2002

Re: OED and Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2447  Friday, 20 December 2002

[1]     From:   R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Dec 2002 07:12:58 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2437 Re: OED and Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Dec 2002 14:15:40 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2437 Re: OED and Shakespeare

[3]     From:   Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Dec 2002 23:37:11 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2437 Re: OED and Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Dec 2002 07:12:58 -0600
Subject: 13.2437 Re: OED and Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2437 Re: OED and Shakespeare

>As stated, that does appear to be circular.  How does Mr. Cantrell
>suggest overcoming this problem?

In future, those who edit and annotate the plays might be a little more
attentive to the origins of the definitions they adopt from their
predecessors. At present, assigning the problem to the Jensen Center for
Contention (as remedial community service) might serve the turn.

All the best,
R.A. Cantrell
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Dec 2002 14:15:40 -0000
Subject: 13.2437 Re: OED and Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2437 Re: OED and Shakespeare

>>There is some circularity in this business. Frequently OED cites
>>Shakespeare as the first etymological entry for a particular usage, and
>>the chain of annotators of the plays will cite the definition from OED
>>(taken from Shakespeare) in their glosses.
>
>As stated, that does appear to be circular.  How does Mr. Cantrell
>suggest overcoming this problem?
>
>Mike Jensen

I don't know what R. A. Cantrell would say. But wouldn't Wittgenstein
have said, "It isn't circular - circularity is just a non-problem that
arises because of the linguistic idiocies involved in post-Socratic
philosophy. In fact it's just the way it is."

Or something like that.

As someone said on this list some time ago, words don't have meanings,
they have uses. So, annotators of Shakespeare, continue as you were, for
it provides us with harmless amusement.

martin

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Dec 2002 23:37:11 -0500
Subject: 13.2437 Re: OED and Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2437 Re: OED and Shakespeare

I agree with Tony wholeheartedly. I have often found the OED--- and the
DNB---to be unreliable, and in fact my first published article was on
the former's erroneous gloss of the last line of Milton's Sonnet XIX
(they also serve who only stand and wait)--- which they got wrong in
every instance. Likewise the DNB, which references people who
aren't---or just aren't there.

Best to all,
Carol Barton

_______________________________________________________________
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.

World Shakespeare Bibliography Online Updated

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2446  Thursday, 19 December 2002

From:           Jim Harner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 18 Dec 2002 20:33:07 -0600
Subject:        World Shakespeare Bibliography Online Updated

Version 3.2 of the World Shakespeare Bibliography Online
<http://www.worldshakesbib.org> is now available.

Among the changes in this version:

1. coverage extends from 1969 through mid-2002

2. 83,267 records (with several hundred thousand additional reviews)

3. phrase searching

4. full Boolean capability in all search fields

5. the ability to jump to a specific record when a search returns more
than 1 page of hits

6. even faster searches

The next update is scheduled for Spring 2003.  I hope that all SHAKSPER
members will report any books, articles, reviews, productions, films,
recordings, etc. that we have inadvertently overlooked--and will send
copies of or details about recent publications that should be included
in the next update.

Jim Harner
Editor, World Shakespeare Bibliography Online
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Re: Shakespeare's Bible

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2444  Thursday, 19 December 2002

From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 18 Dec 2002 12:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.2428 Re: Shakespeare's Bible
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2428 Re: Shakespeare's Bible

R.A. Cantrell quotes me, "and the two men who wrote the introductory
material, Bishop Bancroft and King James I himself."  Then he writes,
"In my opinion, Miles Smith's 'comely gate to a glorious city' should
not be overlooked in considering the apparatus of the KJV, nor should
scholars ignore Hugh Broughton."

I guess I wrote a poor sentence, because in my book I quote all 46 names
of the members of the committees from Westminster, Oxford and and
Cambridge, then I quote and cite Miles Smith and Thomas Bilson, as well
as Bishop Richard Bancroft and King James I, who actually worked on the
KJV, making it a total of 50 known potential contributors.  If Will
Shakespeare had anything to do with translating text, the number of
potential contributors would rise to 51.

Takashi Kozuka writes, "Bill Arnold told us that he had 'just published
several years worth of research on the question...'  Would you be kind
to tell us the title of your work (book/article) and where we can find
it?"

Certainly.  You can email me directly, or order it from any bookstore in
the world.

Again: it is:
JESUS: The Gospel According To Will: "Thy Kingdom Come, thy Will Be
Done," ISBN 1892582-01-5, 2002.

I would suggest to SHAKSPEReans that the book is about JESUS primarily,
as per the title, with an three-part apologia: with history of the
ancient texts of the NT; history of primarily English translations up to
the KJV; and 179 KJV paradigms, focusing on key quotations of Jesus,
selected and organized by the author.  The book attempts in the central
portion of the apologia to cover the history of the Will Shakespeare
question of whether or not he actually translated any portions of the
KJV, with all the known referents included.  I gave my opinion in
summary in my previous post to SHAKSPER.

Bill Arnold

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Re: Baz Luhrmann Review

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2445  Thursday, 19 December 2002

From:           Hiba Taylor <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 18 Dec 2002 15:19:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.2425 Re: Baz Luhrmann Review
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2425 Re: Baz Luhrmann Review

hmmm...I find the posting "Unfit for Teens (was Re: Baz Luhrmann Review)
a bit troubling.

I'm not sure... about which part of the posting is the writer joking? As
a teacher of high school students I find his suggestion that teens
should not be exposed to uncensored publications or productions of R & J
hard to swallow.  When we read the play my students dive right in when
it is presented to them as a centuries old play that touches on many of
the same traumas (and dramas!) teenagers experience today.  "Steamy
Pubescent sexuality, morbid depression, homicidal gang violence, teen
suicide" along with defiance against parental authority and the
characteristically teenage like confusion between love and lust are all
in our teens minds and lives today.  Aren't they very much like R & J?
If we censored the play what is the purpose of reading it- for anyone?
What is the purpose of reading anything that is censored? I wonder who
really understands teens-I'm not saying I do, but I'll admit that, on
some level, Shakespeare did.

Hiba Taylor (grad. student & teacher)

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Re: Hamlet! The Musical

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2443  Thursday, 19 December 2002

From:           John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 18 Dec 2002 15:44:36 -0500
Subject: 13.2431 Re: Hamlet! The Musical
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2431 Re: Hamlet! The Musical

Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> writes,

>John W. Kennedy added nothing new to my understanding of the
>similarities between *Hamlet* and *The Lion King.*

Why then, considering that you wrote:

>Just because a plot has an uncle trying to get a throne does not mean a
>story is significantly based on *Hamlet*.

and I wrote:

>And there's a lot more in common than a plotting uncle.  The king is
>killed by his brother, who assumes the throne and (at least in
>appearance) the queen.  The murder is eventually avenged by the king's
>son, despite his initial reluctance to act.

I must conclude that you either did not read what I wrote, or else, in
your previous message, stated the case to be weaker than you knew it to
be.

While it goes too far to consider "The Lion King" a version of "Hamlet"
in the sense that, say, "Treasure Planet" is a version of "Treasure
Island", the similarities, especially given what may and may not be done
in a main-line Disney animated feature, are great, and were obvious to
me the moment I first saw the film.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.