The Choice of Relative Pronouns
in the First Quarto and First Folio Texts
of Shakespeare’s Richard III: Testing the Memorial Reconstruction Hypothesis

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Anglica Pub Date : 2019-09-20 DOI:10.7311/0860-5734.28.2.04
Kiriko Sato
{"title":"The Choice of Relative Pronouns\u2028in the First Quarto and First Folio Texts\u2028of Shakespeare’s Richard III: Testing the Memorial Reconstruction Hypothesis","authors":"Kiriko Sato","doi":"10.7311/0860-5734.28.2.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present paper examines the choice of relative pronouns in the First Quarto and First Folio texts of Shakespeare’s Richard III, with the purpose of testing the adequacy of the memorial reconstruction hypothesis, which Patrick first proposed in his 1936 monograph. He notes a high proportion of corrupted readings in the Quarto, suggesting that it is a reconstruction of the Folio, created by actors relying on their inaccurate memories. On the other hand, Smidt (1964) demonstrates that the Quarto’s readings are preferable in many details, though he admits Patrick’s hypothesis, in part, in his second book (1970). Regarding the use of relative pronouns, there is a crucial difference between the two texts: the Folio uses that 13 times to introduce non-restrictive clauses, while the Quarto uses which, and these two items are never substituted the other way around. Interestingly, the Quarto’s choice accords with Shakespeare’s ordinary usage, whereas the Folio deviates from it. Thus, the memorial reconstruction hypothesis cannot explain the variants of relative pronouns. It will be posited that relative pronouns in the Quarto text may have been deliberately revised in the process of written transmission.","PeriodicalId":36615,"journal":{"name":"Anglica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anglica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7311/0860-5734.28.2.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present paper examines the choice of relative pronouns in the First Quarto and First Folio texts of Shakespeare’s Richard III, with the purpose of testing the adequacy of the memorial reconstruction hypothesis, which Patrick first proposed in his 1936 monograph. He notes a high proportion of corrupted readings in the Quarto, suggesting that it is a reconstruction of the Folio, created by actors relying on their inaccurate memories. On the other hand, Smidt (1964) demonstrates that the Quarto’s readings are preferable in many details, though he admits Patrick’s hypothesis, in part, in his second book (1970). Regarding the use of relative pronouns, there is a crucial difference between the two texts: the Folio uses that 13 times to introduce non-restrictive clauses, while the Quarto uses which, and these two items are never substituted the other way around. Interestingly, the Quarto’s choice accords with Shakespeare’s ordinary usage, whereas the Folio deviates from it. Thus, the memorial reconstruction hypothesis cannot explain the variants of relative pronouns. It will be posited that relative pronouns in the Quarto text may have been deliberately revised in the process of written transmission.
相对代词的选择
在第一个Quarto和第一个Folio文本中
莎士比亚的理查三世:纪念馆重建假说的检验
本文考察了莎士比亚的《理查三世》第一部四重奏和第一部对开本中关系代词的选择,目的是检验帕特里克在1936年的专著中首次提出的纪念重建假说的充分性。他注意到Quarto中有很高比例的错误阅读,这表明这是对Folio的重建,由演员依靠他们不准确的记忆创作。另一方面,Smidt(1964)证明Quarto的阅读在许多细节上都是可取的,尽管他在第二本书(1970)中部分承认了Patrick的假设。关于关系代词的使用,这两个文本之间有一个关键的区别:Folio使用了13次该词来引入非限制性从句,而Quarto使用了which,这两项从未被替换。有趣的是,Quarto的选择符合莎士比亚的一般用法,而Folio则偏离了它。因此,纪念重建假说无法解释关系代词的变体。可以假设Quarto文本中的关系代词可能在书面传递过程中被故意修改。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anglica
Anglica Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信