| Lear Analysis Correction |
|
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0399 Monday, 1 October 2012
From: Hardy M. Cook < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it > Date: Monday, October 1, 2012 Subject: Lear Analysis Correction
Dear SHAKSPER Subscribers,
In preparing the Thursday, 27 September 2012, digest for distribution, I—as editor—introduced an error in the transmission of Gabriel Egan’s contribution to the Lear Analysis thread (SHK 23.0397).
I will include a corrected version of that submission after this brief editor’s note.
Gabriel Egan used the email convention of putting a single right-facing chevron (>) at the beginning of the line he was quoting from John Briggs’s Monday, 24 September 2012, submission (SHK 23.0392) that I inadvertently dropped during the editing process, so that readers could not tell that Gabriel Egan was quoting. Egan then used a pair of double chevrons (<< . . . >>) to indicate that he was quoting from Philip Gaskell A New Introduction to Bibliography. I recorded these with single right-facing chevrons (>). I apologize to Gabriel Egan for “messing up” (this is a technical term from editing handbooks) his submission and to readers who subsequently might have been confused.
In the future, I ask subscribers to let me know if I have similarly “messed up” any of your submissions.
Furthermore, I solicit subscribers’ input regarding any conventions I employ as editor that you might find confusing.
Below I will first include a corrected version using the two conventions Gabriel Egan had (> = Briggs quotation and << . . . >> = Gaskell quotation) and then I will reproduce the same corrected submission using double right –facing chevrons (>>) instead of << . . . >> for the Gaskell quotation. I ask subscribers to let me know if you have a preference for one convention or the other?
Obviously, as editor my job is to correctly convey what is submitted to me and I once again apologize for the confusions that may have resulted from my editing of Gabriel Egan’s last post.
============================================================= Correction (Style 1):
From: Gabriel Egan < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it > Date: September 26, 2012 8:10:05 AM EDT Subject: Re: Lear Analysis
John Briggs writes that two matrices wouldn’t be put into the mould to make a double-ell.
>You would have to punch the “ell” twice >onto the same matrix
See Philip Gaskell A New Introduction to Bibliography (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) for a discussion of the phenomenon. The key bit is
<< A special form of tied letter appears to have been made in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries by placing the matrices for several letters side by side in the mould, and casting them all together as a single type. . . . Tied letters made in this way may be difficult to distinguish from true ligatures made from a single matrix. (pp. 33-34) >>
Gabriel Egan
============================================================= From: Gabriel Egan < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it > Date: September 26, 2012 8:10:05 AM EDT Subject: Re: Lear Analysis
John Briggs writes that two matrices wouldn’t be put into the mould to make a double-ell.
>You would have to punch the “ell” twice >onto the same matrix
See Philip Gaskell A New Introduction to Bibliography (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) for a discussion of the phenomenon. The key bit is
>> A special form of tied letter appears to have been >> made in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries by placing >> the matrices for several letters side by side in the mould, >> and casting them all together as a single type. . . . >> Tied letters made in this way may be difficult to distinguish >> from true ligatures made from a single matrix. (pp. 33-34)
Gabriel Egan =============================================================
Hardy M. Cook Editor ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) |