Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Current Postings ::
Shorthand

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0357  Wednesday, 29 August 2012

 

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

Date:         August 28, 2012 8:13:35 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: Shorthand

 

Werner Broennimann observes of “take up”,

 

> This is an effect a revising dramatist might well seek,

> particularly if he is in the process of cutting some lines

> at the end of a scene which is nothing but full of urgency.

 

I hadn’t suggested that “take up, take up” is senseless, but that it derives from Qa, what with its t’s k’s & great p’s. A revising dramatist could (and did!) make use of the repetition. The question is: Was that dramatist Shakespeare? As for drama, “we’ve got thirty minutes” may be urgent enough. And maybe the audience liked the added speeches. My point, reinforced elsewhere: F derives from Q1. Werner, what is your opinion on that? And do you like F’s revision of 5.3, “By rule of Knight-hood,” which I also reported? I would like to move on to more of the Q1/F corruption. Taking up ‘take up’ for keeps keeps us from other evidence adduced by Stone and prior scholars.

 

Steve Urkowitz remarks:

 

> By selectively citing Peter Blayney’s work,

 

Blayney offers a good selection, but I cite Stone more. Isn’t citation selective in any case? These guys are really good.

 

> and by sidestepping the documentation for what

> authorial revisions look like in Early Modern play-scripts

> (see Honigmann and Ioppolo for these),

 

I don’t side-step that at all, but comment extensively. Perhaps Steve would like to cite some himself.

 

> Maybe Gerald Downs really likes the quiet passages

 

I don’t much care for any of it but the problems are interesting.

 

> No matter who built or accidentally generated those

> distinct patterns, in this essentially unprovable context

> of . . . bibliographical observation and argumentation,

> the patterns bubble up.

 

But Steve argues Shakespeare as reviser.

 

> And if the differences really came out of other hands

> or even from those typewriting monkeys,

 

Someone (and some others) long ago took Q1 seriously enough to repair and ‘improve’ it. Steve, do you think the repair was made on Q1 or do you think the revision was of the foul papers before Q1 came to be? That’s an important question. We might move along to that.

 

Gerald E. Downs

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.