2007

"Punch" and Shakespeare in the Victorian Era

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0612  Monday, 17 September 2007

From: 		Bieri Christian <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 17 Sep 2007 12:03:09 +0200
Subject: 	"Punch" and Shakespeare in the Victorian Era

PETER LANG - International Academic Publishers are pleased to announce a 
new book by Alan R. Young
"PUNCH" AND SHAKESPEARE IN THE VICTORIAN ERA
Oxford, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Wien, 
2007. 345 pp., 55 fig. ISBN 978-3-03911-078-0 pb.

sFr. 105.00 / EUR* 72.40 / EUR** 74.50 / EUR 67.70 / ? 44.00 / US-$ 87.95
* includes VAT - only valid for Germany
** includes VAT - only valid for Austria

The English humour magazine "Punch, or the London Charivari", which 
first appeared in 1841, quickly became something of a national 
institution with a large and multi-layered readership. Though comic in 
tone, "Punch" was deeply serious about upholding high literary and 
artistic standards, about dealing with serious subject-matter, and about 
attempting to nurture its readers' appreciation of the national drama 
and of Shakespeare's plays in particular. The author's detailed 
examination of "Punch's" constant advocacy of Shakespeare reveals 
telling new evidence concerning the ubiquitous presence of Shakespeare 
within Victorian culture. New research in the "Punch" archives and 
elsewhere also reveals the identities of many of the "Punch" authors and 
artists. The author shows how those who worked for "Punch" often 
subsumed their collective identities within the single persona of Mr. 
Punch, a fictional creation who repeatedly presents himself in both 
texts and graphics as a close friend and admirer of Shakespeare, a man 
able to remind Victorian readers constantly of the supreme literary and 
moral values represented by Shakespeare's works.

Contents:
"Punch" and its readers, writers and artists - Readership of "Punch" - 
Identities of writers and artists who worked for "Punch" - "Punch", 
Shakespeare, and the Theatre - Particular attempts by "Punch" artists 
and writers to promote appreciation of Shakespeare - "Punch" and 
Shakespeare Transposed - Reactions of "Punch" to transposition of 
Shakespeare into other media - Burlesques of Shakespeare in "Punch".

The Author:
Alan R. Young has written extensively on Shakespeare, emblem literature, 
the English Renaissance, and the literature of Atlantic Canada. He 
studied at the Universities of Bristol, East Anglia, East Africa, and 
Alberta, and he has taught at Simon Fraser University and Acadia 
University. He is now Emeritus Professor of English at Acadia University.

You can order this book online. Please click on the link below:

Direct order: http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?vLang=E&vID=11078

Or you may send your order to:
PETER LANG AG
International Academic Publishers
Moosstrasse 1
P.O. Box 350
CH-2542 Pieterlen
Switzerland
Tel +41 (0)32 376 17 17
Fax +41 (0)32 376 17 27
e-mail: mailto:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Internet: http://www.peterlang.com

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Redheads

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0611  Friday, 14 September 2007

[Editor's Note: I am requesting that responses to this digest be the 
last postings with this subject line. Anyone wishing to continue beyond 
the upcoming final posting, should do so privately or should initiate a 
new thread on a specific aspect of what has been discussion in this one, 
striving to keep any future discussion related to areas of Shakespeare 
studies. HMC]

[1] 	From: 		Bob Lapides <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 12:14:58 EDT
	Subj: 		Re: SHK 18.0600 Redheads

[2] 	From: 		Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 14:12:49 -0500
	Subj: 		RE: SHK 18.0600 Redheads

[3] 	From: 		David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:36 -0400
	Subj: 		Re: SHK 18.0600 Redheads

[4] 	From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 		Thursday, 13 Sep 2007 09:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
	Subj: 		Re: SHK 18.0570 Redheads


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bob Lapides <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 12:14:58 EDT
Subject: 18.0600 Redheads
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0600 Redheads

Is Peter Bridgman serious when he says Judas was given a hooked nose not 
because it's a Jewish trait but to indicate villainy? There's no 
question that Jews and Arabs have hooked noses, though of course not all 
of them, least of all those who have intermarried.   When George 
Cruikshank, Dickens's illustrator, drew the characters in Oliver Twist, 
he gave a hooked nose to Fagin but not to the murderer Bill Sikes.

