All Quiet on the Marlowe Front
lowercase dave
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>
It's a continuing review and preview of currently debated topics
pertaining to CM and WS. Tried to be fair to all concerned. I hope you
like it, especially Terry and Peter, who's photos are linked to. If
I've been inaccurate, please inform me.
If you can't access, it may be because you're using old IE, although
since Google acquired Blogger, it may be fixed.
thanks for looking and feedback.
david more
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Christian Lanciai
Very nice, Dave, and very interesting, but you probably missed the
thread "Basic Problems of Anti-Stratfordianism" in which we thoroughly
discussed some interesting pros and contras about Marlowe and Bacon.
My last post there was April 2nd. Unfortunately they don't any longer
include the possibility to "post a follow-up" to old threads, which I
would have done now otherwise. The Baconians now seem to take for
granted that the case is solved and that there is no doubt about Bacon
as Shakespeare, as they always have done, but I am not so sure, and
the baconians certainly did not win that duel in that thread.
Some other corrections: I am not from Denmark. I was born an Italian
citizen in Finland but live in Sweden, but my family is extremely
international, having relatives not only in Finland and Italy but also
aunts and cousins in Canada, Australia, Austria, and my sister used to
be married in Sussex for many years, just for your information. So
Denmark is all wrong.
much obliged,
Chris
lowercase dave
thanks for the feedback.
i changed your place of residence to Sweden (take a look), but other
than that, i don't know what "corrections" you're referring to. . . .
I took a look at the "Basic Problems of Anti-Stratfordianism" thread,
but didn't find much evidence presented for Bacon. Towards the end,
the discussion veered (sorry) off into the authorship of the
Marprelate tracts. But out of curiosity, i ask you (or someone else,
who has some knowledge of the subject) what was the strongest argument
for bacon-as-shakespeare? ... in one sentence, if possible, like this
attempt at presenting marlowe's case in a thumbnail.
Christopher Marlowe was the poetic genius behind (the concealed
author) Shakespeare's early poems and plays, because he wasn't really
killed in 1593*, and a writer of his talent* could hardly retire from
writing*; whereas the poetic genius we know as "shakespeare" only
appears in the record a week or so after his alleged death."
*asterisked items have been debated and discussed in this newsgroup
many times, and the first plank (he wasn't really killed) remains
controversial.
i know you are not a "baconian" chris, so you should not be expected
to summarize the case for bacon as shakespeare, but what in your
opinion was the strongest argument made for the great FB?
personally, i'm still waiting for elizabeth weir to explain to me
bacon's authorship of Venus & Adonis and Rape of Lucrece. (i think
it's going to be a long wait).
david more
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>
clan...@hotmail.com (Christian Lanciai) wrote in message news:<7e67b43b.03052...@posting.google.com>...
lowercase dave
and company have no real evidence that their hero, the great Francis
Bacon wrote (could--or would--have) written Venus & Adonis and Rape of
Lucrece, "Shakespeare's" two masterpieces of narrative poetry, the
works that "made his name," so to speak.
david more
<http://www.marlovian.com/marlivs.html>
graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03052...@posting.google.com>...
Elizabeth Weir
> No takers on my Bacon query, which doesn't surprise me.
I'm researching.
Christian Lanciai
Bacon. All I can offer you are my usual arguments against him as a
possible Shakespeare:
His style and Shakespeare's are incompatible. Bacon's dry
philosophical and scientifical writ is the very opposite of
Shakespeare's qualified poesy, and in the few poems by Bacon that we
do have he exposes himself as a poor poet in comparison.
Bacon's mind is almost purely scientific and philosophic and very dry
as such, while the mind of Shakespeare is all sentimental poesy. We
don't even find any dramatic stuff or humorous vein in Bacon, while
the Shakespeare texts are dominated by these very un-Baconian
elements.
These arguments do not of course definitely exclude Bacon from the
authorship, and I am personally convinced that he played a major part
in bringing forth "The First Folio", a view which I think most
Marlovians share with me. But if you compare Bacon with other similar
universally gifted minds, like Goethe's and Rudolf Steiner's, you find
the same thing: the scientific orderliness of their minds exclude real
humour and drama. Although Goethe started off well and wrote some very
good dramatic stuff initially, (his Ur-Faust, copied from Marlowe's
play, is much better than the final version,) he then turned into a
scientist, and his mature books are all almost repellingly dry. The
same with Rudolf Steiner, his greatest follower, also a gifted writer
and musician, who wrote hundreds of books apart from being a gifted
architect, scientist, occultist and universal artist, but in none of
his books you find any trace of humour or drama: his mind also is too
orderly. Spinoza is another universal philosopher of the same high
quality, who never even tried to be anything else.... Bacon is the
finest British equal of all these but no dramatist or humorist.
So I find it very hard to fit Bacon into the Shakespeare authorship,
even though I have tried very hard. But, on the other hand, nothing
remains impossible. We always have to keep our minds open to all
possibilities. That's the best I can do for Bacon.
yours with compliments,
Chris
graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03052...@posting.google.com>...
Laila Roth
Your extensive refutation of Bacon tempts me to a bold and perhaps
leading question: do you have anything at all to refute Derby?
Laila Roth, Derbyite
lowercase dave
Do you have anything to connect Derby to "Venus & Adonis" or "Rape of Lucrece"?
david more, marlitian
lail...@yahoo.co.uk (Laila Roth) wrote in message news:<fb346be4.03060...@posting.google.com>...
Daryll Walker
on a friends recommendation I purchased and read Cryptogrammaton the
eBook by SeanAlonzo http://www.seanalonzo.com/crypto.html, in it he
gives the strongest argument for the authorship question I've ever
heard. It was a collective edited by Francis Bacon. The collective
consisted of various members most notably Edward De Vere, Edmund
Spenser, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Phillip Sydney, John Lyly, Robert
Greene, Thomas Kyd, George Peele, Francis Beaumont, William John
Donne, John Fletcher, Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe and Francis
Bacon.
It really makes total sense there is historical evidence to suggest
that:
1. All of the above poets were Rosicrucians
2. We know that many of them Collaborated on Other Works Together
3. All of their lives criss crossed the same 100 year span.
4. Plus, though I know it was part of the conventions of the
Elizabethan poets, many of them had not only totally similar writing
styles but they seemed to all share the same philosophical view
points. With this many poets and thinkers there was sure to be
philosophical disagreements but in their collective works you find
very little disagreement.
To me the debate is dead Cryptogrammaton just makes it clear that it
was indeed a cooperative of writers.
graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03060...@posting.google.com>...
Theon252
> leading question: do you have anything at all to refute Derby?
>
> Laila Roth, Derbyite
>
Noone is interested in Derby because there isn't very much to connect
him to anything. There are only (I think two) letters that just say
"he penned comedies". That's all. None of the letters are praiseful in
any way. Derby was probably an average playwright whose works didn't
survive because they were simply average (in those days plays had to
be _really_ good to survive).
If you then compare the complete lack of praise given to Derby with
the unrestrained eulogies and elegies about Bacon (which say things
like "And you, who were able to immortalise the Muses, could you die
yourself, O Bacon?") it is fairly obvious why more people are
Baconians than Derbyites. (however, as noone seemed to care when
Shaksper died, it is a mystery why there are so many Stratfordians)
Bob Grumman
>the unrestrained eulogies and elegies about Bacon (which say things
>like "And you, who were able to immortalise the Muses, could you die
>yourself, O Bacon?") it is fairly obvious why more people are
>Baconians than Derbyites. (however, as noone seemed to care when
>Shaksper died, it is a mystery why there are so many Stratfordians)
It is a mystery only to the insane, Theon.
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
at the risk of looking ridiculous, which of my posts are ridiculous?
that's ridiculous. I've asked the Baconians to come up with their
evidence for their hero writing the two early narrative poems in
1592-94. (elizabeth's been looking, but can't come up with anything.)
Neither have you, actually. Nothing I haven't already considered. But
you put it very well. (except the ridiculous part). The book you
recommend looks well worth $9.95. Does the Sean Alonzo say Who wrote
*Venus & Adonis* and *Rape of Lucrece*?
Who do YOU think wrote it, Daryll?
david more
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Daryll Walker write
silentk...@hotmail.com (Daryll Walker) wrote in message news:<f0dd447f.03060...@posting.google.com>...
ChatMoreCo
That should be: Who do you think wrote *them*?
Well, Daryll...who DO you think wrote *Venus & Adonis* and *Rape of Lucrece*?
You're not going to suggest that your group of writers shared composition, are
you?
Theon252
So Bob, why did noone seem to care when Shaksper died?
Bob Grumman
Ah, but they DID care, wack. In fact, they had a funeral procession that last
four months from Stratford to London, with every noble in it. They distributed
copies of a leather-bound collection of eulogies to Shakespeare by all the poets
of the known world. The problem for historians is that James I was jealous of
the adulation Shakespeare got, and ordered the procession, which was to return
to Stratford, halted. He also had all the distributed books confiscated and
burned, and had a law passed against any mention of the passing of Shakespeare
(written in code, by Bacon, of course).
--Bob G.
Christian Lanciai
> on a friends recommendation I purchased and read Cryptogrammaton the
> eBook by SeanAlonzo http://www.seanalonzo.com/crypto.html, in it he
> gives the strongest argument for the authorship question I've ever
> heard. It was a collective edited by Francis Bacon. The collective
> consisted of various members most notably Edward De Vere, Edmund
> Spenser, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Phillip Sydney, John Lyly, Robert
> Greene, Thomas Kyd, George Peele, Francis Beaumont, William John
> Donne, John Fletcher, Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe and Francis
> Bacon.
>
> It really makes total sense there is historical evidence to suggest
> that:
> 1. All of the above poets were Rosicrucians
> 2. We know that many of them Collaborated on Other Works Together
> 3. All of their lives criss crossed the same 100 year span.
> 4. Plus, though I know it was part of the conventions of the
> Elizabethan poets, many of them had not only totally similar writing
> styles but they seemed to all share the same philosophical view
> points. With this many poets and thinkers there was sure to be
> philosophical disagreements but in their collective works you find
> very little disagreement.
>
>
> To me the debate is dead Cryptogrammaton just makes it clear that it
> was indeed a cooperative of writers.
