Happy Atheist Forum

copy fo shakespeare's first folio sold for US$!0 million. and the 1611.

billy rubin

  • humble azpirant to the throne3 of typos
  • ****
  • 1842
  • Gender: Male
  • i actually do not know what LætusAtheos means
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/shakespeare-first-folio-auction/index.html

a private copy of shakespeare's first folio has just been sold at christie's for ten million bucks to someone who has that kind of money to pay for an old book.

i'm always interested in shakespeare's work, specifically the first folio, because there isn't a single one.

at the time of the printing around 1623, what constituted a "book" was fluid. a "folio" was a piece of paper with two pages printed on each side, folded appropriately to make a four-sheet pamphlet, or a book composed by stitching a bunch of these together. so each sheet out of the printing machine was two presses and four pages.

what is interesting is that at the time, proofreaders would look at a sheet for errors or alterations and make running changes as they went along. nobody threw away previous sheets after the corrected or changed them-- they just went on with the binding using what they had.

as a result, iirc, there isn't a single surviving copy of shakespeare's first folio that completely matches any other copy-- all of them are different-- some by a typo correction, others by different lines for the actors to recite.

this is exactly the same for the for the first authorized printings of the 1611 james bible. there isn't a single copy, with a consistent text. the surviving copies are all diferent, and all valid. corrections, additions, and deletions to the text made as running changes during the printings. like shakespeare, th e1611 was printed in folio form, and was sold both bound and looseleaf.

because of the expense of books at the time, they were frequently repaired when damaged with leaves from different printings. so any old 1611 english bible might have different leaves based on teh day or week of its printng, or resulting from repairs using old leaves from other books that were avaialble for spare parts.

this makes a difference when you talk to biblical inerrantists who claim that the exact wording of their KJV is important (here isn't any original source). but it also makes shakespeare interesting as well, because there isn't any original copy of macbeth around either.

not because none survived, but becuase none ever existed.


i would rather be ashes than dust

Randy

  • ***
  • 913
  • Gender: Male
  • Learned everything from cartoons.
    • My Comic Books
Re: copy fo shakespeare's first folio sold for US$!0 million. and the 1611.
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2020, 05:03:26 PM »
That's quite interesting. It's like me trying to find an original program I wrote that worked. Nope, the one I found had been modified and introduced some interesting bugs. I thought I'd pull it out of moth balls and play with it. Instead I've got to fix the blasted thing.

I got side tracked there but I see what you mean about no existing copies because there never were any of the first copy.
"Maybe it's just a bunch of stuff that happens." -- Homer Simpson
"Some people focus on the destination. Atheists focus on the journey." -- Barry Goldberg

billy rubin

  • humble azpirant to the throne3 of typos
  • ****
  • 1842
  • Gender: Male
  • i actually do not know what LætusAtheos means
Re: copy fo shakespeare's first folio sold for US$!0 million. and the 1611.
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2020, 09:19:31 PM »
interestingly, sometimes there may have been more than one first copy.

some people maintain (its disputed) that old manuscripts were sometimes dictated in duplicate to a room of scribes each writing down a different copy. so on a given afternoon, a letter might have two or more different original versions, depending on what the scribe heard and how faithfully he transcribed it.

some people assert that the new testament letter to romans was actually a form letter that had different minor texts depending on which copy you received.

or that the discrepancies in th ebook of luke were because more than one original existed and was distributed.

nobody knows. not an issue unless you are asserting that the exact accuracy is important.

with shakespeare, though, its more a comment on the evolution of printing


i would rather be ashes than dust

Ecurb Noselrub

  • No Wall in my name!!!
  • *****
  • 6985
  • Gender: Male
Re: copy fo shakespeare's first folio sold for US$!0 million. and the 1611.
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2020, 05:00:02 PM »
It is still held by many that Shakespeare did not exist or did not write what he wrote.  Same for Homer.  Me, I generally take it as it has come down to us, acknowledging that we will never know exactly what or who happened.

Tank

  • *****
  • 33031
  • Gender: Male
Re: copy fo shakespeare's first folio sold for US$!0 million. and the 1611.
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2020, 08:51:50 AM »
It is still held by many that Shakespeare did not exist or did not write what he wrote.  Same for Homer.  Me, I generally take it as it has come down to us, acknowledging that we will never know exactly what or who happened.

If only people recognised this about holy books too ;)
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Ecurb Noselrub

  • No Wall in my name!!!
  • *****
  • 6985
  • Gender: Male
Re: copy fo shakespeare's first folio sold for US$!0 million. and the 1611.
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2020, 01:33:21 PM »
It is still held by many that Shakespeare did not exist or did not write what he wrote.  Same for Homer.  Me, I generally take it as it has come down to us, acknowledging that we will never know exactly what or who happened.

