Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2004 :: June ::
Representing Incest
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1315  Wednesday, 18 June 2004

[1]     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 17 Jun 2004 16:36:15 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1299 Representing Incest

[2]     From:   Edward Brown <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 17 Jun 2004 10:53:46 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1299 Representing Incest


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 17 Jun 2004 16:36:15 +0100
Subject: 15.1299 Representing Incest
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1299 Representing Incest

I feel personally responsible for prolonging a thread that I fear might
be boring everyone, so I absolutely promise not to respond after this.

David Cohen wonders why I'm so concerned with what is established
practice in genealogy, and writes:

 >Just saying something isn't kosher because it isn't
 >established by guides isn't convincing.

(There should be a small cash prize for such a treat of compound
litotes, shouldn't there?) I hope a chap is still entitled to his own
interests, and my interest is whether there is an 'established' way to
represent interest. That's what I meant by my phrasing "how incest gets
represented" (not how it might in the future be represented if we all
put our minds to it) in my initial enquiry (SHK 15.1128, 27 May). I
certainly don't want to get into whether there ought to be an
established way.

Bill Arnold's kindly forwards the answer offered by his cousin, a
professional genealogist. It dismisses the suggestion that Arnold
himself made of doubling the incestuous parent's name, offered in an
earlier rather tetchy posting that included the phrases "to the point of
becoming redundant, I remind you", "So, as not to be overlooked I offer
it once again so *all* scholars may take note" and "case closed" (SHK
15.1273, 15 June).  The professional genealogist writes "I would not
enter the mother's name twice" and offers his or her own solutions: "I
then would use dashed lines . . ." and "You also could lengthen . . ."

So, not an 'established' way either. Case closed.

Gabriel Egan

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edward Brown <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 17 Jun 2004 10:53:46 -0500
Subject: 15.1299 Representing Incest
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1299 Representing Incest

I asked my second cousin a professional southerner now married to my
grandfather and all she would do is play the banjo.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail 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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.