1991

Q: Shakespearean Graphics Files?

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 312. Friday, 29 Nov 1991.
 
 
From: 		This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (Ken Steele)
Subject: 	Shakespearean Graphics Files?
Date: 		Fri, 29 Nov 91 11:53:25 EST
 
 
Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans;
 
Here's something we haven't discussed here, *ever*: are there any
accessible computer graphics of Shakespearean portraits, signatures,
facsimiles, productions, playhouses, etc. in any graphics format?
(I can make use of .GIF, .TIFF, .CGM, .PCX, .CDR, .MAC, etc. etc.)
 
All I have is a not-terribly-good .PCX of what looks like Burbage's
portrait of Shakespeare.  I'd like to be able to incorporate graphics
into hand-outs, collages, letterheads, and greeting cards using
PageMaker or Corel Draw.  If anyone knows of graphics files available
on the network, or has a few at home on diskette, I'd like to talk to
you about them.
 
					Ken Steele
					University of Toronto

New $20 CD-ROM Complete Shakespeare

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 311. Friday, 29 Nov 1991.
 
Date: 		Thu, 28 Nov 1991 20:38:19 -0500
From: 		Roy Flannagan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: 	New $20 CD-ROM Complete Shakespeare
 
 
Shakespeare on cheap CD
 
    CMC ReSearch, Inc., of 7150 SW Hampton, Suite C-120,
Portland, OR 97223; tel. (503) 639-3395 and FAX (503) 639-1796,
is selling through the Computer Direct mailorder company, best
known for teenage software, a CD-ROM complete plays of Shakespeare,
in "Both American and Queen's English versions," for $19.95 plus
shipping.  Computer Direct, in Barrington, IL, uses (800) 289-9473
for telephone orders and (703) 382-7545.  No one there seemed to
know anything about what was on the disk.  So I ordered one, to
find out what American English Shakespeare was, among other things.
 
     I am still not quite sure what American English is, except
that it spells "honor" instead of "honour" and it sometimes does
not capitalize the first letter in passages of dialogue.  The
texts, from what I could tell from a quick look, are otherwise
identical.  CMC says its editors have taken a public domain text,
which they don't say, and added what are called "dramatic
enhancements in format and style [to] make the works more
readable, useable, and hopefully, more enjoyable."   The editors
"rewrapped and reformatted the text to take advantage of the
extra space available on computer screens, and then renumbered
each play or poem for easy reference.  These line numbers may
differ from many hardcopy versions."  The glossary on the disk
is also said to be in the public domain: it does contain brief
definitions and "the works that contain that word."  The editors
have expanded each list of dramatis personae "to list every speaking
part."  The lists may be called up at any time by means of a function
key.  Speaker attributions and stage directions are marginalized, or
clearly set off from text.
 
   One can gather from the marketing strategy and the directions
above that the audience is computer-wise high-school students with
CD-ROM players.  Probably the text has been scanned in and doctored
slightly; the "editors" are anonymous and probably wish to remain so.
They have added clarifying titles to the speech prefixes to aid
naive readers: it is *Queen* Gertrude and *King* Claudius and *Lord*
Polonius, but it is just plain Hamlet and Ophelia.
 
   The CD-ROM Shakespeare should not be treated with contempt,
however, because it does get a public domain version of the texts
into circulation which is easy of access, for $19.95.  And the
software engine for the CD, DiscPassage ("search in seconds")
is easy to use and intuitively organized with pull-down menus.
The major limitation of the software is that it finds words only
in acts and scenes, listing them at first and then allowing one
access to the entire scene but to no lower unit.  One then has
to locate the word one wants by skipping through the scene until
one sees it highlighted.  Oddly enough "Portions copyright" is
printed at the beginning of each scene portion, leading me to
think that CMS has copyrighted the public domain text by
virtue of carving it up and dividing it into American English
and "Queen's English" versions.
 
   In sum, this is the least expensive purchasable "public
domain" text I know of.
 
Roy Flannagan

Corrections to Oxford Text Archive Texts

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 309. Wednesday, 26 Nov 1991.
 
 
From: 		Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: 	Corrections to OTA Texts
Date: 		Tue, 26 Nov 91 22:43:49 EST
 
Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans;
 
I've just completed a time-consuming proofreading of the Q1 and F1
texts of *Love's Labour's Lost* received from the Oxford Text Archive,
and thought that others might benefit from my hard work if I posted
the resulting corrigenda.  Below is a summary of my findings in the Q1
text, and information for obtaining the complete listing from the
SHAKSPER Fileserver.
 
