SHAKSPER 2001: Re: "What's in a name?"
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 07/09/01
- Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Othello"
- Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Hamlet's Clashing Ideals"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1720 Monday, 9 July 2001
[1] From: Robin Hamilton <robin.hamilton2@btinternet.com>
Date: Sunday, 8 Jul 2001 16:30:12 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
[2] From: Takashi Kozuka <shaxpeare@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 08 Jul 2001 15:35:22
Subj: Re: "What's in a name?"
[3] From: Rainbow Saari <raynebowe@xtra.co.nz>
Date: Monday, 9 Jul 2001 10:45:48 +1200
Subj: Re: What's in a name
[4] From: Andrew W. White <awhite@wam.umd.edu>
Date: Sunday, 8 Jul 2001 19:29:35 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
[5] From: Robin Hamilton <robin.hamilton2@btinternet.com>
Date: Monday, 9 Jul 2001 02:18:27 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
[6] From: Stuart Taylor <swt1@columbia.edu>
Date: Sunday, 8 Jul 2001 23:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
[7] From: Peter Groves <Peter.Groves@arts.monash.edu.au>
Date: Monday, 09 Jul 2001 13:50:48 +1000
Subj: RE: SHK 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robin Hamilton <robin.hamilton2@btinternet.com>
Date: Sunday, 8 Jul 2001 16:30:12 +0100
Subject: 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
> From: Clifford Stetner <cstetner@worldnet.att.net>
> I doubt that any deconstructionist ever said anything was meaningless.
> As Takashi Kozuka points out, it is one thing to call attention to the
> arbitrariness of the signifier/signified relation, and another to decide
> what to do with it.
Um. What Takashi Kozuka said was: 'deconstruction questions
("deconstructs") the fixed bond between a name ("signifier") and a
substance ("signified").'
"the arbitrariness of the signifier/signified relation" is straight from
Saussure, and thus thoroughly pre-de-constructionist. Indeed, it can be
carried back (via the Nomanalist/Realist controversy in the Middle Ages)
at least to Plato.
Deconstruction is a different kettle of snakes.
Robin Hamilton
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Takashi Kozuka <shaxpeare@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 08 Jul 2001 15:35:22
Subject: Re: "What's in a name?"
Among many other books I would like to recommend Jonathan Culler's On
Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism (1982). His
book is useful especially when we practice deconstruction (as well as
study it as a theory).
Happy reading!
Takashi Kozuka
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rainbow Saari <raynebowe@xtra.co.nz>
Date: Monday, 9 Jul 2001 10:45:48 +1200
Subject: Re: What's in a name
Karen asks about the rose/vagina connection. Helkiah Crooke in his book
on anatomy 'Microcosmographia', ( Lonon: W.Jaggard, 1615), in
describing the female physical response to sexual stimuli, notes " the
consequent revealing of the 'many round folds', the 'many involutions
and pleates, joyned together in the manner of Rose leaves before they
bee fully spread or rype...', in the forepart of the vulva. " (Quoted
from Martin Green's The Labyrinth of Shakespeare's Sonnets, p 75) My
guess is he was not the first to make a comparison between rose and
vulva.
I think it possible that Shakespeare may be playing on this image of
rose as female reproductive organs/genitalia in A Midsummer Night's
Dream (1.1) when Theseus tells Hermia she must choose between a marriage
to Demetrius or life in a nunnery;
To live a barren sister all your life,
Chanting faint hymns to the cold fruitless moon.
Thrice -blessed they that master so their blood
To undergo such maiden pilgrimage;
But earthlier happy is the rose distill'd
Than that which withering on the virgin thorn
Grows, lives and dies in single blessedness.
As for Shakespeare identifying " young men just as often, or more often,
with roses, than he does women", one reason he does this, I believe, is
that the probable pronunciation of his patron's surname, ( Henry
Wriothesley ) was then ' Rose-ly'. Green ( p. 87), points out this
conclusion was arrived at in 1918 by Professor Martha Hale Shackford,
and Professor Charlton Hinman, in 1937, likewise surmised. Green and I
agree that Shakespeare wrote of Wriothesley, particularly in his
Sonnets, as his 'Rose'.
Ira's query on
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."
Q 1 has 'name', Q 2 and Folio have 'word'. Both 'name' and 'word' can
be said to be correct. I prefer 'word' .
