October
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1942 Monday, 6 October 2003 From: Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 4 Oct 2003 15:07:40 -0700 Subject: Shakespeare Search Engine with Unusual Features I came across a Shakespeare search engine with some unusual features: Lycos' Rhyme Zone: http://www.rhymezone.com/ You enter a search term, then select these menu options: Find rhymes Find synonyms Find antonyms Find definition Find related words Find similar sounding words Find homophones Match consonants only Match these letters Find similar spellings Search for pictures Search in Shakespeare Search quotations On the Shakespeare search page at http://www.rhymezone.com/shakespeare/ you enter a search term then select: Word or phrase; Keywords; Start a line A function linked to Start a line allows you to browse lines incrementally after selecting pairs of common words. The initial words are: And, I, The, To, That, But, For, A, My, As, You, What, If, Of, In, With, He, This, How, It, Which, Is, So, Thou, By, O, Your, When, Why, I'll, We, Let, Ay, Or, Not, His, 'tis, Have, Where, Be, Good, Who, Will, No, Than, Shall, And, Then, Come, Nay, They, Do, No, She, There, Thy, From, Well, Our, Why, Are, What, Nor, Upon, Now, Here, All, Hath, Now, Yet, Would, Sir, Go, Give, Come, At, Even, But, More, Whose, An, Her, Was, Though, Did, On, Were, Till, Like, Some, These, Most, May, Should, One, Take, Had, Marry, Make, There's If you select "thou" you find the most common following words are: art, hast, shalt, dost, canst, wilt, know'st, shouldst, wast, mayst, wouldst, that, must, didst, speak'st, hadst, and, never, darest, seest, sayest, mightst, makest, liest, whoreson, liest., gavest, comest, wrong'st, told'st, teachest, say'st, rather, losest, liest, know'st, ever, diest, call'dst, art, wert, villain, to, thinkest, think'st, then, the, takest, speakest, shall If you select "wert" from that list, you get these two quotations: Thou wert ...but a lost monster. The Tempest: IV, i ..better gall the devil, salisbury: King John: IV, iii Of course you can do this by yourself at the top by searching on "thou wert," but the lists are suggestive. A list of Shakespeare's coined words (from Jeffrey McQuain and Stanley Malless, _Coined by Shakespeare: Words and Meanings First Penned by the Bard_) is at http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?Path=shakespeare/coinages// And Lycos being a mature search engine, they've got a click counter that is keeping track of Shakespeare's 500 most popular lines: http://www.rhymezone.com/shakespeare/toplines/ As of Saturday afternoon at 3 pm PDT, the top 20 lines (not complete quotes!) were: 1. To be, or not to be: that is the question: Hamlet: III, I (2676 clicks) 2. All the world's a stage, As You Like It: II, vii (1134 clicks) 3. I love you with so much of my heart that none is Much Ado About Nothing: IV, i (878 clicks) 4. Shall I compare thee to a summer's day Sonnets: XVIII (812 clicks) 5. You are a lover; borrow cupid's wings, Romeo and Juliet: I, iv (729 clicks) 6. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; King Henry V: IV, iii (710 clicks) 7. If music be the food of love, play on; Twelfth Night: I, I (607 clicks) 8. What's in a name Romeo and Juliet: II, ii (605 clicks) 9. Cry 'havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war; Julius Caesar: III, i (539 clicks) 10. This above all: to thine ownself be true, Hamlet: I, iii (525 clicks) 11. Who taught thee how to make me love thee more Sonnets: CL (490 clicks) 12. Let me not to the marriage of true minds Sonnets: CXVI (431 clicks) 13. To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; Hamlet: III, i (347 clicks) 14. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. King Henry VI, part II: IV, ii (340 clicks) 15. Thou hast not loved: As You Like It: II, iv (314 clicks) 16. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Macbeth: V, v (312 clicks) 17. Admit impediments. love is not love Sonnets: CXVI (311 clicks) 18. Friends, romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; Julius Caesar: III, ii (301 clicks) 19. The quality of mercy is not strain'd, Merchant of Venice: IV, i (288 clicks) 20. Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; King Henry V: III, i (288 clicks) Appropriately, the 500th quote, which ends this post, is: 500. Adieu! tears exhibit my tongue. most beautiful Merchant of Venice: II, iii (36 clicks) As you can see, the capitalization and punctuation are minimalist. Al Magary _______________________________________________________________ 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 14.1941 Monday, 6 October 2003 [1] From: Brad Berens <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 03 Oct 2003 06:52:37 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 14.1935 Renaming Shakespeare's Plays [2] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 3 Oct 2003 16:04:10 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 14.1926 Renaming Shakespeare's Plays [3] From: Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 3 Oct 2003 11:59:51 -0400 Subj: SHK 14.1935 Renaming Shakespeare's Plays [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Berens <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 03 Oct 2003 06:52:37 -0700 Subject: 14.1935 Renaming Shakespeare's Plays Comment: Re: SHK 14.1935 Renaming Shakespeare's Plays Hi everybody, I had the great privilege to hold and peruse King Charles I's copy of F2 (the second folio) some years back, when it was in its usual home in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle. The handwriting is very continental and instantly legible. Bridget Wright (one of the talented and generous Royal librarians) wondered if Charles's descent from the Scottish side might not have something to do with this; and brought up the interesting question, "who was Charles's tutor?" His hand is nothing like Elizabethan secretary. Here are the annotated