DOCSLIB.ORG

Q/F: the Texts of King Lear By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Q/F: the Texts of King Lear By Library March 2021,1 Salkeld.qxp_Layout 1 01/02/2021 12:02 Page 3 Q/F: The Texts of King Lear by DUNCAN SALKELD Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/library/article/22/1/3/6174155 by guest on 27 September 2021 he two early texts of King Lear , the 1608 Quarto (hereafter Q) and the 1623 Folio (hereafter F) differ substantially from each other. TConsequently, there has been much critical dispute over how those differences arose. Some have regarded Q as derived from an authorial manu - script, others as a reconstruction from memory by one or more of its actors. F has been thought to be based on Q, or possibly the 1619 quarto (hereafter Q2), or on a playhouse manuscript. The current orthodoxy is that Q (printed by Nicholas Okes) represents Shakespeare’s first draft, and that F is a later revision made by Shakespeare sometime after 1608. Throughout most of the twentieth century, editors tended to choose the best readings as they saw them from both Q and F, and offered readers a conflated ‘ideal’ text, one that reflected the judgement of the scholar responsible for the edi - tion. In the 1980s, this policy of making the best of all possible readings was strongly challenged by a group that came to be known as the ‘revisionists’. 1 These influential critics included Michael Warren, Steven Urkowitz, and Gary Taylor. Collectively, they maintained that conflation could only pro - duce a patched-up text that Shakespeare never in fact wrote. Their view is that Q was essentially Shakespeare’s first attempt, and that F constituted a much-revised version. 2 So persuasive has this argument been that significant scholarly editions of the plays have since absorbed its line of thinking. Readers now find themselves offered as many as three King Lear s, separate editions of Q and F, plus a conflated text that merges the two. If the detail involved in these debates appears sometimes complex and technical, the revision theory at least had the virtue of making the solution seem simple. I am grateful to Brian Vickers for prompting me to write this article, and for his support. I also wish to thank the exacting anonymous readers of drafts of this article who have at various points saved me from misapprehension and error. My sincere thanks also go to Peter Holland, MacDonald P. Jackson, Pervez Rizvi, and Stanley Wells for their helpful responses to a draft of this article. 1 Richard Knowles, ‘Revision Awry in Folio Lear 3.1’, Shakespeare Quarterly , 46 (1995), 32–46 (p. 32). 2 See for example Steven Urkowitz, Shakespeare’s Revision of King Lear (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 129. The Library , 7th series, vol. 22, no. 1 (March 2021) © The Author 2021; all rights reserved Library March 2021,1 Salkeld.qxp_Layout 1 01/02/2021 12:02 Page 4 4 Q/F: The Texts of King Lear This article adopts a different view, but one that is not entirely new. An implication arising from it is that no revision of King Lear took place after 1608, save for a few corrections made in Q2. Part of the Lear problem, it seems, has resided in the way the relation between Q and F has been under - stood. Almost all studies have assumed that F, printed in 1623, must to some extent derive from Q, printed in 1608. On this view, F contains improve - ments or corrections made after Q. But, for reasons that will become clear, the reverse appears to have been the case. The great majority of verbal alterations (aside from significant excisions in F) happened to Q, not to F. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/library/article/22/1/3/6174155 by guest on 27 September 2021 Furthermore, there is no sign that these alterations were made as part of a deliberate strategy of re-shaping the play. The argument here is that, while F was printed later than Q, the manuscript on which it was based (or one similar) was available to the printers of Q. In short, a manuscript very much like F, but without its cuts, lies behind Q. In line with several studies before it, this article argues further that Q is a reported text, but a report of a very specific kind. Before proceeding further, it may be helpful to expand on what is meant by this claim. The central argument here proposed runs as follows: Q was printed by dictation in the printing house from an uncut manuscript very similar to F. It is well-known that Q has material not in F, perhaps because the manu - script behind F was shortened for performance (mainly at 2.2.7–15, 3.6.17 –55 and 94–112, 3.7.98–106, 4.1.61–66, 4.2.32–51, all of 4.3 and 5.3.203–20). 