I’m so glad the librarian took the time to mention that! I get so tired of comments from people who obviously watch only to pick out “errors” in these videos, apparently so they have a forum with which to make themselves appear to be more intelligent or knowledgeable than the experts, and not wearing gloves is one of their favorites! Of course, they aren’t intelligent enough to realize that the only thing they’re showing off is their ignorance!

Ok but why do the gloves have to be white? Seems racist.

I learnt about this when watching Philomena Cunk.

I noticed that change myself last summer when I visited the special collections room at the National Library of Scotland. More than a decade earlier, when I was translating David Hume's Treatise into Hebrew, I visited the same room and was given a pillow and a pair of gloves to be able to touch a copy of the first edition of the book, from 1739. This time, when I came to have another look, there was only the pillow. I also had a look at a first edition of Boswell's travel to the Hebrides, which was printed with a big folded map glued unto one of the first pages, which is already about 250 years old, and I can't imagine trying to open it with cotton gloves on my hands.

Also, the kind of paper being handled is a reason for the difference. Wood-pulp paper is much more likely to be affected by oil on the hands than rag paper is, and the First Folio was printed on rag paper. It's not until the the late 18th/early 19th centuries when wood-pulp paper came in, while the First Folio is a 17th century book.

Not many people could read then. It's slightly annoying that the first folio tends to be used as the definitive Shakespeare, though some editions do contain parts from the quarto editions, which it's argued are closer to the plays as the audiences of Shakespeare's lifetime would have seen them. For example, The Taming of the Shrew is a very different play in the Quarto editions. It's less "sexist" because Sly, the drunk who the players act out the main body of the play for, constantly interrupts with snide comments which undermine the aspects which are particularly distateful to modern audiences/readers.

@@muskndusk It has been my assumption that the Quartos were often published earlier than the folio. Maybe this isn't always the case. However, didn't they say TTOTS hadn't been published prior to the Folio? I also read (I think) that the Quartos were sometimes cheap editions, often published without the permission of the author. I understand there are no definitive versions of any of his plays (the text of the plays can vary from Folio to Folio). If all this is the case, why do you say the Quartos might be closer to the original versions?

@@singlespies I'm not saying that the quartos are closer to the original versions but I've heard/read experts claim this. For example, if an editor relies purely on the First Folio of Hamlet the famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy is very different to the one we usually hear/read. Most editors use both the quarto and the first folio versions. The quartos were published a long time prior to the first folio.

@@singlespies If you can find "The Secret Life of Books, Shakespeare's First Folio" this explains much about the differences between the versions. It used to be on youtube, but seems to have been taken down. I think it was a BBC programme.

I know what you're trying to say but I wonder about the comparison to most television shows now. Though Shakespeare was popular, I don't think the works were considered "pop", like most TV shows now are analogous to pop music, IMHO. Modern literary playwrights are read (as well as viewed) on the page, too. Perhaps TV scripts are as well, but I would imagine as a different phenomenon.

But are there many of these "Great Houses" left? The rich were never very numerous to begin with, & one would expect most of these mansions to have been examined, if only by auction house appraisers as part of liquidating the estate of the last heir or when the family finds it no longer can maintain such a large & antiquated building.

Good luck with learning English!

Thank you very much.😉

Peace of cake, you got it!

Thank you Dr. I really like english culture.

@@GentlemanLife-Beyotch Not like this.

Indeed she is, and I can imagine why. I am sick and tired of the white glove brigade myself. I can't imagine being a professional working with old books and seeing these comments all the time. I would simply delete them if I can, I think. Idiots are draining.

This is a facsimile not a real folio. You can buy this 400th anniversary edition for $150. You can “handle” it too.

I was waiting for someone to spot that

@@vamuseum i caught it too. sorry

Hello

This is a brilliant suggestion!

Or it means "great,grat".

I❤ Shakespeare.

It seems like it would make the work much more difficult.

Second this! I want the ASMR version

I third this ❤

Same here.

You have some serious issues ...

