2003

Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1210  Thursday, 19 June 2003

[1]     From:   Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 16 Jun 2003 16:28:02 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 16 Jun 2003 13:51:48 -0300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly

[3]     From:   Edward Brown <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 16 Jun 2003 14:28:38 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly

[4]     From:   Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 16 Jun 2003 11:32:34 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly

[5]     From:   Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Jun 2003 09:51:25 +0800 (SGT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly

[6]     From:   Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Jun 2003 07:36:41 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 Jun 2003 16:28:02 +0100
Subject: 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly

My congratulations to William Davis for an entertaining and brilliant
piece on English pronunciation.  I learned a lot.  With Hardy's
forbearance I would like to ask William about the reason Cockneys drop
their Hs. ('ead for head, etc.)  The prejudice is that they are lazy and
ignorant and are too idle to sound the "H".  Whereas similar working
class people from East Anglia - not 100 miles away - sound the "H" with
their own distinctive dialect.  Again, similar working class communities
in America sound the "H" too.  My theory is that the Cockney dialect was
Norman/French influenced - via the docks - which accounts for the lack
of leading "H" and trailing "T".

SAM SMALL
http://www.passioninpieces.co.uk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 Jun 2003 13:51:48 -0300
Subject: 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly

David Lindley writes,

>I think, in the Wolverhampton accent
>of my youth, 'Wednesday' would similarly be almost 'Wendsdy'.

Listening to myself, I'd probably pronounce it rather similarly, though
I have an a-typical accent from Timmins, Ontario, also the home of
Shania Twain.

Cheers,
Sean.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edward Brown <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 Jun 2003 14:28:38 EDT
Subject: 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly

Carol Barton and Bill Arnold would not make fun of today's urban hip hop
argot. This educated Southerner does not appreciate their lame attempts
at corn pone humour.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 Jun 2003 11:32:34 -0700
Subject: 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly

I understand that the locals have started to pronounce the name of their
town Pontefract, and "Pumfritt"/"Pomfret" are bygone.  What shall the
actors in Richard III do with that?

Wednesday and February:  An interesting thing about the extremely
inconsistent spelling in Hall's Chronicle (1550) is that, so far, he and
the typesetters have been quite consistent in spelling both words
correctly.

Now that I have been serious for two paragraphs, I must tell an old
joke.  Three little old deaf ladies from London are on a train
excursion.  They stop at a station and one looks out the window and
says, "It's Wembley."  The second says, "No, it's Thursday."  The third
says, "So am I.  Let's get off and have some tea."

Al Magary

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Jun 2003 09:51:25 +0800 (SGT)
Subject: 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly

The fair Shah-Nyy-YAH may sound southern, but she's from Windsor,
Ontario -- a reminder that country-music English is as frequently an
affectation as stage-Shakespearian English.

Arthur Lindley

>Carol Barton writes, "Why is 'Arkansas' AR-can-saw, and 'Kansas'
>KANZ-is, or 'Arab,' Alabama AY-rab (A hard as in hate) or 'Fayetteville'
>Fett-vull?  Why do Southerners put the AC-cent on the wrong sylLABLE (as
>in UM-brella, and IN-surance)?"
>
>Careful Carol, or Queen Shah-NYY-YAH of Suh-THUN Country Music, the
>CAP-Goddess, is "gonna GET-cha, GUUD!" :)

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Jun 2003 07:36:41 EDT
Subject: 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1194 Re: Pronouncing Leicester Correctly

The pseudo-Shakespearean play Sir John Oldcastle opens with a brawl
between the Welsh Lord Powys and the Anglo-Welsh Lord Herbert and their
retainers.  The Sheriff arrives to break it up, shouting "Hold, in the
King's name, hold" and Powys' man Owen replies "Down i' the ka-nave's
name, down!"  [I'm regularizing the old and/or dialect spelling for
easier comprehension.] This is an example of the 'k' pronunciation of
'kn' surviving in the outlying areas of the English-speaking [or
English-mangling] world.

When Owen is brought before the Judge, his fellow Davy tries to bail him
out:

 Davy: Lord Judge, I would give you bail, good surety.
 Judge: What bail? what sureties?
 Davy: His cousin ap Rhys ap Evan ap Morris ap Morgan ap Llewellyn ap
Madoc ap Meredith ap Griffin ap Davy ap Owen ap Jenkin Jones.
 Judge: Two of the most sufficient are enough.
 Sheriff: An't please your Lordhip, these are all but one.

Owen is sent to jail...

Bill Lloyd

_______________________________________________________________
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: Actors v Scholars

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1209  Thursday, 19 June 2003

From:           Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 Jun 2003 08:13:55 -0700
Subject: 14.1201 Re: Actors v Scholars
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1201 Re: Actors v Scholars

James Conlan writes:

"As this is a direct literary allusion, there is no need to imagine a
satire of Shakespeare at all."

If scientific method was applied with the same aplomb as the 'no need'
approach of literary criticism, I think we'd all still be living in a
Ptolemaic universe with spontaneous generation as the leading theory of
procreation.