Even if you're not particularly interested in LLL, the results
indicate the sorts of problems one might find in other OTA Shakespeare
texts.  I will be posting the F1 corrigenda as soon as possible, also.
If others have compiled similar listings for other plays, please
contact me about posting them to the Fileserver also.
 
					Ken Steele
					University of Toronto
 
		----------------------------------------
								
 
Corrigenda for the Oxford Text Archive
Q1 *Love's Labour's Lost*
 
Compiled by Kenneth B. Steele
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 
 
It seems a reasonable assumption that users of the OTA quarto and folio
texts of Shakespeare want access to the quarto and folio texts, free of
both accidental errors and the sophistication of modern editorial
emendations.  The OTA texts are NOT free of such errors and
"corrections," however, as careful comparison of the Q1 LLL text with
a facsimile has revealed more than 150 errors.
 
This file attempts to list all corrections required to bring the Oxford
Text Archive text of Q1 *Love's Labour's Lost* into conformity with the
facsimile of the Bridgewater copy which appears in Michael J.B. Allen &
Kenneth Muir, eds. *Shakespeare's Plays in Quarto* (Los Angeles: U of
California P, 1981).  It also considers readings and stop-press
corrections listed in the appendix to that volume, the Oxford Textual
Companion, and bibliographical articles by Paul Werstine and George
Price.
 
Admittedly any facsimile is not as good a source as an original,
particularly in questions of punctuation, but making the following
corrections will at least improve the reliability of the OTA text (I
have tried to limit myself to certainties where punctuation is
concerned, and have remained silent where punctuation appears ambiguous
in the facsimile).  I am no less fallible than T.H. Howard-Hill, the
originator of the OTA F1 text, and I invite corrections or
qualifications to this listing at <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>.  This file
is available as OTALLLQ1 CORRECTN SHAKSPER on the SHAKSPER Fileserver.
 
						K.S.
						November 1991.
 
 
SUMMARY:
 
The OTA text omits the Q1 title page entirely, the running
titles, catchwords, the final "FINIS", and any mention of the 5
ornaments included in the quarto.  In its most serious error, it
omits an entire line of the play, and replaces it with a garbled
version of an adjacent line instead (lines 1921-1922).  Almost
as damaging, 6 speech prefix tags are erroneous: four prefixes
for Clowne are mis-tagged at lines 240-2, "Berowne" at line 520
is not a prefix at all, and neither is "Juno" at line 1356.
There are 3 cases of mistaken capitalization, 21 certain
misreadings of punctuation, 19 omissions of punctuation at
turned-over or -under lines, 6 erroneous insertions of spaces
(and four erroneous omissions of spaces -- at lines 1652 and
1684), and one case in which a roman line is erroneously tagged
as italic (line 1662).  The text also inserts erroneous spaces
after every mid-line hyphen. (Evidently hardware limitations
also prevented the OTA text from recording the many uses of "vv"
in the play, the five uses of the <ae> ligature, and the one
occurrence of a circumflex o, as well as the long s and other
obsolete typographical features.)
 
More serious than these errors and oversights are a great many
editorial sophistications, deliberate attempts at "correcting"
the quarto text.  The OTA text silently "corrects" 15 turned
letters (such as u for n, or p for d), and expands 13
abbreviations so that the quarto readings appears in square
brackets while the emendation enjoys pride of place in the text
itself (eg. "[M.]Maister").  In emending what appear to be "foul
case" errors, the OTA text eliminates any trace of the original
quarto readings: "Contempls" (193), "Gfficer" (249),
"faiendship" (595), "Necligent" (753), "Odo" (1336), "{Poda.}"
(1676), "{Rasaline}" (1794), "Siccamone" (1858), "cennot"
(2004), "perhapt" (2066), "Flder" (2408), "Eeter" (2434), and
"rherefore" (2595) are all replaced by fairly obvious editorial
conjectures.
 
Still worse are editorial emendations of other sorts of error:
the OTA text silently supplies "three" for "thee" (27, based on
F1), "pompe" for "pome" (34, based on F1), "simplicitie" for
"sinplicitie" (216, based on F1), "welkins" for "welkis" (217,
no macron), "worst" for "wost" (260), "{Clo.}" for "{Col.}"
(274), "prosperitie" for "prosperie" (287), "affliccion$" for
"affliccio" (287, no macron), "Consider" for "Cosider" (455, no
macron), "peerelesse" for "peerelsse" (498), "speciall" for
"spciall" (617), "argument" for "argumet" (822, no macron),
"ounce" for "ouce" (849, no macron), "remuneration" for
"remuration" (852), "Mistres" for "Mistrs" (968), "ouercame" for
"couercame" (991), "indiscreet" for "indistreell" (at line 1103,
based on the F1 correction), "ydolatarie" for "ydotarie" (1309,
based on F1), "womans" for "womas" (1558, no macron),
"standards" for "standars" (1613), "forsworne" for "forsorne"
(1631), "secrecie" for "secretie" (1725), "they" for "thy"
(1865), "strangers" for "stranges" (1947), "measure" for
"measue" (1999), "speaches" for "spaches" (2132), "With" for
"Wtih" (2167), "intitled" for "intiled" (2616), and "wit" for
"wi" (2651).
 