>
>
No, it only makes it hopelessly unclear. There is as little evidence
of bacon as the editor of Shakespeare, Marlowe, Spencer, Jonson. Kyd,
Lyly, Oxford, Raleigh, Sydney, Greene, Peele, Beaumont, Fletcher and
Donne as there is of Marlowe's Deptford death or that the illiterate
Shakespeare actually wrote all of his works himself. The only bacon
evidence about Shakespeare is that he was around there somewhere, but
so were a great many people and even other writers, for instance
Marlowe. Bacon was only the ascertained editor of himself. There is
nothing to link Bacon with for instance the translations of Lucan and
Ovid performed by
Marlowe. In fact, bacon translated little or nothing, and certainly
not such controversial geniuses as Ovid and Lucan; while the Marlowe
translations of Lucan and Ovid provide the very basis for the
Shakespeare style.
Chris
<snip of all the rest>
Bob Grumman
clan...@hotmail.com says...
Oh, come now, Chris: surely there's more evidence for Bacon as True Author than
there is for Shakespeare, a man with nothing but his name on title-pages, a
picture of himself in a collection of Shakespeare's plays, a monument speaking
of his being a writer with the art of Virgil, and the corroborating testimony of
people like Meres, Jonson, Leonard Digges, and John Davies!
>The only bacon
>evidence about Shakespeare is
That there is no hard evidence for him, at all, which could only be the case if
a conspiracy (intentional or accidental) had removed it, as is the case for all
the other candidates . . . except Shakespeare.
--Bob G.
Theon252
> >> It is a mystery only to the insane, Theon.
> >>
> >> --Bob G.
> >
> >So Bob, why did noone seem to care when Shaksper died?
>
> Ah, but they DID care, wack. In fact, they had a funeral procession that last
> four months from Stratford to London, with every noble in it. They distributed
> copies of a leather-bound collection of eulogies to Shakespeare by all the poets
> of the known world. The problem for historians is that James I was jealous of
> the adulation Shakespeare got, and ordered the procession, which was to return
> to Stratford, halted. He also had all the distributed books confiscated and
> burned, and had a law passed against any mention of the passing of Shakespeare
> (written in code, by Bacon, of course).
>
> --Bob G.
That is total bullshit. Complete crap. And you lot call the antistrats liars!!!
Lorenzo4344
>From: the...@softhome.net (Theon252)
>Date: 6/10/2003
>Bob Grumman <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<bc2vj...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>>Ah, but they DID care, wack. In fact, they had a funeral procession that
last four months from Stratford to London, with every noble in it. They
distributed copies of a leather-bound collection of eulogies to Shakespeare by
all the poets of the known world. The problem for historians is that James I
was jealous of the adulation Shakespeare got, and ordered the procession, which
was to return to Stratford, halted. He also had all the distributed books
confiscated and burned, and had a law passed against any mention of the passing
of Shakespeare (written in code, by Bacon, of course).
>That is total bullshit. Complete crap. And you lot call the antistrats
liars!!!
Not total. Sure, the procession only lasted four weeks, and the 3rd Duke Of
Blarney refused to participate (more jealousy), but Bob doesn't research all
that deeply. The rest is pretty solid.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Tom Reedy
news:d1b50f65.03061...@posting.google.com...
Bob is extrapolating from hints and clues embedded in the plays and the
sonnets and he cracked the cipher in the previously misunderstood memorial
inscription. Good, solid historical research work.
TR
Bob Grumman
the...@softhome.net says...
>
>Bob Grumman <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<bc2vj...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> >> It is a mystery only to the insane, Theon.
>> >>
>> >> --Bob G.
>> >
>> >So Bob, why did noone seem to care when Shaksper died?
>>
>>four months from Stratford to London, with every noble in it. They distributed
>>copies of a leather-bound collection of eulogies to Shakespeare by all the poets
>>of the known world. The problem for historians is that James I was jealous of
>>the adulation Shakespeare got, and ordered the procession, which was to return
>> to Stratford, halted. He also had all the distributed books confiscated and
>>burned, and had a law passed against any mention of the passing of Shakespeare
>> (written in code, by Bacon, of course).
>>
>> --Bob G.
>
>That is total bullshit. Complete crap. And you lot call the antistrats liars!!!
What evidence do you have that it is not true?
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
Actually, Chris, there is evidence of Bacon editing the Folio
(according to a book called *bacon is shakespeare*), but whether he
edited all those others, probably not; you're right. And yes, Marlowe
is hands-down the only contemporary writer with the poetic chops to
write "Shakespeare" circa 1593-94 (except of course divine William
hisself).
Bob Grumman
>(according to a book called *bacon is shakespeare*), but whether he
>edited all those others, probably not; you're right. And yes, Marlowe
>is hands-down the only contemporary writer with the poetic chops to
>write "Shakespeare" circa 1593-94 (except of course divine William
>hisself).
What is this evidence that Bacon edited the Folio, Dave?
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
Durning-Lawrence (i think the name is). Showing the Promus and
Formularies echoed in some folio plays, and some books that showed
elements of Freemasonry (yes!) in the scheme of the First Folio. My
Shakespeare books are not nearby at the moment, but the Bacon websites
have information about it probably. Or Elizabeth Weir, who's currently
trying to find evidence to link her hero to Venus and Adonis and Rape
of Lucrece. Shhhh don't disturb her.
I say this because Bob Grumman asks.
> What is this evidence that Bacon edited the Folio, Dave?
previously i wrote to chris lancia
> >Actually, Chris, there is evidence of Bacon editing the Folio
> >(according to a book called *bacon is shakespeare*), but whether he
> >edited all those others, probably not; you're right. And yes, Marlowe
> >is hands-down the only contemporary writer with the poetic chops to
> >write "Shakespeare" circa 1593-94 (except of course divine William
> >hisself).
david more
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Bob Grumman
graydo...@netscape.net says...
>
>It's been awhile since I've read *Bacon is Shakespeare* by
>Durning-Lawrence (i think the name is). Showing the Promus and
>Formularies echoed in some folio plays, and some books that showed
>elements of Freemasonry (yes!) in the scheme of the First Folio. My
>Shakespeare books are not nearby at the moment, but the Bacon websites
>have information about it probably. Or Elizabeth Weir, who's currently
>trying to find evidence to link her hero to Venus and Adonis and Rape
>of Lucrece. Shhhh don't disturb her.
>
>I say this because Bob Grumman asks.
>
>> What is this evidence that Bacon edited the Folio, Dave?
In other words, no factual evidence. And the above evidence seems support for
the idea that Bacon wrote the plays, not edited them. Surely, he would not have
the gall as editor to rewrite them? And if he did, surely someone would have
said something about it. I guess the test would be whether the Freemasonry and
Promussery were not in those plays we have in quarto. I suspect they are.
--Bob G.
Christian Lanciai
Editing is a mere technical thing, for which Bacon with his refined
scientific mind would have been the ideal expert. Since some of the
plays, especially Hamlet and Othello, have additions (Othello even
long after Shakespeare's death,) these are probably not manufactured
by the editor but by the author himself. As an editor, Bacon would
hardly have tampered with the texts, since the main thing to
concentrate on for an editor is to preserve what is already written
and make it perfectly presentable technically. Concentrating on that,
Bacon would not have been dispersed enough to also introduce new
innovations in the texts, since that would have obstructed his task.
Chris
lowercase dave
reference books to find the evidence you want. I'm just engaging in a
little friendly chat here. (Besides. we both know that you're game is
to take evidence and come up with some ludicrous alternative, then ask
your interlocutor to prove it isn't so, and I don't have time for that
(remember?) I'm no baconian, so I'll let one of them fill you in about
Bacon's role in the Folio. (Ben Jonson, of course, would have played
an important part as well, probably acting in concert with Bacon and
(probably) Florio. But that's just conjecture, at this time.)
If you think the freemasonry and baconry were in the quarto texts,
then what does that tell you? Don't you think your hero (William)
would have known the great man? Certainly Marlowe would have. (more
conjecture, I hope you don't mind)
So who do YOU think edited the Folio, Bob?
as ever
david more
<http://www.marlovian.com>
p.s. I guess i'll have to include you in my blog now, bob.
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>
congratulations, i'll try not to make a habit of it. ;-)
> In other words, no factual evidence. And the above evidence seems support for
> the idea that Bacon wrote the plays, not edited them. Surely, he would not have
> the gall as editor to rewrite them? And if he did, surely someone would have
> said something about it. I guess the test would be whether the Freemasonry and
> Promussery were not in those plays we have in quarto. I suspect they are.
>
> --Bob G.
Bob Grumman <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bc8h3...@drn.newsguy.com>...
Bob Grumman
>news:<bc8h3...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> In article <545b95a7.03061...@posting.google.com>,
>> graydo...@netscape.net says...
>> >
>> >It's been awhile since I've read *Bacon is Shakespeare* by
>> >Durning-Lawrence (i think the name is). Showing the Promus and
>> >Formularies echoed in some folio plays, and some books that showed
>> >elements of Freemasonry (yes!) in the scheme of the First Folio. My
>> >Shakespeare books are not nearby at the moment, but the Bacon websites
>> >have information about it probably. Or Elizabeth Weir, who's currently
>> >trying to find evidence to link her hero to Venus and Adonis and Rape
>> >of Lucrece. Shhhh don't disturb her.
>> >
>> >I say this because Bob Grumman asks.
>> >
>> >> What is this evidence that Bacon edited the Folio, Dave?
>>
>>In other words, no factual evidence. And the above evidence seems support for
>>the idea that Bacon wrote the plays, not edited them. Surely, he would not have
>> the gall as editor to rewrite them? And if he did, surely someone would have
>>said something about it. I guess the test would be whether the Freemasonry and
>> Promussery were not in those plays we have in quarto. I suspect they are.
>>
>> --Bob G.
>
>
>Editing is a mere technical thing, for which Bacon with his refined
>scientific mind would have been the ideal expert. Since some of the
>plays, especially Hamlet and Othello, have additions (Othello even
>long after Shakespeare's death,)
We don't KNOW that. All we know is that the First Folio Othello has things in
it the 1619 quarto version does not. We don't know where the extras in the
First Folio came from or when they were written.