Colin Cox
Artistic Director
Will & Company

_______________________________________________________________
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: A Lover's Complaint

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1207  Thursday, 19 June 2003

[1]     From:   Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 16 Jun 2003 09:53:52 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1195 Re: A Lover's Complaint

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 16 Jun 2003 16:06:41 -0300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1195 Re: A Lover's Complaint


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 Jun 2003 09:53:52 -0400
Subject: 14.1195 Re: A Lover's Complaint
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1195 Re: A Lover's Complaint

To Bill Arnold, with whose Cummings-backed defense of big letters I
agree, I must point out that Cummings's name was not, in the view of
Cummings authorities like Norman Friedman, lower-case.

For the Fowler brothers who said that italics "are a confession of
weakness," a question: what about composers who use accent marks in
music?  I myself use every verbal tool in the book I know of including,
FOR SURE, italics.  Then, I invent more.

Finally, a comment to Jonathan Hope, who said, "The question of an
author deliberately shifting their style to mimic that of another, or to
match that of a new genre, is an important one."

I'm not sure what deliberateness would have to do with it.

"The possibility of this happening is often cited by those hostile to
statistical approaches to literature as evidence that such approaches
are pointless."

"Pointless?"  Who said that?  My impression is that opponents of
statistical approaches use this argument to suggest that those
approaches have weaknesses, not that they are pointless.

"Strangely," Hope continued, "or perhaps not, I've never seen any of
these hostile critics cite an example of an author altering their style
to produce a shift that changes the statistics."

Not strange at all.  It's common sense that the above MUST happen, but
like many common sense things, it would require a lot of work to find
supporting examples--and apply all the required statistical tests, etc.,
to them.  But if anyone can get me a grant that'll pay salaries for a
couple of stats&computer-savvy assistants, and a sophisticated new
computer, I'll see what I can do.

I'm really eager to find out the outcome of treating Shakespeare's
Holinshed plays as possible collaborations, and trying statistically to
match them to his non-Holinshed plays.

--Bob G.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 Jun 2003 16:06:41 -0300
Subject: 14.1195 Re: A Lover's Complaint
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1195 Re: A Lover's Complaint

Bill Arnold writes,

>So, if italics are
>a confession of weakness, is not using italics a sign of strength?

Yes.

>We are talking style, my friend, and style is as style is.  How do you like
>you e.e.cummings, with capitalizations, as in E. E. Cummings or not?

Since he's a poet, I'd read it however he writes it, if I read it at
all.  On the other hand, we probably wouldn't want to belong to a list
where everybody wrote like e.e.cummings, all the time.  I doubt that
many of us would accept an essay that looked like an e.e.cummings poem.
In fact, if someone insisted on talking in the way in which e.e.cummings
wrote, I'd think he was being rather self-indulgent, a bit of a
show-off, not in the least bit interested in whether anyone could
understand him or not as long as he got to feel clever.

>Anyway, ole e.e. was on his way to UMass-Amherst Radio, when he got a
>letter from the college dude who was in charge, and this smart-aleck
>wrote e.e. that the board, whoever they were, had decided that some of
>the poems he had chosen to read were unacceptable and they were
>requesting that e.e. edit or censor his own poems in order for the
>invitation to still be on.  So, e.e. sent a letter, which I saw a copy
>of back in the 1960s when my professor showed it to me.  Ole e.e. wrote
>a regular form letter, with proper HEAD and SIGNATURE, and all the
>formal format, and in the very middle of the page he put, simply:
>
>                            "NO"

Since this was clearly a conscious attempt to be rude, you've made my
point about the rudeness of capitalization very well.

Cheers,
Sean.

_______________________________________________________________
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: Deconstruction

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1208  Thursday, 19 June 2003

[1]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 16 Jun 2003 06:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1196 Re: Deconstruction

[2]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 16 Jun 2003 09:40:21 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1196 Re: Deconstruction

[3]     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Jun 2003 05:58:41 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 14.1196 Re: Deconstruction


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 Jun 2003 06:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 14.1196 Re: Deconstruction
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1196 Re: Deconstruction

Gabriel Egan writes, "I suggest that this is not obviously distinct from
Roland Barthes's 'death of the author', dead in the sense of no longer
an authority over the work, nor from Derrida's claim that 'there is
nothing outside the text' ('Il n'y a pas de hors-texte') because it is
woven into the public discourse by being made of words and ideas from
which it cannot stand apart."

This discussion of labels on schools of criticism has always fascinated
me, since my grad days in English at UMass-Amherst.  Not that I gave it
much value, not interested in publishing in the genre.

But I do see a real problem in its application to literature in
general.  In the case of Emily Dickinson's poems, and surely in Will
Shakespeare's sonnets, the world has a perception of the authors through
the exegeses of their poetry.  You can pick up any article on either
author in such notable newspapers as the New York Times, or view PBS
shows, and elsewhere in print and electronic media, and read that both
authors were X, Y and Z in their personal lives, and all based on
exegeses of their poetry, while such methodology is basically considered
anathema by all the New Critics.  I call them the Marie ["Have your cake
and eat it, too"] Antoinette Critics.

