2005

Shakespeare Reference?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0490  Wednesday, 16 March 2005

From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 13:20:19 -0500
Subject: 16.0478 Shakespeare Reference?
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0478 Shakespeare Reference?

 >Amos was "a rather minor character, the philosophical
 >cabdriver who narrated most of the episodes." Andy "was the most
 >gullible of the lodge members, a husky, well-meaning, but rather simple
 >soul."

This was true of the TV series.  But in the original radio show A&A were
about equal and the principal characters, played by Freeman Gosden and
Charles Correll (two White men).  The characters might have been based
on Tambo and Bones.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

There's Magic in the Web

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0489  Wednesday, 16 March 2005

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 15:47:19 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0481 There's Magic in the Web

[2]     From:   Richard Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 18:37:44 -0800
        Subj:   Strawberries


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 15:47:19 -0500
Subject: 16.0481 There's Magic in the Web
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0481 There's Magic in the Web

 >everybody knows that a strawberry in halves looks quite like a
 >vagina.

The interior of a string bean cut lengthwise looks more like a vagina.
I assume you meant "vulva."

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 18:37:44 -0800
Subject:        Strawberries

Strawberries are in season. Now let me get this right.  If I cut one in
two it looks like a vagina. Two vaginas, surely, but my question is, do
you cut it horizontal or vertical?  What's the bias?  And for the image,
ripeness is all I suppose. I guess you'll tell me to go slice a
strawberry and give it a look, hell, what's a box of strawberries cost?
  I just feel I need more instruction, but thanks anyway.

Then there's the head of a penis notion. That's really extreme. If
Shakespeare was going for phallic, it would have been a banana
handkerchief, maybe cucumber, but I mean why piddle around with
strawberries when the market is rich and rigid with possibilities.

A strawberry is more like an abused nose, token of a bad diet.  Some
great men have had strawberry noses. Industrialists, politicians, kings,
actors, although I have no idea why Othello wanted Desdemona to figure
this out.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Dictionary

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0487  Wednesday, 16 March 2005

[1]     From:   William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 13:30:04 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0477 Dictionary

[2]     From:   Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, March 16, 2005
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0477 Dictionary

[3]     From:   Alec Wild <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 13:38:15 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0477 Dictionary

[4]     From:   Nora Kreimer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 15:58:47 -0300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0477 Dictionary


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 13:30:04 -0500
Subject: 16.0477 Dictionary
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0477 Dictionary

Probably the Oxford English Dictionary is best. And you can get an
online account.

David and Ben Crystal have compiled a glossary called Shakespeare's
Words, and of course there's Alexander Schmidt's Shakespeare Lexicon
which I find very useful.  I suppose I should mention Onions's A
Shakespeare Glossary, though I don't find it terribly helpful. Gordon
Williams's Glossary and his Dictionary of Shakespeare's sexual language
(two different entities) are excellent.

Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Subject: 16.0477 Dictionary
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0477 Dictionary

Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> reminded me that in April of 1998,
I posted a message about the usefulness of the Early Modern English
Dictionaries Database (EMEDD) in response to a query he made about how
Elizabethans would typically use "tribe." I found my original posting in
the archives at the website
<http://www.shaksper.net/archives/1998/0383.html> and reproduce it below.

A link to the EMEDD as well as links to the Perseus Project electronic
versions of Onions (mentioned by Bill Godshalk above) and Schmidt
(mentioned by Alec Wild below) can be found in my "A Selected Guide to
Shakespeare on the Internet (Revised 08/31/04)"
<http://www.shaksper.net/archives/files/internet.sites.html>. The Guide
also has links to E. A. Abbott's A Shakespearean Grammar, the work that
Jonathan Hope's Shakespeare's Grammar supersedes (mention yesterday
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/0475.html) and Alexander Dyce's A
General Glossary to Shakespeare's Works, another reference that would be
useful in addressing Mark Alexander's question.

Here is the original posting, but I should add that the database has
been complete for many years now:

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0379  Tuesday, 21 April 1998.

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, April 21, 1998
Subject:        The Early Modern English Dictionaries Database and "tribe"

Frank Whigham's question, "So: when would Elizabethans typically use the
term "tribe"?" provides the perfect opportunity for me to describe what
I consider one of the most useful tools on the World Wide Web available
to the Early Modern scholar: Ian Lancashire's *The Early Modern English
Dictionaries Database* (EMEDD).

Professor Lancashire in the first paragraph of his "Overview of the
EMEDD" describes the project this way:

Antonio Zampolli urges computational linguists to re-use existing
lexicographical resources rather than to make them anew (Zampolli 1983;
Calzolari and Zampolli 1991). Robin Alston (1966), Sch


Shakespeare's Personal Faith

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0488  Wednesday, 16 March 2005

[1]     From:   Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 19:21:01 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0472 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

[2]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 13:43:03 -0600
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0480 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

[3]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 15:32:22 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0472 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

[4]     From:   Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 13:06:23 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0472 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

[5]     From:   John Perry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 22:36:04 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0480 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

[6]     From:   R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 18:09:13 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0480 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

[7]     From:   Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 16 Mar 2005 00:12:25 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0480 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

[8]     From:   Douglas Galbi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 16 Mar 2005 09:19:35 -0500
        Subj:   Re: Shakespeare's Personal Faith


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 19:21:01 -0000
Subject: 16.0472 Shakespeare's Personal Faith
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0472 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

Jack Heller writes ...

