2002

Re: OED and Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2427  Wednesday, 18 December 2002

From:           R.A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Dec 2002 12:29:45 -0600
Subject: 13.2419 OED and Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2419 OED and Shakespeare

>Peter Holland is right to counsel caution in his comments about the OED
>and Shakespearean citation.

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.

All the best,
R.A. Cantrell
<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: What's a "meacock"?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2426  Wednesday, 18 December 2002

[1]     From:   Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Dec 2002 10:25:44 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2420 What's a "meacock"?

[2]     From:   Bruce W. Richman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Dec 2002 16:26:08 -0600
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.2420 What's a "meacock"?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Dec 2002 10:25:44 -0500
Subject: 13.2420 What's a "meacock"?
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2420 What's a "meacock"?

For starters, as the URLs below indicate, Al---it's a surname. (See
assorted variant spellings.) --- Perhaps the pejorative derives from the
behavior of one of the bearers.

Best,
Carol Barton

.WIRKSWORTH-Parish Registers 1608-1899-Surnames "IR"
... MCCREERY| MCDONALD| MCGOURLICK| MCGREGOR| MEACHANT| MEACOCK|
MEACOKE| MEAD| MEAKIN| MEAKOCKE| MEASE| MEASURES| MEAT| MEATCALLFE|
MECHANT| MECOCKE| MECOKE| MEE
...
http://www.wirksworth.org.uk/PR-X3.htm - 59k - similar pages
.WIRKSWORTH-Parish Records 1608-1899-All Surnames
... MEADE, MEADEN, MEADER, MEADOWCROFT, MEADOWS, MEADS, MEAKIN,
MEAKOCKE, MEAR, MEARS, MEAS, MEASE, MEASURES, MEAT, MEATCALLFE, MECHANT,
MECOCKE, MECOKE, MEDCALF
...
http://www.wirksworth.org.uk/A70-SUR2.htm - 57k - Dec. 16, 2002 -
similar
pages [ More results from www.wirksworth.org.uk ]
.The History of the Ancient Surname
... These include "Macock" "Maycock", "Maycocke", "Meakocke", "Mecock",
"Mecocke", "Mecoke", "Mecouch", "Mekocke", "Meekock", "Meekocke",
"Micock", "Mocock ...
http://www.geocities.com/emeaco_2000/history_ancient_surname.htm - 21k -
similar pages

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bruce W. Richman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Dec 2002 16:26:08 -0600
Subject: 13.2420 What's a "meacock"?
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.2420 What's a "meacock"?

Re. Magary's inquiry on "meicocke": Golding's translation of Ovid Bk.
III, l. 692.

_______________________________________________________________
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: Cordelia and Listening to the Play

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2424  Tuesday, 17 December 2002

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 12 Dec 2002 13:52:09 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2412 Re: Cordelia and Listening to the Play

[2]     From:   John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 12 Dec 2002 11:00:22 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2412 Re: Cordelia and Listening to the Play

[3]     From:   Tom Hodges <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 12 Dec 2002 13:38:42 -0600
        Subj:   SHK 13.2412 Re: Cordelia and Listening to the Play

[4]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 12 Dec 2002 17:04:49 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2412 Re: Cordelia and Listening to the Play

[5]     From:   Dale Lyles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 12 Dec 2002 21:19:50 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2412  Re: Cordelia and Listening to the Play

[6]     From:   Matthew Baynham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 13 Dec 2002 10:19:57 -0000
        Subj:   Cordelia

[7]     From:   Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 13 Dec 2002 11:48:31 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2412 Re: Cordelia and Listening to the Play


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 12 Dec 2002 13:52:09 -0400
Subject: 13.2412 Re: Cordelia and Listening to the Play
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2412 Re: Cordelia and Listening to the Play

Terence offers the following as a counter-example to character
criticism:

>But in so far as division, the deliberate subversion of 'nationhood' by
>the regular imposition of crass partitions crudely sketched on maps, has
>become a central aspect of the alienating politics of our time, then the
>play addresses our world in deeply discomfortable terms each time the
>character called Lear utters those lines.

But he *does* utter those lines.  Their importance, indeed their very
meaning, can be read only within the context of a certain character and
his needs or aspirations.  Why does the character Lear see the state as
divisible, especially when other characters, products of the same
historical society and inhabitants of the same fictional world, do not?
What makes him determined to see the state as a personal possession?
Could this be related to his determination to treat love also as a
possession? Could whatever insight an answer might provide into property
and possession, into how even the most abstract function of knowledge
and appropriation starts in the grasp, also have importance for current
political events?  Could it have importance even without being granted
meaning by a more or less liturgical gesture towards current political
events?  Could it even say something about our being-in-the-world, or
our responsibility to one another, which would be true regardless of
political context?

Moreover, it is not in the least bit clear what the "play" is saying
which is so discomfiting.  That all divisions are arbitrary (in which
case, there's no reason not to draw new ones wherever we fancy)?  That
nations are indivisible (in which case, all separatist movements must be
ruthlessly stamped out)?  Your reading seems to reduce the play to
something trotted out as a false analogy on a political talk-show, which
is, I suppose, better than Jerry Springer.  Or, I suppose, it just
peters out in vagueness and clich


Re: Baz Luhrmann Review

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2425  Tuesday, 17 December 2002

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 12 Dec 2002 10:20:56 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2408 Re: Baz Luhrmann Review

[2]     From:   Walter Miale <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 13 Dec 2002 13:13:40 -0500
        Subj:   Unfit for Teens (was Re: Baz Luhrmann Review)

[3]     From:   Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 16 Dec 2002 11:08:45 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2408 Re: Baz Luhrmann Review


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 12 Dec 2002 10:20:56 -0800
Subject: 13.2408 Re: Baz Luhrmann Review
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2408 Re: Baz Luhrmann Review

I planned to say out of this until I read Ted Dykstra's unfair message.
I have seen Luhrmann's *La Boheme* and I didn't like it.

