![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 1994: Re: "wood"/"woo'd"
From: Hardy M. Cook (hmcook@boe00.minc.umd.edu) Date: 07/03/94
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0587. Sunday, 3 July 1994.
(1) From: Harry Hill <HILHAR@CONU2.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 01 Jul 1994 10:00:02 -0500 (EST)
Subj: Re: SHK 5.0585 Re: "wood"/"woo'd"
(2) From: Diana Akers Rhoads <dar5w@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
Date: Saturday, 2 Jul 1994 21:49:33 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 5.0581 Qs: "wood"/"woo'd"
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Hill <HILHAR@CONU2.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 01 Jul 1994 10:00:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0585 Re: "wood"/"woo'd"
Comment: Re: SHK 5.0585 Re: "wood"/"woo'd"
A tiny reminder to Douglas Lanier that "I love *thee* not" as a line-reading
onstage would go quite against the metre, which is of course in itself the best
guide to the clean interpretation of such moments.
Harry Hill
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Diana Akers Rhoads <dar5w@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
Date: Saturday, 2 Jul 1994 21:49:33 -0400
Subject: 5.0581 Qs: "wood"/"woo'd"
Comment: Re: SHK 5.0581 Qs: "wood"/"woo'd"
In Elizabethan times *wood* meant "madness" as well as "forest." Love often
was seen as a kind of madness, and so your rendering of the word fits nicely
with this Elizabethan alternative.
Diana Akers Rhoads (dar5w@virginia.edu)
|
|
|||||