EMLS 16.2

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0394  Thursday, 27 September 2012

 

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

Date:         September 26, 2012 1:11:34 PM EDT

Subject:     EMLS 16.2

 

To whom it may concern:

 

The latest issue of Early Modern Literary Studies is now available. As usual, it is available for download free and without subscription at the following web address: http://purl.org/emls

 

Sincerely,

Sean Lawrence

 

 

Early Modern Literary Studies 16.2 (2012)

 

 

Articles:

 

Divided They Fall: (De)constructing the Triple Hecate in Spenser’s Cantos of Mutabilitie. Jessica Dell, McMaster University. [1]

 

‘When dead ones are revived’: The Aesthetics of Spectacle in Robert Greene’s James IV (c. 1590). Jenny Sager, Jesus College, University of Oxford. [2]

 

Homoerotic Pleasure and Violence in the Drama of Thomas Middleton. Adrian Blamires, Reading University. [3]

 

Beaumont and Fletcher’s Rhodes: Early Modern Geopolitics and Mythological Topography in The Maid’s Tragedy. Lindsay Ann Reid, Koç University, Istanbul.[4]

 

 

Reviews:

 

Edel Lamb,  Performing Childhood in the Early Modern Theatre: The Children's Playing Companies (1599 -1613). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. M. Tyler Sasser, The University of Southern Mississippi. [5]

 

Jane Hwang Degenhardt and Elizabeth Williamson, eds, Religion and Drama in Early Modern England: The Performance of Religion on the Renaissance Stage. Farnham: Ashgate, 2011. Alison Searle, University of Sydney. [6]

 

Lynn S. Meskill, Ben Jonson and Envy. New York: Cambridge UP, 2009. Suzanne Penuel, University of South Carolina Lancaster. [7]

 

The Oxford Handbook of John Donne, edited by Jeanne Shami, Dennis Flynn, and M. Thomas Hester. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. P. G. Stanwood, The University of British Columbia. [8]

 

Katrin Ettenhuber, Donne's Augustine: Renaissance Cultures of Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Patrick J. Murray, University of Glasgow. [9]

 

 

Theatre Reviews:

 

Romeo and Juliet, presented by Action to the Word at Camden People’s Theatre, London, 14-26 February 2012. Thomas Larque. [10]

 

The Winter’s Tale, presented by Propeller at the Lyceum Theatre, Sheffield, 31 January - 4 February 2012, and on tour. Lisa Hopkins, Sheffield Hallam University. [11]

 

Cambridge Shakespeare, 2012. Michael Grosvenor Myer. [12]

CFP: Marlowe Conference at Blackfriars in June 2013

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0393  Thursday, 27 September 2012

 

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

Date:         Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:58 AM

Subject:     CFP: Marlowe Conference at Blackfriars in June 2013

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

The Marlowe Society of America solicits papers for its Seventh International Conference to be held on June 25-28th, 2013, at the American Shakespeare Center’s Blackfriars Playhouse in Staunton, VA. 

 

Hosted by MSA President Paul Menzer, the conference will feature keynote presentations by Susan P. Cerasano (Colgate University) Laurie Maguire (Magdalen College, University of Oxford), Leah Marcus (Vanderbilt University), and Garrett Sullivan (Pennsylvania State University). The professional productions by the American Shakespeare Center will complement special events, workshops, screenings, and productions designed specially for conference attendees.

Papers should be no more than fifteen minutes in length and present original research on any topic concerning the works of Christopher Marlowe. Please inquiries and abstracts to the conference Program Chair, Professor Jeremy Lopez, University of Toronto: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

Sarah Enloe

American Shakespeare Center

Director of Education

540-885-5588 x28

540-292-3395

 

The American Shakespeare Center recovers the joy and accessibility of Shakespeare’s theatre, language, and humanity by exploring the English Renaissance stage and its practices through performance and education.

Lear Analysis

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0392  Monday, 24 September 2012

 

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

     Date:         September 21, 2012 6:29:28 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Lear Analysis

 

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

     Date:         September 21, 2012 8:34:36 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Lear Analysis

 

[3] From:        Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         September 22, 2012 8:06:08 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: Lear Analysis

 

 

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

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

Date:         September 21, 2012 6:29:28 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Lear Analysis

 

Gabriel Egan wrote:

 

>In facsimiles I can’t see any true double-ell ligatures in Q1 or Folio King 

>Lear—that is, two ells joined in the inked impression and printed from a 

>single piece of type that was made from a single matrix—but there are

>what might be tied letters made by putting two matrices in the mould and 

>casting them together as a single piece of type.

 

That isn’t how letters are usually cast. You would have to punch the “ell” twice onto the same matrix. (Width of type body is determined by the mould, not the matrix.) But I can’t see a reason for that (unless the ell is normally kerned – but that creates other problems). The usual candidates for ligatures are “ff”, “fi” and “fl”, etc.

 

John Briggs

 

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

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

Date:         September 21, 2012 8:34:36 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Lear Analysis

 

Thank you, Gabriel Egan, for straightening me out on the el or double-el possibilities.  A llittlle knowlledge is a dangerous thing.

