The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1501 Thursday 26 August 1999.
From: Gabriel Egan <
Date: Wednesday, 25 Aug 1999 21:10:02 +0100
Subject: 10.1480 Re: First Folios
Comment: Re: SHK 10.1480 Re: First Folios
Terry Hawkes comments that
>You can't have a 'facsimile' of an idea. The notion of facsimile
> presupposes a specific and exact relationship to the concrete,
>physical qualities of a pre-existing material entity.
>The Norton 'facsimile' has no such relationship to any Folio volume
>that has ever been seen to exist, anywhere, at any time, by anybody.
Indeed, there was no such volume. It's clear that had Hinman chosen best
formes instead of best pages, as Stanley Wells suggests, you'd still not
be satisfied since the result would remain a fictive collection of
objects that didn't happen to get stitched together.
You object to the word 'facsimile' being used for a copy of an idea.
You might as easily object to the words 'first' and 'folio' in Hinman's
title. It is misleading, you've argued on SHAKSPER, to retrospectively
apply the word 'literature' to things created before the label was
meaningful. By this logic 'first' and 'folio' are as deceptive as
'facsimile'. While these words had meaning in 1623, they couldn't be put
together the way Hinman uses them.
I'll rest in agreement that Hinman's title doesn't do justice to the