Peter points out that we've agreed red hair is not a particularly Jewish 
trait, but we've also noted it was thought to be --  which was why 
Shylock had a red wig or a red hat, as well as a big nose.

It's true Palestine was a geographical designation in the ancient world, 
but Judaea was the name of the Jewish state the Jews lived in -- until 
the Romans renamed it Palestine in the 2nd century CE. Peter writes, "I 
think we are therefore justified in describing the Holy Family as 
'Palestinian.' "I have to wonder why he can't describe them as simply 
Jewish -- or, if need be, as Judaean Jews.

Peter has brought up some points I was ignorant of, which has gotten me 
to fill in other gaps in my knowledge -- about the New Testament in 
Greek and Aramaic, and about ancient Palestine.  I'm grateful to him for 
this and impressed by his wide knowledge. And I apologize to Hardy and 
the list for pursuing this topic at length.

BTW, in its entry for "Shylock," Wikipedia has a rather sympathetic 
painting of Shylock and Jessica done by Maurycy Gottlieb, a 19C Jewish 
artist.

Bob Lapides

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 14:12:49 -0500
Subject: 18.0600 Redheads
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0600 Redheads

I have found out a great deal about the meaning of red hair in European 
(and closely related) culture. But I still find myself craving more 
fact, and if possible, expert interpretation. To wit:

1 -- Is there anywhere any compilation of information about the 
representation of red hair in European art, literature, and folklore?

2 -- Is there any biological study of red hair as a genetic trait?

3 -- Does anybody have the foggiest notion how a trait, apparently 
characteristic of the most northern of European peoples, came to be 
associated with (a) a people of Middle Eastern origin, (b) evil, and (c) 
some overlap of (a) and (b)

Anyone with scholarly friends in areas outside Shakespeare and 
literature that would be relevant could ask them if they know of any 
such studies. I'd appreciate it. Such information could be useful to 
understanding MOV better, and certainly to understanding the cultural 
prejudices of Shakespeare's time.

Thanks,
don

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:36 -0400
Subject: 18.0600 Redheads
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0600 Redheads

If the discussion is about Jews living at the time of Jesus and the 
Temple, the country in which the Jewish Temple was located was Judea, 
not "Palestine," and the people were Jews, not "Palestinians."

The Romans renamed the area "Aeola Palestina" after the Jewish revolt 
failed, much later in the first century. It was after that time that 
this designation of the area was widely used. Hence Peter Bridgeman's 
reference to Jews at the time of Jesus as "Palestinian" is misapplied. 
Jesus would not even know what he meant.

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 13 Sep 2007 09:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 18.0570 Redheads
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0570 Redheads

Some final thoughts on "Redheads"....

Colin Cox (SHK 18.0532) reports Burbage played Shylock. Has that been 
nailed down? Might it not have been Shakespeare himself or someone else?

David Basch (SHK 18.0542) quotes AYLI's "dissembling color" and "browner 
chestnut". Isn't Shakespeare contrasting rather than likening the fiery 
red and the browner chestnut hue? Basch is correct in translating the 
Hebrew in SAMUEL 16:12 as "with beautiful eyes". The Greek Septuagint 
(transliterated "kallous ophthalmon") is probably closest to the Hebrew 
as "with beauty of eyes".

Larry Weiss (SHK 18.0548) offers us multiple options for staging lawyer 
Portia's announced  failure to distinguish merchant from Jew. Couldn't 
Shakespeare have tinged the goodly apple Antonio's own fuzz red? Don 
Bloom in the same post notes the prominence of red hair among the 
Celtic/Germanic stocks. Wasn't Satan the Red in some way modelled after 
the horned rufous Norse invaders? Did Inman's "Teutonic males" restrict 
their prey to Jewish women alone?