 

Neverthelless, it might remain a valuable exercise to try out that speech both ways in rehearsal, ALL and ALB.  ALL at this moment seems to include (excepting Edgar and Edmund, likely not part of ALL?) only Goneril, Albany, the Herald, and some number of nameless soldiers. Considering that the following speeches continue to set Albany and Goneril in the same fierce opposition we’ve seen earlier, then their seeming concord over “Save him, save him,” is notable, perhaps even painful.  Also, the sense of sudden release from observing the trial-by-combat and then having everyone on stage abruptly moving or calling out the stop the fight can have interesting impacts on the audience.  Like Albany’s later “Run, run, o run,” and the later Duke or Edg. variant speech heading for the command, “Hast thee for thy life,” we’re seeing alternative possibilities for displays of control of the stage action and its accumulating  tensions.  So, whether compositorial or stenographical or (as I imagine) authorial, these textual variants have their value if they lead us to attempt to puzzle out the dramatic codes of these early scripts.

 

ever,

Steve illiteratigiturowitz

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:         September 22, 2012 8:06:08 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: Lear Analysis

 

After (apparently) declining to justify the foundation of his Lear revision theory (foul papers Q1 copy) Steven Urkowitz raises a minor speech heading issue (one of many in the texts): 

 

> When Edmund is [injured] by Edgar in the last scene,

> the first speech following in Q and F has Albany halt

> the combat:

>

>  Alb. Saue him, saue him.    

 

> Way back at the beginning of the play, the Folio has a

> somewhat similar speech unique to it, directing Albany

> and “Cor.”  to intervene, at least verbally, to stop a

> violent action: “Alb. Cor. Deare Sir forbeare.”

 

Most likely, the reviser of Q1 noticed that Albany and Cornwall had no lines in the first scene—despite their presence—so he added one for them to share. Nothing can be made of this. I prefer Q1, where Lear and Kent have it out without interference. Besides, A & C have just gone halvesies on the Kingdom; why should they come between the dragon and his wrath? And if they did, Kent didn’t seem to care but continued to provoke the King.

 

> But the Oxford edition . . . in 5.3 changes “Alb.” to “All.”

 

> But . . . let us imagine that the [workman] setting Q did

> mistakenly set ALB for ALL.  And no one managed to

> “fix” it to ALL in the painstaking generation of whatever

> copy was used to set the Folio.

> And along the way, no one would have noticed that

> “Saue him, saue him” supposedly called out by everyone

> on stage, and having been written in everyone’s actors’

> sides, still appeared in print only in the part of Albany?

 

As with STM, ‘all’ doesn’t necessarily mean everyone (or even identical phrasing for the speakers; this isn’t “Airplane” or “Dick & Jane”). But I doubt very much that ‘All’ is right for 5.3; ‘Alb.’ is probably wrong also.

 

Neither Q1 nor F had to have ‘Alb’ in manuscript copy (though F got it through Q1 and Q2. The heading could read ‘Albany’, ‘Duke’, or nothing in ms. ‘Alb.’ probably gets it right as far as the copy goes; but that’s not far enough.

 

If Q1 is a shorthand report, as I’ve reported, the speech headings are inferred from the dialogue; they can easily be wrong. In such cases it’s the editor’s job to analyze situations and lines. It’s not best to assume corrupt text is Shakespeare’s text because good argument may say it isn’t. I tend to agree with Theobald that the line belongs to Goneril (with the rest of her following speech). F changes a speech from Goneril to Albany earlier at 5.3.67 (wrongly & arbitrarily) when the jealous sisters are squabbling.

 

> What theatrical aesthetic makes you believe that QF’s

> ALB ain’t Shakespeare and ALL is?

 

Almost a good question. But there are others on stage to account for; aesthetic isn’t limited to two options. Formal rules of personal combat (in this case somewhat primitively meant as a test of truth) allowed fighting to the death: Edmund promises Edgar he “shall rest forever.”

 

Albany has challenged Edmund himself and will try him on if no one else cares or dares to. He doesn’t want Edmund saved, he wants him dead. Though Albany has “attainted” (Q1) Goneril with Edmund, she is still the Regent, Edmund her knight in worthless armor. The spectators couldn’t stop the combat as if at a bullfight (& why spoil the fun?); but she could.

 

Goneril’s only ally was Edmund. Now that Regan was out of the way nothing would suit her better than for the softy Albany to get his clock cleaned; the play would have a happy ending. Goneril and Edmund had little reason to suppose there was evidence against them until after the combat, nor reason to suspect anyone else would answer a challenge.

 

But Albany counted on the set-up (bravely trusting Edgar’s word that a trumpet would be answered. Edmund fell for the “visor trick,” lost to his brother and left Goneril the option to win on appeal (visor don’t fit, must acquit); she (judge and jury) and Edmund would beat the rap. Her letter survived, however, and Edmund owned up. As it happens, suicide was her next option. So she’s the one who stopped the fight.

 

> “And appointed guard”—the variant that prompts

> Gerald Downs last long post?

