Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: June ::
Re: Cuthbert Burby
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1617  Tuesday, 26 June 2001

[1]     From:   Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 25 Jun 2001 12:52:11 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1595 Re: Cuthbert Burby

[2]     From:   David Kathman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 26 Jun 2001 00:02:30 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1595 Re: Cuthbert Burby


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 25 Jun 2001 12:52:11 EDT
Subject: 12.1595 Re: Cuthbert Burby
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1595 Re: Cuthbert Burby

I missed the start of this thread which already looks likes it has
descended to violent strokes. But just a question:

Is Cuthbert Burbie being described as ONLY 'a bookseller'  (i.e. NOT a
Printer or Publisher as well) or is there evidence for his being more
than this (i.e. printing of Orlando Furioso by John Danter for C.B)?

I have been recently coming across these Blayney-ite divisions between
Printers, Publishers and Booksellers more and more often and thus I am
interested to know how far people agree with Blayney's distinctions on
this.

Please, no antagonism, just sources and reasons.

Cheers,
Marcus.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Kathman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 26 Jun 2001 00:02:30 -0600
Subject: 12.1595 Re: Cuthbert Burby
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1595 Re: Cuthbert Burby

Peter Blayney wrote, via Leslie Thompson:

> Should we really assume that Will Sharpe's specific question concealed a
> request for pages of half-digested biographical overkill?  If so, then
> *pace* David Kathman, Burby didn't marry Elizabeth until after her
> previous husband (Andrew White, Stationer) had been buried in St Mary
> Bothaw on 17 December 1593.  The wedding was in 1594 (i.e.  1593/4).

I apologize for my error in writing 1593 rather than 1593/4.  I also
apologize for misstating the details of Burby's bequest to his former
apprentice; that was my own fault due to haste, since McKerrow's
*Dictionary* correctly states that Burby bequeated the lease of the
Cornhill property only.

[much very interesting and valuable information about Cuthbert
Burby snipped]

> But I digress, because the question that was actually *asked* has long
> since been answered."

In response to Peter Blayney's outburst, I can only plead excessive
enthusiasm.  When the original query about Cuthbert Burby's activities
in 1592 popped up in my inbox, I was (as I still am) engaged in
biographical research about several other stationers, and thus found
myself surrounded with various research works on the subject.  Wanting
to supplement my hazy memory of Burby's life before responding, I looked
him up in the books surrounding me.  Not knowing exactly what the
questioner was looking for, I included in my response all the pertinent
facts I could find about Burby's activities in 1592; then, I threw in a
few extra things about his birth and death, just because I like to have
a frame of reference for a person's life.  If the result was
"half-digested biographical overkill", I humbly apologize; as I tried to
say my post, this was off-the-cuff and based "just on what I have at
hand", and I did leave out quite a few facts that I could have added,
including many of the facts about Burby's children that Mr. Blayney
cited.

But I'm glad that my post led Mr. Blayney to share some of his
researches on Burby, far more (as he notes) than the original poster
asked for.  Although the revised STC has lots of great information
that's not in McKerrow's *Dictionary of Printers and Booksellers* and
the other older reference works I mentioned, the scholarly community
could still use a thorough overhauling of McKerrow's 91-year-old work.
The new DNB (due in 2004) will fill some of this gap for the major
figures in the Stationers' Company (a few of which I'm writing up
myself), and once I have some other things out of the way, I plan to
update my online Biographical Dictionary of Elizabethan Theater to
include stationers who printed and/or published plays.  As these
projects go forward, Peter Blayney's seemingly inexhaustible store of
knowledge about early modern stationers will certainly be a valuable
resource.

Dave Kathman

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

_______________________________________________________________
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.