SHAKSPER 2001: Re: "What's in a name?"
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 07/02/01
- Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: "not well married""
- Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1671 Monday, 2 July 2001
[1] From: Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date: Friday, 29 Jun 2001 09:13:31 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
[2] From: Robin Hamilton <robin.hamilton2@btinternet.com>
Date: Friday, 29 Jun 2001 21:39:51 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
[3] From: Rainbow Saari <raynebowe@xtra.co.nz>
Date: Saturday, 30 Jun 2001 09:52:28 +1200
Subj: Re What's in a name
[4] From: Stuart Taylor <swt1@columbia.edu>
Date: Saturday, 30 Jun 2001 09:20:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
[5] From: Mike Jensen <jensensh@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 30 Jun 2001 12:55:10 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
[6] From: Stuart Taylor <swt1@columbia.edu>
Date: Saturday, 30 Jun 2001 23:25:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
[7] From: Stevie Gamble <SMG1BAR@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 1 Jul 2001 11:00:09 EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date: Friday, 29 Jun 2001 09:13:31 -0700
Subject: 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
I am not, pace Abigail Quart, saying that one cannot have two meanings
at once. What I am saying is that not all possible meanings are active
at the same time. Tracing back all possible puns and associations in a
sentence is one way to deconstruct it altogether.
Cheers,
Seán.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robin Hamilton <robin.hamilton2@btinternet.com>
Date: Friday, 29 Jun 2001 21:39:51 +0100
Subject: 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
Rainbow Saari <raynebowe@xtra.co.nz> writes,
"(The name Peter has been a common English one since the 13th /14th
century. Perhaps* too* common?) There's 'Peter Bullcalf o' the green' (2
H IV), Peter Thump, 'man' to Thomas Horner, an armourer (2 H 6), Peter
Quince in 'Dream', Peter, servingman to the Nurse in R & J, Sly in the
Induction of 'the Shrew' has spoken of one of his mates, Peter Turph ( a
clod ?) and Peter Simple is Slender's servant in Merry Wives. Which,
while it obviously does not 'prove' that Peter meant penis, makes you
wonder why Shakespeare gave the name to so many 'low' characters, and to
none of the gentility?"
Might this be connected with John Wyclif's translation of the New
Testament around 1378? This is a little later than the dates Rainbow
gives for the introduction of "Peter" as name in English, but might have
established an association between the Wycliffite-reading lower orders,
and choosing Peter as a first name, that could have persisted as late as
Shakespeare. Was Oldcastle ever nicknamed "Peter"?
Robin Hamilton
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rainbow Saari <raynebowe@xtra.co.nz>
Date: Saturday, 30 Jun 2001 09:52:28 +1200
Subject: Re What's in a name
Okay, I have to correct myself here. I was forgetting about Don Pedro,
prince of Aragon, in Much Ado About Nothing, ( definitely an aristocrat
with the name Peter ) and probably also Petruccio of The Taming of the
Shrew. There's also, however, a Petruccio, page to Tybalt in R & J.
Yours, with egg on face and foot firmly in mouth,
Rainbow
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Taylor <swt1@columbia.edu>
Date: Saturday, 30 Jun 2001 09:20:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
I too don't know if Don Bloom and I disagree or not. I agree with his
remark, "Because [Peter] maintains it in puns, moreover, he could keep
from being disciplined...by claiming that he meant only what he
literally said." Yet although words "may mean little beyond their
immediate effect", they may mean much more - at the same time as they
also mean what is explicitly stated. I believe Abigail Quart also makes
this point. In fact this is all I meant by 'phallic defender/phallic
threat' - Peter can be both of these opposites at once. I think this is
part of what makes literature fun. On the "not well married thread" I
have posted a similar argument about Friar Lawrence's curious remarks:
several meanings can occur at the same time.
As for Abigail Quart's statement that "Poetry is not everyday speech", I
both agree and disagree. On the one hand, I think there are certain
similarities between poetry and everyday speech, even though everyday
speech strives to be more formal and logical. It seems to me that
jokes, double entendres, slips, mishearing someone, depend on certain
poetical mechanisms, such as metaphor, rhyme, alliteration. On the
other hand, when we approach something identified as a poem (or a play,
or other writing or art), don't we make certain assumptions about it?
Do 'poetic license' and 'living vicariously' and 'the willing suspension
of disbelief' still apply? These are not the stuff of everyday
intentional discourse.