>these are probably not manufactured
>by the editor but by the author himself. As an editor, Bacon would
>hardly have tampered with the texts, since the main thing to
>concentrate on for an editor is to preserve what is already written
>and make it perfectly presentable technically.
>Concentrating on that,
>Bacon would not have been dispersed enough to also introduce new
>innovations in the texts, since that would have obstructed his task.
>
>Chris
Nonetheless, some editors do tamper. So going to the quartos is the way to
check.
--Bob G.
Spam Scone
> > the idea that Bacon wrote the plays, not edited them. Surely, he would not have
> > the gall as editor to rewrite them? And if he did, surely someone would have
> > said something about it. I guess the test would be whether the Freemasonry and
> > Promussery were not in those plays we have in quarto. I suspect they are.
> > --Bob G.
>
Oh it is, is it? How much of it have you done?
...for which Bacon with his refined
> scientific mind would have been the ideal expert. Since some of the
> plays, especially Hamlet and Othello, have additions (Othello even
> long after Shakespeare's death,) these are probably not manufactured
> by the editor but by the author himself. As an editor, Bacon would
> hardly have tampered with the texts, since the main thing to
> concentrate on for an editor is to preserve what is already written
> and make it perfectly presentable technically.
Have you ever read Thomas Wolfe? How much of his published writing do
you think we would have seen had he not met Maxwell Perkins?
Concentrating on that,
> Bacon would not have been dispersed enough to also introduce new
> innovations in the texts, since that would have obstructed his task.
In my own published writing (yes, a poor thing, but my own), I've seen
editors truncate an article by 50%, and another replace the word
"Philadelphia" with "Philly" to save space. I'm sure the editors
thought it was an improvement.
I think that if you are going to adopt the fantasy that Bacon edited
the folio you shouldn't assume that as Editor he didn't make changes.
Bob Grumman
>reference books to find the evidence you want. I'm just engaging in a
>little friendly chat here.
Me, too, really, Dave. I just wondered if there was some interesting evidence I
hadn't heard about.
>(Besides. we both know that you're game is
>to take evidence and come up with some ludicrous alternative, then ask
>your interlocutor to prove it isn't so, and I don't have time for that
>(remember?)
Come on, Dave, that's only one of my tactics. Because it's a valid reductio,
but also because I like to make up stories.
I'm no baconian, so I'll let one of them fill you in about
>Bacon's role in the Folio. (Ben Jonson, of course, would have played
>an important part as well, probably acting in concert with Bacon and
>(probably) Florio. But that's just conjecture, at this time.)
>
>If you think the freemasonry and baconry were in the quarto texts,
>then what does that tell you? Don't you think your hero (William)
>would have known the great man? Certainly Marlowe would have. (more
>conjecture, I hope you don't mind)
I don't know that freemasonry and baconry were significantly in the quarto texts
but that what the Baconians think was baconry and freemasonry in the Folio texts
was already there in the quarto texts so not inserted into the FF texts by an
editor. I'm sure some freemasonry and baconry were, like everything in the air
of the time, in the plays.
>So who do YOU think edited the Folio, Bob?
>
>as ever
>
>david more
I think Heminges and Condell did. Clark Holloway has an interesting recent post
about someone who found interesting new evidence of this--having to do with
corrections for the Folio of quarto material from individual parts (or scenes)
that Heminges or Condell might have played, and equally questionable quarto
material from parts (or scenes) they didn't play left as is. I wouldn't be
surprised if they also had help from others. Possibly one or another of the
scribes who did work for the company. Maybe even Jonson. But what editing did
he ever do of anything not his own?
>p.s. I guess i'll have to include you in my blog now, bob.
><http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>
>congratulations, i'll try not to make a habit of it. ;-)
Gee, I'll have to be on my best behavior then, I guess.
--Bob G.
richard kennedy
didn't even write their own prose in the folio, everyone knows that, a
couple of interlined dupes.
Bob Grumman <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bc8h3...@drn.newsguy.com>...
John Bede
changes. Since the changes in Shakespeare after his death do
correspond perfectly to his style, no one could have made these
changes except 'Shakespeare' himself. The Oxfordian argument that
Heminge and Condell/Jonson were the editors is not very credible. No
one has been able to refute Bacon as THE EDITOR, and since he as the
editor probably made the changes he was most probably also the author.
Isn't that perfectly clear except to dunces?
John Bede
tartak...@hotmail.com (Spam Scone) wrote in message news:<76ba5964.03061...@posting.google.com>...
bobgrumman
filea...@yahoo.com says...
>
>Naturally, no editor would be an editor unless he was free to make
>changes.
We're talking about large-scale changes.
>Since the changes in Shakespeare after his death do
>correspond perfectly to his style, no one could have made these
>changes except 'Shakespeare' himself.
Two absurdities. That the changes necessarily correspond perfectly to his
style, and that no one but the original author could do that. Actually, it's
not that hard to follow a path someone else has laid out.
>The Oxfordian argument that
>Heminge and Condell/Jonson were the editors is not very credible.
How about the argument of Condell and Heminges in their prefaces that they were
the editors?
>No one has been able to refute Bacon as THE EDITOR, and since he as the
>editor probably made the changes he was most probably also the author.
>Isn't that perfectly clear except to dunces?
>
>John Bede
No one has been able to refute Genghis Khan as the editor, either.
--Bob G.
KQKnave
<bobgrumm...@newsguy.com> writes:
The Othello quarto is one of baker's favorite topics. I posted this
(in part) a while ago:
The first quarto of Othello was published in 1622, the
folio version in 1623. There are substantial differences
between the two. The quarto was published by
Thomas Walkley, and he included the following
epistle to the reader:
"The Stationer to the Reader."
To set forth a booke without an Epistle, were like
to the old English proverbe, A blew coat without
a badge, & the Author being dead, I thought good
to take that piece of worke upon mee: To commend
it, I will not, for that which is good, I hope every
man will commend, without intreaty: and I am the
bolder, because the Authors name is sufficient
to vent his worke. Thus leaving everyone to the
liberty of judgement: I have ventered to print this
Play, and leave it to the general censure. Yours,
Thomas Walkley."
[Note that he says that the author is dead, but
his name is enough advertisement for the book,
i.e., everyone knows who Shakespeare is.]
Why baker believes that Othello was revised
*by Shakespeare* in 1622-23 I don't know, since
the situation with this quarto is similar to that
of the other quartos with respect to the folio
versions, and other quarto's with respect to
each other. For example, King Lear exists
in the 1608 Q1 version, the 1619 Q2 version,
which is actually a corrected reprint of Q1,
and the F1 version (according to the Riverside).
The list of variants given at the end of Othello
in the Riverside is sizable, about the same size
as that for King Lear. The Riverside text of King
Lear is, according to the editors, "based on F1,
which contains about 133 lines or part-lines
not in Q1 or Q2. In addition, however, roughly
288 lines or part lines (which include one whole
scene, 4.3) found only in Q1 or Q2 have been
incorporated, and over a hundred individual readings
from Q1 (and very rarely from Q2) have been
drawn upon to supplement or correct the F1
text." Concerning Othello, the Riverside editors
say: "There are more than a thousand verbal
variants between the two texts, aside from about
160 lines found only in F1 and some thirteen
lines or part lines unique to Q1."
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Bob Grumman
Baker could be clever or insane enough to be both a diehard Marlowe-backer and a
diehard Baconian.
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
since you're so certain that BJ edited the FF, tell me ...Didn't Bacon
and Ben Jonson have a close working relationship? Who, if not Bacon,
was Jonson working for? Heminge and Condell? :-)
david more
here's what you wrote:
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message news:<32b2d000.0306...@posting.google.com>...
richard kennedy
lines of Heminge and Condell, believe it or not.
Bob Grumman wrote: "How about the argument of Condell and Heminges in
John W. Kennedy
> The general opinion amongst scholars is that Ben Jonson wrote the
> lines of Heminge and Condell, believe it or not.
Still smearing your feces on the wall, I see.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams: "Judgement at Chelmsford"
richard kennedy
so. Here it is again in brief -- Heminge and Condell are fictions of
the first folio.
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<55sHa.18548$gs5.12...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
John Bede
Just for kicks, shall we try to have some fun, shall we? just to
please or at least flirt a little with the Stratford incorrigibles....
Just imagine for a moment that Will actually wrote his works, I said,
imagine, just theoretically. So far it's not an altogether outrageous
preposterousness. Let's continue to just give all the crazy notions
about Shakespeare a chance. What if he actually went, as a Catholic,
sent by his father, in exile to Lancashire and worked there as a
teacher, learning all the secret intrigue stuff from the Derby circle
and their Catholic Clique. It has neither been proved nor disproved
that he was Shakeshafte, and maybe Peter Zenner just wasn't right
about Will Shakeshafte the butcher's son from Fishwick?
Let's continue along this path just to see what we might find. What if
he himself actually wrote and produced all those marvellous plays,
comedies and tragedies and histories and sonnets galore, unsurpassed
still today, although he was just a businessman with two completely
illiterate daughters, leaving not a book behind, no letter, no
manuscript, nothing at all to prove that he had done anything besides
making money for himself.
What if Ben Jonson, Heminge and Condell actually were right, that they
weren't just beguiled by smokescreens from Oxford, Derby and Bacon,
and there is nothing to even raise a suspicion that they didn't
believe that what they wrote in praise of Will wasn't the truth. What
if it was the truth? Is it really completely impossible? I would say
no. Highly improbable, yes, but altogether impossible, no.
There's a bone for you Stratford dogs. Start barking!
the outrageous Mr John Bede.
lowercase dave
the question bears repeating...
since you're so certain that BJ edited the FF, tell me ...Didn't Bacon
and Ben Jonson have a close working relationship? Who, if not Bacon,
was Jonson working for? Heminge and Condell? :-)
It wasn't rhetorical...I was hoping you'd have an answer....Do you?
david more
<http://www.marlovian.com/>
what went before:
graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03061...@posting.google.com>...
richard kennedy
"...since you're so certain that BJ edited the FF, tell me ...Didn't
Bacon and Ben Jonson have a close working relationship? Who, if not
Bacon, was Jonson working for? Heminge and Condell? :-)
It wasn't rhetorical...I was hoping you'd have an answer....Do you?"
