Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: July ::
Re: Parallel Texts
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1358  Wednesday, 5 July 2000.

From:           Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Date:           Tuesday, 4 Jul 2000 18:42:41 EDT
Subject: 11.1347 Re: Parallel Texts
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1347 Re: Parallel Texts

RE John Briggs Reply.

Glad to be of pleasure to you John.

As to a detailed consideration of 1HVI I point all interested readers to
my article on the subject (Durham Journal) . 'Bad Quarto' arguments
relate to issues of authorship and attribution/ chronology/ theatrical
markers / repetitions etc - this being the connection with questions
relating to 1HVI (here also see Pollard definitive article on the
subject (1909) and Werstein's critique). The question of being close to
Shakespeare's 'original papers' is of course at issue in 1H6 - and since
I have yet to see any good evidence to connect the work with Nashe
(Dover-Wilson's connection with Summer's Last Will seemingly linking
Nashe more strongly with The Winter's Tale than with 1HVI - anyone read
'I am Sick and I must Die'?) I would be most interested to know if those
who consider 1HVI to be an 'authoritative' text can tell from the (1623
Folio only text) what an unauthoritative text would look like in the
context of this apparently mulitple author text. The claim I made
regarding the bad quarto text is not that 1H6 is bad quarto but that in
terms of the way it is treated in both Taylor's analysis and the TC, the
analysis depends upon certain features associated with Pollard and
Alexander's 'Bad Quarto' definitions in order to 'attribute' the text to
multiple authors.  That the Roses scene is 'Shakespearean' is mostly a
matter of taste and depends often upon identification of high level
language in other multiple author texts such as Sir Thomas Moore (the
status of which as authoritative / revised/ theatrical etc has not been
proved by McMillin, Bradley, Greg et al).  Without these assumptions
Taylor's analysis is highly unconvincing. Here I point to you to the
more statistical and unpartisan approaches by Merriam and Matthews (who
in fact attribute some of the Henry VI sequence to Marlowe).  That there
is also considerable high level vocabulary sharing between the sonnets
and 1HVI (not in Nashe) is unconsidered by Taylor (among other things) .

I am not sure which holes I am regarded as having dug however I would be
happy to clear up any further doubts our sweet readers may have as to
issues of 'Bad Quartos' or 'attribution' / textual studies.

Best wishes

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.