Virginia Byrne (SHK 18.0557) limns passionate red as most powerful of 
the visible wavelengths. Technically, isn't it rather violet?

Peter Bridgman (SHK 18.0554) duly notes the early notorious association 
of red hair with the barbarous older brother Esau. But why Esau? Tony 
Burton's paleopresentist author(s) of this GENESIS tale took pains to 
link the duped and superseded older brother with Edom, and so justify 
contemporary Hebrew occupation of Edomite land and hegemony over its 
crude uncivilized hunter people. The Edomite region "Seir" is itself 
linked to the Hebrew word for hair. It seems the Lord's mysterious ways 
include force and (in Jacob's case) fraud. Not to be outdone, later 
Christian supersessors deliberately named the turncoat apostle "Judas" 
and painted him with Esau's red hair. After all, Christianity was the 
new kid on the block, intent on displacing the older brother Judaism. To 
these Christians the only good Jews were the dead Jews of the ancient 
past, whose birthright they claimed as the New Israel, the true heirs of 
the covenant. Does Peter Bridgman truly believe the name "Judas" and
  his nefarious red hair were not designed ab initio to villify 
"Judaism"? Even today in modern Israel, militant religious Zionists use 
these Old Testament tales to "legitimate" their Greater Israel movement. 
And so the Wheel turns.

The sibling rivalry between the Old and New Dispensations runs, of 
course, throughout the MERCHANT OF VENICE. Whether freely or compelled, 
the movement of each major character is invariably from Old to New. The 
characters often post figure multiple Biblical heroes. Shylock is cast 
as Abraham, Laban, and Jacob, with Antonio cast as both Jesus and Isaac 
(like old Iobbe). Portia, in fulfilling her father's Old Testament, 
breaks free of it at the same time. The trial may be seen as an updated 
wrestling match of the angel/Portia with Jacob/Shylock, who emerges 
chastened as part of the New Israel. Lancelet begins as both hairy Esau 
and Ishmael ("Hagar's child") while serving the House of Shylock, but 
morphs into the younger heir as he deserts Shylock for the House of 
Bassanio and Portia, the new Christian Church. By impregnating his Dark 
Lady, he brings all future Othellos into the Christian fold.

Interestingly I see the sibling rivalry extending to the distaff side as 
well. Christian propagandists often typed Leah, to whom Shylock is so 
attached, as the unattractive elder sibling Judaism to be superseded by 
the younger beautiful Rachel, or Christianity. Yet Leah mothered Judah, 
and through her line David and ultimately Jesus (?Jessica). Indeed, 
Jessica, like the Bible's Ruth, is abandoning her Jewish Moab for 
Lorenzo, the Christian Boas, sire of the David/Jesus line.  But where is 
Rachel in the MERCHANT? Doesn't Jessica, like Rachel, steal her father's 
jewels/idols? Remember those Jasons of Venice in quest of the Golden 
Fleece? Aren't Portia and Jessica the gilded ewes in this play? And 
doesn't "Rachel" mean "ewe" in Hebrew?

One more troubling feature of these posts is the automatic presumption 
that all conversos were faking loyalty to their shiny irresistible new 
faith. Conversos are nearly always conflated with Jews, be they the 
Bassanos, the "Jews" of Shakespeare's London, or Rodrigo Lopez. Before 
Lopez was hanged, drawn, and quartered, the last sound he heard was the 
mocking laughter of his fellow Christians in response to his dying 
affirmation that he "loved the Queen as he loved Jesus Christ". After 
all, Camden adds, this came "from a man of the Jewish profession". 
Wasn't this relentless distrust and suspicion from Brother Big in cowl 
and hood to be Shylock's fate to the end of his days?