R. Kennedy answers:
Let me put it this way, of my "certainty". The scholars say that Ben
Jonson wrote the lines of Heminge and Condell, which fellows claimed
editor-ship of the first folio, the getting of the mss. and so forth.
Therefore, it isn't far-fetched to suppose that Ben Jonson did the
editing, H and C being innocent of any contribution to the book.
I don't know the relationship of Bacon and Jonson, or how they might
have cloistered to bring out the first folio, perhaps you can tell us
more, More. Certainly the "Incomparable Paire of Brethren" were
involved, don't you think?
There are many mysteries in 1623, and I don't doubt that Bacon was
somewhere, somehow involved with the playwrights of the day. The
Gumbonian Heresy position (of which clan I am chief), accepts all
claiments without any special favor for any. We are a merry lot, and
consider outselves to be "Defenders of Shakespeare" against the theft
of his glory by the Stratford burgher, which buggers common sense.
lowercase dave
H&C were Folio fronts (as William may well have been), but unclear
about Jonson's tie-in to Bacon or either's to (dead) Marlowe. . .i
only have a hint from the librarian at the old Bacon library at
Claremont college (before it got absorbed by the Huntington) who got
it from Rouse, years ago, which I'd rather not say, because i haven't
confirmed it. Perhaps, a Baconian or knowledgable Stratfordian shed
light on the relationship.
david more
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message news:<32b2d000.0306...@posting.google.com>...
Clark
> i agree with r. kennedy that (based on the front matter of the Folio)
> H&C were Folio fronts (as William may well have been), but unclear
> about Jonson's tie-in to Bacon or either's to (dead) Marlowe. . .i
> only have a hint from the librarian at the old Bacon library at
> Claremont college (before it got absorbed by the Huntington) who got
> it from Rouse, years ago, which I'd rather not say, because i haven't
> confirmed it. Perhaps, a Baconian or knowledgable Stratfordian shed
> light on the relationship.
As I mentioned in a thread entitled "eulogies" in my June 3rd post:
"Willam B. Hunter, in the Fall 2002 issue of ANQ, does a very convincing job
of demonstrating that a couple of actors had an active hand in editing at
least a few of the plays in F1, including MSND, MAAN, Titus, LLL, and 2H4.
His article is entitled: 'Heminge and Condell as Editors of the Shakespeare
First Folio'."
More details of Hunter's findings may be found in my June 3rd post. Unless
R. Kennedy can explain how Jonson would have the knowledge to make the
specific changes that the actor-editors of F1 made to the original quarto
texts, I wouldn't give his theory much credence.
Another reason for doubting that Jonson was an editor of F1 is his famous
misquoting of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in the "Discoveries" and in the
Induction to "The Staple of News." F1 was printed in 1623, but Jonson is
still misquoting Shakespeare in "The Staple of News," which was acted in
1625. If he had edited "Julius Caesar" for publication, he would surely
have known that he had the quote wrong.
A connection between Jonson and Bacon can be demonstrated, for what it's
worth, by Jonson's poem in "Underwoods," entitled "On Lord Bacon's
Birth-day," his mention of Bacon in the "Discoveries," and his reported
conversation with Bacon recounted in Drummond's notes.
The only tie I know between Jonson and Marlowe is that Jonson quoted some of
Marlowe's lines from H & L in one of his plays.
- Clark
Visit my Shakespeare web page at:
http://hollowaypages.com/Shakespeare.htm
And my new Ben Jonson web site at:
http://hollowaypages.com/Jonson.htm
Bob Grumman
lines of the Super-Genius William Shakes-speare for two decades or
more did not improve the minds of Heminges and Condell enough to make
them able to pen two simple prefaces. Of course, that their names are
attached to the prefaces IS good cause to reject them as their
authors, but sometimes the true authors' names WERE attached to
documents.
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
apparently Hunter's thesis hasn't had much examination, so I wouldn't
go to far in accepting its conclusion: i.e. that the Heminge &
Condell, the retired actors, edited selected plays in the Folio. But
anything's possible, i guess. In a post to Hardy Cook's listserve
<http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2003/0752.html> he offers to send
copies of his articles to anyone who asks (which i did). But for the
sake of argument, assuming H&C edited thosed plays...who edited the
rest? Not Jonson? Not Bacon? Who? Informed speculation is encouraged.
david more
"Clark" <cl...@NOhollowaySPAMpages.com> wrote in message news:<AzOIa.46076$hz1.117746@sccrnsc01>...
lowercase dave
what is a wack, bob? is it like a rigidnik?
have you seen the evidence of Ben jonson's hand in the prefaces? I
posted it on my old website (i'll get the link for you) ...It shows
how Ben borrowed from Pliny . . . It's doubtful H&C read Pliny, or
Ben.
moreover, it appears that hearing the lines of the "S-G WS" for two
(or more) years hasn't improved your mind enough to make you able to
pen two simple sentences.
david more
lowercase dave
here's the link i promised to the comparison of the Folio dedication
and Pliny's Natural History.
<http://members.aol.com/davemore/pliny>
H&C would have to be more learned than two actors need to be, and how
did they collaborate? Was Heminge the smart one? And Condell the cute
one? It makes more sense for Ben to have written it alone, imo.
david more
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) wrote in message news:<5f7d2eb3.03062...@posting.google.com>...
Nicholas Whyte
> bob g--
> here's the link i promised to the comparison of the Folio dedication
> and Pliny's Natural History.
>
> <http://members.aol.com/davemore/pliny>
>
> H&C would have to be more learned than two actors need to be, and how
> did they collaborate? Was Heminge the smart one? And Condell the cute
> one? It makes more sense for Ben to have written it alone, imo.
Is Pliny really such an obscure author? Philemon Holland's English
translation was published in 1601, a 1566 translation into English was
also available, and in any case Pliny's Latin is pretty
straightforward and would have been relatively accessible to a
moderately bright grammar-school lad of the time. There were certainly
enough editions of Pliny in Latin floating around at the time.
Were the actors really so unlearned? Condell, in his will, uses the
word "gentleman" to describe both himself and Heminge. He also leaves
his son an annuity of £30 "for his maintenance either at University or
elsewhere". Heminge leaves "to my grandchild Richard Atkins £5 to buy
books". It hardly seems absurd to attribute to either of them a
knowledge of Pliny.
I'm quite convinced by one of the parallels: "Country hands reach
foorth milke, creame, fruites, or what they haue: and many Nations (we
haue heard) that had not gummes & incense, obtained their requests
with a leauened Cake. It was no fault to approch their Gods, by what
meanes they could" seems a perfectly decent and slightly imaginative
translation of "verum dis lacte rustici multaeque gentes et mola
litant salsa qui non habent tura, nec ulli fuit vitio deos colere
quoquo modo posset" from paragraph 11 of the Pliny preface.
But would Jonson not have gone for a more sophisticated and original
metaphor rather than transcribing almost direct from Pliny?
Nicholas
lowercase dave
H&C authoring the Pliny-ridden preface to the First Folio. I wonder if
they took turns writing sentences, or if one held the quill while the
other dictated...As I said, it makes more sense that Ben J., one of F.
Bacon's 'good pens', penned the words in question, and used the two
actors' names as fronts. Why not? Would it have been illegal to do so?
Unethical? No. I'm sure the actors agreed with everything Ben
wrote--especially the part about receiving the playscripts without a
blot.
<http://members.aol.com/davemore/pliny>
The texts of H&C's Folio front matter is available here
<http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/Folio1.htm>
david more
nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas Whyte) wrote in message news:<7b33cc41.03062...@posting.google.com>...
Clark
> thanks for sharing this, Clark.
> apparently Hunter's thesis hasn't had much examination, so I wouldn't
> go to far in accepting its conclusion: i.e. that the Heminge &
> Condell, the retired actors, edited selected plays in the Folio. But
> anything's possible, i guess. In a post to Hardy Cook's listserve
> <http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2003/0752.html> he offers to send
> copies of his articles to anyone who asks (which i did). But for the
> sake of argument, assuming H&C edited thosed plays...who edited the
> rest? Not Jonson? Not Bacon? Who? Informed speculation is encouraged.
Of course, Hunter's thesis requires that you have a "good" quarto in which
to compare the F1 text in order to spot the differences inserted by H&C.
For those F1 plays without a matching quarto, which are most of them,
Hunter's methods can prove nothing. But that doesn't mean that H&C didn't
edit them. It just means that Hunter's observations are of no assistance in
proving it.
I'll agree that Hunter's work has not yet been adequately reviewed to be
accepted at face value. But you'll have to come up with a better
explanation as to how the changes he's spotted in the F1 texts have come
about before you can discount his thesis. There's simply no evidence that
Jonson edited any of Shakespeare's plays, and at least some evidence that he
didn't, such as my comment about his misquoting of the line in JC *after* F1
had been printed.
Another reason to believe that Jonson had no hand in the editing of F1 is
the careful attention to capitalization and punctuation that he gave to the
printing of his own folio of 1616. Jonson may not have had as much reason
to care about Shakespeare's plays as he did about his own, but he was much
too anal a personality to have not lavished scrupulous, even obsessive, care
on *any* project he embarked upon at that time in his life. F1 is rife with
punctuation errors and capitalization inconsistencies. There's no way that
anyone familiar with Jonson's work can imagine him having any hand in the
sloppy editing and printing of F1 (if nothing else, Jonson could probably
not have restrained himself from inserting educational footnotes throughout
Shakespeare's text).
The comparatively looser standards of Jonson's later years (which were still
pretty damn rigorous for the times) were probably on account of his
deteriorating health, which began to go down hill fast beginning in about
1626 or so (possibly hastened due to a stroke).
Nicholas Whyte
dave) wrote:
>thanks to nicholas whyte for sharing his views on the likelihood of
>H&C authoring the Pliny-ridden preface to the First Folio.
Thanks acknowledged. But please don't post your replies to the top of
other people's posts; you should reply *after* the points you wish to
respond to.
>I wonder if
>they took turns writing sentences, or if one held the quill while the
>other dictated...
