Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: April ::
Re: Heminge and Condell
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0623  Tuesday, 1 April 2003

[1]     From:   John W. Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 31 Mar 2003 11:24:17 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0614 Re: Heminge and Condell

[2]     From:   Holger Schott <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 31 Mar 2003 18:33:59 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0614 Re: Heminge and Condell


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John W. Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 31 Mar 2003 11:24:17 -0500
Subject: 14.0614 Re: Heminge and Condell
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0614 Re: Heminge and Condell

Everybody knows that the First Folio was actually edited by William
Cecil, who had faked his own death and departed into Austrian exile in
order to work out his new theory of kinetics, which was finally
published posthumously under the obvious pseudonym of "Isaac New-ton".

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Holger Schott <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 31 Mar 2003 18:33:59 -0500
Subject: 14.0614 Re: Heminge and Condell
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0614 Re: Heminge and Condell

I'm not sure I understand at all what the case for Jonson's role as
so-called "editor" of the 1623 folio rests on. So far, anything that's
been offered is pure conjecture -- why should Malone have any authority
in a question like this? As far as I know, this is not a case where he
had access to documents that have since been mysteriously lost. The mere
presence of references to Pliny and Horace seems flimsy evidence at
best.

And what exactly do critics who think of Jonson as Shakespeare's
"editor" mean by that term? I can see how it might be meaningful when
used in discussions of books such as Jonson's own 1616 _Workes_, with
their relatively uniform layout, their innovative re-shaping of plays
for print, etc. -- none of which, however, we find in the 1623 folio.
What, then, do we suppose these "editors" did?

Unconvinced,
Holger

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.