In The Tempest, there is a word that is either "wise" or "wife". Even in different copies from the same pressing look different.
If it is "wife" then it is the only hint of Miranda's mother. That's not a massive plot change, but it substantially colors my reading of the play. Shakespeare has a tendency to dismiss mothers without a word. Death in child bed was surely common and there were plenty of widows, but the complete absence of any reference makes me wonder how it affects the widow and the children. (Compare Shylock, who has one utterly heartbreaking reference to a gift from his wife when they were courting.)
Cambridge researchers have reinterpreted the long-lost Song of Wade,
revealing it to be a chivalric romance rather than a monster-filled myth.
The twist came when “elves” in a medieval sermon were correctly
identified as “wolves,”
The article adds substantive detail; IMO it didn't need a teaser headline.
what you have quoted leaves the wrong impression, a clearer picture emerges describd thus:
The breakthrough, detailed on July 15 in The Review of English Studies, involved working out that the manuscript refers to 'wolves' not 'elves', as scholars previously assumed.
In The Tempest, there is a word that is either "wise" or "wife". Even in different copies from the same pressing look different.
If it is "wife" then it is the only hint of Miranda's mother. That's not a massive plot change, but it substantially colors my reading of the play. Shakespeare has a tendency to dismiss mothers without a word. Death in child bed was surely common and there were plenty of widows, but the complete absence of any reference makes me wonder how it affects the widow and the children. (Compare Shylock, who has one utterly heartbreaking reference to a gift from his wife when they were courting.)
The origin of this problem is that in the past "wise" was written with long "s".
The only difference between old style "f" and long "s" is an extremely narrow and short horizontal stroke added to make an "f".
That stroke frequently becomes invisible in an aged book, where you can no longer decide which was the original letter.
Er, read "widower" for "widow" above. Should have proofread.
what you have quoted leaves the wrong impression, a clearer picture emerges describd thus:
The breakthrough, detailed on July 15 in The Review of English Studies, involved working out that the manuscript refers to 'wolves' not 'elves', as scholars previously assumed.