November

Q1 R3 Hastings Pudding

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.548  Monday, 30 November 2015

 

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

Date:         November 29, 2015 at 3:47:38 PM EST

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Q1 R3 Hastings Pudding

 

Gerald E. Downs wrote: 

 

If St. John was already known as the ‘Patron Saint against Poison,’ Hasting’s oath may refer to chances that the King had been dosed. 

 

Poison comes in from the story of the Poisoned Chalice, which is in the Golden Legend. This was well known in the Middle Ages. Shakespeare himself uses the phrase “poison’d chalice” in Macbeth.

 

 

John Briggs

 

Shakespeare’s New Place Kitchen

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.547  Monday, 30 November 2015

 

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

Date:         November 27, 2015 at 2:15:57 PM EST

Subject:    Shakespeare’s New Place Kitchen

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-34936744

 

Shakespeare's kitchen discovered in Stratford-upon-Avon dig

27 November 2015

 

New Place, which was bought by Shakespeare in 1597, was the largest single dwelling in the town.

 

It had a great chamber and gallery, more than 20 rooms and 10 fireplaces.

 

The dig, led by Staffordshire University’s Centre of Archaeology, also found evidence of a brew house.

 

Fragments of plates, cups and other cookware were also found at New Place, where Shakespeare lived for 19 years of his adult life.

 

The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust (SBT) charity said the dig helped reveal “the living, breathing man behind the great works - husband, father and son of Stratford”.

 

The findings also enabled the SBT to commission new evidence-based drawings of New Place, which depict an accurate version of how the house would have looked during Shakespeare’s ownership.

Dr Paul Edmondson from the SBT, said, “Once we had uncovered the family’s oven we were able to understand how the rest of the house fitted around it.

 

“The discovery of the cooking areas, brew house, pantry and cold storage pit, combined with the scale of the house, all point to New Place as a working home as well as a house of high social status.

 

“At New Place we can catch glimpses of Shakespeare the playwright and country-town gentleman. His main task was to write and a house as impressive as New Place would have played an important part in the rhythm of his working life.”

 

The New Place site will be opened to the public by the SBT in the summer of 2016 as part of celebrations to mark 400 years since the dramatist's death, and will feature rare artefacts on display for the first time.

 

The £5.25m project is funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, Historic England and through public donations.

 

[Editor’s Note: Also see: http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Archaeologists-unearth-Shakespeare-s-kitchen-bid/story-28248021-detail/story.html

 

 -Hardy]

 

Q1 R3 Hastings Pudding

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.545  Friday, 27 November 2015

 

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

Date:         November 26, 2015 at 1:01:31 AM EST

Subject:    Q1 R3 Hastings Pudding

 

Taking Richard 3 as a shorthand report resolves problematic passages, such as Q1 1.1.121 – 146:  

 

Glo. . . . But who comes here the new deliuered hastings?

                                                                    Enter Lord Hastings.

   Hast.  Good time of day vnto my gratious Lord:

   Glo.  As much vnto my good Lord Chamberlaine:

Well are you welcome to the open aire,

How hath your Lordship brookt imprisonment?

   Hast.  With patience . . .

   Glo.  No doubt . . .

   Hast.  More pitty that the Eagle should be mewed,

While keihts and bussards prey at liberty.

   Glo.  What newes abroad?                          134

   Hast.  No newes so bad abroad as this at home:

The King is sickly, weake and melancholy,

And his phisitions feare him mightily.

   Glo. Now by Saint Paul this newes is bad indeede,

Oh he hath kept an euill diet long,               139

And ouermuch consumed his royall person,

Tis very grieuous to be thought vpon:

What is he in his bed?

   Hast. He is.                                                      142

   Glo. Go you before and I will follow you.  Exit Hast.

He [the King] cannot liue I hope, and must not die,

Till George [Clarence] be packt with post horse vp to heauen. . . .

 

J. R Siemon (Arden3) remarks that line 134 is an “odd question to ask a man just released from prison (Jowett)” and that “Hasting’s response [l. 135] superficially mimics one of Richard’s characteristic verbal modes, taking a term from his interlocutor and twisting its sense: so, instead of taking abroad to mean ‘at large’, Hastings . . . turns it to mean ‘in foreign regions’ . . . . Hasting’s witticism is pointless . . .” (145).

 

Hammond (Arden2) reports that Mary Gross (PBSA, ’77) “would assign l. 134 to Hastings, ll. 135—7 to Richard, l. 138 to Hastings, ll. 139—40 to Richard, ll. 141—2 to Hastings, l.143 to Richard. This on the grounds that Hastings, new-delivered from prison, is in a worse position than Richard to know these things (and that Saint Paul is Richard’s usual oath . . .)” Hammond suggests that Gross’s conjecture spoils the “irony of 138—41” and that “she offers no plausible mechanism to account for the compound error, nor does she acknowledge the oddity that the F corrector should have changed two substantive readings [‘John’ for ‘Paul’ and ‘Where’ for ‘What’] . . . while not noticing that the Q speech-prefixes were wrong. The argument is far too weak to carry conviction” (134).

 

Mistaken speech ascription is one of many shorthand reporting characteristics in R3; in consequence, I largely agree with Gross. For almost 400 years no one (according to citation) noticed these suspicious prefixes. There’s no reason to suppose an F redactor would do better than generations of editors unless he had authoritative copy to “notice.” But failure to correct many such errors indicates either that no proper text was available, or that F compilers didn’t effectually consult it. They likely took Q ascriptions at face value as much as possible; if compositors considered too curiously they lost money.

  

Reported texts require modern literary skepticism. Jowett follows Gross in noticing these contradictions; though I haven’t read their arguments I think they could have taken them further—to question speech ascriptions throughout Q1 and F. In this case, the passage probably ought to look like this (but authorial text would be greatly different):

 

   Hast.  More pitty that the Eagle should be mewed,

While keihts and bussards prey at liberty.

What newes abroad?

   Glo.  No newes so bad abroad as this at home:

The King is sickly, weake and melancholy,

And his phisitions feare him mightily.

   Hast. Now by Saint John this newes is bad indeede.

   Glo.  Oh he hath kept an euill diet long,

And ouermuch consumed his royall person,

Tis very grieuous to be thought vpon.

   Hast. What is he in his bed?

   Glo. He is. Go you before and I will follow.  Exit Hast.

 

Here the jailbird asks for news; Richard speaks in his ‘characteristic verbal mode’ and keeps his irony. The theatrical reporting ‘mechanism’ accounts for (and predicts) the compounded error; one wrong prefix leads to another.

 

The ‘oddity’ Hammond remarks is not the two substantive alterations—no Shakespeare text is more trivially arbitrary than R3 Q/F variants—but the ‘failure’ to further consult F Ms. copy. The R3 problem (once scholarship acquiesces in the ‘bad quarto’ reality) is the quality of the Ms. sharing F copy-duty. At times F corrects Q outright, seemingly beyond conjectural emendation, though often F makes matters worse; but at all times (excepting added text) F reprints Q1 (via Q1 reprints). Scholars assume that F copy was authoritative and that it subsumes Q1 merely as an accurate copy (though F is junior to Q1 by 26 years) and blames the printing-house for missing out corrections waiting to be culled from the non-extant Ms. But it’s possible that F-copy (other than Q) may also have been faulty.

 

I conjecturally accept F’s ‘by Saint John’ though I accept Q’s ‘Saint Paul’ as probably spoken onstage. However, my reasons are doubtfully based on guesses about—and no historical knowledge of—Patron Saints. How and when “saints” were assigned their duties is beyond me (thank my Lucky Stars!) But King Richard himself seemed (in some sense) to take them seriously. In the play, ‘by St. Paul’ seems a favorite appeal, but it may be to the ‘Patron Saint of Charity’ rather than by habit. If St. John was already known as the ‘Patron Saint against Poison,’ Hasting’s oath may refer to chances that the King had been dosed. If so, Gloster’s rejoinder suggests the King poisoned himself with an ‘evil diet.’ John may be preferred to Paul but it’s hard to believe an ‘F corrector’ at any stage could have got the name right (if it is right, and if not accidental) without textual help.

 

No good comes of denying that Q1 is a memorial report, nor in turn of minimizing the fact that F reprints a very corrupt Q. The reason Q and F agree so much is not that the bad quarto is inexplicably accurate, but that F’s text derives mostly from the bad quarto and its botched cure.

 

Gerald E. Downs

 

 

 

Shakespeare's Sonnets

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.546  Friday, 27 November 2015

 

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

     Date:         November 26, 2015 at 4:14:33 AM EST

     Subject:    Shakespeare's Sonnets 

 

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

     Date:         November 26, 2015 at 7:12:45 AM EST

     Subject:    You and Thou in the Sonnets

 

 

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

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

Date:         November 26, 2015 at 4:14:33 AM EST

Subject:    Shakespeare's Sonnets

 

Many thanks to Duncan Salkeld (SHAKSPER, November 24) for sharing the thou/you information gleaned by him and MacDonald Jackson.

 

I’ve not seen Jackson’s article on the distribution of pronouns in the sonnets. However, on the information provided by Duncan, it seems to me that there is only one significant trend that may be inferred: that of an increasing use of “you” (and variants) in place of “thou” (and variants), as the poet gets older (or is more influenced by an environment with linguistic habits different from those of his birth and breeding).

 

Certainly, the clustering of second person pronoun variants is less distinctive than might appear at first sight. For example, from Duncan’s post we glean that “you” appears in the following clusters: 52, 53, 54, 55, [57- presumably omitted in error], 58, 59; then 71, 72, 75, 76. However, this presentation conceals the following batch where there the second person pronoun is not used at all: 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68. In reality, there is a string of sonnets from 52 to 86 where “you” is used rather more often than “thou” (but without enough evidence to draw other conclusions). 

 

The same phenomenon occurs in Sonnets 104-126, which, according to Jackson’s conclusions (and at least one other independent linguistic analysis), were composed later than any other grouping of poems in the quarto. By contrast Sonnets 1- 51 contain only five poems which use “you”. And in Sonnets 127-154, dated by Jackson to among the earliest, “you” appears in only one poem (where, incidentally, its use contributes to the rhyme - as it does in Sonnet 13 and the 15/16 brace).    

 

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

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

Date:         November 26, 2015 at 7:12:45 AM EST

Subject:    You and Thou in the Sonnets

 

In addition, let’s not forget Penelope Freedman’s 2007 book on You and Thou in Shakespeare—

 

http://www.amazon.com/Power-Passion-Shakespeares-Pronouns-Interrogating/dp/0754658309/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1448539837&sr=1-1&keywords=penelope+freedman

 

Richard Waugaman

 

 

 

Shakespeare's Sonnets

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.544  Wednesday, 25 November 2015

 

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

Date:         November 24, 2015 at 4:42:07 PM EST

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Sonnets

 

Recent contributions on the Sonnets have touched on Shakespeare’s use of personal pronouns and the question of the collection’s order. A while ago, after using the AntConc corpus linguistics program, it struck me that, in striking contra-distinction to his plays, Shakespeare prefers ‘thou’ over ‘you’ in the Sonnets. But, crucially, ‘you’ occurs in clusters—in Sonnets [13, 15, 16, 17, 24, the last is mixed], [52, 53, 54, 55, 58], [71, 72, 75, 76], [80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86], [102, 103, 104, 105, 106], [111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 120]. Of the poems after 120, only the anomalous 145 has ‘you’. Evidently, this clustering is not random and only Shakespeare would have done it.  Perhaps it’s also worth noting that the clusters tend to cut across traditional inferences about personas and relationships in the poems.

 

When I first aired this idea on SHAKSPER in 2014, Mac Jackson courteously emailed me to let me know of his work on the question in ‘The Distribution of Pronouns in Shakespeare’s Sonnets’, in AUMLA : Journal of the Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association, 97 (2002), 22-38. I’m very happy to reproduce his essential case here. Jackson discusses the distribution throughout the 1609 sequence not only of the second-person pronouns, which have often been discussed, but also of the first-person pronouns. He argues that ‘the deployment of pronouns appears to confirm Shakespeare’s involvement in the Quarto ordering of sonnets and serves as a pointer to underlying principles of organization.’ He concludes, ‘The distribution of pronouns in Shakespeare’s Sonnets is too orderly to be accidental, yet not so rigid as to suggest that some meddling reorganizer imposed his own design. The reasonable conclusion is that it originated with Shakespeare himself.’ By all means take his word for it.

 

Duncan Salkeld

 

 

 

 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.