Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: May ::
Re: Shakespeare the Taoist
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1213  Friday, 25 May 2001

[1]     From:   Robert Peters <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 24 May 2001 16:47:09 +0200
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1202 Re: Shakespeare the Taoist

[2]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 24 May 2001 06:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1190 Re: Shakespeare the Taoist

[3]     From:   John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 24 May 2001 22:31:47 -0500
        Subj:   12:1167, 1190


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robert Peters <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 24 May 2001 16:47:09 +0200
Subject: 12.1202 Re: Shakespeare the Taoist
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1202 Re: Shakespeare the Taoist

Takashi Kozuka wrote:

> Robert Peters <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 > speculates:
>
> >...without the Folio they [Shakespeare's plays] would be lost forever.
>
> Don't forget about Qs! (Not Q in James Bond movies.)

I didn't. But all the following plays never appeared in Qs, only in the
1623 Folio. Without the Folio they definitely would be lost forever:

All's Well That Ends Well, Antony and Cleopatra, As You Like It, The
Comedy Of Errors, Coriolanus, Cymbeline, 1 Henry VI, Henry VIII, Julius
Caesar, King John, Macbeth, Measure For Measure, The Taming Of The
Shrew, The Tempest, Timon of Athens, Twelfth Night, The Two Gentlemen Of
Verona, The Winter's Tale

What a loss that would be!

Robert Peters
robertpeters@t-online

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 24 May 2001 06:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 12.1190 Re: Shakespeare the Taoist
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1190 Re: Shakespeare the Taoist

> I am very happy that there are
> writers where we
> don't have to care about foul papers, bad quartos
> and the like.

Just give it time.

Strictly speaking, for my areas of Shakespearean interest and research,
I don't *have* to care about foul papers, etc.  But I *do* care, if only
out of gratitude.  Were it not for the years of largely invisible labor
poured into textual and bibliographical scholarship, I would not have
the Shakespeare texts from which I work.  And then where would I be?
(Probably making more money, but that's beside the point...)

> editorial questions that sometimes seem to me like a
> job-creating
> measure for eggheads.

Job-creating?  You mean someone out there is actually creating jobs for
us eggheads?!  Where?!  Tell us!!

Cheers,
Karen Peterson

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 24 May 2001 22:31:47 -0500
Subject:        12:1167, 1190

Playtexts were, from their introduction in the tenth century and on
through much of the Renaissance, regarded only as scripts, about the way
we value t.v. scenarios in our time (we archive or warehouse them, but
no one thinks of them as literature to be compared with the plays of
Arthur Miller or the novels of James Joyce, say).  Until Ben Jonson
dared to call his plays "Works" in 1616, no one had so dared.  Hemminge
and Condell were aping Jonson, whose Folio was mocked, but who laughed
all the way to the bank.  Shakespeare surely died in April of 1616
thinking of his plays only as scripts.  John Benson, cited in one
posting, published that book in 1640 as I recall by which time
Shakespeare's First Folio had sold out and been succeeded by his Second
Folio.  Besides, Benson is printing the Sonnets, not plays.  Details
about this sort of thing and the reasons in the life of the Middle Ages
why plays were not thought of as literature with an author--as Chaucer's
works were so regarded--can be found in an article I published a few
years ago in an out-of the-way place.

"From Authorization to Authorship, Orality to Literature:  The Case of
Medieval and Renaissance Drama." * TEXT: Transactions of the Society for
Textual Scholarship* 6 (1994):  197-211.

Knowing the history and the cultural assumptions helps to avoid such
questions as have been asked and debated in this thread.

Cheers,
John Velz

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.