. The future, in my mind, is dire again. I really think that the "elite", as in those who motivate themselves to be educated, to read and KNOW things, are going to the universities. However, since it is open to everyone, perhaps we are having unrealistic expectations that EVERYONE should go to college? School is indeed not for everyone. Obviously Shakespeare didn't see the value in a university education and look what he did. It's quite a frustrating problem in my mind. Especially when most bachelor's degree are now becoming as near worthless in the real world as a high school diploma used to be. Brian Willis _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> 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.