If only people recognised this about holy books too ;)

I do recognize the problem. We can't possibly know who actually wrote the Old Testament books.  Same for many in the New Testament.  The main exception is 7 letters of Paul, which the majority of scholars (even secular ones) believe were actually written or dictated by Paul himself. One thing that helps is that he actually clearly identifies himself at the beginning of his letters.  The gospels and Acts don't do this.

billy rubin

  • humble azpirant to the throne3 of typos
  • ****
  • 1842
  • Gender: Male
  • i actually do not know what LætusAtheos means
Re: copy fo shakespeare's first folio sold for US$!0 million. and the 1611.
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2020, 02:52:05 PM »
2 esdras identifiez the author, but protestants reject it



1 The second booke of the Prophet Esdras the sonne of Saraias, the sonne of Azarias, the sonne of Helchias, the sonne of Sadamias, the sonne of Sadoc, the sonne of Achitob,

2 The sonne of Achias, the sonne of Phinees, the sonne of Heli, the sonne of Amarias, the sonne of Aziei, the sonne of Marimoth, the sonne of Arna, the sonne of Ozias, the sonne of Borith, the sonne of Abisei, the sonne of Phinees, the sonne of Eleazar,

3 The sonne of Aaron, of the Tribe of Leui, which was captiue in the land of the Medes, in the reigne of Artaxerxes king of the Persians.

4 And the word of the Lord came vnto me, saying,

2 esdras is an apocolypze like the revelation, which identifies the author as john. the prophetic books generally identify the prophet. some of the psalms identify david as the author.

its the NT that gets mostly vague. i find the gospels interesting becauze they only ascribe authorship by tradition. the eyewitnesses all wrote in the third person apparently and did not directly identify themselves.

"the disciple that jezus loved . . . " and so on.

« Last Edit: November 05, 2020, 03:04:24 PM by billy rubin »


i would rather be ashes than dust

Ecurb Noselrub

  • No Wall in my name!!!
  • *****
  • 6985
  • Gender: Male
Re: copy fo shakespeare's first folio sold for US$!0 million. and the 1611.
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2020, 05:47:19 PM »
2 esdras identifiez the author, but protestants reject it



1 The second booke of the Prophet Esdras the sonne of Saraias, the sonne of Azarias, the sonne of Helchias, the sonne of Sadamias, the sonne of Sadoc, the sonne of Achitob,

2 The sonne of Achias, the sonne of Phinees, the sonne of Heli, the sonne of Amarias, the sonne of Aziei, the sonne of Marimoth, the sonne of Arna, the sonne of Ozias, the sonne of Borith, the sonne of Abisei, the sonne of Phinees, the sonne of Eleazar,

3 The sonne of Aaron, of the Tribe of Leui, which was captiue in the land of the Medes, in the reigne of Artaxerxes king of the Persians.

4 And the word of the Lord came vnto me, saying,

2 esdras is an apocolypze like the revelation, which identifies the author as john. the prophetic books generally identify the prophet. some of the psalms identify david as the author.

its the NT that gets mostly vague. i find the gospels interesting becauze they only ascribe authorship by tradition. the eyewitnesses all wrote in the third person apparently and did not directly identify themselves.

"the disciple that jezus loved . . . " and so on.

I didn't include the Apocrypha, since I grew up Protestant.  The Old Testament references to authorship are simply too far removed from the purported source to be verifiable. With some of the Pauline letters, they were being copied and referred to shortly after his death, or at least within a few decades.  None of it is 100% certain, but there is more evidence for Paul than anything else in the Bible, IMHO.

billy rubin

  • humble azpirant to the throne3 of typos
  • ****
  • 1842
  • Gender: Male
  • i actually do not know what LætusAtheos means
Re: copy fo shakespeare's first folio sold for US$!0 million. and the 1611.
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2020, 08:02:18 PM »
all that is true.

but is it important? how would identifying the alleged authorship of any of the christian mythology affect what it says?

the authorship doesn't affect the truth value of the accounts. personally i believe them to be mostly made up stuff, and having an indisputable identified author wouldn't change that for me.
 


i would rather be ashes than dust

Tank

  • *****
  • 33031
  • Gender: Male
Re: copy fo shakespeare's first folio sold for US$!0 million. and the 1611.
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2020, 09:10:30 AM »
"the authorship doesn't affect the truth value of the accounts."

Might be a semantic issue but I would say that the authorship does effect the credibility of an account and thus the truth value of the account. But the author does not effect the reality detailed in the account.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Bad Penny II

  • *****
  • 2114
  • Idiot Symmetrician
Re: copy fo shakespeare's first folio sold for US$!0 million. and the 1611.
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2020, 12:54:30 PM »
When in doubt consult David Mitchell.

You can't get there from here.

billy rubin

  • humble azpirant to the throne3 of typos
  • ****
  • 1842
  • Gender: Male
  • i actually do not know what LætusAtheos means
Re: copy fo shakespeare's first folio sold for US$!0 million. and the 1611.
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2020, 06:52:03 PM »
But the author does not effect the reality detailed in the account.


^^^that's what i meant. sometimes the most non-credible things turn out to be true. but they are the exception that proves the rule-- if non-credible things were frequently true, they wouldn't be non-credible.



i would rather be ashes than dust

Ecurb Noselrub

  • No Wall in my name!!!
  • *****
  • 6985
  • Gender: Male
Re: copy fo shakespeare's first folio sold for US$!0 million. and the 1611.
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2020, 12:46:45 AM »
I don't think the accounts of Paul himself are made up.  To me they represent a reasonably accurate account of the events of his life and his thoughts.  Doesn't mean they are true - but to me they are generally convincing.  Some of them even resonate with me.  But ultimately it is a matter of personal faith, and if the writings don't speak to you, there is nothing more to be said.