The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.169  Wednesday, 8 April 2015

 

[1] From:        William Blanton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         March 28, 2015 at 1:04:00 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Gobbo 

 

[2] From:        William Blanton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         April 2, 2015 at 1:32:21 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Gobbo 

 

 

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

From:        William Blanton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         March 28, 2015 at 1:04:00 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Gobbo

 

Great news! Mr. Weiss assures me that it is not the case that I am the only qualified trial attorney to have analyzed the Trial Scene. Evidently, his more experienced efforts at Shakespearean research have uncovered what I have missed. I look forward to reading what these other attorneys have had to say about the Trial Scene.

 

Unfortunately, Mr. Weiss forgot to provide references to these articles. I’m sure he will correct this oversight in the near future.

 

 

Professor Egan challenges my use of the word “changed” in reference to what I called the change from “precedent” in Q1 to “President” in F1.He asserts that the Elizabethans used the two words interchangeably, and that a scribe or compositor may have substituted “President” for “precedent” on a whim.

 

As did Mr. Weiss, Professor Egan forgot to provide references. 

Pending his response supplying that information, I have done some research.

 

Thanks to a helpful reader, I obtained access to the online OED, and copied the entire entries for these two words. If anyone wishes copies, please email me and I will provide the PDFs.

 

Cutting to the chase, the OED shows that the two words are spelled differently, are pronounced slightly differently, and have different meanings. There is no category of meaning under “president” anything like: 

 

“A judicial decision which constitutes an authoritative example or rule for subsequent analogous cases; a form of a document which has been found valid or useful in the past and can be copied or adapted.”

 

That meaning appears under “precedent,” in the meaning category “law.” The first alpha historical example is “1600 Shakespeare Merchant of Venice iv. i. 217   There is no power in Venice can altar [sic] a decree established: twill be recorded for a precedent.”

 

The beta historical examples do show some instances in which this same meaning is spelled “president.” Some Elizabethans undoubtedly spelled it that way.

 

But we are not dealing with just any Elizabethan; we are dealing with Shakespeare. Let’s see how he used these two words.

 

A Concordance to Shakespeare’s Works lists 21 entries for “precedent” and only one entry for “president.” Based on statistics alone, Shakespeare did not use the two words interchangeably. 

 

The single entry for “president” is:

 

Antony and Cleopatra

Act 3, Scene 7

 

CLEOPATRA                  Sink Rome, and their tongues rot

That speak against us! A charge we bear i' the war,

And, as the president of my kingdom, will

Appear there for a man. Speak not against it:

I will not stay behind.

 

In the 21 entries for “precedent,” Shakespeare always used it in the legal sense when his characters were discussing something legal or legal-like.

 

 

Speaking as a self-confessed amateur/low caste professional, I believe that Shakespeare himself wrote the version of The Merchant of Venice that Heminge and Condell included in the First Folio, and that he was the one who marked-up Q1 to produce that version.

Here’s what Heminge and Condell said in their introduction:

 

To the great Variety of Readers.

 

It had bene a thing, we confesse, worthie to have bene wished, that the Author himselfe had liv’d to have set forth, and overseen his owne writings ; But since it hath bin ordain’d otherwise, and he by death departed from that right, we pray you do not envie his Friends, the office of their care, and paine, to have collected & publish’d them; and so to have publish’d them, as where (before) you were abus’d with diverse stolne, and surreptitious copies, maimed, and deformed by the frauds and stealthes of injurious impostors, that expos’d them : even those, are now offer’d to your view cur’d, and perfect of their limbes; and all the rest, absolute in their numbers, as he conceived the’. Who, as he was a happie imitator of Nature, was a most gentle expresser of it. His mind and hand went together: And what he thought, he uttered with that easinesse, that wee have scarse received from him a blot in his papers. But it is not our province, who onely gather his works, and give them you, to praise him. It is yours that reade him. And there we hope, to your divers capacities, you will finde enough, both to draw, and hold you : for his wit can no more lie hid, then it could be lost. Reade him, therefore; and againe, and againe : And if then you doe not like him, surely you are in some manifest danger, not to understand him. And so we leave you to other of his Friends, whom if you need, can bee your guides : if you neede them not, you can leade your selves, and others. And such Readers we wish him.

 

John Heminge.

Henrie Condell.

 

 

This contemporaneous editorial testimony by Shakespeare’s good friends and fellow actors/sharers constitutes prima facie evidence supporting my belief. Anyone wishing to challenge this evidence must produce contrary evidence. Speculations concerning unknown scribes or compositors with unknown motives will not suffice. Show us the ocular proof.

 

Regards,

Bill

 

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

From:        William Blanton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         April 2, 2015 at 1:32:21 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Gobbo

 

I should clarify one point. I am aware of one qualified trial attorney who has analyzed the Trial Scene: Daniel Kornstein, in Chapter Four of his book Kill All The Lawyers. However, Mr. Kornstein did not educate himself in sixteenth century English law and trial practice, as I have done. I cited Mr. Kornstein’s work in my article, and sent him a copy of that article before I created my website for it. He wrote me back (in July 2009), said he found my discoveries fascinating, and sent me a copy of his book.

 

Bill 

 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.