3 Q’s numerous verbal slips derive on the whole, though not entirely, from a combination of misreadings and mishearings made between a lector , or reader, and Okes’s on-duty compositor. The idea that the first quarto might have been produced by dictation was considered, though not endorsed, by Madeleine Doran as early as 1931, but has since received little attention, perhaps for lack of evidence that this was a method much used by early printers. The proposition set out below is that the complete text of King Lear was broadly finished by 1608. An imperfect quarto was published in that year from a manuscript that had been read aloud, and a version of this text was later reprinted with a few corrections in 1619 (Q2). In 1623, the play was printed again as one of the tragedies of the First Folio, but by this time the manuscript had been cut for performance. In order to explain the rationale for these claims, some review of prior critical studies is required since a broad but important consensus held before the revision hypothesis emerged. That consensus produced a number of insights that ought still to be heeded, especially in so far as they touch on the question of mishearings. For clarity, this article is divided into four sec - tions. It begins with an account of some of the complexities of the Lear 3 Line references to Shakespeare’s plays are throughout keyed to the editions of the Third Series of the Arden Shakespeare, unless otherwise stated. Library March 2021,1 Salkeld.qxp_Layout 1 01/02/2021 12:02 Page 5 Duncan Salkeld 5 debate. These details may at times seem technical, but they are central to the argument. It adds an account of the currently dominant view—the revision theory—and its critics. The second section risks testing the reader’s patience by providing a brief recapitulation of critical positions regarding the Q/F problem. But this summary is necessary since it demonstrates that key observa tions regarding misreadings and mishearings were generated by these prior studies. The third section sets out to establish the order of the Lear texts, and challenges a long-influential account by P. A. Daniel, pub - lished in 1885, which all subsequent studies of the question have followed. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/library/article/22/1/3/6174155 by guest on 27 September 2021 The fourth section sets out some of the evidence for dictation. It will be clear that several scholars have anticipated, in one way or another, the con - clusions advanced in this article. Complexities and Revision The complexities of the Lear problem can seem daunting. Not only do the play’s two earliest imprints (Q and F) differ in significant respects, but Q itself survives in varying states. Of the twelve extant quartos, no two are iden tical. As is characteristic of early printed texts, each contains a pattern of variants not exactly reproduced in any of the others. It appears that as Q was going through the press, its sheets were checked for faults and occa - sional corrections were added. Some were only partly corrected but the improved sheets were subsequently distributed haphazardly (as it were) in the final work. Ever since W. W. Greg’s definitive study of these variants, Q’s original or uncorrected sheets have usually been referred to as ‘Qa’, and its sheets in the amended or corrected state designated ‘Qb’. Each of the extant quartos contains different sheets in either state. Greg provided a table showing the distributions of these anomalies in the twelve quartos, arranged by the sheet-signature and forme on which they appear. 4 From this table alone, it would appear that Q’s marked degree of instability resulted from agents other than Shakespeare. There are abundant signs in the surviving quartos that Q was printed with out much thought or care. Verse is very often set as prose, occasionally prose is given as verse, character speech prefixes are sometimes confused, and punctuation is often either omitted or quite out of kilter with the sense. Q contains some 300 or so lines that are not in F, while F has about 100 lines not in Q. One of the many striking differences between the texts is that, sporadi cally, sections ranging from a few lines to entire passages appear either only in Q or only in F. Among other omissions, F lacks thirty lines for the ‘mad trial’ of Goneril (3.6.17–55) and the whole scene of 4.3. Several other substantial Q-only passages confirm that the original manuscript was 4 W. W. Greg, The Variants in the First Quarto of ‘King Lear’ (London: The Bibliographical Society, 1940), p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FRONT9 2.CHP:Corel VENTURA