Stranger still are the unmotivated spelling changes which can
only be attributed to MODERN typographical error: the OTA text
reports "little" for "litle" (434), "plaine" for "pline" (792),
"Critick" for "Crietick" (887), "Hermite" for "Hermight" (1486),
"reioiceth" for "reioyceth" (1685), "{Page.}" for "{Pag.}" (1935),
"Looke" for "Loke" (2037), "hermite" for "herrite" (2620), and
"Approach" for "Approch" (2697).  "Flash" is almost certainly a
modern misreading of Q1's "slash" (2497).
 
In summary, then, the OTA Q1 LLL text is an edited transcript of
the quarto, rather than a diplomatic or quasi-facsimile
transcript.  It makes deliberate sophistications, inadvertent
errors, and careless oversights which should be corrected before
the text can be relied upon.
 
 
LINE-BY-LINE CORRIGENDA:
 
No attempt is made in this listing to correct errors of spacing
or indentation, except where actual words are affected.
Likewise, it has not been thought feasible to note all the cases
in which a single italic letter or punctuation mark
(particularly "?") has been used in a roman context.  I have
included notes about stop-press corrections in Q1, in case
anyone else wants to tag these somehow in the text.  In the
following listing, everything within the quotation marks,
including capitalization and punctuation, is precisely intended,
and the punctuation and capitalization of my own "sentences" has
been sacrificed for accuracy.
 
	[Complete line-by-line listing follows.]
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fileserver Procedures:
 
SHAKSPEReans can retrieve the complete text file from the SHAKSPER
Fileserver by issuing the interactive command, "TELL LISTSERV
AT UTORONTO GET OTALLLQ1 CORRECTN SHAKSPER".  If your network link does
not support the interactive "TELL" command, or if Listserv rejects
your request, then send a one-line mail message (without a subject
line) to LISTSERV@utoronto, reading "GET OTALLLQ1 CORRECTN SHAKSPER".
 
For a complete list of files available, send the command "GET
SHAKSPER FILES SHAKSPER" to obtain an annotated index.
 
For further information, consult the appropriate section of your
SHAKSPER GUIDE, or contact the editor, <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> or
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>.

Errors in Oxford Archive Texts - Q1 & F1 LLL

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 310. Friday, 29 Nov 1991.
 
 
(1)	From:	Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Subj:	Corrigenda for OTA F1 LLL Text
	Date:	Fri 29 Nov 1991  11:30:00
 
(2)	Date: 	Wed, 27 Nov 1991 10:02:32 EST
	From: 	Roy Flannagan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Subj: 	LLL Q1 Errors and the Process of Transcription
 
 
(1)-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From:		Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject:	Corrigenda for OTA F1 LLL Text
Date:		Fri 29 Nov 1991  11:30:00
 
Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans;
 
As promised, I have just posted a Corrigenda listing for the Oxford
Text Archive F1 text of LLL on the SHAKSPER Fileserver.  It can be
found as OTALLLF1 CORRECTN SHAKSPER (instructions below).
 
The Q1 text of LLL contained over 150 errors, and although the OTA
F1 text of LLL is considerably more reliable, there are still 64
corrections necessary to bring it into conformity with Hinman's
Norton facsimile.  The OTA F1 text of LLL contains 11 major misreadings,
19 silent emendations, 16 errors in punctuation, and 10 errors
in capitalization.
 
Most serious among the text's outright errors are the following:
"the" for "thy" (266), "a" for "the" (1213), "Cockle" for
"Cockled" (1689), and "y" for "yt [that]" or "ye [the]" (three times).
The text also reports "Eele" for "Eeele" (339), "Queens" for "Queenes"
(1304), "debt" for "d e b t" (1761), "Que." for "Quee." (2011), and a
colon for a question mark (1866).  (There are also 15 other
errors in punctuation, 9 missed capitals and one erroneous
capital.)
 