If biography is irrelevant, how can these same Marie Antoinette Critics
read into poetry biographical exegeses without reference to their
respective biographies?

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 Jun 2003 09:40:21 -0500
Subject: 14.1196 Re: Deconstruction
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1196 Re: Deconstruction

Gabriel Egan writes,

>The rise of New Criticism is closely connected with the rise of English
>as a subject, especially as small rural universities proliferated in
>America.

This interests me in a number of ways, but my chronology doesn't seem to
fit. I would call New Criticism a phenomenon of the 30's, 40's, and
50's, the rise of English as something of the 1890's, and the
proliferation of small liberal arts colleges (in particular those west
of the Alleghenies and north of the Ohio) as occurring in the 1820's -
40's.

This is not to dispute his point but merely to explain my puzzlement.

Cheers,
don

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Jun 2003 05:58:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Deconstruction
Comment:        SHK 14.1196 Re: Deconstruction

I'm inclined to be less sanguine than Gabrel Egan concerning the
a-political nature of New Criticism, nor would I take Cleanth Brooks's
account of its populist commitment to be necessarily the last word in
the matter. It's well known that the Yale University English Department
-one of the places where New Criticism became firmly rooted- was the
seedbed fo the United States intelligence activities centred in London
during the Second World War. These were later co-ordinated and
institutionalised as the CIA.  Intensive training in close reading
proved to be a sound basis for the cryptanalysis which the job often
required, and there are grounds for arguing that the careful textual
scrutiny characteristic of post-1945 New Criticism betrays the
corresponding influence of wartime training in the arts of de-coding.
The CIA's counter-intelligence chief during the Cold War, James Jesus
Angleton, was of course  a Yale graduate. His early interest in the work
of William Empson, the complexities of ambiguity and the 'wilderness of
mirrors' it seemed to generate, may to some degree have fuelled the
disastrous neuroses which finally undermined him and discredited his
department. And didn't Brooks himself hold a prestigious government post
at the Cold War's height?

T. Hawkes
Post-structuralist to the Queen

_______________________________________________________________
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: Edmund

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1206  Thursday, 19 June 2003

[1]     From:   Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 16 Jun 2003 08:27:20 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1199 Re: Edmund

[2]     From:   David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 16 Jun 2003 15:58:11 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1199 Re: Edmund


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 Jun 2003 08:27:20 -0400
Subject: 14.1199 Re: Edmund
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1199 Re: Edmund

If I may add my own "two cents" to this polar debate: I don't see the
justification for viewing Edgar as evil: rather, it has always seemed to
me that he and Cordelia are more Othello-like, not stupid, but naively
honest, and easily gulled (or in Cordelia's case, entrapped) by the
schemers. And I don't see Gloucester's affectionate teasing of the
bastard he openly acknowledges as his son (at law or not) as dismissive
or deprecating: rather, if he thinks so little of Edmund, and says what
he says to ridicule the boy, why does he trust him so unquestioningly
when Edmund "reveals" the contents of "Edgar's" letter?

Both in my reading love their respective fathers. Both have been
disinherited: and is it worse to be the illegitimate child of a parent
who loves you, or to be consciously and deliberately cut off from that
love (and your inheritance) on false pretenses, disowned by a parent who
rejects you for all of the wrong reasons? And isn't Edgar pretending to
do exactly as his father has asked him to do, to falsely gain
Gloucester's trust so as to "deceive" him beneficially, as Edmund has
gained his trust and deceived him maliciously?

I am preparing for class at the moment, so don't have time to get into
specifics (for which forgive me); but I wonder if such considerations
ought to be taken into account in this debate? (I will be happy to
continue the conversation offline during Hardy's much deserved hiatus.)

All best,
Carol Barton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 16 Jun 2003 15:58:11 -0700
Subject: 14.1199 Re: Edmund
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1199 Re: Edmund

Ed Taft sent this message privately, but since it's now posted I will
also post my reply:

Dear Ed,

Thanks for your reply, but I still disagree. I don't think it's a matter
of looking at the whole play as realistic or a fairy tale. It's some
combination of the two, and the question of which details should be
concentrated on and followed out through their logical extension, as if
this were a real world, has to be taken, I would say, on a case-by-case
basis. A reader can stop and wonder about all kinds of things. Trying to
go through the play as some kind of mental performance involves trying
to follow the train of thought and impression on which the details ride.
Sometimes hints should be followed, sometimes not. In each case there's
an argument to be made, but in each case part of the argument must
depend on intuition. I feel that France is a minor character, though
important, and that the focus of the play is elsewhere than on the
details of what's behind his departure. As I said, I think he's removed
to de-Frenchify the invasion, and avoid, as far as possible, clouding
the issue of Cordelia's coming to save Lear with the taint of
anti-Britishness. If you see this detail as one that demands more
imaginative involvement, I'm not sure how much either of us could say to
change the other's mind, though sometimes it's fun to try.

Best wishes,
David

_______________________________________________________________
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.