Not like perfume and roses, I can tell you that 🤨

I was hoping to find a fellow book sniffer in the comments. Old books smell as beautiful as they look. Imagine the muskiness of this beauty!

probably like Thomas Poope

I like big books and I cannot lie. No Separate Peace or Catcher in the Rye...

The publishing format is called a quarto. A Quattro is a car.

Good idea! I agree it could be a Q for quarto.

Had the same thought

That was my guess too!

@@thenoblegasargon The "R" on the contents page could be for The Rose theatre. Could also be a specific actor, but it is not clear if the content page hand is the same one as the other annotations

Simple me thought the G probably stood for "Good", meaning that the reader liked the play!

@@ThreadBomb me too!

It’s gorgeous.

Just a few years ago, I listened to John Gielgud perform as Hamlet in a production which was originally performed on the radio in the 1940s (BBC, of course) and I didn’t need a play in front of me even though it was the entire play with no cuts. For some reason, I don’t need the plays in front of me to follow the action. Gielgud gave an interview about his performances of Hamlet when large amounts were cut (think Laurence Olivier’s filmed version), as well as when he performed the whole play, and he said audiences were much more riveted during the latter, because the former didn’t flow and was therefore more confusing, an interesting observation. Among my family and friends over the years, it seems that those with a natural affinity for and love of poetry have a much easier time with Shakespeare, but people should absolutely adapt whatever strategy works for them in order to enjoy the wonders of these incredible works!

Shakespeare is all about the metaphors!

I would like one too and the pillow it's sitting on also.

And every Shakespeare denier in the world would instantly refuse to recognize its existence.

Unlikely, as Shakespeare could barely sign his own name properly.

It was found that hands do not dammage books after all, providing that they are clean and dry. On the contrary, gloves (fabric or otherwise) diminish the sensitivity, sense of touch, of your skin and you might tear up or crease the paper. So all libraries recommand no gloves. The exception being toxicity for your skin, like lead or other substances.

@@s.p.8803 You're of course right (and all this should be common sense), but I'm afraid it's not "all libraries", unless you meant to say "all librairies _should_ recommend no gloves". You always find some ignoramuses in backwaters progress has yet to reach.

@@frontenac5083 Yes, you're right, some may still have kept the old bad habits. But I think that the major ones, who possess really valuable books, like the national librairies, the ones from universities and museums seem to apply this rule, now. At least in Europe and the U.S., which are the ones I know.

What the actual f*ck 😅😅😅

Oh yes, absolutely.

@@s.p.8803 - Are we still talking about the folio?

@@d.martin7692 Nowadays, no professionnal working with old books would wear gloves. Just wash and dry your hands carefully and you're good for a couple of hours. Wearing gloves, on the other hand, diminishes your sense of touch and you risk damaging the paper by crinkling it or tearing it. Gloves are only recommended in case you have to protect your skin from toxic materials used in the past, like lead, for instance.

In case you didn't see, they said early it really doesn't.

count the ways

It must mean the play is suitable for children.

Even medieval saints had them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AMarcantonio_Bassetti_-_St_Antony_Reading_-_WGA01483.jpg

@@Jeffhowardmeade Ahead of their time

Very good eye! Thanks for the laugh.

Nah, Bill first appeared in the 19th century.

@@s.p.8803 People always ask me how they get bill from William. You got any idea?

@@billyhendrix5544 Basically, when I studied English ancient names and words, I remember learning some letters were switched at some point in the Middle Age (although it was not really in use until much later), like Dick for Richard; it was unformal language, but no one really knows why.

Will was the accepted shortening of William in the early modern era. And they probably did call him "Will", because he puns on his own nickname in Sonnets #135 and #136.

No, gloves are too risky.

I see where youre coming from but you need the tactile feedback in your bare hands to ensure you dont cause damage. I mean, try handling anything with gloves and you'll find you are prone to mishandling, creasing, tearing, dropping, etc.

White gloves are racist. We need diverse gloves.

