The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0184  Friday, 26 January 2001

From:           R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 25 Jan 2001 09:24:58 -0600
Subject:        Index to Shakespeare and the Classical Tradition

>Claymond does not appear in the Index to Shakespeare and the Classical
>Tradition . . .1660-1960 (1968), either sv. his name or s.v. Pliny,
>which means that I did not encounter any such attempt as Mr. Cantrell
>asks about in my research for that book I have made a start on a
>supplement 1961-2001, which has so far not turned up any references to
>Claymond.  But my work on this supplement is very partial.  I will be
>grateful to anyone who has information about scholarship on Sh and Pliny
>published since 1960 and who is willing to pass it on to me.  One uses
>all resources in the sort of sweep I am attempting.

What little I know of the Claymond commentary comes from an article by
J.  Woolfson in EHR 1997 vol.112 no. 448.  Claymond's commentary is
unpublished and untranslated. It is interesting to me because portions
of it lay for years at the house of Oporinus, Basle.  Oporinus was
somtime amanuensis to Paracelsus and sometime employer and later
publisher of S. Castellio (aka M. Belarius).  This web of relationships
is obscure to me.  My interest in these topics is particularly spurred
by a letter of F. Knollys, date and recipient not ready to hand, that
mentions 'adherents of Castellio', and by Castellio's argument to the
Epistle to the Ephesians in his Latin Bible (ed. 1663 and later only)
wherin he cites Pliny.

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.