titles: Next to: Much Ado About Nothing he writes "Bennedik & Betrice" Next to: Midsummer Night's Dream he writes "Piramus & Thisby" Next to: As You Like It he writes "Rosalinde" [Note: with the long s] Next to: All's Well That Ends Well he writes "Mn. Paroles" Next to Twelfh Night he writes "Maluolio" In no case are these necessarily titles: they may merely be the writer's record of which characters he liked the best. A further annotation that slightly supports this caveat is that on the page called "The Names of the Principall Actors in all these Playes" next to "Joseph Taylor" is written "acted the part of Hamlet," which (optimistically) also suggests that the writer might have seen Taylor perform. Andy Gurr might have something to say about that. There are other annotations, page numbers that make reference easier, and copy-editing corrections throughout the volume, all in what looks to be the same writer's hand. For example: on page 262, Twelft Night (Norton 2.4.72), in the second column, the writer corrects a misprint: "Clo. Duk. No the melancholly..." With the "Clo." in cursive next to the strike. I'm saying "the writer" because it is not at all clear that the person who made the annotations was necessarily King Charles I. What follows my signature is an excerpt from an interesting lecture on this very subject by T. A. Birrell that the Royal Library later published as a pamphlet. I hope this proves helpful. Sincerely, Brad ______________________________ From: T. A. Birrell English monarches and their books: from Henry VII to Charles II. The British Library. The Panizzi Lectures. 1986. It is now the appropriate moment to discuss Charles I's copy of the Second Folio of Shakespeare, 1632, in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle. It is a book more often talked about than seen. In the Table of Contents, against Much Ado about Nothing, Charles has written 'Benedick and Beatrice'; against As You Like It, 'Rosalind'; against Midsummer Night's Dream, 'Pyramus and Thisbe'; and against Twelfth Night, 'Malvolio'. It has often been suggested that Charles had simply jotted down the names of his favourite characters in the play, or the names of what he considered to be the principal characters. But from what we now know of his manuscript additions to other volumes, we can see that he was doing something quite different. He was correcting and improving Shakespeare. Instead of Shakespeare's fanciful airy-fairy titles like Much Ado about Nothing, and so on, Charles had substituted sensible and practical ones. 'Malvolio' for Twelfth Night clearly reveals Charles's focus of moral interest. What is the history of Charles I's copy of Shakespeare's Second Folio? In a sense, every book belong to Charles I is not just a book, it is a relic of a martyr, and so there are many books around with bogus claims to Charles's ownership. But this volume is quite authentic, the handwriting is perfectly genuine, there is no problem on that score. It belonged to Sir Thomas Herbert, and then via Dr. Richard Mead and Antony Askew, to George Steevens the Shakespeare scholar. It was acquired by King George III at the Steevens sale on 13 May 1800. A previous owner had confused Sir Thomas Herbert with Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels, and George III has corrected the error in his own hand
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1940 Monday, 6 October 2003 From: Daniel O'Brien <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 03 Oct 2003 12:21:14 +0000 Subject: Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge Hi everyone I wonder if you could help me. I am currently writing a philosophy textbook on the Theory of Knowledge. I am looking for examples from literature of what are called Gettier cases. A colleague suggested that there must be such an example in a Shakespeare comedy, although he couldn't himself think of a case. The following is the kind of thing I am looking for. Having a true belief alone does not count as knowing something. The belief that it is raining in Paris right now might pop into my head and it might just happen to be true. It couldn't be said, however, that this is something that I know. If, however, I have good reason to think that my beliefs are true then I can have knowledge. I may have been looking at a Paris webcam and come to have that belief. So, the traditional analysis states that knowledge is justified true belief. Examples have been forwarded which suggest this cannot be right. These are called "Gettier cases" after the philosopher who first came up with them. These involve scenarios in which it does not seem that the subject has knowledge even though he or she does have a justified true belief. The following is the kind of example that Gettier forwarded. I walk past a pub when there's an England football match on the TV inside. I hear a cheer and come to believe that England have scored. And, they have. So, I have a true belief and good reasons to think that it is true (England fans in pubs cheer when England score). However, unbeknownst to me I was walking past a different bar of the pub, one which was hosting a karaoke competition and the cheers I heard were for a good rendition of a song. The intuition here, then, is that we would not want to say that I know a goal has been scored. I have a true belief for which I have (seemingly) good reasons yet this does not amount to knowledge. I've just, in effect, been lucky. So, I wonder if there is anything like this in the work of Shakespeare. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. It would perhaps be best to reply off-list to me at: D.Obrien.bham.ac.uk Thanks for having a think about this. Dan O'Brien University of Birmingham, UK _______________________________________________________________ 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 14.1939 Friday, 3 October 2003 [1] From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 2003 06:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 14.1923 no spirit dares stir [spirit vs. ghost] [2] From: Bob Linn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 2003 14:07:21 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 14.1923 no spirit dares stir [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 2003 06:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 14.1923 no spirit dares stir [spirit vs. ghost] Comment: Re: SHK 14.1923 no spirit dares stir [spirit vs. ghost] Dana Wilson writes, "I suggest that a 'sensible ghost' is more than a mote of trouble for a sensible eye, to say nothing of aethyreal ghost." Excuse me? Who said anything about "ghost"? Not Horatio! The characters in Hamlet in the opening scene refer to the visitor which does *not* speak as "this thing," as "this dreaded sight," as an "apparition," as "In the same figure, like the king that's / dead," as "Our last king, / Whose image even but now appear'd to us," as "this portentous figure," as "illusion," as "you spirits oft walk in death," as "so majestical," as "it is, as the air, invulnerable," as "The extravagant and erring spirit," as "This spirit, dumb to us." Not once, not *even* once by the characters of Will S's Hamlet, is this vision called a ghost! It is the directorial insertions by later editors, as I do understand Shakespearean scholars, which refer to the "spirit" as "GHOST." So, if we focus on the words of Will S, what have we? We have a spirit, known to look like the dead King, and surrounded with literary allusions to New Testament events connected with the passion cycle of the "Saviour" of the author of the play. The question ought to be: *WHY*? There is incredible irony in Hamlet. It is even more so when we consider where Will S is taking us as readers and members of an audience with his literary allusions to the New Testament "Saviour" he embraced in these opening scenes with this spirit which dares stir. It is the same spirit which Will S invoked in his Last Will and Testament. Do we doubt the sanity of those who saw the spirit? Do we doubt all the servants of the castle, including Horatio? No! Thus, we cannot doubt Hamlet. So, let us *NOT* forget that the literary allusion to the death and resurrection scenes of the New Testament carry weight with the play by comparison. The question of doubt of the risen "Saviour" created the famous Doubting Thomas, as a key figure in the New Testament. The "Saviour" dared stir as a spirit from the tomb when the stone was rolled away. Many saw him, reported they saw him, even on the road to Galilee, going home, literally. So, why should we be surprised by the spirit of the dead King Hamlet coming home and being seen in the same *light* and reported by numerous characters in the opening scenes of the play Hamlet? Blame it on Will S if you have trouble with the literary allusions to the New Testament "Saviour." They are there and not to be denied. It becomes us as Shaespeareans to wonder why? Does the spirit which dares stir of the dead King Hamlet echo the dead *King* Jesus? One is the *Father* of the play and the other is the *Master* of the New Testament. The servants and Horatio and young Hamlet are paralleled by the disciples and followers of the "Saviour." It is because of the literary allusions that we focus on the *spirit* and not the *GHOST* referents in the play. I argue that the word ghost was an intrusion and has clouded the word "spirit" and its meaning to the play and its interpretation. Thus, the spirit of the "goodman" who was wrongfully killed by his brother Claudius *dares stir* and proves the validity of the spirit surviving the body after death, and that is part-and-parcel of the theme of Hamlet and needs to be addressed in exegeses of the play. If you have any qualms about this: blame it on Will S. Bill Arnold http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Linn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 2003 14:07:21 -0400 Subject: 14.1923 no spirit dares stir Comment: Re: SHK 14.1923 no spirit dares stir In discussing the murder of Old Hamler, Bill Arnold says. "It is Will S's referent to this chapter of the New Testament by the words of Horatio which makes this compelling. There is irony in the deed done by Cladius of pouring poison into the sleeping ear of his brother in his closet aka bedroom, and this passage of deeds done in "darkness shall be heard in the light...in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." Do I think that Will S wanted us as audience members to be aware of this passage? Well, my answer is yes!" I believe Ophelia was accosted by Hamlet in her "closet." Later Hamlet goes to see his mother in her "closet." But, the Ghost clearly says that he was "Sleeping within my orchard --" when Claudius killed him. This fact seems to hurt the analysis that Arnold offers. Maybe we better think about snakes in gardens. Bob Linn _______________________________________________________________ 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 14.1938 Friday, 3 October 2003 From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 2003 13:01:56 -0500 Subject: 14.1921 Hamlet Comment: Re: SHK 14.1921 Hamlet Edmund Taft responding a remark of mine (>Don Bloom writes of 3.1: "nothing in this scene makes consistent sense.") writes, >That's right, and that's true of more than one scene in _Hamlet_. I hope it's not too dull to agree with someone, but I think he's right. There are times when I wonder just how much of this play can be said to make sense. The question, though, is how something that seems to contradict itself can be so superb. (TSE, of course, thought it was mediocre, and so have some others, but the vast library of writing on it belie that -- and it remains the definitive vehicle for any actor.) It makes me wonder how much logical coherence matters. Cheers, don _______________________________________________________________ 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.