The silent editorial emendations in the OTA text eliminate any
trace of the spellings "Continet" (260), "imprisoment" (283),
"Houseekeeping" (599), "drawfe" (946), "couercame" (1050), and
"Coddess" (1408).  "Corrections" also replace "keeper" with
"keepe" (270), "ioue" with "loue" (426), and "vene we" with
"venewe" (1796).  Four apparent turned-letter errors are
corrected ("nonrishment", "ingennous", "conqnering", and
"yonrs"), and seven apparent foul-case errors are emended ("ia",
"Broggart", "Brad.", "Man-tuam", "Per.", "vonuto", and
"Hesporides").  These "errors" may not be desirable for some
users of the texts, but with the ready availability of *edited*
electronic texts, what is needed of the quarto and folio texts
is an *UNedited* text.
 
(2)------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 		Wed, 27 Nov 1991 10:02:32 EST
From: 		Roy Flannagan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: 	LLL Errors and the Process of Transcription
 
	[With Roy's permission, I have edited the following from
	private correspondence. -- k.s.]
 
    Very interesting, those errors.  I will study them a while and see
what they might mean about the transcriber.  As a preliminary judgment,
I would say that he was well-meaning, grew fatigued at times (eye-skip,
italics not tagged correctly, incorrect speech attributions), decided
to himself at least on a policy of silent correction of what seemed
obvious substantive errors by reference to the Folio and silent
correction of inverted letters or wrapped lines.  I did not see any
deliberate intention to deceive the reader, but the silent emendations
were, as they always are, dangerous.  Who entered the text, and were
any principles stated at any time or in any place about the provenance
of the entry process?  I asked Fredson Bowers about regularizing things
like the spaces between "th'" and "upright" in "Th' upright," and he
admitted that he did regularize such details: that was indeed an
editorial decision, since the spaces might not be at all regular in the
original.  Perhaps the goal was a neater standardized text on the
modern page. [. . .]
 
    Cheers,
 
    Roy

Bowdlerizing: "Fixing What Ain't Broke"

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 308. Saturday, 23 Nov 1991.
 
 
(1)	Date: 	Fri, 22 Nov 1991 11:09:39 -0500
	From: 	Tim Pinnow <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Subj: 	Fixing what ain't broke
 
(2)	Date: 	Fri, 22 Nov 1991 11:34:00 -0500
	From: 	Kevin Berland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 2.0306  R: Bowdlerizing
 
(3)	Date: 	Fri, 22 Nov 1991 22:33:00 -0500
	From: 	"George Mosley" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 2.0307  More on Bowdlerizing
 
 
(1)------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 		Fri, 22 Nov 1991 11:09:39 -0500
From: 		This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: 	Fixing what ain't broke
 
Dear Shaksper gang:
 
I'm going to approach the question of editing and sanitizing Shakespeare as an
actor and director rather than as scholar--for if I do, I will surely impress
you as an idiot.
 
For the actor, ANY editing of the texts, whether in wording, spelling, or
punctuation, creates horrible problems for theatre artists.  The spelling
and punctuation, particularly, give the actor almost everything he/she needs
to know to speak the lines effectively.  In fact, many of us who teach acting
Shakespeare have forgone any hope of any edition ever being useful in favor of
sending our students to the school library to photocopy the folio housed there.
Moreover, in every Shakespearean theatre that I have worked, the director,
dramaturg, and most of the good actors, took the edition purchased and handed
to them and dutifully trekked back to the Folio (or quarto if they had access)
to check on what the editors had "improved" upon.  And in most cases, we went
right back to the folio.
 
Now, I do realize the utility of editing small bits and changing punctuation
and spelling in order to make the plays easier to READ, but I sincerely believe
that there is something lost in the effort.
 
                                Very Humbly Yours,
 
                                        Tim Pinnow
                                        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 		Fri, 22 Nov 1991 11:34:00 -0500
From: 		Kevin Berland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: 2.0306  R: Bowdlerizing
Comment: 	Re: SHK 2.0306  R: Bowdlerizing
 
     The 18th-century rediscovery of Shakespeare came at a time when
he was considered a rude (wild) genius, and many were the editors who
tinkered with the texts.  Even Garrick, the first self-proclaimed
champion of Shakespeare, routinely used altered texts (they were more
proper, more seemly, more refined) -- for instance, he used Nahum Tate's
_Lear_.  Lots of work on 18th-century versions of Shakespeare exists;
indeed, I seem to recall that one of the facsimile presses has a whole
set of texts....
 
Kevin Berland
Penn State
 
(3)-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 		Fri, 22 Nov 1991 22:33:00 -0500
From: 		"George Mosley" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: 2.0307  More on Bowdlerizing
Comment: 	Re: SHK 2.0307  More on Bowdlerizing
 
I would like to thank all on the list who offered me citations
and directions for searching for the "fixing" of Shakespeare.
I had rather thought Pope, et al. to be at least somewhat
guileless about their emendations, and, I hope, less guilty
for that.  Again, thanks, all, and now I'm off to the library.
 
George Mosley (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.