2004

Rhetorical Figure

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1287  Wednesday, 16 June 2004

[1]     From:   Alan Horn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Jun 2004 17:56:04 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1268 Rhetorical Figure

[2]     From:   John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 16 Jun 2004 01:14:36 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1268 Rhetorical Figure


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Alan Horn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Jun 2004 17:56:04 -0400
Subject: 15.1268 Rhetorical Figure
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1268 Rhetorical Figure

On Nancy Charlton's question about "no" figures: some of them are
correctio, some anthypophora, others relate to repetition or amplification.

Susan St. John writes:

"you never listen, you
or
I've got it all now, me

Does that bit of rhetoric have a name as well??"

Epanaleptic conduplicatio (for the first example), epanaleptic
polyptoton (for the second)?

Alan H

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 16 Jun 2004 01:14:36 -0400
Subject: 15.1268 Rhetorical Figure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1268 Rhetorical Figure

Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >I thought the original query was not "what is a litote?" (although I
 >didn't know and had to look it up), but rather, "what is the rhetorical
 >figure that is sort of opposite to a litote?"  Where the negative is
 >re-emphasized by the repetition of 'no' or 'not' after the statement.
 >
 >Something like:  I wouldn't do it, no, not I.
 >
 >And I was similarly curious about the addition of a pronoun for
 >emphasis...I can't come up with any actual quotes at the moment, but
 >it's something like:
 >I could do it, I
 >
 >or as I heard yesterday in a British film ("Little Voice" with Michael
 >Caine)
 >
 >you never listen, you
 >or
 >I've got it all now, me
 >
 >Does that bit of rhetoric have a name as well??
 >
 >Susan.

Repetition for emphasis.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Dylan and Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1286  Wednesday, 16 June 2004

[1]     From:   Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 16 Jun 2004 08:48:10 +0000
        Subj:   Blood on the texts.

[2]     From:   Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 16 Jun 2004 11:45:13 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1264 Dylan and Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 16 Jun 2004 08:48:10 +0000
Subject:        Blood on the texts.

Re. 15.1264

Proffesor Rick is no slouch when it comes to poetry be it by Dylan or
anyone else. However the linkages to be found in his Dylan's Visions of
Sin (which was published in 2003) between Bobby and Willy are terribly
contrived it has to be said. (There are references to twelve plays and
two sonnets as far as I can make out - doubtless I'll be corrected on
that statistic!)

The factual stuff in this area sometimes lies in the domain of footnotes
or quotes about third parties fouth removed.

This book is dense and complex. One for devotees of Zimmerman (not
Shakespeare) unless you have twenty five pounds (? 40 dollars) and three
months reading time to spare! A definite essential piece of work about
Dylan though. I recommend it on that basis.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 16 Jun 2004 11:45:13 +0000
Subject: 15.1264 Dylan and Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1264 Dylan and Shakespeare

Dear All,

Ricks is a great (if freely associating) critic. Tis a great book about
the work of a great man. Americans should be proud to have the best
living poet of our time (compare, for example, the poor old UK with our
limp Andrew Motion, or the pitiful 'spoken word' / 'performance' poets
of the fringe circuits or worse still the Ikea-brand riffing of the
current middle class pop b(l)and singers like Chris Martin etc).

Yours atavistically

Marcus D.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Thighs and Sighs

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1284  Wednesday, 16 June 2004

[1]     From:   Jack M. Kamen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Jun 2004 09:39:11 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1271 Thighs and Sighs

[2]     From:   Jay Feldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Jun 2004 09:22:14 -1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1271 Thighs and Sighs


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jack M. Kamen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Jun 2004 09:39:11 -0500
Subject: 15.1271 Thighs and Sighs
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1271 Thighs and Sighs

Michael B. Luskin writes:

  >By the way, this is why thigh sinews are not kosher.<

True. But it is also why the entire hind-quarters of otherwise kosher
mammals are not kosher.

They can be made kosher by the careful and complete excision of the
sciatic nerve but this skill is rarely found today.