 >When I see the arguments for Shakespeare's recusant
 >Catholicism, I wonder now why those same arguments could not be used for
 >an early modern Anglican faith. I would like to hear from those who
 >believe Shakespeare to have been a Catholic: Why, specifically, do they
 >not find him to have been an Anglican?

While John and Susanna Shakespeare were definitely recusant Catholics,
there is no evidence that WS was a recusant too.  If he was a practicing
Anglican though, there would surely be some record of his having
attended Anglican services, since everyone over 16 years of age had to
attend an Anglican church at Easter or be fined, like John and Susanna
were.  While there are records of fellow actors like Hemmings and
Condell belonging to London parishes, there are none whatsoever for WS.
  This has led biographers to suggest that he told the London
churchwardens he took Easter communion in Stratford, and the Stratford
churchwardens that he attended church in London.  It has also been
suggested that he deliberately chose to lodge with a family of French
Huguenots because they didn't have to obey the Anglican rules on
sabbath-breaking.  Whatever the truth is, the lack of any evidence is
odd.  Gary Taylor is not alone in suggesting that WS' effacement from
the records looks like a deliberate act.

There is no conclusive evidence from the plays.  WS may quote from the
sermons of Anglican preacher Henry Smith, but this doesn't mean WS went
to St Clement Danes to hear Smith in person.  A collection of Smith's
Homilies was published by WS' schoolmate Richard Field and WS probably
owned a copy.

Peter Bridgman

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 13:43:03 -0600
Subject: 16.0480 Shakespeare's Personal Faith
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0480 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

Please ignore the reference to burning in my previous post. While, of
course, certain heresies could get you executed in that hideous fashion,
so could other offenses.

Apologies,
don

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 15:32:22 -0500
Subject: 16.0472 Shakespeare's Personal Faith
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0472 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

Whether it is a native lack of cognitive faculty or a philosemitic
chauvinism so overwhelming as to becloud whatever reasoning ability Mr.
Basch might once have had, I cannot say.  But it must surely be one of
these.  Consider this choice piece of balderbasch:

 >, it is certain
 >that the poet was spiritual. While he recognized the realities of all
 >the barbarities of life, he yet continued to have faith in God. His
 >plays and Sonnets demonstrate this. I think these show that his views
 >are Biblically based since a number of his plays are commentaries on
 >books of the Bible.
 >
 >For example, the play Hamlet is the staging of the Book of Ecclesiastes,

And all along I thought that it followed a chain of predecessor works
from Saxo through Belleforest to the ur-Hamlet. Perhaps there are
notions in Ecclesiastes that coincide with themes in Hamlet, but that
doesn't make the latter a "staging:" of the former. The authors of
scriptural passages incorporated common ideas of the human condition in
their works, but that hardly means that a subsequent secular writer who
uses the same themes has "staged" their works.  Nor does it mean that
the secular author is necessarily "spiritual."

 >In the same way, King Lear is an exploration of the themes of The Book
 >of Job.

Again, Basch takes no note of Holinshed or "Leir."  Perhaps he doesn't
know of any literature beyond the Old Testament and Shakespeare, so we
should add ignorance to cognitive insufficiency in the indictment.

Similar themes can probably be found in Vedic scripture and the Koran,
but since Basch is intent on claiming that Shakespeare was a Jew, and
not a Muslim or Hindu, he doesn't bother to look.  I wish Basch would
have the integrity to make his thesis explicit:  Shakespeare was the
most insightful poet in history.  Since Jews are the most insightful
people, chosen by Jahweh to dominate all else, it must follow that
Shakespeare was a Jew.

Actually, it is clear that WS was a devout pagan.  Who else could
present Jupiter, Apollo and Diana so sympathetically?

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 13:06:23 -0800
Subject: 16.0472 Shakespeare's Personal Faith
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0472 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

Abigail Quart writes:

 >. . . thoughtful Hamlet is from Protestant Wittenburg.
 >95-theses-on-a-church-door Wittenburg. Rash Laertes, however, returns
 >from Catholic Paris. St.-Bartholomew's-Day-Massacre Paris. Shakespeare
 >couldn't have drawn a clearer, more deliberate contrast."

Wittenburg will not be created for another five hundred years if you
accept Hamlet as an 11th Century prince. Paris University is also 100
years from being founded. And The Massacre at Paris? Well Marlowe is
surely not within Hamlet's entourage.

