Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2006 :: May ::
Riverside Notes
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0428  Wednesday, 10 May 2006

From: 		Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Tuesday, 09 May 2006 19:50:26 -0400
Subject: 17.0422 Riverside Notes
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0422 Riverside Notes

 >Note: I am working with the 1974 edition and don't know
 >what changes have been made in later editions.

My correspondence with Gwynne Evans was initially inspired by the same 
question.

The Second Edition added Edward III and the Elegy and added an essay 
about performance history.  It also contains new and more thorough 
introductory text notes to the plays and poems to account for recent 
scholarship, and it adds a few sections to Appendix C (formerly Appendix B).
There were almost no text changes.  Indeed, it appears that most of the 
Second Edition was printed from the same plates used for the First 
Edition, as it contains most of the same typos, ink smudges, etc.  The 
only text changes noted in Evans's intitial letter to me (dated 21 June 
1997) were in the following lines:  Ham,II.ii.73; Ham,II.ii.541; 
Ham,III.ii.223; KL,I..iv.137; KL, II.i.120; Tem,I.ii.173.  I 
subsequently discovered another small one (the addition of "Edward" in 
2HVI,V.iii.osd).  Evans noted that there were only three changes in the 
commentary notes: T/S,IV.iii.157 (correcting "Grumio" for "Gremio"), 
M/M,I.ii.129 (revised note); M/M,IV.i.1-6 (revised note).  On 25 
February 1998 Evans wrote me that the third printing of the Second 
Edition "corrected the several errors that the printer made in the 
second printing."  I don't know what they were.

With respect to the question of who was responsible for the commentary 
notes, I suppose I should share Evans's observations.  I am less 
reluctant to do so now that he has passed on.  The question was mooted 
on SHAKSPER by John Velz, who had a copy of the First Edition with a 
commentary note to JC,IV.iii.110 which glossed "yoked with" as "like" 
(my copies of the First and Second Editions do not have this gloss). I 
wrote to Evans to see if he could shed light on this.  Evans wrote to me 
on 25 February 1998:

       "You have opened up a mystery.  The first printing of te original 
(1974) edition does indeed read "yoked with: like" (which incidentally 
is a wrong gloss); so too does my two volume set of the first edition 
(unlike yours).  Not surprisingly, I have no memory of making the change 
to "lamb: Brutus" or when it was made (I would guess fairly early on in 
the reprinting series, which went from A to X).  Since the "yoke" one is 
not accurate, it is possible that Frank Kermode had the change made 
without consulting me."

A couple of weeks later (5 March 1998), Evans sent a further note:

    "About 'yoke with: like' in Julius Caesar (IV.iii.110), it is, I 
think, an erroneous gloss, but I heistate to pronounce on it, since 
Frank Kermode, not I, did the original glossings of the tragedies.  If 
'opinions' were changed, they were most probably Kermode's, since I have 
no recollection of getting rid of the 'yoked with' gloss."

I don't know if any of this answers anyone's question, but I offer it 
for whatever it is worth.

_______________________________________________________________
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.