Jack M. Kamen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jay Feldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Jun 2004 09:22:14 -1000
Subject: 15.1271 Thighs and Sighs
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1271 Thighs and Sighs

I am not a doctor, but I can tell you the very large femoral arteries
feed the huge muscles of the legs, which in turn with their powerful
contractions force the venous return to the heart. Strong legs to some
degree indicate good vascular health - perhaps the reason why their
shapely appearance is valued in Shakespeare. If severed high in the
groin, the bleeding would be profuse and probably impossible to stop
since there is no purchase above the cut for a tourniquet. Short of the
application of a very hot torch or coal to sear it, or an expert with a
clamp at hand, one could expect a very quick demise; hence its status as
a death wound. BTW, the tibiae and fibulae are found in the shin, the
femur is located in the thigh.

Jay Feldman

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Representing Incest

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1285  Wednesday, 16 June 2004

From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Jun 2004 17:30:42 +0100
Subject: 15.1273 Hamlet's Ghost (but really 'Representing Incest')
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1273 Hamlet's Ghost (but really 'Representing Incest')

Bill Arnold corrects me by describing how to represent mother-son incest
in a family tree.  The method, he insists, is to give the incestuous
parent two distinction entries in the table: one as mother and the other
as mate.

While I appreciate Arnold's efforts on my behalf, I remain in polite
disagreement with his claim that this method is 'established'. Indeed,
such duplication is explicitly deprecated in the guides to genealogy
that I've consulted.

I'd come up with Arnold's method as a possible solution myself, and
dismissed it because it required doing what is deprecated by the
specialists I'd consulted.  Would he care to convince me by pointing to
a published example using what he claims is this 'established' method?
I'm eager to be convinced.

David Cohen supplies the same solution as Arnold ("simply double the
father") and says it was suggested by his colleague John Loehlin. To be
clear: I don't doubt it's a solution, but want to become convinced it's
the 'established genealogical way' of doing things. All comments towards
that end gratefully
received.

Gabriel Egan

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Digital Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1283  Wednesday, 16 June 2004

[1]     From:   John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Jun 2004 14:53:37 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1266 Digital Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Jun 2004 19:24:32 +0000
        Subj:   Dicky III TLN 538-9

[3]     From:   Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, June 16, 2004
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1266 Digital Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Jun 2004 14:53:37 +0100
Subject: 15.1266 Digital Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1266 Digital Shakespeare

Gabriel Egan wrote:

 >Those wanting to engage in such a debate might be interested in an essay
 >in the current issue of the Times Literary Supplement (11 June, No.
 >5280) called "PG tips" by Paul Duguid. The 'PG' referred to is 'Project
 >Gutenberg', which provides free 'plain vanilla' (that is, untagged)
 >etexts of many printed books, with an emphasis on the literary.

I would agree with Paul Duguid that Project Gutenberg are out of their
depth in matters textual.  I recently tried to find out if there was any
pattern to the revisions which William Beckford made to the French and
English versions of "Vathek" (I finally decided that there wasn't -
Beckford was a dilettante, and caused as much chaos in his texts as in
his life.)  There are arguments for and against using the 1786, 1816 and
1823 English texts - and different publishers of popular editions choose
different versions.  Project Gutenberg (the source, as far as I could
tell, of all the online texts) have used the 1887 Cassell and Company
edition (which they tell us) but, somewhat surprisingly, that had
reprinted the 1786 text - which they don't tell us.

John Briggs

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Jun 2004 19:24:32 +0000
Subject:        Dicky III TLN 538-9

Re:15.1266.

Dr Egan writes [...] Hall might be implying that, far from being good or
neutral, a digital
Shakespeare is positively a bad thing.[...]

Hall isn't and the courtesy of an off-List query to him would have put
Dr Egan right before he posted this mischievous misapprehension to the
list. He should kindly re-read my posting in its context.

I read "PG Tips" less than 3 hours ago on my way back from seeing the
Olivier Measure for Measure and found the article a far more enjoyable
event than the production.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Subject: 15.1266 Digital Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1266 Digital Shakespeare

Who can forget the Project Gutenberg texts from Shakespeare's First
Porfolio?

_______________________________________________________________
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.