All the best,
Rainbow
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew W. White <awhite@wam.umd.edu>
Date: Sunday, 8 Jul 2001 19:29:35 -0400
Subject: 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
Karen Peterson-Kranz writes:
>Quart notes that a rose
> Is "rose" really a synonym for female genitalia?
Um, my classmates in college (of both sexes) seemed to get a great kick
out of the 'climax' to the _Romance of the Rose_ -- don't have a copy
handy, but perhaps someone could find us an example of this kind of
imagery.
Cheers,
Andy White
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robin Hamilton <robin.hamilton2@btinternet.com>
Date: Monday, 9 Jul 2001 02:18:27 +0100
Subject: 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
>From: Karen Peterson-Kranz <kpetersonkranz@yahoo.com>
>Is "rose" really a synonym for female genitalia? I missed that one
>somehow (I'm not being sarcastic! I'm legitimately wondering!). I
>always thought it was more the idea of a "flower" in a more general
>sense.
There's probably a better case to be made for the rose (in English,
certainly, and probably more broadly on the Continent) as a symbol of
general femininity. As in the medieval quatrain:
Al nigt by the rose, rose,
Al nigt bi the rose I lay.
Darf ich nougt the rose stele
And yet ich bar the flour away.
Here, the rose seems to symbolise the total female, and the flower her
virginity.
Robin Hamilton
[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Taylor <swt1@columbia.edu>
Date: Sunday, 8 Jul 2001 23:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
More than 2 weeks ago, I called into question the assumed omnipotence of
written evidence (or proof) in discussing questions such as whether or
not the word Peter is likely to have suggested penis to an Elizabethan
audience watching R&J.
In response, Mike Jensen has repeatedly asserted his appeal to authority
(books, peers, and 'every scholar he knows.) Now he takes the positions
of cheerleader and referee. It seems to me that the only 'level to
which he will not go' is an ad rem argument. Given his rigid reliance
on "textbooks" and "textual precedent" one might wonder, does this
fellow kiss by the book?
On the other hand, Robin Hamilton has kept his eye on the debate, for
which I am grateful. He writes, "I do find, however, rather a muddle
between the diachronic and the synchronic in Stuart Taylor's posts."
The complicated ways that "the here and now" and "the past" are related
to each other are the subject of unresolved discourses in several fields
of inquiry. I do not wish to invoke those now. It was my impression
that "synchronic" and "diachronic" were descriptors of perspectives, not
entities in and of themselves, and not qualities of linguistic reality.
As perspectives, they are not mutually exclusive.
In a prior post, I asked (by way of accepting Mr. Hamiltonąs focus on
context), "...when we hear or read a verbal communication, which
contexts are operative? Which contexts do we consider relevant when
considering the meanings of a word or phrase? and, do we want to
exclude any contexts from consideration? If so, how do we decide which
contexts are not relevant? In this case, should we exclude linguistic
history and corporeal experience from the contexts in which a play
plays?"
To which Mr. Hamilton responded, "The statements above are, on the face
of it, unexceptional. The problem (for me) is that they quite beg the
various questions of this discussion. As, for example, just when and
how does linguistic history become relevant? [The Peter debate]. What
is the authority of an individual subjective response (underpinned by
bodily experience)?"
Mr. Hamilton's response is a trick and a cop out. In referring to my
questions as statements, he avoids attempting to answer them. In
restating the questions in his own terms, it is Mr. Hamilton who in fact
'begs the questions'. I didnąt know that linguistic history had been
deemed irrelevant; if it has, just when and why did this happen? Also,
I thought we were talking about likely collective responses, not
'individual subjective responses.' Bodily experience is not simply
individual experience. If it were, so much conventional and idiomatic
language would not be based on bodily experience.
Let me restate my question. If context is important, what are the
criteria for deciding what constitutes the context of a given word-use,
and how do we know the inclusion and exclusion criteria are valid? (Mr.
Lawrence seems to skirt this question as well).
Hamilton also says, "To attempt to shift the ground towards an argument
as to whether cognitive or descriptive linguistics is more relevant to
the study of Shakespeare is a different issue." Who is trying to shift
something? A number of responses on this thread have touched on these
issues. Both are relevant to any claim about what an audience long ago
is likely to have thought while watching a play.
