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

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 07/17/01 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1763  Tuesday, 17 July 2001

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <jensensh@hotmail.com>
        Date:   Friday, 13 Jul 2001 08:33:38 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

[2]     From:   Robin Hamilton <robin.hamilton2@btinternet.com>
        Date:   Friday, 13 Jul 2001 17:37:38 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

[3]     From:   Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Friday, 13 Jul 2001 10:34:54 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

[4]     From:   Mari Bonomi <pootersox@bonomi.connix.com>
        Date:   Friday, 13 Jul 2001 17:19:55 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

[5]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <kpetersonkranz@yahoo.com>
        Date:   Sunday, 15 Jul 2001 05:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <jensensh@hotmail.com>
Date:           Friday, 13 Jul 2001 08:33:38 -0700
Subject: 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

Taylor writes:

>Mike Jensen said,  "Yes, the OED is flawed.  There are also words where
>earlier precedents have been found than the OED records.  That does not
>make it useless."
>
>Robin Hamilton responded,  "I'd agree with Mike here, and it's never
>going to be perfect, but it does get better."
>
>Remarks that are far less "singularly trite" and "unexceptional" than
>this have been regularly so labelled (sic) and dismissed on this >thread.
>What's gives here?

Ah, so correcting Taylor with the facts is trite and unexceptional, huh?

His insults are subtler this time, but they are still insults.  Things
have gotten to a point where the only proper response begins, Dear
Moron.  I will not subject the list to such comments, so I bow out.
This does not indicate that Taylor has scored any points with Friday's
comments.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <robin.hamilton2@btinternet.com>
Date:           Friday, 13 Jul 2001 17:37:38 +0100
Subject: 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

> Mike Jensen said,  "Yes, the OED is flawed.  There are also words where
> earlier precedents have been found than the OED records.  That does not
> make it useless."
>
> Robin Hamilton responded,  "I'd agree with Mike here, and it's never
> going to be perfect, but it does get better."
>
> Remarks that are far less "singularly trite" and "unexceptional" than
> this have been regularly so labelled and dismissed on this thread.
> What's gives here?

What gives here is selective quotation.  I'm perfectly willing to stand
at the bar and face an accusation of triteness, but I'd prefer to be
judged on what I said (SHK 12.1740  Thursday, 12 July 200) rather than
on Mr. Taylor's tendentious snippet.

> Someone (I apologise, I can't find the exact remark) previously referred
> to 'the difference between wit and smut.'  It seems to me that to expect
> Shakespeare to point out his meanings is to expect smut rather than wit.

I acknowledge these words mine, but again would draw attention to the
elimination of context-in this case, one where the words were used
specifically as a counter to the kind of position which Mr. Taylor takes
up.

Robin Hamilton

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Friday, 13 Jul 2001 10:34:54 -0700
Subject: 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

Stuart Taylor argues that

>The question was rather, given the imperfection of such texts in
>capturing living language use, is it accurate to say that the
>non-appearance of a word or phrase in such texts establishes or suggests
>that the word/phrase in question was not in use during the period in
>question?

No, and no-one (that I recall) is suggesting that.  The problem is that
no other means of proving the use of a word or phrase is so
incontrovertible.  Playing on usages in other languages is (at best) to
reason by analogy, while the context can be made to mean a lot of
things.  In principle, one can find whatever one seeks, and it seems
considerably more advisable to stick to things that are not only
possible but plausible and (better) provable.

Cheers,
Seán.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <pootersox@bonomi.connix.com>
Date:           Friday, 13 Jul 2001 17:19:55 -0400
Subject: 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

S. Taylor asks,

>The question was rather, given the imperfection of such
>texts in
>capturing living language use, is it accurate to say that the
>non-appearance of a word or phrase in such texts establishes or suggests
>that the word/phrase in question was not in use during the period in
>question?

And I reply, once again, it is *inaccurate* to suggest that a
word/phrase was in common enough use for the average Globe-goer to pick
up on the implied witticism/pun absent ANY documentary evidence.  And I
also reply that given the time period in question, the ONLY documentary
evidence has to be printed text or other written documents (letters,
diaries, marginalia in texts, etc.)

Not a single SHAKPERian has yet come forward with any such evidence from
anywhere w/in 100 years on either side of the 1590-1616 time frame under
discussion.

Not only does such evidence not exist in the OED and similar sorts of
documented compendiums, it exists nowhere that anyone has ever been able
to document.

Hence, to assert that "peter" meant "penis" to an Elizabethan is, at
this point in literary time, an insistence on riding one's hobby horse,
not a contribution to reasoned discourse on Shakespeare's use of punning
sexual references.

Mari Bonomi

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson-Kranz <kpetersonkranz@yahoo.com>
Date:           Sunday, 15 Jul 2001 05:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

This thread has touched on a number of intriguing and important issues,
most concerning the parameters of interpretation in which we, as
students, teachers, and enjoyers of Shakespeare, may *legitimately* and
*reasonably* partake.

It is unfortunate and sad that the thread probably is at risk of
termination.  It is unfortunate and sad when these discussions generate
more heat than light.

Having said that, I know that I here risk raising the temperature,
without necessarily increasing the candlepower.  So be it.