Wondering,
Joe Egert

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Authorial Intention

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0609  Friday, 14 September 2007

[1] 	From: 		Cary DiPietro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 11:19:12 -0400
	Subj: 		RE: SHK 18.0598 Authorial Intention

[2] 	From: 		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 12:49:16 -0400
	Subj: 		Re: SHK 18.0598 Authorial Intention

[3] 	From: 		Cary Dean Barney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 		Thursday, 13 Sep 2007 10:17:13 +0200
	Subj: 		Re: SHK 18.0598 Authorial Intention

[4] 	From: 		Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 		Thursday, 13 Sep 2007 10:47:14 -0400
	Subj: 		Authorial Intention


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Cary DiPietro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 11:19:12 -0400
Subject: 18.0598 Authorial Intention
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0598 Authorial Intention

Larry Weiss, it sounds like you need a lesson in basic narratology.

Below is the definition of 'implied author' in H. Porter Abbott's 
_Cambridge Introduction to Narrative_ (Cambridge UP, 2002), pp. 77-8:

"An implied author is that sensibility (that combination of feeling, 
intelligence, knowledge, and opinion) that 'accounts for' the narrative. 
  It accounts for the narrative in the sense that the implied authorial 
views that we find emerging in the narrative *are consistent with all 
the elements of the narrative discourse that we are aware of*.  Of 
course, when the real living and breathing author constructs the 
narrative, much of that real author goes into the implied author.  But 
the implied author is also, like the narrative itself, a kind of 
construct that among other things serves to anchor the narrative.  We, 
in our turn, as we read, develop our own idea of this implied 
sensibility behind the narrative.  So the implied author (the term comes 
from Wayne Booth) could as easily be called 'the inferred author' and 
perhaps with more justice, since we often differ from each other (and no 
doubt the author as well) in the views and feelings we attribute to the 
implied author.  But the key point is that, insofar as we debate the 
intended meaning of a narrative, we root our positions in a version of 
the implied author that we infer from the text."

This is no lofty jargon culled from the cryptolect of poststructuralism, 
but an excerpt from a textbook that I assign to my first-years.  They 
seem to get it.

Cary DiPietro

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 12:49:16 -0400
Subject: 18.0598 Authorial Intention
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0598 Authorial Intention

As I hoped, my post, taking off from the WashPost thread, has received a 
great many responses, including some thoughtful ones.  Perhaps this 
would be a good subject for another roundtable.

I shall refrain from offering a synthesis, at least until this has 
developed a little further.  But, for the nonce, let me pose a couple 
more questions which might refine the inquiry:

(1) If we can agree (as Hugh Grady and Will Sharpe seem to) that words 
are not inherently meaningless and that authors have expectations in 
mind when they compose their works, can we also say that the issue is 
not whether it is "futile" to attempt to discern any of the content 
which the author expected us to give to the text, but whether we can 
confidently derive the precise reactions he or she intended the audience 
to have to all of the text?

(2) If so, is the appropriate critical response to this difficulty to 
declare defeat and make no attempt to derive the author's likely 
expectations, or, on the other hand, to study all relevant determinants 
-- philological, cultural, historical, biographical, literary, etc. -- 
and attempt to come as close as possible to the likely intended meaning?

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Cary Dean Barney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 13 Sep 2007 10:17:13 +0200
Subject: 18.0598 Authorial Intention
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0598 Authorial Intention

This fascinating thread seems to continuously, and to my mind 
erroneously, conflate "intention" with "meaning". If we separate the 
two, doesn't it stand to reason that our playwright's intention could 
have been to provide a text which can form the basis of a living, 
polyphonic theatrical event in which many different "meanings" are 
latent or expressed through the mouths of widely varying characters? 
That it was never our playwright's intention to comfortingly, 
unambiguously resolve the tension between meanings? That we can't reduce 
all of these conflicting "meanings" to one meaning may be frustrating to 
us, but hey, that's theatre, that's life. Why would we want Shakespeare 
to be Arthur Miller or John Osborne, anyhow, with mouthpiece characters 
making sure we get the playwright's thesis?

