![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2000: Re: Shakespeare's Publications
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu) Date: 12/12/00
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2310 Tuesday, 11 December 2000 From: Marcus Dahl <Marcusdahl@aol.com> Date: Tuesday, 12 Dec 2000 10:58:22 EST Subject: 11.2251 Re: Shakespeare's Characters and Publications Comment: Re: SHK 11.2251 Re: Shakespeare's Characters and Publications Given the recent discussion (re: S's association / responsibility for the texts attributed to him) which seems to have stopped just before it got past summary critiques of facts mere or otherwise I wondered what the other SHAKSPERians textualists thought of this paragraph in a new Lives of the Poets volume: "When the First Folio of the complete plays was planned, Richard Field, who had printed the bard's Venus and Adonis in 1593 and Lucrece in 1594, stood aside because he didn't like the theatre (the audiences were so unruly and the weather at times inclement); besides, he reflected, the texts of the plays proposed were so corrupt that it would have been dishonest to serve them up, it was not Shakespeare. So much for the wages of integrity: the plays were served up, and he was not at table to savour a portion of the profits. When I see the text of a Shakespeare play I think of Richard Field, getting by on pamphlets and jobbing printing, while a series of corruptions in the name of his friend the poet spun out in an unstoppable circulation, to benefit his competitors." * Does anyone know the source of these "Richard Field" thoughts? The passage seems to me to be a rather lovely but unlikely thought experiment. * Ps thanks to Erick Kelemen for his note on Anthony Tyrrell. I will look him up. Yours, Marcus.
|
|
|||||