The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2003  Wednesday, 15 October 2003

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 13 Oct 2003 15:01:38 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1995 no spirit dares stir

[2]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 13 Oct 2003 15:16:11 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1995 no spirit dares stir

[3]     From:   Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 13 Oct 2003 16:19:30 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1995 no spirit dares stir

[4]     From:   Edmund Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 13 Oct 2003 12:17:12 -0400
        Subj:   no spirit dares stir

[5]     From:   Todd Lidh <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 13 Oct 2003 09:20:44 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.1995 no spirit dares stir


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 13 Oct 2003 15:01:38 +0100
Subject: 14.1995 no spirit dares stir
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1995 no spirit dares stir

Dana Wilson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 > writes,

>>Robin wrote: "...
>>OED2[3]  -- SPIRIT n Def. 3.d:
>>
>>d. In generalized sense: A being essentially
>>incorporeal or immaterial.

[SNIP]

>So to be truly fair to the Elizabethan
>idea of pneumatology, we would have to say that the walker of the
>ramparts was a being who could not be at rest because some internal heat
>source, had gotten up his dander.  Now to what cause this affect is
>effect, who can say.

Do I detect traces of the Genetic Fallacy here?  <g>

I wasn't at all arguing that the meaning of "spirit" I quoted was the
only one (or even necessarily the predominant one) in the late
Elizabethan period -- simply that this meaning *was* available and is
well attested.

I've just done what I should have done before, consult the EMEDD under
"spirit".  Unfortunately, what with truncation, (which pulls in
"spiritual" as well) a first cull already over-runs the 100 limit, and
I'm reluctant to do this dictionary-by-dictionary (takes time, and
anyone so interested can manage this for themselves).  But a few snips
from The First 100:

(25) Th. Thomas 1587

Ashes: the spirite of a man dead, a dead man, a dead mans bodie: the
reliques, sepulchre, or memorial of one dead.

(44) Th. Thomas 1587

A spirit appea