The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1573  Thursday, 9 September 1999.

From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 08 Sep 1999 17:00:14 -0400
Subject: 10.1558 Re: First Folios
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1558 Re: First Folios

John Drakakis writes:

>I would have thought that it
>is a commonplace by now that there is a dynamic relation between "tools"
>and procedures, and that relationship isn't always a fully conscious

My point is that this commonplace needs to be reconsidered.  In English,
we distinguish between "use" and "utilize."  This distinction indicates
that we can use or utilize our tools, that we control our tools, not
vice versa.  On the other hand, I admit that a poor tool can be a
limiting factor.  But I can always go to the hardware store and get a
better one.  Right?  Or make a better one myself?

As to full consciousness, I refer John D. to George Lakoff and Mark
Johnson's Philosophy in the Flesh wherein the authors point out that
very little of what we humans do is fully conscious.

>Secondly, Hinman's "fiction" (I use the scare quotes because the
>the result IS a fiction, though I think a very interesting one) is
>based on a set of procedures laid out in two volumes of bibliographical
>analysis: The Printing and Proofreading of the First Folio of
>Shakespeare (1962).

My point is not that we don't have Hinman's principles, but that we may
be puzzled as to why Hinman selected to reproduce one page rather than
another.  Take for example, Hinman FF 589.  Here the speech prefix at
TLN 239 reads "Cr ." In other Folger Folios (I can, if you wish, give
you the Folger numbers), the speech prefix reads clearly "Cre."  Why did
Hinman select the page where the "e" is missing?  I don't know, and I
don't think his principles make it clear why he made this choice.  (Also
note that the line marked TLN 190 [on this page] is actually TLN 191.)

>Some of Hinman's findings have been superseded (as
>evidenced in the work of the late D.F.Mackenzie, and Peter Blayney's
>excellent analysis of the workings of Nicholas Okes' printing House: The
>Texts of King Lear and Their Origins (1982).

Yes, yes, yes.  I agree with you, John.  Blayney is especially fun to
read as he questions old commonplaces (e.g., tools make the human).

Yours, Bill Godshalk

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.