    144 Issues in Review The Red Bull Repertory in Print, 1605–60 With remarkable consistency throughout the early modern period, Red Bull playgoers are characterized as unlettered, ignorant, or possessed of a crass literary sensibility. Interestingly, though, they are also imagined as avid readers: Webster’s well-known depiction, following the failure at the Red Bull of his The White Devil, declares that ‘most of the people that come to that Play-house, resemble those ignorant asses (who visiting Stationers shoppes their use is not to inquire for good bookes, but new bookes).’1 Webster’s association of Red Bull spectators with book-buyers suggests that the persistent representations of the low literacy of this audience may obscure the extent to which the famously spectacle-driven Red Bull repertory intersects with early modern print culture. The number of Red Bull plays that were published with an explicit theatrical attribution, and more importantly the similarities in design and typography between them and plays belonging to the more elite indoor repertories, would seem to bear this out. As reading material, the Red Bull plays indicate that a seemingly ‘low’ or popular theatrical repertory is not sufficient evidence of the social or educational make-up of its audience. It is crucial at the outset to confront the publication figures that have led scholars to assume that a Red Bull attribution on the title page of a play quarto did not have any meaningful currency in early modern print culture: of the roughly 400 editions of plays published
    [Show full text]
  • Det. 1.2.2 Quartos 1594-1609.Pdf
    author registered year of title printer stationer value editions edition Anon. 6 February 1594 to John 1594 The most lamentable Romaine tragedie of Titus Iohn Danter Edward White & "rather good" 1600, 1611 Danter Andronicus as it was plaide by the Right Honourable Thomas Millington the Earle of Darbie, Earle of Pembrooke, and Earle of Sussex their seruants Anon. 2 May 1594 1594 A Pleasant Conceited Historie, Called the Taming of Peter Short Cuthbert Burby bad a Shrew. As it was sundry times acted by the Right honorable the Earle of Pembrook his seruants. Anon. 12 March 1594 to Thomas 1594 The First Part of the Contention Betwixt the Two Thomas Creede Thomas Millington bad 1600 Millington Famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster . [Henry VI Part 2] Anon. 1595 The true tragedie of Richard Duke of York , and P. S. [Peter Short] Thomas Millington bad 1600 the death of good King Henrie the Sixt, with the whole contention betweene the two houses Lancaster and Yorke, as it was sundrie times acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke his seruants [Henry VI Part 3] Anon. 1597 An excellent conceited tragedie of Romeo and Iuliet. Iohn Danter [and bad As it hath been often (with great applause) plaid Edward Allde] publiquely, by the Right Honourable the L. of Hunsdon his seruants Anon. 29 August 1597 to Andrew 1597 The tragedie of King Richard the second. As it hath Valentine Simmes Andrew Wise "rather good" Wise been publikely acted by the Right Honourable the Lorde Chamberlaine his seruants. William Shake-speare [29 Aug 1597] 1598 The tragedie of King Richard the second.
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of English Printing : 1476-1900
    J \ Books about Books Edited by A. W. Pollard A Short History of English Printing BOOKS ABOUT BOOKS Edited bv A. W. POLLARD POPULAR RE-ISSUE BOOKS IN MANUSCRIPT. By Falconer Madan, Bodley's Librarian, Oxford. THE BINDING OF BOOKS. By H. P. HORNE. A SHORT HISTORY OF ENGLISH PRINTING. By II. K. Plomer. EARLY ILLUSTRATED BOOKS. By A. W. POLI.ARD. Other volumes in pi-eparatioit. A Short History of English Printing 1476-1900 By Henry R. Plomer London Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibncr & Co., Ltd. Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.C, MDCCCCXV I-'irst Edition, 1900 Second (Popular) Edition, 1915 The rights of translation and of reproduction are reserved Editor's Preface When Mr. Plomer consented at my request to write a short history of EngHsh printing which should stop neither at the end of the fifteenth century, nor at the end of the sixteenth century, nor at 1640, but should come down, as best it could, to our ovm day, we were not without appre- hensions that the task might prove one of some difficulty. How difficult it would be we had certainly no idea, or the book would never have been begun, and now that it is Imished I would bespeak the reader's sympathies, on Mr. Plomer 's behalf, that its inevitable shortcomings may be the more generously forgiven. If we look at what has already been written on the subject the diffi- culties will be more easily appreciated. In England, as in other countries, the period in the history of the press which is best known to us is, by the perversity of antiquaries, that which is furthest removed from our own time.
    [Show full text]
  • Article Reference
    Article Shakespeare and the Publication of His Plays ERNE, Lukas Christian Abstract Challenging the accepted view that Shakespeare was indifferent to the publication of his plays by focusing on the economics of the booktrade, examines the evidence that the playing companies resisted publishing their plays, reviews "the publication history of Shakespeare's plays, which suggests that the Lord Chamberlain's Men has a coherent strategy to try to get their playwright's plays into print," and "inquire[s] into what can or cannot be inferred from Shakespeare's alleged involvement (as with the narrative poems) or noninvolvement (as with the plays) in the publication of his writings." Concluding that publishers had little economic incentive to publish drama, calls for renewed attention to Shakespeare's attitude to his plays and their publication. Reference ERNE, Lukas Christian. Shakespeare and the Publication of His Plays. Shakespeare Quarterly, 2002, vol. 53, p. 1-20 Available at: http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:14491 Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version. 1 / 1 Shakespeare and the Publication of His Plays LUKAS ERNE N WHAT S. SCHOENBAUM HAS CALLED Pope's "most influential contribution to IShakespearian biography;' the eighteenth-century poet and critic wrote: Shakespear, (whom you and ev'ry Play-house bill Style the divine, the matchless, what you will) For gain, not glory, wing'd his roving flight, And grew Immortal in his own despight. 1 Pope's lines were no doubt instrumental in reinforcing the opinion, soon to be frozen into dogma, that Shakespeare cared only for that form of publication—the stage which promised an immediate payoff, while being indifferent to the one that even- tually guaranteed his immortality—the printed page.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CASE for the FOLIO Jonathan Bate
    THE CASE FOR THE FOLIO Jonathan Bate ‘The First Folio remains, as a matter of fact, the text nearest to Shakespeare’s stage, to Shakespeare’s ownership, to Shakespeare’s authority’ (Charlotte Porter and Helen Clarke, preface to their Pembroke Edition, 1903) © Jonathan Bate 2007 THIS ESSAY OFFERS A MORE DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE EDITORIAL PROBLEM IN SHAKESPEARE THAN THAT PROVIDED ON pp. l-lvii/50-57 OF THE GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE RSC SHAKESPEARE: COMPLETE WORKS THE QUARTOS The original manuscripts of Shakespeare’s works do not survive: the sole extant composition in his hand is a single scene from Sir Thomas More, a multi-authored play that cannot really be described as ‘his’. Shakespeare only survives because his works were printed. In his lifetime there appeared the following works (all spellings of titles modernized here, numbering inserted for convenience only, sequence of publication within same year not readily established). They were nearly all printed in the compact and relatively low- priced format, which may be thought of as the equivalent of the modern paperback, known as quarto (the term is derived from the fact that each sheet of paper that came off the press was folded to make four leaves): 1] Venus and Adonis (1593) – poem. 2] Lucrece (1594) – poem. 3] The most lamentable Roman tragedy of Titus Andronicus, as it was played by the right honourable the Earl of Derby, Earl of Pembroke and Earl of Sussex their servants (1594) – without the fly-killing scene that appears in the 1623 First Folio. 4] The first part of the contention betwixt the two famous Houses of York and Lancaster, with the death of the good Duke Humphrey, and the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolk, and the tragical end of the proud Cardinal of Winchester, with the notable rebellion of Jack Cade, and the Duke of York’s first claim unto the crown (1594) – a variant version of the play that in the 1623 First Folio was called The Second Part of Henry the Sixth.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclaiming the Passionate Pilgrim for Shakespeare
    Reclaiming The Passionate Pilgrim for Shakespeare Katherine Chiljan he Passionate Pilgrim (1598-1599) is a hornet’s nest of problems for academic Shakespeareans. This small volume is a collection of twenty T poems with the name “W. Shakespeare” on the title page. Only fragments of the first edition survive; its date is reckoned as late 1598 or 1599, the same year as the second edition. Scholars agree that the text was pirated. Why it was called The Passionate Pilgrim is unknown. It has been suggested that the title was publisher William Jaggard’s at- tempt to fulfill public demand for Shake- speare’s “sugar’d sonnets circulated among his private friends” that Francis Meres had recently mentioned in Palladis Tamia, or Wit’s Treasury , also published 1598. Jag- gard somehow acquired two Shakespeare sonnets (slightly different versions of 138 and 144 in Thomas Thorpe’s 1609 edition), and placed them as the first and second poems in his collection. Three additional pieces (3, 5 and 16) were excerpts from Act IV of Love’s Labor’s Lost , which was also printed in 1598. A total of five poems, therefore, were unquestionably by Shakespeare. But attribution to Shakespeare for the rest has become confused and doubted because of the inclusion of pieces supposedly by other poets. Numbers 8 and 20 were published in Richard Barnfield’s The Encomion of Lady Pecunia: or The Praise of Money (1598); No. 11 appeared in Bartholomew Griffin’s Fidessa (1596); and No. 19, “Live with Me and Be My Love,” was later attributed to Christopher Marlowe.
    [Show full text]
  • View Fast Facts
    FAST FACTS Author's Works and Themes: Hamlet “Author's Works and Themes: Hamlet.” Gale, 2019, www.gale.com. Writings by William Shakespeare Play Productions • Henry VI, part 1, London, unknown theater (perhaps by a branch of the Queen's Men), circa 1589-1592. • Henry VI, part 2, London, unknown theater (perhaps by a branch of the Queen's Men), circa 1590-1592. • Henry VI, part 3, London, unknown theater (perhaps by a branch of the Queen's Men), circa 1590-1592. • Richard III, London, unknown theater (perhaps by a branch of the Queen's Men), circa 1591-1592. • The Comedy of Errors, London, unknown theater (probably by Lord Strange's Men), circa 1592-1594; London, Gray's Inn, 28 December 1594. • Titus Andronicus, London, Rose or Newington Butts theater, 24 January 1594. • The Taming of the Shrew, London, Newington Butts theater, 11 June 1594. • The Two Gentlemen of Verona, London, Newington Butts theater or the Theatre, 1594. • Love's Labor's Lost, perhaps at the country house of a great lord, such as the Earl of Southampton, circa 1594-1595; London, at Court, Christmas 1597. • Sir Thomas More, probably by Anthony Munday, revised by Thomas Dekker, Henry Chettle, Shakespeare, and possibly Thomas Heywood, evidently never produced, circa 1594-1595. • King John, London, the Theatre, circa 1594-1596. • Richard II, London, the Theatre, circa 1595. • Romeo and Juliet, London, the Theatre, circa 1595-1596. • A Midsummer Night's Dream, London, the Theatre, circa 1595-1596. • The Merchant of Venice, London, the Theatre, circa 1596-1597. • Henry IV, part 1, London, the Theatre, circa 1596-1597.
    [Show full text]
  • [Bibliography] Analytical/Descriptive Bibliography 1. Bowers, Principles
    [Bibliography] Analytical/Descriptive Bibliography 1. Bowers, Principles of Bibliographic Description (Introduction, Foreword, and Chapter 1) 2. Gaskell, A New Introduction to Bibliography 3. Blayney, The Texts of King Lear and their Origins: Volume 1, Nicholas Okes and the First Quarto, (Ch. 1-4: “Intro,” “The printing house and its owners,” “Printing-house methods,” “Okes at Work,” “The Printing of King Lear”) 4. McKenzie, Cambridge University Press, 1696-1712: A Bibliographical Study (Ch. 1-5: “Establishing the press,” “Sites and buildings,” “Equipment and materials,” “Servants of the press,” “Organization and production”) 5. Blayney, The First Folio of Shakespeare 6. Bland, A Guide to Early Printed Books and Manuscripts 7. Davison, The Book Encompassed: Studies in Twentieth-Century Bibliography 8. D.F. McKenzie, “Printers of the Mind” 9. Sayce, Compositorial Practices and the localization of printed books, 1979 10. Moxon, Mechanick exercises, or, The doctrine of handy-works: applied to the art of printing Foxon, “The Varieties of Early Proof” 11. Tanselle, “The Identification of Typefaces in Bibliographical Description” 12. Stevenson, “Observations on paper as evidence” 13. A.W. Lewis, Basic Bookbinding Printing and Publishing History 14. Febvre, The Coming of the Book 15. Genette, Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation 16. Blayney, “The Publication of Playbooks” Lesser and Farmer’s reply, “The Popularity of Playbooks Revisited” 17. McKitterick, Print, Manuscript and the Search for Order, 1450-1830 18. Cambridge Companion to the History of the Book (Ch.s: 1, 6, 8, 12, 15. Howsman, “1: The Study of BH”; Ezell, “6: Handwriting and the Book”; Clegg, “8: The authority and subversiveness of print in EM Europe”; Suarez, “12: BH from Des Bibliographies”; “15: BH in the classroom”) 19.
    [Show full text]
  • Popular Theatre and the Red Bull
    Early Theatre 9.2 Issues in Review Lucy Munro, Anne Lancashire, John Astington, and Marta Straznicky Popular Theatre and the Red Bull Governing the Pen to the Capacity of the Stage: Reading the Red Bull and Clerkenwell In his introduction to Early Theatre’s Issues in Review segment ‘Reading the Elizabethan Acting Companies’, published in 2001, Scott McMillin called for an approach to the study of early modern drama which takes theatre companies as ‘the organizing units of dramatic production’. Such an approach will, he suggests, entail reading plays ‘more fully than we have been trained to do, taking them not as authorial texts but as performed texts, seeing them as collaborative endeavours which involve the writers and dozens of other theatre people, and placing the staged plays in a social network to which both the players and audiences – perhaps even the playwrights – belonged’.1 We present here a variation on this approach: three essays that focus on the Red Bull theatre and its Clerkenwell locality. Rather than focusing on individual companies, we take the playhouse and location as our organising principle. Nonetheless, we are dealing with precisely the kind of decentring activity that McMillin had in mind, examining early drama through collaborative performance, through performance styles and audience taste, and through the presentation of a theatrical repertory in print. Each essay deals with a different ‘social network’: Anne Lancashire re-examines the evidence for the London Clerkenwell play, a multi-day biblical play performed by clerks in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries; John Astington takes a look at acting traditions and repertory composition at the Red Bull and its fellow in the northern suburbs, Golden Lane’s Fortune playhouse; and Marta Straznicky looks at questions relating to the audience for Red Bull plays in the playhouse and the print-shop.
    [Show full text]
  • Faith Acker Phd Thesis (Appendix II Embargoed)
    ‘NEW-FOUND METHODS AND ... COMPOUNDS STRANGE': READING THE 1640 'POEMS: WRITTEN BY WIL SHAKE- SPEARE. GENT.' Faith Acker A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2012 Full metadata for this item is available in Research@StAndrews:FullText at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/3461 This item is protected by original copyright ‘New-found methods and . compounds strange’: Reading the 1640 Poems: Written by Wil. Shake-speare. Gent. Faith Acker This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 11 October, 2012 iii Abstract The second edition of Shakespeare’s sonnets, titled Poems: Written by Wil. Shake-Speare, Gent, and published by stationer John Benson in 1640, was a text typical of its time. In an effort to update the old-fashioned sonnet sequence in which its contents had first reached print, the compiler or editor of the Bensonian version rearranged the poems from the earlier quarto text, adding titles and other texts thought to have been written by or about the sonnets’ author. The immediate reception of the 1640 Poems was a quiet one, but the volume’s contents and structure served as the foundation for more than half of the editions of Shakespeare’s sonnets produced in the eighteenth century. In part due to the textual instability created by the presence of two disparate arrangements of the collection, Shakespeare’s sonnets served only as supplements to the preferred Shakespearean canon from 1709 to 1790.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography Manuscript and Archival Sources Bristol Record Office Parish
    Bibliography Manuscript and archival sources Bristol Record Office Parish Registers FCP/AS/R/1 (All Saints) FCP/Xch/R/1 (Christ Church) FCP/St.Aug/R/1 (St Augustine the Less) FCP/St. E/R/1 (St Ewen) FCP/St.J/R/1 (St James) FCP/St.JB/R/1 (St John the Baptist) FCP/St. MR/R/1 (St Mary Redcliffe) FCP/St.N/R/1 (St. Nicholas) FCP/St.P+J/R/1 (St Philip and St Jacob) FCP/St.S/R/1 (St Stephen) FCP/St.T/R/1 (St Thomas) FCP/St.W/R/1 (St Werburgh) FCP/Tem/R/1 (Temple) FCP/Dy/R/1 (Dyrham) Wills and Inventories FCI/1620-1632/19 ((Probate Inventory of Cattelena of Almondsbury, 24 May 1625) EP/J/4/6 (Will of Richard Ford of Almondsbury 25 April 1639) Bromley Historic Collections P92/1/1 (St. Nicholas, Chislehurst) Cambridge University Library Additional Manuscripts, 7226-7306 (G.R.G. Conway Collection, Mexican Inquisition) Canterbury Cathedral Archives Parish Registers U3/26/1/1 (St. James’s, Dover) U3-30 (St. Mary’s, Dover) U85/38/14 (Sir Anthony Throckmorton’s Diary, 1578-1596, 1609-1613) DCb-L/R/vol 11, f. 223v (Register of General Licences, 1625–1629) DCb/L/R/13 (Petition of Henry Jenken, 27 June 1635) DCb/BT/1/94 (Baptism of an ‘Indian manchild’, St. Mary’s Fordwich, 28 June 1635) Cornwall Record Office, Truro AP/L/253(John Lankford’s will, 1624) Parish Registers FP133/1/1(Madron) FP99/1/1 (St Keverne) FP236/1/1 (St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Materiality of the Shakespearean Text Author(S): Margreta De Grazia and Peter Stallybrass Source: Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol
    The Materiality of the Shakespearean Text Author(s): Margreta de Grazia and Peter Stallybrass Source: Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 255-283 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2871419 Accessed: 29-06-2019 21:12 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2871419?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Shakespeare Quarterly This content downloaded from 128.227.131.182 on Sat, 29 Jun 2019 21:12:54 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms The Materiality of the Shakespearean Text MARGRETA DE GRAZIA AND PETER STALLYBRASS FOR OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS, KING LEAR WAS one text; in 1986, with the Oxford Shakespeare, it became two; in 1989, with The Complete King Lear 1608-1623, it became four (at least). As a result of this multiplication, Shakespeare studies will never be the same. This is not simply because we may now have more Shakespeare than before-many Lears instead of one; a mere enlargement of the canon requires no rethinking of how the works are to be prepared and interpreted.
    [Show full text]