 

Sometimes long posts are called for. The topic has been taken very seriously by everyone who has written of it, but without understanding. The variant is not too important to me, as I explain, but scholarship has built it up (with long and short discussions).

 

> I . . . whistle when [a] folks like the Oxford editors

> change the script(s),

 

It is an editor’s job to determine whether the text is sound or not. What student (if given a choice) would want transmission error to stand for Shakespeare? Don’t give them the choice? Is that worth the whistle?

 

> and [b] when folks like Gerald Downs blow so much

> smoke about peripheral matters that the central actions

> disappear from the discourse.

 

The central actions are right there in Q1, just as Lear was played, except for the corruptions of performance and transmission. The Folio version derives from Q1. The question is, what was Q1 copy? Steven Urkowitz won’t go there—where it gets interesting.

 

As others have noted over time, Urkowitz’s notions about playing King Lear are pretty arbitrary. I doubt they are those of the players of the day. That goes especially for the manifest errors in the texts received from the injurious impostors. Lear starts with a bad text that shouldn’t be accepted without continuing an editorial tradition that slipped a few cogs in the last thirty years. Students will be much better served if the faulty text is presented as such and they are encouraged to think for themselves. Exaltation of corruption is a big mistake.

 

Gerald E. Downs

CFP: Shakespeare, Performance, Place

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0391  Monday, 24 September 2012

 

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

Date:         September 21, 2012 7:50:51 PM EDT

Subject:     CFP: Shakespeare, Performance, Place

 

British Shakespeare Association

 

CALL FOR PAPERS

 

Shakespeare, Performance, Place

2-3 November 2012

Queen’s University, Belfast

 

This two-day conference investigates Shakespearean performance and its relationship to place, location and geography. The themes are chosen to coincide with the first Shakespearean production to be staged at Belfast’s new Lyric Theatre and performance is defined broadly to encompass theatrical event, film, television and mass media. Plenary speakers include Dr Patrick Lonergan (Galway), Dr Lucy Munro (Keele), Prof. Stuart Hampton-Reeves (University of Central Lancashire) and Prof. Mark Thornton Burnett (QUB).

 

The conference is a collaboration between the School of English, Queen’s University, the British Shakespeare Association and the Irish Renaissance Seminar.

 

The conference fee is £30, which includes a tour of the new Lyric Theatre, a ticket to see Macbeth (directed by Lynne Parker), a new Shakespeare film showing, coffee, lunches and reception.

 

If you are interested in offering a paper or just attending the conference please contact Dr Ramona Wray before 28 September 2012. A number of postgraduate bursaries have been generously provided by the BSA – again please contact Dr Ramona Wray for details.

 

Lear Analysis

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0390  Friday, 21 September 2012

 

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

Date:         September 19, 2012 3:51:04 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: Lear Analysis 

 

Steve Urkowitz argues that Q1 and Folio King Lear’s line “Alb. Saue him, saue him” should not be editorially reassigned to “All”. He may be right, but his technical arguments for this are unsound.

 

Urkowitz claims that a compositor would set “All” using a double-ell ligature (so two pieces of type in all, an “A” and an “ll”), and would be unlikely to accidentally set instead the three pieces (“A”, “l”, and “b”) needed for “Alb”. Thus, according to Urkowitz, All>Alb is an unlikely mis-setting for a compositor to make, and hence editors should not assume it was made and on that basis ‘correct’ it.

 

In facsimiles I can’t see any true double-ell ligatures in Q1 or Folio King Lear—that is, two ells joined in the inked impression and printed from a single piece of type that was made from a single matrix—but there are what might be tied letters made by putting two matrices in the mould and casting them together as a single piece of type. In the Folio there are pairs of adjacent ells where both are upside down, which is an unlikely error unless both were on a single piece of type. (Hinman discusses them in Printing and Proof-Reading 1.288-9).

 

Except where accidentally inverted, it’s not possible reliably to distinguish two ells on a single piece of type from two ells on individual pieces of type, since unlike a true ligature the inked impressions aren’t joined. So there’s no way to even count how many such two-on-one pieces of type were used in a book.

 

Without any idea of how many such pieces of type were used, there’s no reason to suppose, as Urkowitz does, that using them was the normal practice. And even if it was, there was nothing to stop a compositor choosing on a given occasion to use two pieces of type instead, perhaps because he ran out of the tied ones. (Blayney thinks that Nicholas Okes setting Q1 King Lear was short of ligatures.) Thus, Urkowitz’s argument from “tactile memory” collapses, since in fact we don’t know that setting “All” normally only needed two pieces of type.

 

Urkowitz thinks it unlikely that the compositors’ copy actually read “All” but this was misread by the compositor who in response deliberately set “Alb”. However, in manuscript this error (seeing “b” where “l” is written) is not hard to make. Giles E. Dawson and Laetitia Kennedy-Skipton’s Elizabethan Handwriting 1500-1650: A Manual shows plenty of hands in which these two letters aren’t terribly different from one another.

 

Gabriel Egan

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.