Really, if you tried to handle the fragile pages of a book from the 17th or 18th century using gloves, you would notice how dangerous it feels - as if any you're going to tear the paper accidentally with every move.

You're still wrong, then.

It also deserves to be noted that by 1621, Heminges and Condell had spent a couple of decades performing Ben Jonson's writing. Would anyone be surprised that it might have rubbed off, the way Marlowe's language rubbed off on Shakespeare?

@@Jeffhowardmeade It also deserves to be noted that this is not a serious reply to my comment. I'm talking about scholars like Malone, Steveens, Gregg and others. They did a serious study of the question and produced evidence, which has never been countered by their orthodox brethren. Instead, since their conclusion was inconvenient, their findings are ignored or excluded from literature survey, and then anonymous trolls, who have not read the evidence, go around the internet posting fud like this. No one with any actual familiarity with the evidence and interest in preserving their own credibility would ruin their reputation with a comment like this, so I guess that helps explain why "Coriolanus" must use a pseudonym.

@@rstritmatter I get that you are in mental decline, which is why you don't recall the half dozen times I told you my name. Will one more time help? There's nothing inconvenient about Ben Jonson composing To The Great Variety of Readers, if indeed he did. He was obviously an integral part of the project. What's inconvenient is that he identified Shakespeare as being the man from Stratford. For you. So you have to claim he (and everyone else) was lying.

@@Jeffhowardmeade I get if that you think that every time I mention your use of a pseudonym you think I've forgotten that your are a regular user of sock puppets, sometimes posting under your real name "Jeff Meade" and at other times taking on the name of a character who in Shakespeare ends up betraying the concept of honor by attacking and sacking his homeland. This makes a lot of sense to me. It also makes sense that you have to use your pseudonym when you get personal by making wild claims about the mental capacity of your critics and thereby showing yourself for a rude, small-minded bastard who long ago lost touch with reality. It must be much easier to do that when you're wearing a mask. As for your argument that "there's nothing inconvenient" about Ben Jonson writing things in the First Folio that have the names of the players attached to them," well, that's just wishful thinking. Jonson liked to be remembered as "honest Ben," but his followers remembered him as that "prince of numbers, who doth in numbers lie." According to you, he must have been lying. According to post-Stratfordians like Elizabeth Winkler (www.amazon.com/Shakespeare-Was-Woman-Other-Heresies/dp/198217126X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=36IWDRA7Y3861&keywords=winkler+shakespeare&qid=1683033943&sprefix=winkler+shakespeare%2Caps%2C80&sr=8-1), he was doing what he did best.

​@@rstritmatterSince we have now established that you can remember my name and that I'm not hiding it behind a pseudonym, but rather using a frikken username, you can stop whining about it. Since I'm retired and you can't go crying to my boss about how mean I'm being, what bloody good does my name do you, anyway?

In a mythical world, where they belong.

In your mum's back passage.

Very well said. I am sick and tired of the white glove brigade myself. I can't imagine being a professional working with old books and seeing these comments all the time. I would simply delete them if I can, I think. Idiots are draining.

​@@frontenac5083Sick of the white glove brigade? What have you got against Mickey Mouse?

Shakespeare's plays have often been cut for performance, for centuries now. You can easily trim a four play and only a few experts might notice.

Yes, I agree, Jeff. The point of the play, which is stated CLEARLY in the prologue, is that Romeo and Juliet's deaths have been arranged by the stars to heal the family feud which has once again broken "to new mutiny." They left that out of the Baz Luhrmann film. So instead, it was a simple and pointless suicide. In the 1968 version, Zeferelli shows the families getting together afterwards. My main objection to that film is putting the guys in ballet slippers. I was riding the bus home one day after Baz's version came out and heard a teenage couple talking about the film which they'd recently seen. The girl said (imagine a Valley Girl accent) "Yeah, I really liked it - except for the words." A Shakespeare play can certainly be edited, but once you remove the karmic structure, it is broken.

@@katheryns1219 The Valley Girl on the bus was saying what half the audience and most of the stage directors think. From the mouths of babes.