Alan et al:
I would refer you to my edition of Wisdom, as I TRIED TO suggest
yesterday in a posting that did not go through. There I have a
fairly detailed analysis of the Digby dialect, with some surprises
about dating and so forth. It is not as late as it looks. There are
a number of consistent features that, isolated, point to an earlier
date, and some of what seems late is a bit misleading, more linked to
region and urbanity than to the date. When I discovered and argued
this, it was something of a breakthrough. I'd suggest you look at
the arguments. Without question, the Digby Ms is earlier than the
Macro, which contains some of the same texts (for me, esp, The Play
of Wisdom!). If you are interested, I could look up the arguments I
compiled some decade ago and present a summary here, but it will not
be as convincing as I believe the published argument to be. Check it
out and see what you think.
The important thing is that the Macro Manuscript, usually thought to
be an earlier manuscript than the Digby, is a direct COPY of the
Digby. This is indisputable and so, of course, limits the Digby in
date. It has to be before the Macro, which is probably a few decades
later than most people have thought. The Macro is probably 1480s, so
the Digby has to be earlier. See Milla Riggio, THE PLAY OF WISDOM:
ITS TEXTS AND CONTEXTS.
Milla Riggio
>Thank you. The dialect certainly looks rather late to me
>("lyth/myth" for "lyght/myght" for example), but I didn't think it
>was as late as early 16th century, the date of the manuscript.
>Thanks also to David Klausner for the information on the manuscript
>date.
>
>Alan B.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: REED-L: Records of Early English Drama Discussion
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jennifer
>> Roberts-Smith
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 6:54 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: dating the Digby plays
>>
>>
>> Baker, Murphy & Hall say that the dialect is possibly end of
>> the fifteenth
>> century, so a little earlier than the copy, if they're right.
>> This ref. is
>> on p. xxxii of their introduction.
>> Jennifer
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: REED-L: Records of Early English Drama Discussion
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David N. Klausner
>> Sent: June 9, 2004 8:44 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: dating the Digby plays
>>
>> Digby 133 is a composite manuscript, with several parts
>> dating from the seventeenth century; the watermarks in the
>> paper on which Mary Mag. is written would support a date of
>> around 1520, give or take half a decade or so. This date is
>> also supported by the hand, which is transitional Anglicana
>> > Secretary. You have to keep in mind, of course, that the
>> date of the manuscript and the date of the composition of
>> the play may be significantly different!
>> --
>> David N. Klausner, Professor of English and Medieval Studies
>> Director, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto
> > voice: 416-978-5422 fax: 416-971-1398
> >
> > "Of all noises, I think music is the least disagreeable."
> > Samuel Johnson
> >
--
Milla
tel: 860-297-2467 (w)
860-646-5223 (h)
"Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we are here we may
as well dance."
-- Remembering Lise
"The war to be fighting is to stop the children starving....
Sayamonda: Ring de bell."
-- Remembering Andre
American paradox: "what is, at home, perhaps the most vibrant civil
society on earth is, abroad, a
trigger-happy superpower of terrifying arrogance."
Adam Hochschild
