SHAKSPER 2001: Re: "What's in a name?"
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 07/18/01
- Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Comment: SHK 12.1782"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1783 Wednesday, 18 July 2001
[1] From: Mike Jensen <jensensh@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 17 Jul 2001 08:23:14 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1763 Re: "What's in a name?"
[2] From: Stuart Taylor <swt1@columbia.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 18 Jul 2001 00:58:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1763 Re: "What's in a name?"
[3] From: Nancy Charlton <nanc67@home.com>
Date: Tuesday, 17 Jul 2001 22:17:18 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 12.1763 Re: "What's in a name?"
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Jensen <jensensh@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 17 Jul 2001 08:23:14 -0700
Subject: 12.1763 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1763 Re: "What's in a name?"
In my role of cheerleader it is time to praise Sean Lawrence, Mari
Bonomi, and Karen Peterson for hanging targets on their backs.
Considering the incidence of nasty comments that Robin Hamilton, Stevie
Gamble, and myself have endured, and the fact that our posts have been
quoted out of context then used to embarrass us, the three of you risk
receiving the same treatment. This takes courage, and I praise you for
it.
Without, I hope, slighting the others, I particularly want to praise
Karen Peterson's contribution, posted Tuesday. Karen, thank you for
stepping in to defend me, particularly in pointing out that I was quoted
out of context. It reads defensively when I say it, even though it is
true, so I value that it came from another.
You are also to be commended is the gentleness of your approach. You
really tried to be fair to everyone, but still called it as you see it.
Even better, you got it right.
The analogy with paleontology is good, but not perfect, of course.
Isn't that always the problem with analogies? They usually break down
at some point. Mr. Taylor has quite rightly pointed out an analog in
some Indo-European languages with the Greek word "Petros" as a euphemism
for "penis." No precedents in English of course, that being the point,
but precedents in other languages have been pointed out. The place the
analogy breaks down is that there is no similar analog with homo-erectus
in paleontology, so someone who is not inclined to be persuaded can use
this as a cop out for rejecting your point.
I actually tried to think of analogies to make the point, and could not
come up with one that was tight enough, or for that matter one that was
as good as yours. That is why I now think of this as something you
either grasp, or don't grasp. I can't explain this to anyone who
doesn't grasp it anymore than I can explain that 2+2=4 to someone who
doesn't grasp it. If you don't get it, I don't know what else to say. I
hope your analogy, and the messages of Sean and Mari finally work, but
of course I and others have said the same thing in our own ways, and we
were not effective.
Still, your analogy was a valiant effort, and actually correct, but
perhaps not as persuasive as we both might hope.
You wrote to my antagonist,
>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.
It does, but I'm glad it did not discourage Sean, Mari, and you from
participating. Thank you. We have some pretty smart people on this
list. If the three of you are insulted or quoted out of context, most
readers will figure it out.
All the best,
Mike Jensen
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Taylor <swt1@columbia.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 18 Jul 2001 00:58:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 12.1763 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1763 Re: "What's in a name?"
What Robin Hamilton refers to as "selective quotation" and Karen
Peterson-Kranz refers to as "quoting out of context" has been the rule
on this thread, and has been utilized by all parties. The strategy
becomes particularly noticeable when written texts are exchanged, but it
is arguably the rule in any kind of conversation. I believe "selective
quotation" is also in some ways the topic of this thread: ie, with
respect to RJ passages here (and other passages), I have argued that
"context" is a choice, not a given.
For example, with all due respect to her, I believe Karen Peterson-Kranz
has selected out from the text of this discussion my recent remarks, and
has omitted (what I consider to be) crucial elements of context. Indeed
I did suggest that Robin Hamiltonšs and Mike Jensenšs recent remarks
were "singularly trite" and "unexceptional." But I did not hear her
chiding Robin Hamilton when he called my remarks "singularly trite" and
"unexceptional" (yes, those are his words). I did not hear her
protesting when my remarks were taken out of context or misrepresented.
I did not hear her protesting Mike Jensenšs admitted "intended insult"
and his self-celebrated ad hominem inuendos and 'suspicions.š I did not
hear her protesting Stevie Gamblešs ad hominem attacks on me and on
others. These are important elements of the context in which my remarks
were made.
I donšt know why Ms. Peterson-Kranz chooses to lecture me (rather than
other discussants) about vitriol, hurling personal insults and what is
fair. And she invokes a double standard: I should watch myself, but it
is OK if Hamilton and Jensen now "open fire." My guess is that it is
primarily because she does not agree with my argument and she feels some
kind of alliance with Hamilton and Jensen. Yes, Ms. Peterson-Kranz does
say that "all of us are probably guilty" of "quoting out of context."
Why not apply the critique evenly then? It seems to me that even "All
are punished!" might be more even handed. Context seems a curiously
variable entity.
Frankly, in the context of his own remarks, I find Mike Jensenšs whining
rather pathetic. I apologise if I have offended Robin Hamilton, with
whom I have enjoyed tangling even though I regard HIM as the king of
the "tendentious snippet." I would be glad to hear his views on how
context is determined and how "linguistic coherence" differentiates wit
from smut, but I have failed to get him to elaborate. I apologise if I
have here offended Karen Peterson-Kranz, but her apparent olive branch
read more like a sermon, and I wanted to note that for the sake of the
"context" argument.
I believe it was a mistake for me to assume that I could discuss ideas
on this thread. Comically, I now find myself accused of failing to
"accept that limited knowledge will always plague us", even though this
has been my main point throughout. The linguistic museums to which
Karen Peterson-Kranz appeals are the spoken language primarily. Sean
Lawrence snubs "reasoning by analogy" when this is THE fundamental mode
of thought. How can the dictionary zealots explain that we donšt learn
to speak by looking at books, and that we know the meanings of many more
words than we have ever been exposed to (and in more languages than we
have ever learned)? The paleontology scenario fails to make the case
for "evidence." Paleontology, archaeology, classics (as I previously
suggested - Robin Hamilton commented "totally different ballgame" than
early modern English) all make use of inductive and deductive reasoning
(sometimes without evidence) to construct the past. Dinosaurs are now
believed to have had bright colors, not just green and gray, because
other current reptiles do. This seems to be an argument that will never
be proven. Besides, what is the "evidence" for Darwinšs theories?
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nancy Charlton <nanc67@home.com>
Date: Tuesday, 17 Jul 2001 22:17:18 -0700
Subject: 12.1763 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1763 Re: "What's in a name?"
I have followed this thread with much interest, and have nothing to add
except a hypothesis.
Whatever the authority of the OED, I tend to believe it when it says
peter = penis originated much later than Early Modern times and/or the
times the Gospels were written.
Why? I don't believe either the original writers or the 16th century
translators would have had Jesus making a ribald joke out of the
Peter/petros/rock pun. It would be quite blasphemous and the Church
would not have stood for it.
Thanks to the person who posted the link to St Peter's Church in
Nottingham. One essay on that site makes it clear that this passage is
largely serious, and that the petros/rock macaronic is a grace note to
the central chord of the founding of the Christic ecclesia.
For all that, I still like to think of the Biblical scene as more like
Ezra Pound's "No capon priest was the goodly fere/ But a man 'o men was
he."
Also, that Shakespeare's contemporaries would have stopped short of
blasphemy in no way mitigates the delicious witty double-entendres with
"die" and "will", for two off the top of my head. Indeed, wit does not
equate to smut.
Nancy Charlton
_______________________________________________________________
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>
- Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Comment: SHK 12.1782"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |