Reminder

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 27.216  Wednesday, 8 June 2016

 

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

Date:         Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Subject:     Reminder

 

Dear Subscribers,

 

Just a reminder: I leave late tomorrow evening for England. I will return on June 16. I hope to get to any submissions that arrive early tomorrow morning and then resume editing on the 16th or 17th, depending, of course, on any jet lag I might experience.

 

Hardy m. Cook

Editor of SHAKSPER

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

 

 

Vickers One King Lear

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 27.215  Tuesday, 7 June 2016

 

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

     Date:         May 27, 2016 at 4:33:32 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: One Lear 

 

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

     Date:         June 5, 2016 at 7:53:17 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: Vickers One Lear 

 

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

     Date:         June 5, 2016 at 7:53:41 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: One Lear 

 

 

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

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

Date:         May 27, 2016 at 4:33:32 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: One Lear

 

I’m rather surprised by Professor Wells’s applause for Holger Syme.  The series of tweets strikes me as needlessly aggressive, referring to Vickers just as “Sir”, and drenching him with sarcasm (see, for example Tweet # 21, which consists simply of 100-odd question marks); it is more swashbuckling than informative - not surprising, I suppose, given the form; but surely the subject deserved a little more respect?

 

Julia

 

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

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

Date:         June 5, 2016 at 7:53:17 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: Vickers One Lear 

 

I’ve guessed that Vickers reviews will have little value. Jonathon Bate, writing for The Spectator, asserts: “Peter Blayney proved decisively by means of meticulous and highly technical bibliographic investigation that Quarto Lear was not a bad text . . . but an authoritative one, almost certainly deriving from Shakespeare’s own holograph. . . . Blayney and a group of other scholars concluded that both Quarto and Folio texts were authentically Shakespearean. The substantial differences between them were to be explained by revision. . . . Vickers may well be right that the Folio revision of King Lear was not a single, carefully crafted intervention by Shakespeare himself. . . . But he is unnecessarily dismissive of . . . [F]: it comes with the imprimatur of the actors . . . and it crystallises a moment in . . . the stage life of what Vickers calls Shakespeare’s ‘greatest pay’ . . . . Sir Brian is the only one to parade his knighthood on his title page . . . .”

 

What good comes of ridiculing knighthood or a misprint? I’ve reported that Blayney never argued Q1 authority; that he would categorize argument not as bibliographical, but textual analysis; and that he expressly denies authorial F redaction. Didn’t the actors say early texts were stolen? Bate is now the latest to cite Blayney’s “foul papers proof,” 34 years after it began not to appear.

 

Bate and Vickers passively agree on authorial Q1 (and F) printer’s copy; next to that error, their differences are minor. Reviews will naturally defend “Shakespeare revised Lear” scholarship. If F additions restore Q1 omissions at all, Shakespeare’s F revision is not likely. Vickers’s insight is probably right.

 

Gerald E. Downs

 

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

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

Date:         June 5, 2016 at 7:53:41 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: One Lear

 

The One King Lear shares a tendency to treat favored opinions in isolation, noticeably when evaluating Q1 set directions; Vickers assumes their “foul papers” derivation, which excuses anomaly. Yet if Q1 is a theatrical report (as scholars once suggested), set directions derived not authorially, but from dialogue. The unsuspecting would think talk followed instructions, rather than the other way round:

 

Sound a Sennet, Enter one bearing a Coronet . . . (Q; F omits the coronet, TLN 37).

 

“The Quarto direction is evidently conceived from the viewpoint of a writer who knows the text . . . . Wilfred Perret noticed [that s.d.’s] ‘correspond . . . to the actual performance as directed by Shakespeare . . . . Plainly a coronet is needed at 1.1.139 [‘This coronet part between you.’]; but . . . for purpose no one could have foreseen. . . .’ Perrett [reminds] us that Shakespeare would have been fully involved . . . so that [Q s.d.’s] are both authorial and directorial” (222–3).

 

By a “writer who knows the text” Vickers implies the author/director, viz., Shakespeare. Plainly, however, the coronet may be known by any reader. The “actual performance,” if recorded, tells us so. The rest of the (wishful) involvement doesn’t logically follow.

 

We should “turn to Stone” once more: “The [s.d.’s] in Q are very defective: a comparatively large number of entrances and exits are not marked at all, and of those marked several are unclear or faulty. . . . It is . . . only by supposing a reporter . . . in the theatre that we can satisfactorily account for the mistakes and the lacunae. We should naturally not expect him to achieve, or even attempt, a full complement of [s.d.’s]. . . . The[ir] character indicates that they originated with a spectator . . . . Such evidence, considered piecemeal, is usually difficult of interpretation, but taken in the mass its significance may become quite obvious. . . . [The reporter] appears not to know what to call the characters unless they are named in the text” (Stone, 19–21). The manuscript playtext John of Bordeaux confirms Stone’s account. But let’s us take more of Lear “in the mess.”  Vickers cites 4.6.284–4.7.3):

 

  Glost.  And woes . . .

