SHAKSPER 2001: Re: "What's in a name?"

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 06/28/01 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1639  Thursday, 28 June 2001

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <jensensh@hotmail.com>
        Date:   Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 08:52:12 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1624 Re: "What's in a name?"

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 11:41:02 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1624 Re: "What's in a name?"

[3]     From:   John Velz <jvelz@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
        Date:   Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 16:47:25 -0500
        Subj:   Peters


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <jensensh@hotmail.com>
Date:           Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 08:52:12 -0700
Subject: 12.1624 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1624 Re: "What's in a name?"

Let's cut through the crap.

Seems to me that Saari and Taylor have proven just about everything
EXCEPT that Peter was a phallic reference in *R&J,* or that it was used
this way so early in English.  Presenting more facts of the same sort
will not change that, nor will "cleverly" dismissing those who point out
their mistakes.

It seems to me that the only intellectually honest way for them to go is
to admit that all the evidence they have presented is circumstantial,
from languages other than English, and that the connections with English
are tenuous, and sometimes speculative.  Having admitted that, they can
say they suspect the name Peter was colored in this way, but since it
can not be clearly proven, it is a speculation until a hitherto
unnoticed reference is found, and isn't it interesting to speculate?  I
doubt anyone would have a problem with that.

The confidence with which the current claims are made is excessive and
suspect.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 11:41:02 -0700
Subject: 12.1624 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1624 Re: "What's in a name?"

Stuart Taylor points out,

>Now, _there's_ a phallic reference:  "burden".  See Chaucer, CT A673,
>A4165; Shakespeare, RJ I.iv, Sonnet 23; and Rabelais.

This ability to find perverse meaning in everyday sentences is kind of a
problem, isn't it?  Reading texts by some critics, one rather wonders
how one would have a conversation with them, without their starting to
chortle at every word, like Beavis and Butthead.  This isn't to deny
that secondary meanings are sometimes clearly available in the text, but
surely we should distinguish substantive meanings from every other
meaning that's possible.  After all, we do this in everyday
conversation.

Cheers,
Seán.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Velz <jvelz@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
Date:           Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001 16:47:25 -0500
Subject:        Peters

One might add to Stuart Taylor's list of derivations from *petra*,
*petrel*, or "the stormy petrel", a bird that seems to walk on water as
Peter did at Jesus' invitation (Matthew 14: 25-31).  When a storm came
up Peter faltered and Jesus had to save him from sinking.

Cheers,
John

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, editor@ws.bowiestate.edu
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2002, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.