Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: February ::
Re: "Leaking" Plays
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0247  Friday, 2 February 2001

[1]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 01 Feb 2001 13:46:29 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0231 Re: "Leaking" Plays

[2]     From:   Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 1 Feb 2001 16:08:34 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0231 Re: "Leaking" Plays


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 01 Feb 2001 13:46:29 -0500
Subject: 12.0231 Re: "Leaking" Plays
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0231 Re: "Leaking" Plays

>There may be more than one true explanation for the bad quartos, that
>is, some may have been published for one reason, some for another. One
>that makes sense to me is that some of them were road versions, that is,
>the poetry was trimmed, and the roles were combined or rearranged so
>that a smaller company could perform the play for an audience without
>much interest in high flown language or long speeches. I believe an
>argument for this interpretation of the 1603 version of Hamlet was put
>forth by Cairncross.

writes Stephanie Hughes.

I think that most scholars believe the 1604/1605 version (Q2) is related
closely to Shakespeare's own autograph manuscript, while the 1623
version (F1) is in some way -- there are different theories -- related
to a theatrical manuscript, one that has been "edited" for performance.
Q1 (1603) -- the leaked version? -- is anyone's guess, or should I say
theory?  But note that Q2 went into print only a year or so after Q1.
Did Q1 sell out very quickly, and was another edition called for?  Is Q2
also a leaked version?

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 1 Feb 2001 16:08:34 -0500
Subject: 12.0231 Re: "Leaking" Plays
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0231 Re: "Leaking" Plays

Bill Godshalk reminds us that "The theory was that, if an early modern
person read the play, he or she would not spend the extra money to see
it in a theatre"

Given that all of Shakespeare's plots were reinterpretations of (more or
less) well-known stories, why would reading a script cause a person to
be less likely to want to see it performed?  There was no BA-da-BOOM to
be given away in the printed text.

I prefer his analogy of the contemporary trend to want to see movies
made from popular books, myself.

Mari Bonomi
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.