Stuart, you and I have conducted a brief but civil and productive
off-list exchange in which we cleared up misunderstands between our
positions on these issues without bad feeling.  So I know it's
possible.  If you want to generate knowledge rather than vitriol you
would be well advised to do the same with Mike and Robin.

Instead, your Friday post quoted both of them out of context, and then
labelled those quotes (indirectly, yes, but unmistakably) as "singularly
trite" and "unexceptional."  If I had been on the receiving end of that
remark, I would have been angry.  And, in fact, when I read it I was
angry on Mike's and Robin's behalfs.  I waited 36 hours to write this
response in the hope of generating a calmer and more controlled reply.

Quoting out of context in an environment such as SHAKSPER is a
forgivable error if it is accidental.  All of us are probably guilty of
it.  If it is done for the purpose of twisting meanings and attempting
to make one's opponent seem ridiculous, then it is not acceptable.

> Besides, in this thread I have relied heavily on the
> OED and other such
> sources and have never so much as suggested that
> they are useless.

Alas, I do not have all of your messages at hand.  I will trust you in
your assertion that you have not suggested that the OED et. al. are
"useless" *in so many words*.  The tone of your postings DID suggest to
me, quite strongly, that you did in fact believe that the OED and other
lexical and etiological references were of dubious value in such a
debate as the one which has been going on in this thread.  I may have
misread or misunderstood, but from the response of other list members,
it would seem that I was not alone in this interpretation.

Continuing on:

> The question was rather, given the imperfection of
> such texts in
> capturing living language use, is it accurate to say
> that the
> non-appearance of a word or phrase in such texts
> establishes or suggests
> that the word/phrase in question was not in use
> during the period in
> question?

The non-appearance of a word in OED or its confreres does not
*establish* that the word/phrase was not in use.  But YES, it DOES
"suggest" it.  And here it is important to keep in mind that it is not
the OED, in any of its forms, which is in question.  The OED and the
other references mentioned are not what generates the evidence.  They
are linguistic museums in which are recorded the heroic research of many
laborers among surviving primary texts.  Certainly, many words would
never have made it into text form.  Certainly, many words might have
been employed in texts which in turn have been lost to us.  One of the
frustrating paradoxes of doing bibliographical work is that the books
that were most read, most popular, most handled, are those least likely
to survive...they would have been read and handled to death.

But unfortunately, the surviving texts of Shakespeare's period -- of any
literary-historical period -- are all we have to go on.  It's a bit like
doing paleontology.  A researcher examines the fossil remains for a
particular period.  He finds no hominid fossil remains in geological
structures from the Jurassic period.  He therefore hypothesizes that
there were *probably* no hominids extant during that period of time.
Yes, of course, it is within the realm of possibility that there WERE
hominids running around shooting at the dinosaurs, and that for whatever
reason they simply did not end up as fossils.  But on the best evidence,
that conclusion is unlikely.  The principles of logic suggest that it
would be counterproductive to spend a lot of time arguing about the
matter.

This is what the current argument about the presence of certain sexual
euphemisms at certain historical periods has, unfortunately, seems to
have become.  And rather than accept that limited knowledge will always
plague us, Stuart, you seem to have chosen the path of hurling personal
insults.  This is not productive.  This is not useful.  This discourages
others from participating in the debate.

> And, does other "evidence" count, such as, let's
> stick with context for
> the moment.  Why can't we work through the
> discussion of the context(s)
> involved in any of the examples that have been
> presented?

Certainly we can do this.  But, if there is no compelling evidence that
an early modern audience
would have perceived the contextual meanings we propose, we would be
well advised to be quite clear that we are participating in a different
critical, interpretive paradigm.  It is legitimate to examine a text and
find meanings and interpretations that could not have been intended by
the generator of the text. To me, at least, it does NOT seem legitimate
to work backwards from a contemporary interpretation and assert that if
we in the 21st century see a particular meaning in a particular
word/phrase, that that indicates that late 16th century London playgoers
or readers would ALSO have seen that particular meaning.  This may not
have been what you intended, Stuart, but some of your postings *seem* to
have been suggesting just that.

> Someone (I apologise, I can't find the exact remark)
> previously referred
> to 'the difference between wit and smut.'  It seems
> to me that to expect
> Shakespeare to point out his meanings is to expect
> smut rather than wit.

This is unfair.  Mike was (I think) arguing that in most Shakespearean
texts, multiple word meanings are highlighted and reinforced by (here's
that word again!) context(s).  Again, quoting out of context, you placed
undue emphasis on his wording about "pointing out meanings," and
combined it with another listmember's (Stevie Gamble's, if memory
serves) remark in yet another context in such a way as to be quite
insulting to Mike.  I don't know if you intended to be insulting, but
that's how it came across.  Most of us when so insulted will open fire.
I would not be surprised if Mike and Robin do so today, and if they do I
would not blame them one bit.  I submit this (overly lengthy) comment in
the hope that you, and others, might reflect on the consequences (both
intentional and unintentional) that can follow when we succumb to the
temptation to be biting and sarcastic in making a point.  I have been
reflecting; I too have been guilty on numerous occasions of letting my
emotions, my competitiveness, and my desire to appear "witty" escape my
control.

All I can say is that, again, such methods do not produce further
knowledge or insight.  Perhaps, Stuart, we can all do better in the
future.

Karen Peterson

_______________________________________________________________
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.