Don't be silly. Have you ever co-written something for publication? I
have, twice in the last two years, a book on elections with an Irish
co-author and a scholarly article on international politics with an
Italian co-author. In my experience each writer takes responsibility
for different sections of the work, though of course both must sign
off on the entire text. Therefore we only need *one* of Heminge and
Condell to have been aware of Pliny's preface and grab the text for
their own, though as I have shown there is no need to believe that
either was unacquainted with it.
>As I said, it makes more sense that Ben J., one of F.
>Bacon's 'good pens', penned the words in question, and used the two
>actors' names as fronts.
Well, no it doesn't. The "Country hands reach foorth..." section is
such a direct lift from Pliny that I think Jonson would either have
made it more original or (more likely) flagged up the source directly
(also the whole text of the "Epistle Dedicatory" is rather stodgy and
repetitive prose rather than the classical name-dropping verse I
associate with Jonson). More crucially, H&C's names are on the piece,
not Jonson's, so there is no reason to assume that Jonson wrote it!
>Why not? Would it have been illegal to do so?
>Unethical? No.
I'm sure there would have been no big legal or ethical problem, and
indeed when I first encountered this issue I was quite prepared to
believe that Jonson had ghost-written both pieces for Heminge and
Condell. But having looked into it a bit more, including the material
you supply on your web page, I see no reason whatever to think that
Heminge and Condell needed any help.
>I'm sure the actors agreed with everything Ben
>wrote--especially the part about receiving the playscripts without a
>blot.
Actually we know for sure that this is one point that Jonson did *not*
agree with the actors on. While they all agreed that he produced the
playscripts without a blot, the players clearly think this was a Good
Thing, and Jonson equally clearly thinks it was a Bad Thing. The
players think that Shakespeare "was a most gentle expresser of
[nature]. His mind and hand went together: And what he thought, he
uttered with that easinesse, that wee have scarse received from him a
blot in his papers."
Jonson replies, "the players have often mentioned it as an honor to
Shakespeare, that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never
blotted out a line. My answer hath been, Would he had blotted a
thousand, which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told
posterity this but for their ignorance, who chose that circumstance to
commend their friend by wherein he most faulted..." - in other words,
this is a direct response to Heminge and Condell's statement in the
First Folio preface that Shakespeare's lack of blots was a Good Thing
- "...[he] had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle
expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometime it was
necessary he should be stopped... His wit was in his own power; would
the rule of it had been so too. Many times he fell into those things,
could not escape laughter..."
So there you have it: a clear difference of opinion between the
players and Jonson. The players thought it was great that he could
write with such facility (what a prolific author friend of mine called
"getting it right first time"); Jonson thought it was dreadful that he
didn't spend more time editing. Can you actually see Jonson writing
the "Epistle To The Great Variety of Readers" which clearly takes the
first view while himself holding the second view?
Nicholas
PS I will not reply if you top-post again.
Bob Grumman
> H&C authoring the Pliny-ridden preface to the First Folio. I wonder if
> they took turns writing sentences, or if one held the quill while the
> other dictated...As I said, it makes more sense that Ben J., one of F.
> Bacon's 'good pens', penned the words in question, and used the two
> actors' names as fronts. Why not? Would it have been illegal to do so?
> Unethical? No. I'm sure the actors agreed with everything Ben
> wrote--especially the part about receiving the playscripts without a
> blot.
I once co-authored a preface. My partner, 3000 miles away from me,
wrote part and I wrote an extension and smoothed the two together. I
suspect that H&C sat down together, one of them with a pen, and
suggested sentences to each other, and discussed the ones they didn't
immediately agree on. No reason one or both might not have known
Pliny. Both were certain to have been familiar with Jonson's writing
style from having acted in his plays. No reaon, either, that Jonson
might not have helped them, or even transcribed both prefaces from
what they told him. There's no direct evidence of that, however.
There's no evidence, direct or indirect, that Francis Bacon had
anything to do with the First Folio.
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
capitalizations, for that matter. He and i have disagreed in the past
about the importance of Cuthbert Burbage's letter to Philip Herbert
years after the Folio was printed. Now we disagree about H&C's role in
assembling the First Folio. Your points about Jonson are well-taken,
however, so I'll leave it Richard Kennedy to offer his evidence. But,
if H&C collected the true and perfect copies then they wouldn't have
had any editing to do, correct?
i think William Hunter's thesis about H&C rewriting a Folio play from
memory is presumptuous, but i haven't read his essay yet. Electronic
copies are available from Robin Hamilton, who asked me to notify the
group at HLAS that they were available from her/im. Email:
<robin.h...@btinternet.com>
Now, some comments on clark's observations below.
"Clark" <cl...@NOhollowaySPAMpages.com> wrote in message news:<aRtKa.21928$nG.2...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
> "lowercase dave" wrote
>
> > thanks for sharing this, Clark.
> > apparently Hunter's thesis hasn't had much examination, so I wouldn't
> > go to far in accepting its conclusion: i.e. that the Heminge &
> > Condell, the retired actors, edited selected plays in the Folio. But
> > anything's possible, i guess. In a post to Hardy Cook's listserve
> > <http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2003/0752.html> he offers to send
> > copies of his articles to anyone who asks (which i did). But for the
> > sake of argument, assuming H&C edited thosed plays...who edited the
> > rest? Not Jonson? Not Bacon? Who? Informed speculation is encouraged.
>
> Of course, Hunter's thesis requires that you have a "good" quarto in which
> to compare the F1 text in order to spot the differences inserted by H&C.
Spot the difference. It's a stretch to say it was by H&C. Since they
acquired true and perfect copies, no need to assume they made changes.
But if changes exist, why couldn't they have been done by the master
himself?
> For those F1 plays without a matching quarto, which are most of them,
> Hunter's methods can prove nothing. But that doesn't mean that H&C didn't
> edit them. It just means that Hunter's observations are of no assistance in
> proving it.
>
> I'll agree that Hunter's work has not yet been adequately reviewed to be
> accepted at face value. But you'll have to come up with a better
> explanation as to how the changes he's spotted in the F1 texts have come
> about before you can discount his thesis.
We agree that Hunter's thesis hasn't been adequately reviewed. Maybe
it will be in this forum. To get a copy email:
<robin.h...@btinternet.com>
There's simply no evidence that
> Jonson edited any of Shakespeare's plays, and at least some evidence that he
> didn't, such as my comment about his misquoting of the line in JC *after* F1
> had been printed.
Agreed about Jonson's, but I don't think his misquoting the line
proves anything.
I guess where you and I may also disagree, Clark, is the provenance of
the play texts. Are we to believe that they were held by the company?
If so, then H&C would not have had to do the collecting they claim to
have done. But if they were fibbing about gathering the true and
perfect copies, then maybe they were fibbing about writing what they
seem to have written.
<snip>
<http://members.aol.com/davemore/pliny>
The texts of H&C's Folio front matter is available here
<http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/Folio1.htm>
david more
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>
Clark
> i hope clark doesn't mind "top posting" as n. whyte does, or careless
> capitalizations, for that matter. He and i have disagreed in the past
> about the importance of Cuthbert Burbage's letter to Philip Herbert
> years after the Folio was printed. Now we disagree about H&C's role in
> assembling the First Folio. Your points about Jonson are well-taken,
> however, so I'll leave it Richard Kennedy to offer his evidence. But,
> if H&C collected the true and perfect copies then they wouldn't have
> had any editing to do, correct?
>
> i think William Hunter's thesis about H&C rewriting a Folio play from
> memory is presumptuous, but i haven't read his essay yet. Electronic
> copies are available from Robin Hamilton, who asked me to notify the
> group at HLAS that they were available from her/im. Email:
> <robin.h...@btinternet.com>
I hate to tell you this, Dave, but you apparently have a very mistaken idea
about what Hunter's thesis is. He doesn't claim that H&C rewrote any of the
plays. His observation is that where a "good" quarto is reproduced
practically verbatim in F1, there are sometimes minor changes to scene
direction, and sometimes minor dialogue changes, when certain characters are
on stage.
I can vouch for at least one of his observations in the case of Much Ado
About Nothing. I have an original copy of this play that was taken from a
broken up copy of F2, which I've compared with the text from a facsimile of
F1. It's a fairly accurate reprinting of the F1 text. There exists an
excellent "good" quarto of MAAN, which I've seen in facsimile. The texts
are nearly identical, including a few scenes where the dialogue for Dogberry
is mistakenly assigned to Kemp the actor, which occurs in both F1, F2, and
Q. However, as an example of where the text of F1 and F2 differs from Q, a
scene direction in Act II, scene iii (modern scene division), of Q says
"Enter... Balthazar", who sings a song in this scene. In both F1 and F2,
the same scene direction says "Enter... Iacke Wilson."
Now, we know that Jack Wilson was an actor/singer with the King's Men. But
since the F1 text is taken almost verbatim from Q, how did the editor(s) of
F1 know that Jack Wilson had taken the part of Balthazar? There are a
number of possibilities, of course, but taken with the other evidence Hunter
has uncovered, the most likely explanation is that the editor(s) of F1 were
members of the King's Men who knew that Jack Wilson had played the part, and
had inadvertently inserted his name into the scene direction when they were
editing the F1 text.
Since the minor changes that Hunter has cataloged only take place when
certain characters are on stage, his thesis is that the actors that played
those parts are the editors, and they're supplementing those bits that they
remember from their performances.
<snip>
> > Of course, Hunter's thesis requires that you have a "good" quarto in
which
> > to compare the F1 text in order to spot the differences inserted by H&C.
>
> Spot the difference. It's a stretch to say it was by H&C. Since they
> acquired true and perfect copies, no need to assume they made changes.
> But if changes exist, why couldn't they have been done by the master
> himself?
Because for the most part they're minor changes to scene directions--not
substantive changes to the text. This is simplifying it a bit, but where
changes are made to the actual dialogue, it only occurs for a couple of
characters who also appear in the scenes where the changes to stage
directions take place. If the changes were introduced by the "Master"
himself, why would the changes be confined to the activities of a couple of
the characters?