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 13 Sep 2007 10:47:14 -0400
Subject: 	Authorial Intention

This fascinating thread reminds me of the late Helen Gardner's remarks 
in the early 80's after she had read the first wave of what we today 
would call postmodern criticism.  The basic problem, according to 
Gardner, was that critics "have taken difficulties and raised them to 
the level of impossibilities."  Although I subscribe to "presentism" 
myself (What other vantage point do we have than the present?), I often 
wonder whether she was right.

As an example, do we have the same difficulties ascertaining authorial 
intention with ancient literature?  The Greeks and the Romans, or, say, 
Old English poetry?

Do we have a problem with interpreting "The Wife's Lament" or "The 
Wanderer," or with Homer's intention in his epics?  Isn't the answer 
"No"? This leads me to think that, maybe, when the values in an area of 
study are firmly believed to be dead - of historic importance only - we 
can pretty much agree about interpretation and intention. But when the 
values in an era touch us personally, as in Shakespeare and the 
Renaissance generally, then the fight begins.

I'm not sure where this leads me, but I'd be interested in what others 
think.

Ed Taft

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0610  Friday, 14 September 2007

[1] 	From: 		John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 17:09:41 +0100
	Subj: 		RE: SHK 18.0602 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare

[2] 	From: 		Ros King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 		Thursday, 13 Sep 2007 16:12:50 +0100
	Subj: 		Re: SHK 18.0602 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 17:09:41 +0100
Subject: 18.0602 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0602 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare

I think you're right to pull me up on the semantics here Gabriel, though 
the example you choose isn't quite as open and shut a case as you think. 
  More of that in a minute.

Where there are different texts (quarto, folio) then one cannot avoid 
speculating.  BUT textual bibliography STARTS from the actual marks on 
the page, but not from what they 'mean' in a literary sense.  We add 
that at a later stage, though we continually short-circuit the process 
in practice.   They may have a limited bibliographical meaning or they 
may spur us to cross the boundary into considering 'literary' (I use the 
word in scare quotes, Lukas Erne notwithstanding) matters. I think 
Jerome McGann puts it well in his 1991 book 'The Textual Condition' 
where he makes a clear distinction between the demands of the two 
discursive fields: literary, and textual. Those fields are not 
interchangeable and if you think they are then you do so at your peril.

Let me now come to the case you mention. There is only the Folio text of 
Cymbeline, and while we might speculate that an 'm' might be read as 
'nn' in the name of 'Imogen'- just as we might (opportunistically) 
choose to regard some 'u' types as turned 'n' types, it might be helpful 
to search other Shakespeare Q or F texts to see whether the name 
'Innogen' occurs.  Sure enough, it does, and in Q1 (1600) of Much Ado, 
where the silent 'Innogen' - mistakenly, in my view, exorcised by 
editors- appears. Can we say that the spelling here is an error? and 
have 2 compositors made the same mistake in reading? OR do we look to 
see if this is an acceptable alternative spelling of a name that we 
would modernise and normalise as 'Imogen'. As editors there are plenty 
of names that we might modernise without necessarily reverting to 
speculation about what Shakespeare actually wrote.

On the more general matter of what the compositors who set plays read as 
their copy, then we speculate, and my phrase 'hypothetical manuscript' 
was not intended to imply that one did not exist, but that its detailed 
contents can only be speculated about. Let me offer you an example (from 
memory) from The Merchant of Venice. In Q1 (1600) in 4.1 Shylock says 
'Affection /Maisters of passion'.  Various editors have emended to 
'Affection / Master of passion' or 'Affection / Masters oft passion'. 
The problem is compounded because elsewhere in the quarto master is 
sometimes spelt 'maister', and this spelling occasionally occurs in 
Spenser also. What to do? Does 'affection', that is culturally thought 
to be subservient to any form of 'mastery' suddenly change its position 
in the cultural hierarchy, or can we think of another meaning for this 
vexed phrase that might make sense historically. If we go to Sonnet 20 
then we find in the opening lines there:

		A womans face with natures owne hand painted,
		Haste thou the Master Mistris of my passion.

The phrase 'Master Mistris' here prompts the thought that 'Maistres' in 
Q1 M of V may be a homophone for the now obsolete word 'Maistrice'.  And 
so in my edition I emend the line thus: 'Affection / Maistrice of 
passion', and speculate, NOT that 'Maistrice' was in the original mss, 
but that the word 'Maistrice' answers to an idiom for which there is 
some supporting cultural corroboration. 'Maistres' may well have been 
the spelling in our hypothetical ms. but I contend that its meaning in 
this context extends beyond the restrictive 'Master(s). Also, this 
reading responds to the gender(ing) question that the line raises. The 
personified 'Affection' is a mistress rather than a master but in this 
case 'she' becomes a 'he' by virtue of her mastery.  The only word that 
I can think of that points up the complexity of this rather dense little 
phrase is 'Maistrice'.

I've already told Joe Egert that he'll have to wait for the longer and 
even more bibliographically involved explanation that displaces 'Gobbo' 
from the text of M of V, though I now understand that this wasn't the 
answer to the question that he as seeking.

Finally, though, I think your 'philosophical' analogy only works if we 
forget about the nitty gritty of the textual bibliographical process, 
Gabriel. The road to 'Shakespeare's text is littered with landmines!

Very best,
John D

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Ros King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 13 Sep 2007 16:12:50 +0100
Subject: 18.0602 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0602 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare

The printing house corruption of Innogen to Imogen in fact occurs in 
Holinshed - in the index, where, of course, it refers to Brutus's wife 
not Cymbeline's daughter.

Cymbeline is sometimes Cynobelinus (and other variants) in Holinshed. He 
also offers a choice with regard to Guidarius - 'Guiderius or Guinderius 
(whether you will)'. All these dubious 'n's together raise the distinct 
possibility that the choice of Imogen in the Folio is not an error at 
all but authorial intention based on a desire for euphony, i.e. 
Shakespeare was offered a set of choices by his source and made the same 
choice of 'm' or at least 'not n' across the board, thereby achieving a 
kind of family resemblance in sound.

To my mind this far outweighs any evidence from Simon Forman who was 
only really interested in the play in so far as it reinforced his 
beliefs in the Brutus myth and who was therefore either pre-programmed 
to hear Innogen, or deliberately (!) made what he saw as a correction in 
his account. His spelling of that name is unusually consistent. His 
account of Macbeth spells Mackebeth, Mack Beth, Mackbet and Dunston 
Anyse (for Dunsinane!).

Best,
Ros

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Deadly Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0607  Friday, 14 September 2007

[1] 	From: 		Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 11:26:20 -0400
	Subj: 		Re: SHK 18.0597 Deadly Shakespeare

[2] 	From: 		Ben Alexander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 21:39:32 +0100
	Subj: 		Re: SHK 18.0597 Deadly Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 11:26:20 -0400
Subject: 18.0597 Deadly Shakespeare
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0597 Deadly Shakespeare

I have read estimates: Lord knows where or when.  But somebody did take 
the trouble of counting, and it was published somewhere or other.  The 
"die offstage" part is confusing.  Do you mean to include just named 
characters who appear in scenes and die offstage, or are you including 
off stage characters-- such as the Thane of Cawdor in M-- who are 
referred to in the play and die offstage?  What about "So & So's son" -- 
does he count as a named character?  Named nobles who are listed on the 
battle death-rolls?  Those would really boost the numbers.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Ben Alexander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 21:39:32 +0100
Subject: 18.0597 Deadly Shakespeare
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0597 Deadly Shakespeare

In counting the deaths do we include Agincourt and other battles, or not?

Ben Alexander

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.