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 12.0278  Tuesday, 6 February 2001

[1]     From:   William Proctor Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 05 Feb 2001 12:05:08 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0267 Re: "Leaking" Plays

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 05 Feb 2001 10:19:57 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 12.0267 Re: "Leaking" Plays


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Proctor Williams <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 05 Feb 2001 12:05:08 -0500
Subject: 12.0267 Re: "Leaking" Plays
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0267 Re: "Leaking" Plays

Stephanie Hughes says,

"the pirated road version, forced Shakespeare to publish the true
version (as it stood at that time) in 1604, in order to protect his
reputation as a good writer. He may not have wanted to publish, but knew
that the longer the weak version was available, the stronger the
impression in the minds of the audience would become, and the harder to
eradicate. He published the 1604 version to replace the weak version
with the better version, to put the record straight, as it were."

There is no evidence that "Shakespeare published" any play.  Of course,
there is no evidence that he did not publish any play.  All I wish us
all to note is that arguments resting on Shakespeare publishing a play
are not very good arguments.  Certainly the Chamberlain's/King's Men
allowed the publication of their plays.  Shakespeare's plays were their
plays.  In the argument quoted above we need to substitute Company for
Shakespeare and leave out the good writer bit.  If we do that it becomes
a much weaker argument, I think.

William Proctor Williams

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 05 Feb 2001 10:19:57 -0800
Subject: Re: "Leaking" Plays
Comment:        SHK 12.0267 Re: "Leaking" Plays

Stephanie Hughes writes:

> One explanation that makes sense is that the 1603 "bad quarto," the
>pirated road version, forced Shakespeare to publish the true version (as
>it stood at that time) in 1604, in order to protect his reputation as a
>good writer. He may not have wanted to publish, but knew that the longer
>the weak version was available, the stronger the impression in the minds
>of the audience would become, and the harder to eradicate. He published
>the 1604 version to replace the weak version with the better version, to
>put the record straight, as it were. All the details seem to me to point
>in this direction.

Well, that is one explanation.  If it is THE explanation, why wouldn't
he do this for, to name an obvious example, Merry Wives?  And what will
you say to Steve Urkowitz?

Mike Jensen
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.