 |
 |
LOL. Good call, Meg! I second that idea, Matthew. Of course, it's easier for those of us who have known "The Names on the Spine" (I love that image, Meg!) to make this call than for post-grads, especially students in the US, who don't circulate with the U.K. Spine Monikers as much at conferences. I recall being an awestruck Ph.D. student who often became a bit tongue-tied at conferences when encountering the big names of our small part of the academic world, like "Johnston," "Mills," "King," and "Twycross." Your suggestion, Meg, reminds me how thankful I am to be part of a generous community of scholars who are, more often than not, willing to answer questions from students and colleagues in the interest of furthering our understanding of early drama. I guess the holiday spirit and its warm sentiments have come with the first substantial snowfall here in Iowa. Happy Holidays, REED-L, Gloria > Why not ask David himself? He's a human being as well as a name on a book spine. > > Actually I'm seeing him on Monday to present the second half of his Festschift, so I'll try to remember to ask him them -- my memory is sieve-like at the moment. > > Meg Twycross > > Professor Emeritus of English Medieval Studies, > Department of English and Creative Writing, > Lancaster University, > LANCASTER LA1 4YD > > > ________________________________ > > From: REED-L: Records of Early English Drama Discussion on behalf of Matthew Sergi > Sent: Wed 02-Dec-09 21:00 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: One about Chester > > > > Dear REED list, > > I've been caught up on a minor point in the current EETS Edition of the > Chester cycle, and thought I'd open it up to the list. > > For the Chester Passion, Mills and Lumiansky gloss the torturers' dice > rolls of "dubletts," "cator-traye," and "synnce" as three twos, three > fours, and three fives, respectively. I've been scanning various medieval > and early modern sources and cannot figure out the source of those glosses > -- all of my sources point to "a pair," "a three and a four," and "five" > for the rolls (even though the rolls were on three dice -- I've found > other cases in which a three-die roll is referred to by a functional pair > within it, regardless of the value of the third die). > > However, my instinct is still to trust Mills and Lumiansky's reading; can > anyone point me in the right direction to find further textual support for > their gloss? > > Gratefully, > > Matthew Sergi > Ph.D. Candidate, English and Medieval Studies > University of California, Berkeley >