Since I believe that, despite efforts to be rational and intentional,
people nevertheless employ 'poetic' processes in their everyday
thinking, and since I believe that theatregoers are inclined to loosen
up their hearing/thinking while at a play, I think that it's possible
that Peter could be heard as penis in the 16th century, and that an
Elizabethan audience would be likely to hear it that way in the context
of a scene like II.iv.
Stevie Gamble says, "I think the problem isn't about Peter=rock. It's
about rock=penis, a counter-intuitive proposition given the
characteristics of rocks, and penises." I think that part of the
problem may have to do with equating any two terms. They aren't
identical, and only need to share some similarities for a comparison to
be made. Stevie Gamble could explain why she thinks rock/penis is
counterintuitive, but how about this as an alternative: stone can mean
testicle (ca1200), rock is close in meaning to stone, and penis is close
(anatomically and in thought) to testicle. Thus rock and penis are
easily associated in thought. If indeed, certain characteristics of
rocks are similar to some characteristics of penises, other trains of
thought could be worked out.
Although we started with Peter/rock/penis, other reasonable associative
threads have emerged, including Peter/fish/penis, Peter/saltpeter/penis,
Peter/petar/penis, Peter/pier/penis, Peter/Piers-pierce/penis. These
are not mutually exclusive; they could all contribute to someone hearing
Peter as meaning penis.
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Jensen <jensensh@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 30 Jun 2001 12:55:10 -0700
Subject: 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
Rainbow Saari wrote:
>Mike, what is it about the way I phrased
>
>I would like to offer a couple of * possible * explanations
>of how the word 'peter' came to be associated with 'penis'. I am* guessing*
> that..... There may well be...Perhaps they mean the same?
>
>That suggests to you that I am claiming I am *not* speculating here but
>stating " This *is* how Peter means penis."???
>
>Of course I'm speculating
Well answered. I'd forgotten these, I believe, early comments. It was
easy to forget them when language suggesting far greater certainty was
used by yourself and another is several later postings. As long as
everyone understands this is speculation, and that the case cannot be
established on the kind of evidence presented so far, I have no problem.
Mike Jensen
[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Taylor <swt1@columbia.edu>
Date: Saturday, 30 Jun 2001 23:25:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
P.S.: Happy St. Peter's Day, yesterday, the 29th of June!
There is a rather amusing sermon given on St. Peter's Day in 1997, in
which St. Peter's "crass" antics are described.
(http://www.stpetersnottingham.org/sermon/peter.htm )
And the Catholic Encyclopedia, v11, describes St. Peter as "rash alike
in word and act".
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm )
[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stevie Gamble <SMG1BAR@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 1 Jul 2001 11:00:09 EDT
Subject: 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1659 Re: "What's in a name?"
> People are making assumptions about what I assume.
snip
> Stevie Gamble comments on my mentioning the Lammastide 'marriage'
> custom,
>
>> 'Unfortunately books on English folk customs are not noted, in general,
>> for their accuracy and your apparent conviction that they represent a
>> source of unimpeachable evidence merely suggests that you are not well
>> acquainted with the concept of gathering evidence to enable you to
>>formulate hypotheses which can then be tested in the light of further
>> evidence. This explains a great deal about your observations, but it
>> doesn't help us to get any further with considering Romeo and Juliet.'
> Where did I state my 'conviction' that books on English folk customs are
> sources of 'unimpeachable evidence'? I recall saying I thought it would
> be interesting to know if this 'custom' existed in Shakespeare's day.
No. What you actually said was:
> One of the customs associated with Lammastide, my book on English folk
> customs tells me was that for the duration of the the Lammas Fair
> couples could conduct a 'trial marriage' and if at the end of the period
> either party was unhappy with the other, they could part with no ill
> feeling or obligation. The book doesn't tell me if this practice existed
> in Elizabethan times. It would be interesting to know.
You expressed no doubt or uncertainty whatsoever as to the existence of
the custom (with or without quote marks); your only query was whether it
applied during the period in question. If you knew that much of what is
found in books of this nature bears no resemblance to reality then you
were disingenuous in citing it without that qualification. And,
incidentally, what I actually said was that 'your apparent conviction',
not your conviction. There is a large difference between those two
statements and it would be nice if you actually referred to my
observations accurately, rather than misrepresenting them. It would be
even nicer if you managed to do the same thing for one W. Shakespeare.
