I made a submission to N&Q concerning "the most famous emendation in Shakespeare" that was rejected by the editors. It didn't even sound like they sent it out for review. Maybe textural editors (in general) are shell-shocked and become defensive by the feedback they get.
As you know, in Henry V, Lewis Theobald emended "and a Table of greene fields" to "and a’ babled of green Fields." I noted that there is an ACTUAL King Arthur's Round Table that can poetically be described as "a table of green fields" in Winchester which should become part of the HV commentary on the subject. (There has been quite a lot written on it.)
I'd be happy to send you the submittal, it's not too long and I felt I did my "due diligence" on it. Emma Smith had encouraged me to submit it and was disappointed it wasn't published. If you are interested in reading the article, my email is: alcamos@comcast.net.
Given it's Shakespeare, I'm sure you always have plenty on your plate regarding what interests you. But given your interest in his satires, I hope you delve into HV one day. Back in 1919 the commentator Gerald Gould sliced through the Gordian Knot of how to interpret the play by pronouncing it ironic, a satire. That prompted a lot of commentary on the play regarding the question of Shakespeare's intents, but this got sidetracked with the famous rabbit/duck essay from Rabkin. (And the rest is history.)
Anyways ... I am fully invested in the ironic understanding of the play, but that heterodoxy is well beyond the reach of current scholarly attitudes. If you are ever curious about this ironic/satiric understanding of the play, please feel free to contact me. (I'm always in the market for a shoulder to cry on.) (LOL)
TBH, the history plays were my last choice too (not counting the Romance plays), but I was "involuntarily" drawn into HV. It was actually kind of fun, to have these questions about what was going on, and then upon investigation, finding this rich vein of previous scholarly commentary.
Anyways, best of good luck go with thee in your Shakespeare efforts!
This scholar's response offered no opportunity for genuine scholarly debate, and in fact it was emotional and petty and had one goal that I can discern: his scolding was seeking to sideline your well considered argument all together. He is in fact acting in the very way he claims you to have, he "may disagree with individual readings but it is mean-spirited to sneer at deeply considered efforts."
Not at all! Heavens, sneering...
I made a submission to N&Q concerning "the most famous emendation in Shakespeare" that was rejected by the editors. It didn't even sound like they sent it out for review. Maybe textural editors (in general) are shell-shocked and become defensive by the feedback they get.
Been there done that! ie. Supposedly blind processes that blatantly aren't. Out of curiosity, what was the text and emendation?
As you know, in Henry V, Lewis Theobald emended "and a Table of greene fields" to "and a’ babled of green Fields." I noted that there is an ACTUAL King Arthur's Round Table that can poetically be described as "a table of green fields" in Winchester which should become part of the HV commentary on the subject. (There has been quite a lot written on it.)
Here is a picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_Arthur%27s_Round_Table_at_Winchester_Castle,_Winchester,_Hampshire,_England.png
I'd be happy to send you the submittal, it's not too long and I felt I did my "due diligence" on it. Emma Smith had encouraged me to submit it and was disappointed it wasn't published. If you are interested in reading the article, my email is: alcamos@comcast.net.
Anyways, THANK YOU for your curious query!
Sounds interesting. Actually don't know H5 v well. Very cool that Emma S encouraged you!
Given it's Shakespeare, I'm sure you always have plenty on your plate regarding what interests you. But given your interest in his satires, I hope you delve into HV one day. Back in 1919 the commentator Gerald Gould sliced through the Gordian Knot of how to interpret the play by pronouncing it ironic, a satire. That prompted a lot of commentary on the play regarding the question of Shakespeare's intents, but this got sidetracked with the famous rabbit/duck essay from Rabkin. (And the rest is history.)
Anyways ... I am fully invested in the ironic understanding of the play, but that heterodoxy is well beyond the reach of current scholarly attitudes. If you are ever curious about this ironic/satiric understanding of the play, please feel free to contact me. (I'm always in the market for a shoulder to cry on.) (LOL)
Hahaha! TBH I don't love the history plays, with the exception of R2. Thank you nevertheless for sharing - all v interesting stuff
TBH, the history plays were my last choice too (not counting the Romance plays), but I was "involuntarily" drawn into HV. It was actually kind of fun, to have these questions about what was going on, and then upon investigation, finding this rich vein of previous scholarly commentary.
Anyways, best of good luck go with thee in your Shakespeare efforts!
This scholar's response offered no opportunity for genuine scholarly debate, and in fact it was emotional and petty and had one goal that I can discern: his scolding was seeking to sideline your well considered argument all together. He is in fact acting in the very way he claims you to have, he "may disagree with individual readings but it is mean-spirited to sneer at deeply considered efforts."
Thanks, Donna. Appreciate your support
Well said, Donna!
I certainly don't detect sneering in your tone. Maybe Stanley needs more rest. He could be simply defending his territory, marking his tree.
Thanks for your support, Greg!