Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: October ::
Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2324  Thursday, 11 October 2001

[1]     From:   Graham Hall <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Oct 2001 16:02:56 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2313 Strange Fruits

[2]     From:   Pervez Rizvi, <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Oct 2001 22:48:02 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 12.2313 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Oct 2001 16:02:56 +0000
Subject: 12.2313 Strange Fruits
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2313 Strange Fruits

>From: Steve Sohmer
>>Subject: Re: SHK 12.2307 Date of Composition of _Othello_

>1603. Next?

A devotee of the magnificent "A Textual Companion" says:

"or 4." (If we are talking similar calendars)

Best wishes,
Graham Hall

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pervez Rizvi, <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Oct 2001 22:48:02 +0100
Subject: 12.2313 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_
Comment:        RE: SHK 12.2313 Re: Date of Composition of _Othello_

>[T]hose who argue for an earlier date .....may also cite apparent
>echoes of _Othello_ in the "bad" quarto of Hamlet published in 1603.

All they could safely say is that there are places in Othello and Q1
Hamlet where one appears to echo the other. Without more evidence we
have no way of knowing which is the original and which is the echo. For
all we know, Shakespeare could have read Q1 Hamlet after it came out in
1603 and echoed it, consciously or not, in writing Othello. Dating
arguments based on alleged echoes can lead to strange conclusions. Sir
Edmund Chambers thought that Merry Wives had been written after Hamlet
because Q1 of Merry Wives (1602) "[borrowes] from Hamlet in a report
which must rest on early performances...." ('William Shakespeare: A
Study of Facts and Problems', 249, 273).

>Our own Pervez Rizvi has argued that it is, in
>fact, the F text which derives from the foul papers, and the Q text is
>the edited text, with the Q cuts as, well, cuts.

'I am your own for ever.' Thanks, John, for taking notice of my views.
The article to which you refer was written in 1997 and published in
1998. Since then, having read Paul Werstine, I have ceased to believe in
foul papers and fair copies as defined (or, perhaps more accurately, not
defined) by New Bibliography. I still maintain that scholars' majority
opinion about the order of the two Othello texts is wrong.

_______________________________________________________________
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>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.