Now, to come to evidence and inference. Hamilton says, "The penumbra of
the debate isn't (at least for me) over the nature of evidence, but as
to how to treat this evidence -- the inferences we make from and around
this, the interpretative strategies we bring to bear." I agree, in
part. What we do with "evidence" is an important matter. But if one is
going to make claims about what kinds of evidence pertain or which kinds
satisfy a standard of proof and what kinds do not, then the nature of
evidence is necessarily part of the debate.
I think that the use of "predominantly written texts dating from the
sixteenth century, either in their entirety or excerpted in
dictionaries" involves a good deal more inference than has been
acknowledged. A documented prior occurrence of a wordąs use "proves"
only that a) someone used the word that way at least once in the past,
and b) someone wrote down that use of the word. To go from those two
"facts" to statements about whether the particular use of the word was
widespread at a contemporary or later time, necessarily involves a fair
amount of inference.
Consider that: 1) there are words that have been in use for at least 25
years that do not appear in the OED, 2) there are idioms and slang
expressions that were widely popular 25-30 years ago are which are now
unheard and are unknown to currently young writers, 3) one can find
documentationą of slang expressions which are not and will likely never
be part of common usage. I would guess that these phenomena also
occurred in the early modern period. Such phenomena complicate
assertions about what constitutes common parlance in a period, and
compromise the exalted and unquestionable status of written "evidence."
Let's go to the Larkin poem stanza (not such an aside). I don't see how
a claim like "it's not that he [x] but that he's [doing y]" can be
substantiated. Moreover, I recall Hamilton alleging that I had
"language strapped down into a quibbling straightjacket." I believe he
speaks of himself! First of all, the so-called "American use of "guess"
(know)" still involves the sense of conjecture. The common phrase "I
guess so" is probably closer to 'well, I _don't_ really _know_ but I
think so'
than it is to 'I know so.' Secondly, even if such word-play was
intended by Larkin and registers in a reader's mind, it doesn't preclude
other meanings registering too, such as mine, which is suggested by the
syntax of the first two lines. How can one substantiate a claim that a
particular reading is "foregrounded"? In this case, it may be that
being "all-too-familiar" with (?academic discussions of) the poem
interferes with seeing what is apparent in the poem's language.
As for "pills," Hamilton makes a choice to define "local context" as
"bracketed by "fucking" and "diaphragm"." What justifies this choice?
After all, the first word of the poem is "high." It could be argued
that given the "far out" imagery and language of the poem, getting
"high" is an equally relevant local context for "pills." Again, why the
need to 'strap downą a particular meaning?
On roses, etc:
Published documentationą (as if this were necessary or sufficient (or
accurate)) that rose is a synonym for vagina can be found at:
http://starmax.macsol.ca:2345/dict/vagina.htm
(synonyms for penis can be found at:
http://starmax.macsol.ca:2345/dict/penis.htm ).
The use of orchid for vagina in Pacific cultures is interesting. If
orchids do not look like roses, the uterus and fallopian tubes and
ovaries do rather resemble an orchid. Is it the vulva to which rose
might refer more specifically?
Orchid is also a term for testicle. Castration is medically referred to
as an "orchiectomy." Which leads me to add that it is not just "vagina"
that can be used as an insult, but other female sexual organs and male
sexual organs too. It is interesting that we degrade our genitals
particularly among other anatomical parts to which we refer. "Uterus"
("hysteros") has a long history of pathological associations, around
which social institutions have been built.
Among the meanings that Elton John might have had in mind when he
referred to Diana as a rose, and among the meanings that the public
might have registered are: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose
/ By any other word would smell as sweet", and the Wars of the Roses,
both of which could relate to her uncertain social status.
[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Groves <Peter.Groves@arts.monash.edu.au>
Date: Monday, 09 Jul 2001 13:50:48 +1000
Subject: 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment: RE: SHK 12.1710 Re: "What's in a name?"
> From: Karen Peterson-Kranz <kpetersonkranz@yahoo.com>
> Flowers and vaginas crop up together (so to speak) in many cultures, but
> the flowers can be radically different. In some of the Pacific cultures
> in which I have lived, the preferred flower metaphor for the vagina is
> an orchid, also because they are thought to resemble each other.
Oddly enough, derived from the Greek <orchis>, 'testicle'.
Peter Groves
_______________________________________________________________
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: Othello"
- Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Hamlet's Clashing Ideals"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |