DOCSLIB.ORG

The Place of Publication Is London Unless Otherwise Specified; Customary Abbreviations Are Used for Periodicals.

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Place of Publication Is London Unless Otherwise Specified; Customary Abbreviations Are Used for Periodicals. Notes (The place of publication is London unless otherwise specified; customary abbreviations are used for periodicals.) A NOTE ON DATES AND DEFINITIONS 1 For most of the dates I have followed E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare, 2 vols (Oxford, I930). 2 Compare also A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy (I904) pp. 79fi.; Maurice Charney, 'The Roman Plays as a Group', in Shakespeare's Roman Plays (I96I); and J. L. Simmons, Shakespeare's Pagan World: the Roman Tragedies (Charlottesville, Va., I973), ch. I. 3 'Timon of Athens', Shakespeare Quarterly, XII (I96I) 3-20. CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION: SHAKESPEARE AND THE STUDY OF RESPONSE I See, for example, S. L. Bethell, Shakespeare and the Popular Dramatic Tradition (I944); J. V. Cunningham, Woe or Wonder: The Emotional Effect of Shakespearian Tragedy (University of Denver Press, I95I); William Rosen, Shakespeare and the Craft of Tragedy (Harvard University Press, I96o); Maynard Mack, 'Engagement and Detachment in Shakespeare's Plays', in Essays on Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama in Honor of Hardin Craig, ed. R. Hosley (I963); J. R. Brown, Shakespeare's Plays in Performance (I966); Norman Rabkin, Shakespeare and the Common Under­ standing (I967); Stephen Booth, 'On the Value of Hamlet', in Reinterpre­ tations of Elizabethan Drama, English Institute Essays, ed. N. Rabkin (I969); B. Beckerman, Dynamics of Drama (New York, I97o); Arthur C. Kirsch, Jacobean Dramatic Perspectives (University of Virginia, 1972). 2 Johnson on Shakespeare, ed. Walter Raleigh (I9o8 ed.) pp. 20I, I77· 3 See Maurice Morgann's Essay on the Dramatic Character of Sir John Falstaff (I777). In Daniel A. Fineman's splendid edition of Morgann's Shakespearian Criticism (Oxford, I972), Morgann's pioneer work on the audience's response to dramatic 'impressions' is carefully explained. CHAPTER 2: IMPRESSIONS OF 'CHARACTER • I Compare J. I. M. Stewart, Character and Motive in Shakespeare (I949); S. L. Goldberg, An Essay on "King Lear" (Cambridge, I974) ch. 2; Michael Black, 'Character in Shakespeare', The Critical Review, XVII (Melbourne, I974) 11Q-I9. 2 Una Ellis-Fermor explained the 'inwardness' of Shakespeare's characters in Shakespeare the Dramatist (I96I) pp. 2I-59· See also Michael Goldman on the 'unsounded self', Shakespeare and the Energies of Drama (Princeton, N.J., I972) and Lionel Trilling, Sincerity and Authenticity (I972). 3 A. J. A. Waldock, Hamlet A Study in Critical Method (Cambridge, I93I) p. 98. 4 Compare Chapter 6. NOTES 5 See also Una Ellis-Fermor, 'The Revelation of Unspoken Thought in Drama', in The Frontiers of Drama (1945). 6 J. W. Mackall, The Approach to Shakespeare (Oxford, 1933 ed.) p. 25. 7 Compare Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind (1949) 'Self-knowledge'; Sydney Shoemaker, Self-Knowledge and Self-Identity (Ithaca, N.Y., 1963). 8 Compare p. 88; also Peter Ure, 'Shakespeare and the Inward Self of the Tragic Hero', 'Character and Role from Richard III to Hamlet', in Eliza· bethan and Jacobean Drama (Liverpool, 1974). 9 Montaigne, Essayes, trans. J. Florio, 3 vols (Everyman ed., 1910) III, ch. x. 10 David Hume, 'Of Personal Identity', in A Treatise of Human Nature, I. 11 Song of Myself, xvi. 12 Compare Panofsky's view that the typical figura serpentinata of Mannerist art 'seems to consist of a soft substance which can be stretched to any length and twisted in any direction': Studies in Iconology (1962 ed.) p. 176; my italics. 13 See Hamlet III. 2. 71, Othello IV. 2. 58ff.; also Hamlet v. 1. 251: 'This is I,/ Hamlet the Dane', Antony and Cleopatra III. 13. 92: 'I am/Antony yet'. In Greek drama the hero sometimes asserts his 'sense of self' by naming his ancestors: 'Agamemnon's son am I, the son of one/Held worthy to rule Greece'. The Tragedies of Euripides, trans. A. S. Way, 3 vols (1898) III, 158. 14 Harley Granville-Barker, Prefaces to Shakespeare, 4 vols (1927-45) III, 307- 312. CHAPTER 3: RESPONSE AND DRAMATIC PERSPECTIVE 1 Boswell's Life of Johnson, 19 October 1769; my italics. Joseph Baretti, with whom Johnson had been friendly for fifteen or so years, was arraigned at the Old Bailey for murder, and Johnson gave evidence as to his good character. 2 Raleigh (ed.), Johnson on Shakespeare, pp. 187, 193, 158. 3 Seep. 2. 4 Lamb, 'On the Artificial Comedy of the Last Century', The Works (1904 ed.) p. 419. 5 Macaulay, 'Leigh Hunt', Essays and Lays of Ancient Rome (1902 ed.) p. 574· 6 W. Raleigh, Shakespeare (1950 ed.) pp. 151-2. 7 Robert Langbaum, The Poetry of Experience (New York, 1971 ed. pp. 164, 169, 179· 8 Ibid., pp. 163, 167. 9 Compare Helen Gardner, The Business of Criticism (Oxford, 1959) p. 34; W. Sanders, The Dramatist and the Received Idea (Cambridge, 1968); R. Ornstein, A Kingdom for a Stage (Cambridge, Mass., 1972). I return to the Elizabethan World Picture on pp. 123-4. 10 Langbaum, Poetry of Experience, p. 3· 11 T. S. Eliot, 'Dante', Selected Essays (1951 ed.) p. 257. 12 R. B. Heilman has said that, to explain our relationship with a criminal tragic hero, we perhaps 'need a new term like "consentience" to suggest more than "sympathy" but less than "identification" or "empathy"': 'The Criminal as Tragic Hero', Shakespeare Survey, XIX (1966) 24. I use the word 'sympathy' to suggest community of feeling: it may be compara· tively disengaged or close to 'identification', as the context usually indicates. 13 Arthur Sewell, Charactt::r and Society in Shakespeare (Oxford, 1951) p. 76. 14 A. Harbage, As They Liked It (1947) p. 6. NOTES 15 Compare p. 18. 16 J. Keats, The Letters, ed. M. B. Forman (1942 ed.) pp. 69, 227-8. Keats was probably indebted to Coleridge, who had described Shakespeare as 'darting himself forth, and passing himself into all the forms of human character and human passion'. Coleridge's comparison of Milton and Shakespeare also seems to lie behind Keats' thoughts about 'the wordsworthian or egotistical sublime'. See S. T. Coleridge, Shakespearean Criticism, ed. T. M. Raysor, 2 vols (196o ed.) II, p. 66. 17 Wyndham Lewis, The Lion and the Fox (1927) p. 178. Compare John Holloway, The Charted Mirror (1960) p. 202: 'There is no simple sense in which our desires are frustrated when Desdemona is killed or Oedipus found out, or satisfied when the traitor Macbeth is beheaded. We do not "side with" Lear in that we "wish good" for him in the shape of military victory or the rescue of Cordelia. So far as these things go, our sympathy for the characters somehow co-exists with a detachment in which we accept - no, more than that, we demand - whatever is brought by the fable in its entirey.' Also Heilman, 'The Criminal as Tragic Hero', p. 21. 18 Madeleine Doran, Endeavors of Art (Madison, Wisconsin, 1954) p. 320. For Richard II as tragedy see Chapter 4 n.1. 19 W. Hazlitt, Characters of Shakespeare's Plays (18g5 ed.) pp. 13, 225. 20 E. E. Stoll, Shakespeare Studies (New York, 1927) p. 331. 21 E.g. Twelfth Night II. 4· 114, All's Well v. 3· 32-4, Lear IV. 3· 16-19. 22 Samuel Richardson, Clarissa Harlowe, vol. 2, letter 9; D. H. Lawrence, Women in Love, ch. 11 (my italics). 23 A. P. Rossiter, Angel with Horns (1970 ed.) pp. p, 54· The passage quoted comes from a lecture delivered in 1951. 24 Compare E. Schanzer, The Problem Plays of Shakespeare (1963) Introduction. 25 Compare E. Honigmann (ed.), Twelfth Night (1971) pp. 17ff. and Shakes­ pearian Tragedy and the Mixed Response (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1971). 26 A. C. Sprague, Shakespeare and the Audience (Cambridge, Mass., 1935) p. 243· CHAPTER 4: SYMPATHY FOR BRUTUS 1 Richard III and Richard II were described as tragedies on the Quarto title­ pages. Though the authorship of Titus Andronicus has been much debated, there is now a tendency to accept it as immature but authentic Shakespeare. 2 See pp. 26-7. 3 Raleigh (ed.), Johnson on Shakespeare, p. 179· 4 M. W. MacCallum, Shakespeare's Roman Plays and their Background (1910) pp. 233-7· 5 Julius Caesar, ed. T. S. Dorsch (New Arden ed., 1955) p. xxxix. 6 Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, ed. Geoffrey Bullough, 8 vols (1957-75) v, p. go. (Hereafter cited as Bullough, Sources.) 7 Ibid., pp. 92, 107, 116. 8 Julius Caesar v. 1. Iooff., IV. 3· 143-4. 9 I. 2. 295, V .). 26. 10 Dorsch (ed.), Julius Caesar, p. xl 11 Bullough, Sources, p. 97· 12 In Plutarch the conspirators 'were every man of them bloudied' as they killed Caesar (ibid., p. 102). 13 Compare Cassius' then ('Stoop then') here and elsewhere when he gives way to Brutus: 'Then leave him out' (II. 1. 1p.), 'Then, with your will, go on' (IV. 3· 222). NOTES 197 14 Seep. 32. 15 Seep. 33· 16 I. 2. 314-19, n. 1. 36-58. 17 MacCallum, Shakespeare's Roman Plays, p. 201. 18 Dorsch (ed.), Julius Caesar, p. 33· 19 MacCallum, Shakespeare's Roman Plays, p. 264. 20 See Harold C. Goddard, The Meaning of Shakespeare (1965) I, 325. J. Dover Wilson (ed.), Julius Caesar (1949) p. 176, has argued that Cassius was suspected of taking bribes (IV. 3· 1o-12) but not of extorting money, 'a very different thing. Nowhere does Shakespeare say that the money Brutus asks to share had been got "by vile means'''. But this is mere hair-splitting, for Brutus knows that the money Cassius might have lent him was acquired corruptly (line 15), i.e. by vile means. 21 Compare p. 38. 22 Bullough, Sources, p. 120. 23 Dorsch (ed.), Julius Caesar, p. xi. 24 IV. 3· 6]-8, v. 1. uo-n (compare p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 87 Hemingway, S. B. (Ed.), Henry IV, Part 1 (New Variorum Shake
    87 Texts Hemingway, S. B. (ed.), Henry IV, Part 1 (New Variorum Shake­ speare, Philadelphia and London, 1936). Shaaber, Matthias A. (ed.), Henry IV, Part 2 (New Variorum Shakespeare, Philadelphia and London, 1940). Humphreys, A. R. (ed.), Henry IV, Part 1 (Arden Shakespeare, London, 1960). Humphreys, A. R. (ed.), Henry IV, Part 2 (Arden Shakespeare, London, 1966). Davison, P. H. (ed.), Henry IV, Part 1 (New Penguin Shakespeare, Harmondsworth, 1968). Davison, P. H. (ed.), Henry IV, Part 2 (New Penguin Shakespeare, Harmondsworth, 1977). Mack, Maynard (ed.), Henry IV, Part 1 (Signet Shakespeare, New York, 1965, 1987). Holland, Norman L. (ed.), Henry IV, Part 2 (Signet Shakespeare, New York, 1965). Bevington, David (ed.), Henry IV, Part 1 (Oxford Shakespeare, Oxford, 1987). Melchiori, Giorgio (ed.), Henry IV, Part 2 (Oxford Shakespeare, Oxford, 1989). The New Variorum Shakespeare editions are monumental works of scholarship for reference only. All the remaining editions cater for students' needs with critical introductions, notes, sources and so on. Long established with footnotes that are easily used, the Arden edition has always been very popular. The Signet and Penguin editions have made their mark and are quite economical. The recent Oxford editions have excellent illustrations and are strong on stage history. 88 Bibliographies, Guides and Surveys Bergeron, David M., and De Sousa, Geraldo U., Shakespeare: A Study and Research Guide (Lawrence, Kansas, 1987). Berry, Edward, 'Twentieth-century Shakespeare criticism: the his­ tories' in Stanley Wells (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies (Cambridge, 1986). Burden, Dennis H., 'Shakespeare's History Plays: 1952-1983', Shakespeare Survey 38, 1985, pp. 1-18.
    [Show full text]
  • ROMANTIC CRITICISM of SHAKESPEARIAN DRAMA By
    ROMANTIC CRITICISM OF SHAKESPEARIAN DRAMA By JOHN g,RAWFORD Associate of Arts Texarkana College Texarkana, Texas 1956 Bachelor of Science in Education Ouachita Baptist University Arkadelphia, Arkansas 1959 Master of Science in Education Drake University Des Moines, Iowa 1962 Submitted to the faculty of .the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION May, 1968 OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY OCT 24 1968 ROMANTIC CRITICISM OF SHAKESPEARIAN DRAMA Thesis Approved: Thesis Adviser \ f ,A .. < \ Dean of the Graduate College ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I should like to· thank anumber·of people who helped me in many different ways during· the·preparation· of .this dissertation, notably Dr. David· S. Berkeley,·major adviser, who-lent words of encouragement, guidance, understanding, and patience; but also my committee members, Dr. Darrel Ray·, Pr~ Judson Milburn, and· .Dr~- Loyd Douglas; and. the Oklahoma State University library staff, especially Miss Helen Donart and Mrs • .:fosephine Monk. iii TABLE-OF CONTENTS Chap tel' Page. I. INTRODUCTION •••• 1 II. HAMLET .••• . ' . .. ... 29 III. ANTONY -~ CLEOPATRA • • • • . • • . • • • It • . • • . • .• • a1 ·IV. HENRYV· . ,. ". .• . 122 V. THE· MERCHANT ·QE. VENICE .- . "' . 153 VI. CONCLUSION • • ' . -. ,. 187 BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • · • . .. 191 iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Of all the so-called schools of Shakespearian criticism, the Romantic has been and continues to be one of the most influential. Per- haps this is true merely because of the impor~ance which the Romantic School places upon the genius of the subj~ct, for all schools of criti- cism recognize Shakespeare's ability at creating effective drama. A more accurate answer, however, probably lies in the fact that "romanti- cism" has a broad base and encompasses so very much.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shakespeare Association of America I » 1982 Meeting ((
    THE SHAKESPEARE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA I » 1982 MEETING (( APRIL 8TH , 10TH MARQUETTE HoTEL MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA THE SHAKESPEARE ASSOCIATION TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF AMERICA OF President, BERNARD BECKERMAN (Columbia Unitersic:v) THE SHAKESPEARE AssociATION oF AMERICA Executit•e Secretary, ANN ) ENNALIE CooK (Vanderbilt University) Adminismuit·e Assistant, RoSEMARY ALLEN (Vanderbilt Unit•ersity) INCORPORATED 1972 TRUSTEES )OHN ANDREWS S. SCHOENBAUM (Folger Shakespeare Library) (Unit·ersity of Maryland) ANNUAL MEETINGS )ONAS BARISH CHARLES SHATTUCK (Unit•ersity of California, Berkeley) (University of Illinois) MARCH 29-31, 1973 STATLER HILTON HoTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C. ANNUAL LECTURER, HARRY LEVIN (Harvard University) STEPHEN BooTH SUSAN SNYDER (University of California, Berkeley) (Swarthmore College) MARCH 28-30, 1974 HuNTINGTON-SHERATON HoTEL, PASADENA, CALIFORNIA ANNUAL LECTURER, RoBERT B. HEILMAN (University of Washington) THELMA GREENFIELD R. W. VAN FossEN (Unit•ersity of Oregon) (University of Toronto) MARCH 20-22, 1975 SHERATON PARK PLAZA HoTEL, NEw HAVEN, CoNNECTICUT ANNUAL LECTURER, HALLETT D. SMITH (Huntington Library) LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS *APRIL 19-25, 1976 STATLER HILTON HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C. THOMAS CLAYTON (Unit•ersity of Minnesota) ANNUAL LECTURER, KENNETH MuiR (University of Liverpool) WITH THE ASS ISTANCE OF MARSHA L. RIEBE, ExEcuTivE AssiSTANT, AcADEMIC AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA APRIL 7-9, 1977 FAIRMONT HoTEL, NEw ORLEANS, LouiSIANA ANNUAL LECTURER, EuGENE W AITH (Yale University) WELCOMING COMMITTEE APRIL 13-15, 1978 HYATT REGENCY HoTEL, ToRONTO, ONTARIO AGNES MARIE FLECK (College of St. Scholastica) ANNUAL LECTURER, VIRGIL WHITAKER (Stanford University) SHIRLEY NELSON GARNER (Unit•ersity of Minnesota) MADELON GoHLKE (University of Minnesota) APRIL 12-14, 1979 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE HoTEL, SAN FRANCISCo, CALIFORNIA LowELL E. JoHNSON (St. Olaf College) ANNUAL LECTURER, G.
    [Show full text]
  • Sources of Lear
    Meddling with Masterpieces: the On-going Adaptation of King Lear by Lynne Bradley B.A., Queen’s University 1997 M.A., Queen’s University 1998 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of English © Lynne Bradley, 2008 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photo-copying or other means, without the permission of the author. ii Meddling with Masterpieces: the On-going Adaptation of King Lear by Lynne Bradley B.A., Queen’s University 1997 M.A., Queen’s University 1998 Supervisory Committee Dr. Sheila M. Rabillard, Supervisor (Department of English) Dr. Janelle Jenstad, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Michael Best, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Annalee Lepp, Outside Member (Department of Women’s Studies) iii Supervisory Committee Dr. Sheila M. Rabillard, Supervisor (Department of English) Dr. Janelle Jenstad, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Michael Best, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Annalee Lepp, Outside Member (Department of Women’s Studies) Abstract The temptation to meddle with Shakespeare has proven irresistible to playwrights since the Restoration and has inspired some of the most reviled and most respected works of theatre. Nahum Tate’s tragic-comic King Lear (1681) was described as an execrable piece of dementation, but played on London stages for one hundred and fifty years. David Garrick was equally tempted to adapt King Lear in the eighteenth century, as were the burlesque playwrights of the nineteenth. In the twentieth century, the meddling continued with works like King Lear’s Wife (1913) by Gordon Bottomley and Dead Letters (1910) by Maurice Baring.
    [Show full text]
  • Selected Contemporary Allusions
    Appendix A Selected Contemporary Allusions 1. Robert Greene, Groats- Worth of Witte ( 1592). Quoted and discussed above, pp. 1-6, 53-4. See also Appendix B. 2. Henry Chettle, Kind-Harts Dreame (1592; SR 8 Dec. 1592), from the Epistle, 'To the Gentlemen Readers'. Discussed pp. 7, 21. he that offendes being forst, is more excusable than the wilfull faultie ... lie shew reason for my present writing, and after proceed to sue for pardon. About three moneths since died M. Robert Greene, leauing many papers in sundry Booke sellers hands, among other his Groats­ worth of wit, in which a letter written to diuers play-makers, is offensiuely by one or two of them taken, and because on the dead they cannot be auenged, they wilfully forge in their conceites a liuing Author: and after tossing it two and fro, no remedy, but it must light on me. How I haue all the time of my conuersing in printing hindred the bitter inueying against schollers, it hath been very well knowne, and how in that I dealt I can sufficiently prooue. With neither of them that take offence was I acquainted, and with one of them I care not if I neuer be: The other (i.e. Shakespeare], whome at that time I did not so much spare, as since I wish I had, for that as I haue moderated the heate of liuing writers, and might haue vsde my owne discretion (especially in such a case) the Author beeing dead, that I did not, I am as sory, as if the originall fault had beene my fault, because my selfe haue seene his demeanor no !esse ciuill than he exelent in the qualitie he professes: Besides, diuers of worship haue reported, his vprightnes of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writting, that aprooues his Art.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Notes Introduction 1. Andrew Gurr, The Shakespearean Stage, 1574–1642, 3rd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 191. 2. For further discussion of the myth of the bare stage see Chapter 1 of this book; Jonathan Gil Harris and Natasha Korda, ‘Introduction: Towards a Materialist Account of Stage Properties’, in Jonathan Gil Harris and Natasha Korda (eds.), Staged Properties in Early Modern English Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 2–7. 3. Aristotle Poetics (trans. Stephen Halliwell) (London: Harvard University Press, 1995), VII.16–20, p. 55. 4. Glynne Wickham, ‘Heavens, Machinery, and Pillars in the Early Theatre and Other Early Playhouse’, in Herbert Berry (ed.), The First Public Playhouse: The Theatre in Shoreditch, 1576–1598 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1979), p. 6. 5. Thomas H. Dickinson (ed.), Robert Greene (London: Fisher Unwin, 1911), pp. lix–lxi. 6. Kenneth Muir, ‘Robert Greene as Dramatist’, in Richard Hosley (ed.), Essays on Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama in Honor of Hardin Craig (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963), p. 48; Charles W. Crupi, Robert Greene (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1986), p. 115; Charles Mills Gayley, Representative English Comedies (London: Macmillan, 1903), p. 419. 7. Bernard Beckerman, Shakespeare at the Globe, 1599–1609 (New York: Macmillan, 1962); Gerald Eades Bentley, The Professions of Dramatist and Player in Shakespeare’s Time, 1590–1642 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); T. J. King, Shakespearean Staging, 1599–1642 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971); Andrew Gurr, Playgoing in Shakespeare’s London, 3rd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); S. P. Cerasano, ‘Editing the Theatre, Translating the Stage’, Analytic and Enumerative Bibliography, 4 (1990), pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Sir John Oldcastle and the Construction of Shakespeare's
    SEL38 (1998) ISSN 0039-3657 SirJohn Oldcastle and the Construction of Shakespeare's Authorship DOUGLAS A. BROOKS Let vs returne vnto the Bench againe, And there examine further of this fray. -SirJohn Oldcastle, I.i.124-5 A decade ago the editors of the Oxford William Shakespeare: The CompleteWorks replaced the name of the character called Falstaff in Henry IVPart Iwith a hypothetically earlier version of the character's name, Sir John Oldcastle. The restoration of Oldcastle to the Oxford edition makes it the first authoritative text to undo an alteration which, as scholars have long suspected, Shakespeare himself must have made sometime between a non-extant 1596 performance text and the 1598 quarto of the play. The resulting scholarly debate over this editorial decision has touched on a number of significant issues linked to the authority and authenticity of "Shakespearean" texts, and it has raised important questions about how these texts were shaped by the material, religious, and political conditions in which they were produced.l In the case of HenryIVPart I, crit- ics have struggled to reconstruct how an early version of the text with Oldcastle as the protagonist of the unworthy knight plot might have placed the play and its author in a complicated Douglas A. Brooks recently completed his Ph.D. at Columbia University, and is assistant professor of Shakespeare and Renaissance Drama at Texas A&M University. He is currently working on a book about early modern dramatic authorship and print. 334 SIR JOHN OLDCASTLE position between an individual's reputation and a nation's.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare's King Lear
    Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear By Greg Maillet Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear By Greg Maillet This book first published 2016 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2016 by Greg Maillet All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-9729-9 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-9729-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Polemical Prologue .................................................................................... vii Criticism, Theology, and the Value of Shakespeare’s King Lear Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 “See Better”: Christian Paradox in Act One of King Lear Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 27 “I Nothing Am”: Confusion and Clarification of Identity in Act Two of King Lear Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 51 “This Night will turn us all to Fools and Madmen”: Storm and the Transformation of Identity
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespearean Character and Cultural Change in the Eighteenth Century Amanda Cockburn, Department of Engl
    “Magical Glasses”: Shakespearean Character and Cultural Change in the Eighteenth Century Amanda Cockburn, Department of English, McGill University, Montreal October 2011 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) © Amanda Cockburn, 2011 Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the exceptional guidance provided by my two supervisors, Paul Yachnin and Fiona Ritchie. Paul Yachnin’s enthusiasm for this project always put wind in my sails. I invariably left our meetings with a clearer vision of my own argument, thanks to Paul’s ability to help me untangle or articulate an idea with which I’d been struggling. I also left our meetings and took from our email exchanges a renewed determination and energy with which to approach my research. I am especially grateful for such a kind and generous mentor during my intellectual growth at McGill. I am also grateful for Fiona’s expertise in shaping this dissertation. Her knowledge of the field struck me many times as dauntingly encyclopedic, and I am indebted to her learning and indispensible feedback. I thank her for consistently pointing me to articles and books that proved invaluable to the development of my argument. I also must thank both Paul and Fiona for their extraordinarily perceptive and meticulous editing. I likewise thank members of the Shakespeare and Performance Research Team at McGill University, especially Michael Bristol for our conversations about Shakespeare and moral philosophy, and Wes Folkerth, whose graduate class on Shakespearean Character helped form the initial idea for this project. I am also deeply indebted to SPRITE for sending me twice to the Folger Shakespeare Library, that wonderful treasure trove, where I whet my appetite for archival work and afternoon tea.
    [Show full text]
  • The Blinding of Isaac Woodard
    THE PROCEEDINGS of The South Carolina Historical Association 2004 Officers of the Association President: Tracy Power, South Carolina Department of Archives and History Vice President: Sam Thomas, York County Culture and Heritage Commission Secretary: Ron Cox, University of South Carolina at Lancaster Treasu rer: Rodger Stroup, South Carolina Department of Archives and History Executive and Editorial Board Members Robin Copp, South Caroliniana Library () Bernard Powers, College of Charleston () E. E. “Wink” Prince Jr., Coastal Carolina University () Robert C. Figueira, Lander University, co-editor Stephen Lowe, University of South Carolina Extended Graduate Campus, co-editor THE PROCEEDINGS of The South Carolina Historical Association 2004 Robert Figueira and Stephen Lowe Co-Editors The South Carolina Historical Association South Carolina Department of Archives and History Columbia, South Carolina http:/ / www.state.sc.us/ scdah/ scha/ scha.htm Membership Application The SOUTH CARO LINA HISTORICAL ASSO CIATIO N is an organization that furthers the teaching and understanding of history. The only requirement for membership is an interest in and a love for history. At the annual meeting papers on European, Asian, U.S., Southern, and South Carolina history are routinely presented. Papers presented at the annual meeting may be published in The Proceedings, a refereed journal. Membership benefits include: a subscription to The Proceedings of the South Carolina Historical Association, notification of the annual meeting, the right to submit a pro- posal for a paper for presentation at the annual meeting, the quarterly SCHA News- letter, and the annual membership roster of the Association. SCHA membership is from 1 January to 31 December. Student members must cur- rently be enrolled in school.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenneth Muir
    KENNETH MUIR Copyright © The British Academy 1998 – all rights reserved Kenneth Arthur Muir 1907–1996 KENNETH MUIR was one of the most eminent Shakespearean scholars and critics of our time. As editor of five of the plays and author of a large number of books and essays on the plays and poems, he is read all over the world. His beautiful speaking of poetry and the lucid and witty presentation of his learning inspired lecture audiences at home and abroad. He generously promoted the work of others, not least as editor of Shakespeare Survey and as the first Chairman and later the President of the International Shakespeare Association. His own work was not limited to Shakespeare: the subjects of his more than fifty books and his almost innumerable articles range from Wyatt, through Renaissance and Romantic writers, to modern poetry and fiction. His range also extended beyond the confines of the English language, to translations of Racine and Corneille and of Golden Age Spanish drama. His zest and industry remained undiminished until shortly before his death, and in terms of publication he was as productive in the twenty years after his retirement from the King Alfred Chair of English Literature in the University of Liverpool as he had been during the forty-five years of his uncommonly active professional life in York, Leeds, and Liverpool. As the fell sergeant Death moves more swiftly than publishers, new essays by him are still appearing, more than a year after his death. The latest of these is a counter-blast to what he saw as ‘Base Uses’ of Shakespeare: characteristic of a scholar and man who, in the words of Ernst Honigmann, the recipient of the Festschrift to which this essay was contrib- uted, was ‘an immense force on the side of sanity and goodness (I can think of no other word) in an increasingly wicked world’.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespearean Character and Cultural Change in the Eighteenth Century
    “Magical Glasses”: Shakespearean Character and Cultural Change in the Eighteenth Century Amanda Cockburn, Department of English, McGill University, Montreal October 2011 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) © Amanda Cockburn, 2011 Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the exceptional guidance provided by my two supervisors, Paul Yachnin and Fiona Ritchie. Paul Yachnin’s enthusiasm for this project always put wind in my sails. I invariably left our meetings with a clearer vision of my own argument, thanks to Paul’s ability to help me untangle or articulate an idea with which I’d been struggling. I also left our meetings and took from our email exchanges a renewed determination and energy with which to approach my research. I am especially grateful for such a kind and generous mentor during my intellectual growth at McGill. I am also grateful for Fiona’s expertise in shaping this dissertation. Her knowledge of the field struck me many times as dauntingly encyclopedic, and I am indebted to her learning and indispensible feedback. I thank her for consistently pointing me to articles and books that proved invaluable to the development of my argument. I also must thank both Paul and Fiona for their extraordinarily perceptive and meticulous editing. I likewise thank members of the Shakespeare and Performance Research Team at McGill University, especially Michael Bristol for our conversations about Shakespeare and moral philosophy, and Wes Folkerth, whose graduate class on Shakespearean Character helped form the initial idea for this project. I am also deeply indebted to SPRITE for sending me twice to the Folger Shakespeare Library, that wonderful treasure trove, where I whet my appetite for archival work and afternoon tea.
    [Show full text]