I frankly can't get interested enough in it or Mr. Luhrmann's other work
to give a lengthy list of reasons why I feel as I do.  Some are not
Luhrmann's fault, such as the fact that I am virtually alone in feeling
the opera vastly overrated.  Another class of problem is that Luhrmann's
works leave me cold.  His sensibility and mine are not in sync.  (I
should confess that I could only take about 20 minutes of his high camp
*Moulin Rouge* and bailed out, so one can argue I did not give that one
a fair chance.)  Even so, I thought the conceits he brought to *La B*
extremely distracting, that some of the updates did not work, and that
he winked at the audience way too much.  Most who have written about the
production think I am wrong.

Those working on Mr. Luhrmann's *R+J* will probably find some things to
think about when the compare it to *LB*.  I do think that is worth
noting.  One can indeed see Luhrmann's *LB* and dislike it.

All the best,
Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Walter Miale <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 13 Dec 2002 13:13:40 -0500
Subject:        Unfit for Teens (was Re: Baz Luhrmann Review)

>These posts remind me of the gentleman who thought teens could not
>possibly comprehend Shakespeare, when really, it was he who couldn't
>understand teens.

Well, teenagers should not be permitted to read Shakespeare
unexpurgated, for example Romeo and Juliet, publication or performance
of which, under current statutes, is I suspect actually illegal in the
United States. In this play you've got steamy pubescent sexuality with
the initiation of a girl who has quite possibly not reached menarche;
morbid depression; homicidal gang violence; and teen suicide. And with
no cross dressing or occultism or psychopathology or derangement or
misogyny or anti-Semitism or serial murder or cannibalism in it, this is
hardly the least wholesome or the goriest of Shakespeare's plays. (OK,
I'm just kidding.)

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 Dec 2002 11:08:45 -0800
Subject: 13.2408 Re: Baz Luhrmann Review
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2408 Re: Baz Luhrmann Review

After biting my electric tongue for several days, I can't resist
pitching in defense of Luhrmann.

Whether his R&J good or bad Shakespeare I won't venture to assert. I
will say that it's some of the most spectacular filmmaking I've ever
seen. His sheer prowess and power as a director is, to me,
awe-inspiring. When my wife and I first saw the film, she came out
barely able to walk because it was so powerful. I was haunted by it for
days, and I've seen it several times since, always getting more.

I think Luhrman may be the next great director--on a par with Kubrick
and his ilk. It remains to be seen--once he goes beyond the "red
slipper" period with which is how he describes his first three
films--whether he has the diversity that Kubrick had. He's purportedly
at work on an Alexander the Great epic with Di Caprio and Delaurentis.
I'll be first in line to see it, and I'm flying to New York in February
to see La Boheme.

Steve
http://princehamlet.com

_______________________________________________________________
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: How Many Words Did Shakespeare Invent?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2423  Tuesday, 17 December 2002

[1]     From:   Stuart Hampton-Reeves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 12 Dec 2002 15:46:35 +0000
        Subj:   SHK 13.2413 Re: How Many Words Did Shakespeare Invent?

[2]     From:   Elliott H. Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 14 Dec 2002 20:28:03 EST
        Subj:   Re: How Many Words Did Shakespeare Invent?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stuart Hampton-reeves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 12 Dec 2002 15:46:35 +0000
Subject: Re: How Many Words Did Shakespeare Invent?
Comment:        SHK 13.2413 Re: How Many Words Did Shakespeare Invent?

Thanks for all the replies. Out of interest, I had a look on the on-line
OED, which lists less than 300 words with first entries by Shakespeare -
and some of these depend on accepting a 1588 date for Love's Labour's
Lost. Certainly some of the words quoted by the BBC - elbow for example
- predate Shakespeare by centuries.

Stuart Hampton-Reeves

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Elliott H. Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 14 Dec 2002 20:28:03 EST
Subject: 13.2402 Re: How Many Words Did Shakespeare Invent?
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2402 Re: How Many Words Did Shakespeare Invent?

How can one possibly posit how many words Shakespeare coined when we can
only guess at when the plays were written? E. K. Chambers tells us that
the Tempest could not have been written much earlier than 1611 because
it is based on the wreck of Sir George Somers in Bermuda in 1611. I
believe that Edward Everett Hale got it right when he said it was based
on Gosnold's landing in the Elizabeth Islands off Cape Cod in 1602. If
one believes that Jonson edited and modernized the Canon as the Editor
of the First Folio then trying to date the coinage of a word becomes
extremely difficult. I love the Bard and get quite distressed at
theories that claim Shakespeare borrowed from the likes of Samuel
Daniels or William Strachey. It is always exactly the other way around.

Elliott H. Stone

[Editor's Note: We will not get into a discussion of the dating of *The
Tempest*. 


Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.