1991

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 33. Thursday, 31 Jan 1991.
 
(1)   Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 91 11:28:22 EST                    (19 lines)
      From:   Fritz Levy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Subject: [Query: Shakespeare's Library?]
 
(2)   Date:         Wed, 30 Jan 91 23:10:53 EST              (12 lines)
      From:         Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Subject:      "Sow'd" - CYM 4.2.181
 
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 91 11:28:22 EST
From:   Fritz Levy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: [Query: Shakespeare's Library?]
 
I have a question about the use of "raw material" by Shakespeare (and
other Elizabethan dramatists).  This is generated by a vague sentence
in Greenblatt's "Circulation of Social Energy," in _Shakespearean
Negotiations_, p. 9: "The companies did not pay for 'rights' to stories,
so far as I know--at least not in the modern sense--but the playwright
or company did pay for the books used as sources (for example, Holinshed
or Marguerite of Navarre or Giraldi Cinthio), and the playwright
himself was paid."  I'm simply curious to know whether this means
the King's Men (or Lord Chamberlain's) had a "library," or
whether it means no more than that the playwrights went out and
bought the stuff and shared it around.  I like the image of "good old
boys" hanging around the theater reading Holinshed in the Green Room,
but somehow I don't believe it.  Any evidence?
                                                   Fritz Levy
 
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------16----
Date:         Wed, 30 Jan 91 23:10:53 EST
From:         Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject:      "Sow'd" - CYM 4.2.181
 
I have to admit I'm a little stymied by Phyllis Wright's query.  Every
edition I have consulted follows the First Folio in printing "sow'd",
although some modernize it to "sowed."  Riverside, Oxford, and Cambridge
all concur with F1.  Have I missed the point of the query?  [This and
any other responses will be forwarded to Ms Wright, who has not as yet
joined us here on SHAKSPER.]
                                              Ken Steele
                                              University of Toronto

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.