Where "good" quarto texts existed, it would be considerably easier to use
them in editing F1 because they're a hell of lot easier to read than marked
up prompt copies or even fair copies. Where "good" quartos did not exist
(which is true for the majority of the plays), you would need to collate
whatever texts you had available in order to get the best possible version
of the play. This could be the author's foul papers, the fair copy, prompt
copies, "bad" quartos with good sections, or whatever. Where you're
transcribing from what may be a hastily written prompt copy in a sloppy
secretary hand, it would take a hell of a lot of work to decide what the
copy is actually saying.
Also, there's the possibility that the plays were revised by the
actors/managers of the King's Men in the years since Shakespeare originally
wrote them. If you wanted a "true and perfect" copy, you'd have to decide
whether you wanted to print the current text that everyone was familiar
with, or try to reconstruct whatever it was Shakespeare had originally
written in order to be true to his original work. If you go with
reconstructing the original text, you need to find whatever you have that
might include sections of original material, and collate your copies.
I'll tell you what, Dave, read Hunter's article and then come back and talk
about it.
David Kathman
<cl...@NOhollowaySPAMpages.com> wrote:
In fact, John (Jack) Wilson was apprenticed to John Heminges,
from 1611 to 1622. (Hunter was not aware of this fact because it
has never been published, but it will be in my forthcoming article in
*Shakespeare Quarterly*.) Even so, I'm not sure I buy Hunter's specific
thesis that Heminges and Condell "edited" the First Folio in any modern
sense of the word. The Folio additions he notes have of course been
noted by editors, but I don't see why they had to have been added by
Heminges or Condell in preparing the play for the press. As far as
I can see, the standard explanation that these additions came from
a version of the play annotated for performance (either an MS "book"
or an annotated copy of the quarto) works just as well. In fact,
Hunter's scenario -- in which Heminges and/or Condell "remembered"
staging details of the original productions and inserted them into
the Folio texts -- is very probably wrong for Much Ado and MND.
In Much Ado, "Jacke Wilson" appears in the Folio text but not the
quarto text. But this name cannot be from the original production,
because Jack Wilson, as I noted above, was apprenticed to Heminges
from 1611 to 1622 and was five years old when Q1 Much Ado was
published. In MND, the Folio text has "Tawyer with a Trumpet"
where the quarto has no name. This was almost certainly William
Tawyer, who was listed among the "Musitions and other necessary
attendants" of the King's Men in 1624, and who was buried in
St. Saviours Southward in 1625 as "William Tawier, Mr. Heminges man".
Both of these names must have referred to productions close to
the time of the First Folio. They may well have been added by
Heminges and/or Condell, but if so, the names probably came
from some sort of prompt copy for an actual production. I'm
not sure why Heminges or Condell would deliberately insert
names of actors from recent productions in a Folio volume like this.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Clark
Actually, Dave, now that you mention it, I recall that you and I have had
part of this discussion before. Checking Google, I find that you helped me
out quite a bit when I was looking for information on Jack Wilson, Cowley,
et al., with a posting from 6/13/99. One of my original two guesses as to
the identity of Jack Wilson back then was the one you describe here (and you
helpfully pointed out to me that my other quess was something of a literary
phantom).
I've agreed with Dave More that Hunter's thesis needs more review, and I'm
not at all taking it as proven. But I didn't think that Hunter's thesis was
that H&C had deliberately inserted the actors names. I got the impression
that he felt they had been inadvertently inserted.
Do you know if H&C were still active on the stage when the text for F1 was
presumably in preparation (I believe that I've read where it took two years
to complete the printing job)? If they were still actively portraying
characters on stage, it might explain under Hunter's thesis why there were
details from recent productions (and why their memory of the events were
still fresh). If, on the other hand, they had basically retired from active
participation in the plays by this time, it would seem to weaken Hunter's
thesis.
David Kathman
<cl...@NOhollowaySPAMpages.com> wrote:
I don't remember exactly what I said back then, but I can make
a pretty good guess. The information about Wilson's apprenticeship
to Heminges only surfaced after that.
>I've agreed with Dave More that Hunter's thesis needs more review, and I'm
>not at all taking it as proven. But I didn't think that Hunter's thesis was
>that H&C had deliberately inserted the actors names. I got the impression
>that he felt they had been inadvertently inserted.
I looked over Hunter's articles before writing that post, and
I got the impression that he thought the names and stage directions
had been deliberately inserted in an effort to recreate the original
performance. At least, that's what he seems to be implying for MND.
>Do you know if H&C were still active on the stage when the text for F1 was
>presumably in preparation (I believe that I've read where it took two years
>to complete the printing job)? If they were still actively portraying
>characters on stage, it might explain under Hunter's thesis why there were
>details from recent productions (and why their memory of the events were
>still fresh). If, on the other hand, they had basically retired from active
>participation in the plays by this time, it would seem to weaken Hunter's
>thesis.
The last explicit evidence of either Heminges or Condell on stage is
Heminges' name written in a cast list of the 1616 Jonson Folio along
with Richard Burbage and several others. This cast must have been
between 1616 (when the book was published) and 1619 (when Burbage died).
The last explicit record of Condell on the stage is the 1623 quarto
of Webster's Duchess of Malfi, which indicates that Condell had played
the Cardinal (presumably in the first performance c.1613), and that
Richard Robinson had played the role later (presumably in a performance
between 1619 and 1623). But neither of these necessarily means much
about when Heminges and Condell may or may not have retired from the stage,
since records are very scanty for this period. Both Heminges and Condell
were among the sharers in the King's Men who received a livery allowance
for Queen Anne's funeral in 1619, and if they were still sharers,
I'm guessing they probably still did some performing, even if it was
just in small roles.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Bob Grumman
How would the insertion of the two names from elswhere than H&C's
remembrance of the original performance falsify the rest of the Hunter
thesis? But I think you raise the possibility, which hadn't occurred
to me, that Heminges or Condell used recent promptbooks that were
quartos annotated by individual actors (maybe H&C) playing roles
Heminges and Condell had played years earlier.
So H&C may not have edited any material for the First Folio but used
material they or someone else had "pre-edited." So we need more data
to determine which scenario is better, it seems to me.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
> thanks for sharing this, Clark.
> apparently Hunter's thesis hasn't had much examination, so I wouldn't
> Condell, the retired actors, edited selected plays in the Folio. But
> anything's possible, i guess. In a post to Hardy Cook's listserve
> <http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2003/0752.html> he offers to send
> copies of his articles to anyone who asks (which i did). But for the
> rest? SNIP
>
> david more
This seems a silly question, Dave. Do you think Heminges and Condell,
who claimed they alone were resp0onsible for the contents of the Folio
would ONLY have edited those plays Hunter has found connections to
them it? Doesn't it make sense that if we can show they edited some
plays, that they almost certainly edited ALL the plays? (Though a
later post by Dave K. makes Hunter's thesis less convincing.)
--Bob G.
David Kathman
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) wrote:
Well, it's not a matter of "falsifying" anything; it's a matter
of judging how plausible different scenarios are. The two
names in question are of apprentices/musicians who were
associated with John Heminges not too long before the
publication of the First Folio, and long after the publication
of the quartos of these plays. In my opinion, this makes it
most likely that all or most of the changes reflect performances
from shortly before the First Folio, rather than the original
performances in the 1590s, as Hunter hypothesizes. Heminges
and/or Condell may well have still been behind the additions.
>But I think you raise the possibility, which hadn't occurred
>to me, that Heminges or Condell used recent promptbooks that were
>quartos annotated by individual actors (maybe H&C) playing roles
>Heminges and Condell had played years earlier.
I don't understand why they would have to be roles that
Heminges and Condell played. We do know that printed
quartos were sometimes used as promptbooks -- the University
of Chicago library has a quarto of Greene and Lodge's
*A Looking Glass for London and England* which is annotated
for performance.
>So H&C may not have edited any material for the First Folio but used
>material they or someone else had "pre-edited." So we need more data
>to determine which scenario is better, it seems to me.
>
>--Bob G.
I don't know what kind of evidence could distinguish between
these scenarios, nor am I sure what difference it would make.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
KQKnave
A. C. Partridge, in "Orthography in Shakespeare"(pp 137-8):
"Willoughby disposes of the idea that Heminge and Condell could have
been responsible for the general editing; but he does not consider the
possibility that the shareholders would the only dramatist who had
collected, in scholarly fashion, and published his work, namely Ben
Jonson. It is not suggested that Jonson shared with Jaggard's
compositors and with the scrivener, Ralph Crane, the responsibility of
editing the punctuation of the Shakespeare First Folio; but there are
reasons for believing that he not only gave them advice as to how
it should be done, but actually wrote four items of the preliminary
matter to the volume, the two poems already known to be his, the
Dedication, and the Address to the Great Variety of Readers.
Three times in the Epistle Dedicatory and the Address to the Great
Variety of Readers it is stated that Heminge and Condell only *collected*
the plays, an office explained as calling for the exercise of great 'care,
and paine'. The reason for this is obvious; for scholarship has established
that Heminge and Condell assembled a miscellany of printed quartos
(some of them late and corrupt), prompt copies, scrivener's transcriptions
and possibly some autograph. Johnson [sic] probably helped with
advice in tidying up this diverse material for the press; others may even
have worked under his direction. The two actors, Heminge and Condell,
who left no literary remains, could hardly have coped with the manifold
editorial problems, much less been responsible for the dedication. In
the class of conventional appeals to patrons, this can hardly be bettered
in the prose of the period. It combines the qualities of dignified formality,
deference, tact and verbal polish that honour the art of epistolary writing,
as Jonson assessed it in his Discoveries.
The evidence of Jonson's conception extends to the style and punctuation
of the Address to the Readers; for a Dedicatory Letter, followed by such
an Address, is a feature of both The Alchemist and Catiline. At the beginning
of the Alchemist's dedication there is a reference (taken from Pliny) to
the offerings of sacrificers in the ancient temples; and this, with slight
modification, is repeated at the end of the dedication to the Shakespeare
folio. But more convincing is the appearance of typical Jonsonian orthography
in both preliminary documents: the carefully marked elisions, the hyphenation
of compound words, the scholar's spellings (Ded. 11 and 13) *prosequuted*
and *exequutor* (with *qu* instead of c to mark their Latinity), and the
punctilious orthography *sixe-pen'orth* (Add. 10). The logico-syntactical
punctuation resembles Jonson's, too, especially the use of capital letters
after colons and semicolons (Add. 1, 20, 29, 35), the wealth of semicolons
and the excessive use of commas, with all the niceties of Jonson's First
Folio. The punctuation in all Jonson's dedications is precise and elaborate,
and differs in no material respect from that of the Shakespeare Dedication.