The knowledge of themselves.       A drum a farre off.

  Edg. Giue me . . . far off me thinks I heare the beaten

Come father ile bestow you with a friend.  Exit.  (drum,

            Enter Cordelia, Kent and Doctor.    (thy goodnes,

  Cord. O thou good Kent how shall I . . . worke to match

My life will be too short . . . [Right!]

 

“That is probably a typical example of an inexperienced compositor using turn-overs in two consecutive lines, and some master printers would have insisted on the lines being reset” 112). Everyone will grasp that Edgar hears a tom-tom without reading about it a second time. Is the book-keeper telling a ‘sound effects’ guy to take a hike? The auditor/reader will know from the dialogue of “distant drums,” no matter what. F omits the s.d.

 

Printing prose seriatim, not even greenhorns would “turn up and down” without reason. Use of a wide measure ensured headaches if “the master printer insisted” on foul proofing; there’s no room for correction. Alternatively, then, the copy failed to provide necessary entries for a new scene, which were accommodated only by further crowding. The process relied on corrupt text.

 

When interpretation oversteps evidence, it may be accompanied by a ‘Two Version’-type nudge to the reader:

 

   Lear. Then theres life int . . . you shall get it

with running:         Exit King Running. (Q1, 4.6.201–03)

 

Vickers observes that F “substitutes the anodyne ‘Exit.’ for [Q1’s] truly shocking stage direction, set from Shakespeare’s manuscript” (90–91). To a play-goer, it may be surprising to see the old king run with ‘running’, but readers understand that Lear won’t get far; anodyne, shocking, and Shakespeare’s manuscript are more rhetorical than helpful. The s.d. probably derived from the neighborly ‘running.’ To me, the interest of Lear’s behavior is in his excited failure to learn of an imminent rescue. Both Vickers and F assume the need for ‘dear daughter’ instead of Q’s ‘dear’; yet the ‘gentleman’ likely intended, ‘dear daughter, Cordelia’, but was cut off.

 

  Lear. That thou mayst . . .

     . . . shew the heauens more iust.

              <Enter Edgar, and Foole.

<Edg. Fathom and halfe, Fathom and halfe; poore Tom.>

  Foole. Come not in here . . .  (Q1, 3.4.35–43, < F >)

  Kent. Giue me thy hand, whose there.

  Foole. A spirit . . . he says, his nam’s poore Tom.

 

“Edgar’s line must have existed in Shakespeare’s manuscript; otherwise the Fool would not have known his assumed identity” (135).

 

I agree with Stone that the earlier ‘but ile goe in,’ (i.e., into the hovel) belongs not to Q1’s hesitating Lear, but to the Fool. He pops out sometime later, to warn of Poor Tom (Edgar), whose line is unnecessary. F gives him an entry, a line (‘Fathom . . .’), and a name. Q1 got the identity from the Fool, whose exit (into the hovel!) and reentry (with Edgar) F records, again without need. Edgar had introduced himself to the reader as Poor Tom at 2.3. The mistaken speech ascription explains the F additions as revisions; otherwise, Q1’s dialogue works fine; Shakespeare’s manuscript “must have” disappeared.

 

Gerald E. Downs

 

 

 

Bertram’s Velvet Patch

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 27.214  Tuesday, 7 June 2016

 

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

Date:         May 28, 2016 at 1:26:31 PM EDT

Subject:    Bertram’s Velvet Patch

 


JD Markel wrote:
“The visual may evoke the shedding of the velvet of young deer antlers. One side is “worn bare” referring to the loss of velvet via scraping or antler play with another deer.  Earlier at 1.3.54-55 Clown makes a deer fighting reference, “they may jowl horns together, like any deer i’ th’ herd.”” 

 

That fits perfectly with one of the examples I provided in my earlier post in this thread:

 

“…the Clown’s reference to “a patch of velvet” was metaphorical and was not about an actual velvet patch. A quick search of Shakespeare’s usage of “velvet” in the rest of the canon confirmed my hunch – in several cases, “velvet” refers, in varied ways, to the sparse, soft, immature, growth of hair or similar epidermal growth on a young human, animal, or plant….” 

 

After I cited the young man’s peach fuzz example from A Lover’s Complaint, I next presented this deer usage from As You Like It, 2.1:

 

FIRST LORD

…'Poor deer,' quoth [Jaques], 'thou makest a testament
As worldlings do, giving thy sum of more
To that which had too much:' then, being there alone,
Left and abandon'd of HIS VELVET FRIENDS,     [i.e., young deer]

 

Cheers, 

ARNIE

 

 

 

Lexicons of Early Modern English

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 27.213  Tuesday, 7 June 2016

 

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

Date:         June 7, 2016 at 11:35:37 AM EDT

Subject:    Lexicons of Early Modern English 

 

Lexicons of Early Modern English now includes over 754,000 word-entries!

 

http://bit.ly/_leme

 

Lexicons of Early Modern English is an ever-expanding historical database offering scholars unprecedented access to early books and manuscripts documenting the growth and development of the English language. 

 

LEME sets the standard for modern linguistic research on the English language. 
LEME provides researchers with more than 754,000 word-entries from 209 monolingual, bilingual, and polyglot dictionaries, lexical encyclopedias, hard-word glossaries, spelling lists, and lexically-valuable treatises surviving in print or manuscript from the Tudor, Stuart, Caroline, Commonwealth, and Restoration periods.

 

LEME users rave about the vastness of the database and the unparalleled access to content and word meaning from within the context of the era, free from 20th century ideas and interpretations.

 

Recently added to Lexicons of Early Modern English - http://bit.ly/_leme

 

·         Mary Johnson, Madam Johnson’s Present (1755)

·         Elisha Coles, The Compleat English Schoolmaster or the 

·         Most Natural and Easie Method of Spelling English (1674)

·         Benjamin N. Defoe, A New English Dictionary (1735) 

·         Nathan Bailey, Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1737)

·         White Kennett, Parochial Antiquities (1695)

·         Ortus Vocabulorum (1500)

 

The addition of Ortus Vocabulorum completes LEME’s series of the four large Latin and English dictionaries in manuscript and print at the end of the fifteenth century (Promptorium Parvulorum, Catholicon Anglicum, Medulla Grammatice in Pepys MS 2002, and Ortus).

 

Coming soon to LEME

 

·         Henry Hexham, A Copious English and Netherdutch Dictionary (1641-42)

·         Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (1755)

 

Use Modern Techniques to Research Early Modern English!

 

209 Searchable lexicons

161 Fully analyzed lexicons

754,252 Total word entries

551,781 Fully analyzed word entries

680,473 Total analyzed forms and subforms

551,782 Total analyzed forms

128,691 Total analyzed subforms

60,891   Total English modern headwords

 

LEME provides exciting opportunities for research for historians of the English language. More than a half-million word-entries devised by contemporary speakers of early modern English describe the meaning of words, and their equivalents in languages such as French, Italian, Spanish, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and other tongues encountered then in Europe, America, and Asia.

 

For a partial bibliography of publications that employ LEME, see here – http://bit.ly/lemebiblio

 

Join the LEME email list!

Sign up for important news relating to Lexicons of Early Modern English. You'll receive emails highlighting new and upcoming additions to the database, editorial announcements and LEME news. You can unsubscribe at any time and we will never publish, rent or sell your contact details to anyone . Sign up here – http://bit.ly/leme_alerts

 

University of Toronto Press Journals 

5201 Dufferin St., Toronto, ON, Canada M3H 5T8

Tel: (416) 667-7810 Fax: (416) 667-7881 

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

www.utpjournals.com/leme

http://leme.library.utoronto.ca/

 

Posted by T Hawkins

 

 

Announcing #TFTVLive - Watch Hyde Park Live Online Friday 10 June

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 27.212  Tuesday, 7 June 2016

 

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

Date:         June 6, 2016 at 6:49:33 AM EDT

Subject:    Announcing #TFTVLive - Watch Hyde Park Live Online Friday 10 June

 

This week (9-11 June) we in the Department of Theatre, Film and Television, University of York, are staging James Shirley’s rarely-staged masterpiece, Hyde Park. For those who cannot make it York, we are also live-streaming the show on Friday 10th, 7:30 BST. We hope that SHAKSPER members might be interested in this. 

 

Announcing #TFTVLive

 

This week, the Department of Theatre, Film and Television at the University of York presents the fourth in a series of rarely-staged early modern plays:

 

Hyde Park by James Shirley

9, 10, 11 June 2016

7:30pm, Scenic Stage Theatre

Directed by Prof. Mike Cordner, designed by Roberto del Pino.

 

Now, for the first time, we can announce that the Friday 7:30pm performance will be streamed live via our production website at

hydeparktftv.com/tftv-live/

 

The stream is free to access. A mastered edit will be made available subsequently. 

 

Send us your tweets to @hydeparktftv using #tftvlive !

 

Join us in York - some tickets still available for performances on 9, 10, 11 June

 

Is razor-sharp wit a true defence against love? 

 

It’s festival time in Hyde Park – a place for amorous intrigue, unexpected encounters, and transformations of fortune.  Three women, setting their own rules, make life-defining choices – and teach the men who pursue them a lesson in the process. 

 

In a play where Hollywood screwball comedy meets Much Ado About Nothing, James Shirley’s brilliantly funny 1632 comedy is moved to vibrant modern London, where, during one momentous day in Hyde Park, the characters’ lives will change forever.

 

Very best wishes,

Ollie Jones

Lecturer in Theatre

Careers Liaison Officer

Undergraduate Admissions Tutor

Department of Theatre, Film and Television

The University of York

Heslington East Campus, Baird Lane

York YO10 5GB

Research Associate

Shakespeare’s Globe

 

 

 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.