Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2011 :: November ::
Anonymous

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0294  Wednesday, 9 November 2011

 

[1] From:         Eric Johnson-DeBaufre < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         November 8, 2011 1:58:05 PM EST

     Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Anon

 

[2] From:         Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         November 8, 2011 4:44:28 PM EST

     Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Anon

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Eric Johnson-DeBaufre < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         November 8, 2011 1:58:05 PM EST

Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Anon

 

I have no dog in this race, but the paleographer in me felt the need to respond to Duncan Salkeld's response to M Egan (see below) 

 

>Duncan Salkeld wrote:

>Just for the sake of verity, regarding apples:

>>M Egan wrote: ‘There’s just no evidence for the claim that 

>>the word apparel below should be contracted in to two 

>>syllables, as Mac Jackson asserts’.

>> 

>>Here’s some (from Bridewell): ‘Jane Trosse being taken in 

>>unsemely appell more manlyke than woman like and folowed 

>>from taverne to Taverne was brought into this house the ixth 

>>of Marche 1576’.

>>

>>‘Ellis the glovers apprentices -- To each of them the like appell’ 

>>(30 March 1605).

 

Unfortunately, this "evidence" from Bridewell is probably evidence of nothing other than poor transcription habits. I would bet good money that the second medial p in "unsemely appell" and "like appell" is a p brevigraph (i.e. not a p, but a special form of the p character that scribes used to indicate that other letters are to be supplied, in this case -ar). The transcriber probably overlooked this (probably because the character simply looked like a slightly fancier p) and now, since we don't use brevigraphs (well, I do, but that's because I work with 16th c. manuscripts a lot!), it leads people to believe that apparel was pronounced "appell." Sorry, but you'll need better evidence than that if you want to make that argument. This is, as I said, simply a transcription error.

 

Eric Johnson-DeBaufre

 

NB: Attached are examples of several versions of the p character in Secretary hand as well as a p brevigraph (used for par/per/por). These brevigraphs were preserved from medieval latin abbreviation conventions (which had separate brevigraphs: one for par/per/por, one for pro-, and another for pre-)—16th century scribes often used these different graphs erratically (i.e. using the pro- graph for par/per/por, etc.).

 

Secretary p: Secretary p

 

par_per_por_ brevigraph: par_per_por_ brevigraph

 

[2]------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         November 8, 2011 4:44:28 PM EST

Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Anon

 

Michael Egan says that he is willing to discuss my data with anyone but since it is so voluminous and detailed it’s only worth doing so after they’ve reviewed it.

 

I have read Egan's book, as well as his articles in response to Mac Jackson (and other things as well), and I authored a lengthy opinion analyzing his contentions in detail.  Other than asserting, without explanation or support, that it was a "hatchet job" and promising to produce a point-by-point refutation (which has not been forthcoming), Egan has avoided discussing it.

 

 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.