> My statement that
>> 'I believe that the possibility of a father caring about his daughter's
> >future physical happiness in a marriage and talking about it with her
> >wooer (even joking, perhaps to cover possible embarrassment ? ) may not
> >have been in the 1590's quite as unlikely as we might choose to
> >believe.'
Elicited this response;
>>'Your choice of the word 'choose'
> >indicates your belief that someone disagreeing with you does so not
> >because of the inherent defects in your analysis but because they are
> >unwilling to believe it for reasons you don't elucidate. You may care to
> >bear in mind that phrasing your observations in this way reduces the
> >likelihood of someone believing that you are capable of analysis in the
> first place...'
> Well, no; my use of the word 'choose' in the instance quoted actually
> reflects my view that what we 'believe' is always a matter of choice.
Then it would have been helpful if you said so. If that is so there can
be no debate, no discussion, no evaluation, no consideration, no
interchange of ideas, no SHAKSPER, no nothing, and I wouldn't have
wasted my time bothering to comment on a couple of the absurdities in
your post. After all, you are armed with the ultimate cop-out...
> "There's nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."
Really? I'm pretty convinced that if someone was sawing your head off
with a very blunt razor I would regard that as bad, even if you do
occasionally say silly things, and it's possible that W. Shakespeare
would have agreed with me. You might like to bear in mind that some
deeply unpleasant people have used and abused that quotation, and that
finding a quote from Hamlet doesn't impress.
> As for my
> ability to' gather evidence and formulate hypotheses', while I'll
> happily acknowledge I'm thirty years distant from interacting in any
> scientific environment,
Your apparent conviction that the need to gather evidence and formulate
hypotheses is confined to scientific environments does, I think, speak
for itself.
>I continue to question the validity of all sorts
> of perceptions in all sorts of ways. You are apparently not impressed
> with what you see as my methods, and that's fine. I undoubtedly lack a
> great deal in knowledge of the traditions of inquiry into and debate
> over matters, but part of what appealed to me about joining the SHAKSPER
> List was that it would probably help me to learn, by both observation of
> others and practice, how to more ably present and defend my various
> theories. I continue to strive to be open to learning.
No. You have asserted that 'what we 'believe' is always a matter of
choice.' You can't learn. There's nothing for you to learn, since you
know everything already. As I noted above, you are clutching the
ultimate cop-out, and if you haven't noticed that your assertions
contradict themselves then presumably it is because your
belief-structure insulates you from noticing it.
> I think the issue you raise, Stevie, of the dangers of childbirth is a
> good one and I acknowledge that I did not think of this when looking at
> this scene.
Well, adopting your own methods, the answer is obvious, is it not? You
chose to believe that:
>They have talked about the marriage
> before and Capulet is restating, with language that suggests to me the
> issue of her sexual readiness has been discussed, that, " Hey, we're
> both men of the world; I think you understand me. "
since that is what you wanted to believe, and you therefore entirely
ignored the most obvious explanation of why very early marriage could be
literally life-threatening for Juliet, in pursuit of an interpretation
that fitted with your prejudices. You will note that arguing this way is
very easy, but it doesn't get us very far.
> However, when I said I thought that Capulet's remark
>
> > "And too soon marred are those so early made" [might] hark back to the
> > difficulties of his own marriage to a sexually unwilling bride?"
>
> I was not proposing he was "brooding over his sex-life", rather that
> both he and his wife might have experienced difficulties if she had been
> a sexually unwilling bride. Since I did not fully explain this at the
> time I can hardly blame you for not taking my meaning
> However, since
> Juliet's mother offers her daughter the remark "By my count, I was your
> mother much upon these years that you are now a maid" in order to
> encourage her to accept Paris, not to dissuade her from the idea, I
> wonder how sound an argument this can be.
What argument? Am I to understand that you are now contending that
Juliet's mother was both a sexually unwilling bride and an urgent
advocate of very early marriage, irrespective of any possible health
risks? And that notwithstanding your previous assertions that :
>Juliet's mother tells her "By my count (cunt; indeed!) I was your mother much
>upon these years that you are now a maid."
Lady Capulet is now able to count not cunt? If so it would be helpful
if you set this out for me.
And if you genuinely wish to learn about the realities surrounding
Juliet and her mother you might like to read Olwen Hufton's _The
Prospect Before Her_, which gives a scholarly portrait of the lives of
real women in Western Europe from 1500 to 1800. 'Trial marriages' don't
feature in the index...
Best wishes,
Stevie Gamble
_______________________________________________________________
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>
- Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: "not well married""
- Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |