2007

Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0488  Saturday, 28 July 2007

From: 		Sid Lubow <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 23 Jul 2007 12:07:24 EDT
Subject: 	Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint

Ben Alexander, you asked, "Has anyone considered that A Lover's 
Complaint is the prequel" to the Sonnets?"

Ben, please note that what has sparked my ire, is that Jonathan Bate 
does not realize that A Lover's Complaint IS the Prologue to the 
Sonnets. He and Eric Rasmussen agreed with Brian Vickers and trashed it 
out of his, and RSC's, William Shakespeare   COMPLETE WORKS.  It might 
interest you to study the Sonnets' epilogue, The Phoenix and Turtle, 
(and I realize that it was printed in 1599, ten years before the 1609 
Sonnets which should spark your thinking as to why that inconsistency 
occurred) wherein the Crow, (the treble-dated dark lady) with jealousy, 
was the one who wooed away his narcissistic "next self" of sonnet 133.6. 
She mourns the young man who seduced her at the funeral of the Doves, 
the two lovebirds of the Sonnets. P&T's "Single nature's double name", 
the alter ego, none other than the new Narcissus' love, the other 
double-named, "Master Mistress" of the Sonnets, the doppelganger. The 
"next self," whose face appears on the neck of the dark lady in sonnet 
131.11, as the "one on another's neck." The man with a "woman's face" of 
sonnet 20.1. that appears, very appropriately, on the neck of another 
woman wearing a black robe the Muse of ALC, whom he hated, which finally 
cured the narcissist of his hubris, giving him "eyes to blindness."

Respectfully,
Sid Lubow

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Grace Ioppolo's Book

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0486  Saturday, 28 July 2007

From: 		Gerald E.  Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 25 Jul 2007 18:47:28 EDT
Subject: 	Grace Ioppolo's Book

Grace Ioppolo's 2006 _Dramatists and Their Manuscripts in the Age of 
Shakespeare_ takes on a number of topics, including the "Hand D" 
addition to _Sir Thomas More_. Examination of her treatment may be a 
good way to demonstrate the general shortcomings of her book before 
judging how successfully she pursues her greater theme.

Ioppolo gets off to a good start by recognizing, as few have in the 
past, that Hand D, often claimed as Shakespeare's own, does not 
exemplify a composing playwright, but is a copy. Her argument follows 
the lines of the more thorough Levin Schucking in 1925, but if her 
conclusion is partially correct, her explication of the evidence is 
wrong, as I will show. Ioppolo newly contends that some of Hand D was 
written after Hand C (that of a theatrical functionary) altered the 
pages. This is significant (if true) but is backed by almost no argument.

 From these positions and an uncritical acceptance of the paleographic 
argument that D is Shakespeare, Ioppolo concludes that Shakespeare 
actively cooperated with the theatrical company producing STM, which is 
wrong, in my view.

First, it is a bit surprising, but significant, that Ioppolo seems to 
have a limited grasp of the kinds of scribal error evidenced by Hand D. 
I have noticed over the years that other scholars are similarly 
indifferent and it may be helpful if her remarks are closely examined:

    The strongest evidence that Hand D is copying an already  completed
    text [is] the fact that of the nineteen words corrected, at  least 
five .
. .
    resulted from eyeskip. For example, line 79 appears as [D's  deletions
    are in brackets, superscripts are shown as normal  letters]:

       and you in ruff of yor [yo] opynions  clothd

    The deletion . . . is almost certainly due to correcting . . .  while
    the author was looking at the original copy. That is, he wrote out
    'yor', glanced at his original text (but at the wrong  place) . . . and
    accidentally began to copy this incorrect word. When  glancing
    back at his original copy . . . he saw his error . . .  (107)

This error is not eyeskip but dittography. No glancing back is needed to 
account for the mistaken repetition of a word. Though a scribe may be 
more susceptible, a composing author will often write the same word 
twice; and the mistake is easily noticed (or not), for obvious reasons.

    This type of eyeskip error is more apparent in lines 129-30:

       nay any where [why you] that not adheres to  Ingland
       why you must need be straingers, woold you  be pleasd (107)

This error is not eyeskip. Schucking refers to a 'kind of anticipation'. 
  The point is that we have no evidence of what induced the error, and 
there is no reason to deny that an author may have first written the 
words. Eyeskip is a well-described phenomenon that is much more powerful 
evidence. Ioppolo simply misses the instances of eyeskip in Hand D. One 
disposed to call many scribal errors 'eyeskip' will fail to note the 
real thing, which happens a lot anyway. For example, some time ago I 
noticed these passages from the A and B quarto texts of Marlowe's 
Faustus (another fine mess); names are Italicized:

   Fau: Loe Mephastophilus, for loue of thee,
     I cut mine arme, and with my proper blood
     Assure my soule to be great Lucifers
     Chief Lord and regent of perpetual night . . .
                                                               (A, TLN 
493-6)

 

       (arme
Faust. Loe Mephosto: for loue of thee Faustus hath cut  his
       And with this prope rbloud assures his soule  to be great Luci
       Chiefe Lord and Regent of perpetuall  night. 
(fers,


                                                               (B, TLN 
441-3)

In the B text three lines of verse are crowded (really crowded) into 
two. If no other reason is apparent, that indicates restoration of an 
omission. Greg discounts this probability in favor of corruption in the 
manuscript behind B. But if the copy was lined similarly to A, then 
'Faustus hath' would appear below 'Faust'. The compositor will have 
skipped from the first to the second name, not noticing its 
reoccurrence, to omit the first line. After setting too much type to 
redo the work, the error was noted and two lines were reset in 
correction, necessitating the turning up of 'arme', down of 'fers', and 
the abbreviation 'Mephosto'. Thus the verse-lining most likely results 
from compositor error and manuscript corruption should not be inferred, 
except from the extrametrical 'Faustus hath'.

The defining criteria of eyeskip are empirical: physical presence of 
squashed lines and reoccurrence of a word (which need not be exactly 
reproduced to induce the error). Omissions are not always noticed, but 
in manuscript correction is limited to rewriting; or to restoration in 
the margins or by interlineation. Such additions should always be 
examined for words or phrases at either end that closely resemble words 
nearby in the body of the text. If found, a probability is established 
that the interpolation is a correction and not revision.  This is key to 
understanding the nature of Hand D. Though Ioppolo's examples could have 
been better chosen, 'currente calamo'  changes on the whole do indicate 
transcription. The question is: by author or scribe? Next I will examine 
Ioppolo's case for the author as copyist.

Gerald E.  Downs

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0485  Monday, 23 July 2007

From: 		Ben Alexander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Sunday, 22 Jul 2007 09:43:37 +0100
Subject: 18.0467 Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0467 Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint

Has anyone considered that A Lover's Complaint is the prequel to the 
Sonnets?

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.

Francis Bacon Biographies

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0486  Saturday, 28 July 2007

From: 		Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 25 Jul 2007 11:24:01 +0100
Subject: 	Francis Bacon Biographies

Dear SHAKSPERians and Early-Modernists,

Can anyone recommend a good biography of Francis Bacon? I'm currently 
developing a film script in which Bacon plays a part. Which means I'm 
much more interested in his life, opinions and politics than in, say, 
his contributions to the scientific method.

And please, no Baconian authorship stuff.

Thanks in anticipation,
Peter Bridgman

[Editor's Note: No authorship stuff at all. -HMC]

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Flying Leaf

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0484  Monday, 23 July 2007

From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 18 Jul 2007 08:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 18.0480 Flying Leaf
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0480 Flying Leaf

John Briggs writes:

 >"I really don't see what the problem is. Do we know when Lord Amherst
 >acquired his second copy? Why couldn't it have been that which was 
 >being described in 1888?"

Sidney Lee notes in his 1902 CENSUS that Lord Amherst acquired the First 
Folio "c 1885 of Quaritch."  Quaritch (now Rarebooks) could not supply 
further details of the transaction. Please keep in mind that James in 
his Jan, 1888 note links the First Folio under his eye to one about to 
"be sold by Messrs. Christie in the ensuing season"---i.e, the Aylesford 
copy (March) or the William Lee copy (June). No other First Folios were 
auctioned off by Christie's in 1888 or 1889 to my knowledge.

JB continues:

 >"Endpapers/flyleaves/pastedowns are added during binding, so if the
 >Amherst copy was indeed rebound c.1700, I would expect them to have 
 >been added at that date, the paper to be roughly contemporary, and the
 >inscriptions to have quite likely been added later. (In any event, the
 >leaves couldn't have been bound prior to 1623, or the inscriptions 
 >added to the paper before 1616.)"

Folger's Head of Reference, Dr Ziegler, notes (personal communication) 
the epitaph leaf was "mounted on a tab" in the Amherst copy at some 
point, possibly during the rebinding, or elsewhen. Nor is it clear when 
the leaf was inscribed. The paper's likely provenance and the writing's 
secretary hand, if authentic, suggest an earlier date for the act of 
inscription on the leaf. Without further testing or research, the 
terminus a quo cannot be moved later than c. 1620 for the act of 
handwriting, or later than 1616 for the act of authorship, if genuine.

Many thanks to Hardy Cook and Eric Luhrs for making the PDF figures 
retrievable from the SHAKSPER site.

Regards,
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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.