Occasional lapses merely indicate that Jonson was not called upon to
read proof."
also this on p135:
"The notable features of the First Folio pointing are (a) the subtler
appreciation
of the semi-colon (as compared with uses in the quartos), and (b) the excessive
use of parentheses. The first shows the influence of Ben Jonson, the second
the authority of Jonson and Ralph Crane, one of the Company's scriveners after
1610."
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
David Kathman
You seem to be assuming that the plays in the First Folio must
have been "edited" in something like the modern sense of the word,
but that's an anachronistic assumption. The concept of "editing"
a printed work was only just starting to exist in very embryonic
form at the time, and there was certainly no standard expectation
that every work would be "edited" in any modern sense. Also, the
plays in the First Folio were manifestly given different amounts of
attention by whoever was preparing them for the press. The first
half-dozen or so plays in the Folio were printed from transcripts
by Ralph Crane, the scribe of the King's Men, but after that
they were printed from a variety of sources -- sometimes earlier
quartos, sometimes a playhouse manuscript, and sometimes it's
unclear what the copy text was. Also, some of the plays were
divided into acts and scenes, some were just divided into acts,
and some were divided only partially or not at all.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Clark
> (Bob Grumman) wrote:
> >This seems a silly question, Dave [More]. Do you think Heminges and
Condell,
> >who claimed they alone were resp0onsible for the contents of the Folio
> >would ONLY have edited those plays Hunter has found connections to
> >them it? Doesn't it make sense that if we can show they edited some
> >plays, that they almost certainly edited ALL the plays? (Though a
> >later post by Dave K. makes Hunter's thesis less convincing.)
>
> You seem to be assuming that the plays in the First Folio must
> have been "edited" in something like the modern sense of the word,
> but that's an anachronistic assumption. The concept of "editing"
> a printed work was only just starting to exist in very embryonic
> form at the time, and there was certainly no standard expectation
> that every work would be "edited" in any modern sense.
Most of the few examples I've seen of the "editing" of the time is in line
with this, but I suppose that the ever-unique Jonson must have been an
example of an author who made use of an "embryonic form" of editing.
I'm currently transcribing Jonson's masques, and he has *heavily* edited his
masque texts for publication. I haven't confirmed it, but the word-count of
the footnotes that he's prepared for publication often seems to meet or
exceed the word-count of the actual text.
A good example is: http://hollowaypages.com/jonson1692hymenaei.htm
David Kathman
<cl...@NOhollowaySPAMpages.com> wrote:
>"David Kathman" wrote
>
>> (Bob Grumman) wrote:
>> >This seems a silly question, Dave [More]. Do you think Heminges and
>Condell,
>> >who claimed they alone were resp0onsible for the contents of the Folio
>> >would ONLY have edited those plays Hunter has found connections to
>> >them it? Doesn't it make sense that if we can show they edited some
>> >plays, that they almost certainly edited ALL the plays? (Though a
>> >later post by Dave K. makes Hunter's thesis less convincing.)
>>
>> You seem to be assuming that the plays in the First Folio must
>> have been "edited" in something like the modern sense of the word,
>> but that's an anachronistic assumption. The concept of "editing"
>> a printed work was only just starting to exist in very embryonic
>> form at the time, and there was certainly no standard expectation
>> that every work would be "edited" in any modern sense.
>
>Most of the few examples I've seen of the "editing" of the time is in line
>with this, but I suppose that the ever-unique Jonson must have been an
>example of an author who made use of an "embryonic form" of editing.
Yes, he was -- in fact, his editing was a bit more than embryonic.
As with so many other things, he was ahead of his time, and
people ridiculed him for it.
>I'm currently transcribing Jonson's masques, and he has *heavily* edited his
>masque texts for publication. I haven't confirmed it, but the word-count of
>the footnotes that he's prepared for publication often seems to meet or
>exceed the word-count of the actual text.
>
>A good example is: http://hollowaypages.com/jonson1692hymenaei.htm
Yeah, Jonson was into that kind of stuff. I should perhaps
clarify what I said above -- although the idea of editing plays
was barely a glimmer in anybody's eye, printed poems were often
(but not always) subjected to quite a bit of what we would call
editing. Mary Sidney Herbert's setting forth of her brother
Philip's poems in the 1590s is a good example. Masques were
presented at court, and thus were seen as important enough to
warrant some attention in print. The idea of spending a lot of
time editing printed plays would have struck most people as
bizarre, akin to the ridicule that would result today (in some
quarters) if Oxford University Press published an annotated scholarly
edition of Buffy the Vampire Slayer scripts.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
richard kennedy
own lines in the first folio. We can't regard them as anything but
fictions -- having to do with the collecting and editing of the first
folio. Once again we return to the puzzling lack of eulogies in the
first folio. Leonard Digges, Hugh Holland, and I.B., that's the
fulsome turn-out at Shakespeares greatest celebration.
"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<bdkspt$1ht$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
Bob Grumman
> >news:<545b95a7.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> >> thanks for sharing this, Clark.
> >> apparently Hunter's thesis hasn't had much examination, so I wouldn't
> >> go too far in accepting its conclusion: i.e. that the Heminge &
> >> Condell, the retired actors, edited selected plays in the Folio. But
> >> anything's possible, i guess. In a post to Hardy Cook's listserve
> >> <http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2003/0752.html> he offers to send
> >> copies of his articles to anyone who asks (which i did). But for the
> >> sake of argument, assuming H&C edited those plays...who edited the
> >> rest? SNIP
> >>
> >> david more
> >
> >This seems a silly question, Dave. Do you think Heminges and Condell,
> >would ONLY have edited those plays Hunter has found connections to
> >them it? Doesn't it make sense that if we can show they edited some
> >plays, that they almost certainly edited ALL the plays? (Though a
> >later post by Dave K. makes Hunter's thesis less convincing.)
> >
> >--Bob G.
>
> You seem to be assuming that the plays in the First Folio must
> have been "edited" in something like the modern sense of the word,
> but that's an anachronistic assumption.
I was using the word "editing" very loosely, but DO feel that Heminges
and Condell gathered the plays and went through them as what I'd call
editors, or persons responsible for the final edition.
> The concept of "editing"
> a printed work was only just starting to exist in very embryonic
> form at the time, and there was certainly no standard expectation
> that every work would be "edited" in any modern sense. Also, the
> plays in the First Folio were manifestly given different amounts of
> attention by whoever was preparing them for the press.
Not necessarily, it doesn't seem to me. The gathered plays may simply
have varied in accuracy, stage directions, etc., and Heminges and
Condell only concerned that they had the best version of each, and
that there were no glaring errors in them. In other words, they gave
equal editorial attention to each play rather more to those that, by
modern standards, needed it more. Of course, that indicates, as you
have it, that they were not scrupulous editors by modern standards.
> The first
> half-dozen or so plays in the Folio were printed from transcripts
> by Ralph Crane, the scribe of the King's Men, but after that
> they were printed from a variety of sources -- sometimes earlier
> quartos, sometimes a playhouse manuscript, and sometimes it's
> unclear what the copy text was. Also, some of the plays were
> divided into acts and scenes, some were just divided into acts,
> and some were divided only partially or not at all.
>
> Dave Kathman
How division or non-division into acts and scenes came about is an
interesting question I know close to nothing about. Did the quartos
ever have acts and/or scenes? Has anyone a theory as to why some were
divided, some not--I mean, aside from the simple idea that some may
have been handled by a divider, the others not. Is there a book out
that discusses the history of acts and scenes?
--Bob G.
Peter Groves
news:5f7d2eb3.0306...@posting.google.com...
There's no doubt whatsoever that *some* editing went on, sp. to "regularize"
the metre: see O'Connor, John. "A Qualitative Analysis of Compositors C and
D in the Shakespeare First Folio", Studies in Bibliography 30 (1977): 57-74.
Some examples:
You may not come (faire Princesse) within my gates, Q
You may not come faire Princesse in my gates F LLL 2.1
Lets vs once loose our othes to finde our selues, Q
Let's once loose our oathes to finde our selues, F LLL 4.3
Because, in choyce, he is so oft beguil'd. Q
Because in choise he is often beguil'd F MND 1.1
be valued gainst your wiues commaundement. Q
Be valued against your wiues commandement. F MV 4.1
Peter G.
Peter Groves
> How division or non-division into acts and scenes came about is an
> interesting question I know close to nothing about. Did the quartos
> ever have acts and/or scenes? Has anyone a theory as to why some were
> divided, some not--I mean, aside from the simple idea that some may
> have been handled by a divider, the others not. Is there a book out
> that discusses the history of acts and scenes?
>
> --Bob G.
Baldwin, <Shakespeare's Five-Act Structure>. It's a classic.
Peter G.
David Kathman
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) wrote:
Well, virtually everybody agrees that they gathered the plays,
since that's what they said they did. The whole question is whether
they did anything that could be reasonably called "editing".
>> The concept of "editing"
>> a printed work was only just starting to exist in very embryonic
>> form at the time, and there was certainly no standard expectation
>> that every work would be "edited" in any modern sense. Also, the
>> plays in the First Folio were manifestly given different amounts of
>> attention by whoever was preparing them for the press.
>
>Not necessarily, it doesn't seem to me. The gathered plays may simply
>have varied in accuracy, stage directions, etc., and Heminges and
>Condell only concerned that they had the best version of each, and
>that there were no glaring errors in them. In other words, they gave
>equal editorial attention to each play rather more to those that, by
>modern standards, needed it more. Of course, that indicates, as you
>have it, that they were not scrupulous editors by modern standards.
Well, if they just made sure that they had the best version of each
play, a scenario that I think most people would agree with, then
they didn't "edit" the plays in anything like a modern sense.
We may be talking at cross-purposes here, because you seem not
to understand what is involved in editing a play. It does not
just involve selecting the copy-text and handing it to the printer.
>> The first
>> half-dozen or so plays in the Folio were printed from transcripts
>> by Ralph Crane, the scribe of the King's Men, but after that
>> they were printed from a variety of sources -- sometimes earlier
>> quartos, sometimes a playhouse manuscript, and sometimes it's
>> unclear what the copy text was. Also, some of the plays were
>> divided into acts and scenes, some were just divided into acts,
>> and some were divided only partially or not at all.
>>
>> Dave Kathman
>
>How division or non-division into acts and scenes came about is an
>interesting question I know close to nothing about. Did the quartos
>ever have acts and/or scenes? Has anyone a theory as to why some were
>divided, some not--I mean, aside from the simple idea that some may
>have been handled by a divider, the others not. Is there a book out
>that discusses the history of acts and scenes?
T. W. Baldwin, *On Act and Scene Division in the Shakespeare
First Folio* (Southern Illinois University Press, 1965).
This is actually still in print, if you want to buy it.
More generally:
Wilfred T. Jewkes, *Act Division in Elizabethan and Jacobean
Plays, 1583-1616* (Shoestring Press, 1958).
Knock yourself out, Bob.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Bob Grumman
> play, a scenario that I think most people would agree with, then
> they didn't "edit" the plays in anything like a modern sense.
> We may be talking at cross-purposes here, because you seem not
> to understand what is involved in editing a play.
I just have a looser definition of "editing" than you do, Dave,
probably because I've done a lot of "editing" that has consisted of
little more than gathering materials and maybe putting them in some
kind of order, etc. Maybe it's not editing, but then what is it?
I've also done more detailed editing, though nothing like what I'm
sure you've done for the edition of sonnets you're involved with (or
is that finished?)
> It does not
> just involve selecting the copy-text and handing it to the printer.
I think Hemings and Condell did more than that. But I agree that they
were not Theobalds or Popes.
> >> The first
> >> half-dozen or so plays in the Folio were printed from transcripts
> >> by Ralph Crane, the scribe of the King's Men, but after that
> >> they were printed from a variety of sources -- sometimes earlier
> >> quartos, sometimes a playhouse manuscript, and sometimes it's
> >> unclear what the copy text was. Also, some of the plays were
> >> divided into acts and scenes, some were just divided into acts,
> >> and some were divided only partially or not at all.
> >>
> >> Dave Kathman
> >
> >How division or non-division into acts and scenes came about is an
> >interesting question I know close to nothing about. Did the quartos
> >ever have acts and/or scenes? Has anyone a theory as to why some were
> >divided, some not--I mean, aside from the simple idea that some may
> >have been handled by a divider, the others not. Is there a book out
> >that discusses the history of acts and scenes?
>
> T. W. Baldwin, *On Act and Scene Division in the Shakespeare
> First Folio* (Southern Illinois University Press, 1965).
> This is actually still in print, if you want to buy it.
>
> More generally:
>
> Wilfred T. Jewkes, *Act Division in Elizabethan and Jacobean
> Plays, 1583-1616* (Shoestring Press, 1958).
>
> Knock yourself out, Bob.
>
> Dave Kathman
Thanks for the references, Dave. I hope to start filling in the many
gaps in my knowledge of the times soon. Gotta catch up with
Elizabeth, however hard that will be!
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
news:32b2d000.03062...@posting.google.com...
> The opinion of scholars is that Heminge and Condell didn't write their
> own lines in the first folio.
Since when does the opinion of scholars mean anything to you? It is also the
opinion of scholars -- and a much higher percentage than those who think the
above, almost unanimously -- that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon
wrote the works credited to his name.
TR
David Kathman
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) wrote:
>> Well, if they just made sure that they had the best version of each
>> play, a scenario that I think most people would agree with, then
>> they didn't "edit" the plays in anything like a modern sense.
>> We may be talking at cross-purposes here, because you seem not
>> to understand what is involved in editing a play.
>
>I just have a looser definition of "editing" than you do, Dave,
>probably because I've done a lot of "editing" that has consisted of
>little more than gathering materials and maybe putting them in some
>kind of order, etc. Maybe it's not editing, but then what is it?
All right, that's fair enough. I'm not sure what the best
term for such gathering is, but one could call it editing
without too much trouble.
>I've also done more detailed editing, though nothing like what I'm
>sure you've done for the edition of sonnets you're involved with (or
>is that finished?)
It's not the sonnets, it's the nondramatic poems, and no, it's
not close to finished yet.
>> It does not
>> just involve selecting the copy-text and handing it to the printer.
>
>I think Hemings and Condell did more than that. But I agree that they
>were not Theobalds or Popes.
I agree that somebody did more than that, and it may have been
Heminges and Condell, but it also may have been Ralph Crane
(see T. H. Howard Hill, "Shakespeare's First Editor: Ralph Crane",
Shakespeare Survey 44 (1992), 113-30) or somebody else.
Whoever it was was not a Theobald or Pope, let alone a modern
editor.
Go for it!
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Nicholas Whyte
<dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The idea of spending a lot of
>time editing printed plays would have struck most people as
>bizarre, akin to the ridicule that would result today (in some
>quarters) if Oxford University Press published an annotated scholarly
>edition of Buffy the Vampire Slayer scripts.
I think that would be an excellent idea!
Nicholas
richard kennedy
The question of who Shakespeare was cannot make that appeal, as we
have nothing but the Stratford man's signatures to judge withal.
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<vKCLa.70559$Io.66...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
David Kathman
(Nicholas Whyte) wrote:
I think it would potentially be very interesting. There's
actually a new book that just came out called something like
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy", containing
articles by academic philosophers discussing the
philosophical aspects of the show. It follows two
similar volumes called "Seinfeld and Philosophy" and
"The Simpsons and Philosophy", both of which I have.
There's been quite a bit of academic interest in
pop culture subjects, especially over the past decade,
but it has attracted the predictable ridicule from
people decrying the alleged "dumbing down" of
higher education. Such charges of "dumbing down",
in somewhat different form, were also thrown at
printed plays in Shakespeare's time, since plays
were (part of) that day's popular culture. To someone
at the time, the idea that scholars 400 years in the
future would spend their careers studying the plays
of Shakespeare would have seemed utterly alien.
I realize you know this, Nicholas, but this is
mostly addressed to the lurkers.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Tom Reedy
Condell (a scenario nowhere near as accepted as you try to put on), what
would that have to do with anything? I know several people who write for
public figures -- they're called spokesmen and public information officers
and speech writers -- but everything they write is approved by the person
they work for. That the prefatory matter was originated by Heminge and
Condell is uncontestable; they not only claim to be Shakespeare's friends
and fellows, they laud him for what Jonson criticizes him for: fast writing.
You have a certain 19th-century type of felicity with words, especially when
you write on your favorite topic, human excretory functions, but you're not
very good at communicating whatever point you try to make. Most people write
in the manner they think, and your writing betrays muddled, illogical and
wishful thinking.
If anybody disagrees with this assessment, I'd like them to chime in and
give us an example of Richard Kennedy's clear thinking.
TR
"richard kennedy" <stai...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:32b2d000.0306...@posting.google.com...
KQKnave
Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>If anybody disagrees with this assessment, I'd like them to chime in and
>give us an example of Richard Kennedy's clear thinking.
>
He thinking was pretty clear on this one:
From: rken...@OregonVOS.net (Richard J Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Oxford sonnet?
Date: 1998/12/16
Message-ID: <757h9v$r...@ednet2.orednet.org>#1/1
Organization: Oregon EDNET COMPASS
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Here again is the questioned sonnet submitted by Ray Mignot
on the hlas line:
If beauty's time were brief, then he that knowest
Full well thy feeble life (with sports well crammed,
Disdaining love which cradles beauty best)
Would stand the hazard of thy rage inflamed,
And shout as though a cryer in the streets,
Descanting upon war or brawls abroad,
That Time will cram thee hard between his sheets,
As all dead beauties, bodies all, are awed.
But thy face summers in its campaign still,
Vanity in thine ears crams all the world
And stops the words who pleaseth not thy will,
A fort against which gunstones black are hurled.
Mark! No heir will fight for thee in hell,
If time, in war, destroys thy beauty's spell.
Mark line 10:
Vanity in thine ears crams all the world
And compare:
"You cram these words into mine ears." --Tempest ii,1,106
This poem evidently found amongst Cecil's papers, with the
notation "Oxenf". Can Ray Mignot tell us more, this is close
to the bone.
--
John W. Kennedy
the proceedings of the December, 1997 conference held at the University
College of Ripon and York St John, and Kurt Warren Lancaster's NYC
performance-studies dissertation "Performing Babylon 5: Immersion into
an Imaginary Entertainment Environment".
I am afraid that Joe Straczynski isn't being very friendly to future
academics, though; he has been systematically eliminating his notes and
drafts, leaving only the final shooting scripts in addition to the
finished episodes and his (many) on-line comments.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams: "Judgement at Chelmsford"
lowercase dave
>
> I'll tell you what, Dave, read Hunter's article and then come back and talk
> about it.
As Clark Holloway suggested, I read Hunter's essay, "Heminge and
Condell as Editors of the Shakespeare First Folio'-- but I didn't get
very far before I had a question:
Hunter begins his essay with the following claim: "As I have argued
("Performance and Text"), recognizing that Shakespeare's A Midsummer
Night's Dream celebrates weddings in two families of Queen Elizabeth's
court clears up some of the play's textual inconsistencies. Originally
written for the second marriage of the widowed mother of Shakespeare's
patron, the Earl of Southampton, to Thomas Heneage on May 2, 1594, and
presented on the eve of the ceremony, May Day ("First Performance,"
46—47)"
I wrote to Hunter requesting his evidence that MND had been written by
May, 1594 (and for his claim that "Shakespeare staged it again on
Valentine's Day 1596 for the wedding of Elizabeth Carey, the
granddaughter of his company's patron to Thomas Berkeley, which took
place five days later on February 19.")
Not because I disbelieve it, but because it seems impossible that
William could have accomplished such a feat in 1593-94, could he?
The complete texts of Hunter's two articles are available here
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/hunter_msnd.html> and
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/hunter_heminge.html>
dave
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>