- Scholarly Resources
- Current Postings
|Pedestrians Crossing Cairncross|
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.192 Friday, 18 May 2012
Date: May 16, 2012 10:14:29 AM EDT
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Peds
Gerald Downs attributes an opinion to me:
> I gather that Gabriel Egan agrees (finally!) with
> Michael Egan and Steven Urkowitz that /Contention/ is
> not a memorially contaminated text but that it descends
> by transcription from the hand of Shakespeare.
My essay (“Foucault’s Epistemic Shift and Verbatim Repetition in Shakespeare”) that I pointed to, which is available without cost, gives my view.
Memorial reconstruction and revision may both be active in the differences between two early editions, and a transcriptional link may be intermittent. My essay factors in an additional document not usually considered in this regard: the property document holding the Articles of Peace read aloud in the first scene of CYL/2H6. In F the words read aloud from this document by Gloucester are different from those read aloud from it by the Cardinal Beaufort, while in Q they are the same. That’s the “Verbatim” part of my title and I believe it may be relevant to our problem. But I’d rather not rehearse the entire argument here since it’s easily accessed by any interested reader.
> Of course, since /R3/ is probably a memorial report
> the same questions may arise.
See John Jowett’s elegant proof that Q1 R3 can’t be based on a memorial report (“’Derby’, ‘Stanley’, and Memorial Reconstruction in Quarto Richard III” Notes and Queries 245 (2000): 75-79.)