Lear Analysis

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0400  Monday, 1 October 2012

 

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

Date:         September 27, 2012 4:07:02 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Lear Analysis

 

Gabriel Egan wrote:

 

> 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

 

Yes, I got that wrong, of course–I should have written “You would have to make a new punch for the ‘double ell’ and make a matrix from that.”

 

> 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)

 

The point that I was trying to make is that the matrix is over-sized (i.e. larger than the mould). In order to make the “special form of tied letter” by putting two (or more) matrices into a mould, you have to trim those matrices down (effectively destroying them for normal use). I have no idea why anyone would do this, but I would suggest that it would be for circumstances where the individual characters are different (and presumably non-kerned). For the situation of the “double ell”, you would have to use (and effectively destroy) two “ell” matrices—and I don’t know why anyone would have two “ell” matrices in the first place. Printers in Shakespeare’s London didn’t cast their own type (which partly explains why the First Folio was printed with a set of rather worn type)—and I am not sure that their type was even cast in England. These “special forms of tied letter” would have to come from the typefounder.

 

(I don’t know why we are arguing over this: Gabriel Egan is describing something that didn’t happen, and I am just saying that it wouldn’t have happened anyway!)

 

John Briggs

Lear Analysis Correction

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0399  Monday, 1 October 2012

 

From:        Hardy M. Cook <This email 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 email 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 email 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 email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

 

SW/TX PCA/ACA, Shakespeare on Film Area

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0398  Monday, 1 October 2012

 

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

Date:         October 1, 2012 2:00:56 PM EDT

Subject:     SW/TX PCA/ACA, Shakespeare on Film Area

 

CFP:  Southwest/Texas Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association

Shakespeare on Film, TV, and Video

Albuquerque, NM

Feb. 13-16, 2013

 

The Shakespeare on Film, Television, and Video Area is now accepting proposals for the SW/TX PCA/ACA’s 34th annual conference, which will be held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel and Conference Center in Albuquerque, NM.  This year’s theme is “Celebrating Popular/American Culture(s) in a Global Context”; we welcome proposals that engage with the overarching conference theme, as well as those that treat the convergence of filmed Shakespeare, pop culture, and mediatization more broadly. 

 

Potential topics might include: global Shakespeares; inter- and cross-cultural Shakespeares; Shakespearean auteurs; digital Shakespeares; Shakespeare and film genre; Shakespeare and the digital humanities; and postmodern Shakespeares.

 

Please submit a CV and 250-word proposal to conference2013.swtxpca.org by November 16, 2012. Inquiries may be directed to Area Chair Jessica Maerz at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

 

Details about the conference, including information about conference travel and graduate student awards, can be found at www.swtxpca.org.

 

Jessica M. Maerz

Assistant Professor of Theatre Studies

School of Theatre, Film, and Television

University of Arizona

P.O. Box 210003

Tucson, AZ 85721-0003

 

Flyer for CFP pdf  CFP_Shakes_Film_Area_PCA_2013 (171.38 kB)

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.