The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1161  Wednesday, 29 June 2005

[1]     From:   Jack Heller <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 28 Jun 2005 09:20:24 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1156 Lucrece Variants

[2]     From:   Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 28 Jun 2005 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1156 Lucrece Variants


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jack Heller <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Jun 2005 09:20:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 16.1156 Lucrece Variants
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1156 Lucrece Variants

I thought of long ways of responding to this, but perhaps the best way
is to recommend a book, UNEDITING THE RENAISSANCE by Leah Marcus. It
deals well with the issues Kathy Dent, Bill Arnold, and Hardy Cook raise.

I have to add, by the way, that it's interesting to see Lucrece referred
to as a play.

Heller

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Jun 2005 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.1156 Lucrece Variants
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1156 Lucrece Variants

Kathy Dent quotes me, "From what you write, it suggests that other
materials may be found that would put whole plays in question: knowing
how crucial one word can make or break the substantial meaning of a
sentence, a sentence of an act, an act of a play itself?"

Then Kathy Dent writes, "Can this be true?  I'm inclined to believe that
this way madness lies. I would prefer to think that we use the weight of
a whole play to interpret the significance of a single word, not the
other way around."

Tell it to the scholars, and lawyers, and such.  Written contracts are
absolutely dependent upon every *single* word and the meaning of a valid
contract misread by a lawyer can put the whole business underlying the
document into question.  Lawyers used to be known as Squires [ ! ]

For instance, if the usurper King Claudius were to say in one folio "O
nephew, I did not murder your father, Old Hamlet, so what?" and in
another folio with one word missing-say, found by our illustrious Hardy,
and proving my point-were to say, "O nephew, I did murder your father,
Old Hamlet, so what?" do you still hold to your concept that textual
interpretation would be meaningless?

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

_______________________________________________________________
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.