 >"Hamlet talks of suicide. Does he seem to be worrying about a guarantee
 >that he will burn in hell because it's a mortal sin? Nope. Talks about
 >not having a clue what's next. Does that sound like a convinced Catholic?"

Hamlet talks of suicide, but Ophelia commits it and puts the
gravediggers in a big tizzy because she is of the Catholic faith and
therefore should not be given 'Christian burial'.

 >"When Hamlet abandons thoughtfulness and acts, disaster ensues. Wasn't
 >Hamlet written just after the whole company was taken in for questioning
 >over the Essex revolt?"

The Essex revolt was carried out to a large extent by the very same men
that would later be executed for treason as part of the Gunpowder Plot
(a very Catholic event). They all were from Stratford or its environs
and Shakespeare seems to have known every one of them. Read Antonio
Fraser's excellent book on the subject.

Apart from Ophelia, is not also the father, the ghost, (aka John
Shakespeare), played, tradition would have us believe, by Will,  stuck
in purgatory? Is this not critical to Hamlet's actions? Does he not,
'not kill' Claudius at the vital moment because Claudius is at prayer
and will escape the fate of his father? All seems pretty Catholic to me.

But in the end, fun and debate aside, 'the play's the thing.'

Colin Cox

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Perry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 22:36:04 -0500
Subject: 16.0480 Shakespeare's Personal Faith
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0480 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

Please forgive a possibly provocative comment, but I couldn't help being
impressed by the completely unexpected (by me, at least) quality of the
responses to this question and to the "SHK 16.0467 Coriolanus TLN 3119"
thread.  After seeing threads like "SHK 16.0470 There's Magic in the
Web" and "SHK 16.0445 A Claudius Question" degenerate quickly into
mindless speculation, on the one hand, and empty posturing and sneering
on the other, I deeply appreciated the generally thoughtful and
appropriate contributions to these threads.

I hope the community doesn't make me feel foolish before this comment
makes it onto the List.

John Perry

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 18:09:13 -0600
Subject: 16.0480 Shakespeare's Personal Faith
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0480 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

 >These points do not disprove the idea that the two locales provide a
 >thematic contrast of Protestant-Hamlet versus Catholic-Laertes, but they
 >do suggest that the idea is a good deal shakier AQ claims

Luther's trial pitted him directly against Churchmen affiliated with the
University at Paris.

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 16 Mar 2005 00:12:25 -0500
Subject: 16.0480 Shakespeare's Personal Faith
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0480 Shakespeare's Personal Faith

It doesn't matter what Laertes was going to Paris for. He was going to
Paris and he returned from PARIS. Hamlet was returned from WITTENBURG.
Do you believe that Shakespeare made careless references? I don't. And
the argument about Never-Never-Land is disingenuous. Shakespeare was
using loaded words with significance to his Elizabethan audience. They
knew what happened in Wittenburg. They knew what happened in Paris.

[8]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Douglas Galbi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 16 Mar 2005 09:19:35 -0500
Subject:        Re: Shakespeare's Personal Faith

Hannibal Hamlin writes:

"While Duffy, Haigh, and others have corrected some of the imbalances of
the whiggish (Protestant) history, they have been accused, with some
justification, of introducing imbalances of their own.  See, for
instance, David Daniell's The Bible in English (2003), which points out
that Duffy virtually ignores the English Bible in his history of
sixteenth-century (and earlier) English religious practice."

Douglas Galbi writes:

Historians will go on. The tensions between religious word, image, and
practice in sixteenth-century England were a key creative source for
Shakespeare's theatre. Surely the flurry of competing English
translations of the Bible in sixteenth-century England are an important
part of that story.  I address that issue in depth in my work, "Sense in
Communication."  See http://www.galbithink.org/sense-s5.htm

What's interesting about this issue is that it's not just history. It's
important for thinking about how persons will use camera phones with
text messaging capabilities. The next Shakespeare?  Perhaps Blast
Theory.  See http://www.blasttheory.co.uk/

Regards,
Douglas Galbi

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Personal Request

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0485  Wednesday, 16 March 2005

From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005 15:36:51 -0600
Subject:        Personal Request

I would like to beg your indulgence for some personal help. My daughter
is doing a semester abroad in Aberdeen. Over spring break she's going to
London with some friends, then taking a commercial tour to Italy and
returning to London. A friend is supposed to meet her there and they
will drive back to Scotland together.

But, of course, things happen. If the friend should fail her, what would
be the best way for her to get from Gatwick into London and thence to a
train to Scotland? She had a lot of trouble finding information and
stopped looking when she made this arrangement. I tried looking up
things on the web, but found myself generally stymied. (British Rail
wanted to sell me a foreigners' pass and tour packages and nothing else.)

Since a number of people on this list are Natives, and actually live in
the vicinity, could one or another write me off-line with information on
the most painless way for her to get from Gatwick to Aberdeen on her own
-- if necessary?

Thanks,
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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.