DOCSLIB.ORG

Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Eighteenth-Century Literary Theory" (1995)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Eighteenth-Century Literary Theory University of Kentucky UKnowledge Dramatic Literature, Criticism, and Theory Theatre and Performance Studies 2-23-1995 The Re-Imagined Text: Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Eighteenth- Century Literary Theory Jean I. Marsden University of Connecticut Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Thanks to the University of Kentucky Libraries and the University Press of Kentucky, this book is freely available to current faculty, students, and staff at the University of Kentucky. Find other University of Kentucky Books at uknowledge.uky.edu/upk. For more information, please contact UKnowledge at [email protected]. Recommended Citation Marsden, Jean I., "The Re-Imagined Text: Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Eighteenth-Century Literary Theory" (1995). Dramatic Literature, Criticism, and Theory. 7. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_dramatic_literature/7 The Re-Imagined Text Shakespeare, Adaptation, & Eighteenth-Century Literary Theory Jean 1. Marsden THE UNIVERSITY PRESS OF KENTUCKY Copyright © 1995 by The University Press ofKentucky Scholarly publisher for the Commonwealth, serving Bellarmine College, Berea College, Centre College ofKentucky, Eastern Kentucky University, The Filson Club, Geor~etown College, Kentucky Historical Society, Kentucky State University, Morehead State University, Murray State University, Northern Kentucky University, Transylvania University, University ofKentucky, University ofLouisville, and Western Kentucky University. Editorial and Sales Offices: Lexington, Kentucky 40508-4008 Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Marsden, Jean I. The re-imagined text : Shakespeare, adaptation, and eighteenth­ century literary theory / Jean I. Marsden. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. 1. Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616-Criticism and interpretation­ History-18th century. 2. Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616­ Adaptations-History and criticism. 3. English drama-18th century-History and criticism-Theory, etc. 4. English drama­ Adaptations-History and criticism. 5. Criticism-Great Britain­ History-18th century. 6. Theater-Great Britain-History-18th century. 7. Literary fonn. I. Title. PR2968.M37 1995 822.3'3-dc20 94-3399 This book is printed on acid-free recycled paper meeting the requirements ofthe American National Standard for Pennanence ofPaper for Printed Library Materials. 6) For my MOTHER and in loving memory of my FATHER This page intentionally left blank Contents Acknowledgments IX Introduction 1 Part I: The Re-Imagined Text 1 Radical Adaptation 13 2 The Beginnings ofShakespeare Criticism 47 Part II: Refinedfrom the Dross 3 Adaptation in Decline 75 4 Criticism at Mid-Century 103 5 The Search for a Genuine Text 127 Conclusion 150 Appendix 155 Notes 157 Index 187 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 This page intentionally left blank 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Acknowledgments I would like to thank a variety of people and institutions who helped make this book possible. First, the research for this book was supported by a Danforth Award from the Harvard English Department and by grants from the University ofConnecticut Research Foundation and the American Philosophical Society. The project began under the guidance of Walter Jackson Bate and of Gywnne Blakemore Evans, for whose encouragement over the years I am deeply grateful. My readers for the University Press of Kentucky also deserve special recognition for their detailed and constructive comments on the manuscript. In particular, I would like to thank 111y editor, Nancy Grayson Holmes, for her friend­ ship and for her faith in this project. Fellow reception scholars Margreta de Grazia and Howard Felperin both read earlier versions of this book, as did Lennard Davis. Michael Dobson, who more than anyone else shares my enthusiasm for obscure bits ofShakespeariana, deserves a special note; over the course ofseveral years he has shared his work and assisted with mine.·I would also like to thank Noelle Arrangoiz, Anne Goldgar, and Susan Stacey for their in­ tellectual support and unfailing patience. At the University ofConnecti­ cut, I have been fortunate in the support of my colleagues; Raymond Anselment and Margaret Higonnet read the entire book and generously gave me advice and encouragement while John Abbott, Patrick Colm Hogan, and Thomas Recchio cheerfully read portions ofthe manuscript. In addition, I am grateful for the efforts ofmy research assistants Dennis Lazor, Patricia Pallis, Julie Pfeiffer, Monica Hatzberger, and Hilary Hodgkins. My greatest debt is and always will be to Lane Barrow, who has lived with this project since its inception and not only read every page (and commented rigorously upon it) but provided me with the moral support that in the end enabled me to finish. Portions of this book have appeared in earlier publications. Part of chap­ ter 1 appeared as "Rewritten Women: Shakespeare Heroines in the Res­ toration" in The Appropriation of Shakespeare: Post-Renaissance Recon- x The Re-Imagined Text structions of the Works and the Myth (Harvester Wheatshea£ 1991), and a segment ofchapter 5 appeared as "The Individual Reader and the Can­ onized Text: Shakespeare Criticism after Johnson" in Eighteenth-Century Life 17 (1993): 1. I am grateful to these publications for pennission to reprint this material. The Re-Imagined Text j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j This page intentionally left blank j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j Introduction The Restoration and eighteenth century produced one ofthe most sub­ versive acts in literary history-the rewriting and restructuring ofShake­ speare's plays. We have all heard ofNahum Tate's "audacious" adaptation ofKing Lear with its resoundingly happy ending, but Tate was only one ofa score ofplaywrights who adapted Shakespeare's plays. Between 1660 and 1777, more than fifty adaptations appeared in print and on the stage, works in which playwrights augmented, substantially cut, or completely rewrote the original plays. The plays were staged with new characters, new scenes, new endings, and, underlying all this novelty, new words. 1 Early playwrights and critics, it seemed, saw Shakespeare's plays as plastic material which could be remolded at will, but this attitude changed in the course ofthe eighteenth century. Fewer playwrights wrote or pro­ duced adaptations and the text itself changed less and less. 2 Adaptations which made substantial changes were not written after the 1780s, and by the end ofthe eighteenth century, only a few adaptations were still being performed: Tate's King Lear appeared until 1836, Garrick's Catherine and Petruchio until 1887, and elements ofhis Romeo and]uliet until 1884.3 Cibber's Richard III endured into the twentieth century, and its ghost still haunts us each time Olivier's Richard III cries, "Offwith his head. So much for Buckingham."4 Why did this happen? Were Restoration and eighteenth century au­ diences really deafto Shakespeare's genius and did true taste only appear with the romantic poets? Obviously not. But the adaptations are more than an embarrassing group ofobscure plays symbolizing the Enlighten­ ment's poetic bad taste. Not only are they the Shakespeare that most theater-goers in the Restoration and eighteenth century saw on the stage, more importantly, they are also a manifestation of the period's percep­ tion ofShakespeare, and as such they demonstrate an important evolu­ tion both in the definition of poetic language and of the idea of what constitutes a literary work. Today the idea ofchanging Shakespeare's words seems blasphemous; not only do we revere Shakespeare, with our reverence centering on his text, but twentieth-century theory in general has focused almost exclu- 2 The Re-Imagined Text sively on the printed word. Modem theorists have pronounced the death ofthe author, disclaiming the restrictions ofauthorial intention and leav­ ing us with only the text.5 The sanctity ofthe text has become so firmly established in our consciousness that we shudder at the thought ofalter­ ing a writer's words. Criticism under these assumptions has consisted of a series ofvarying interpretations ofan unchanging literary work. In con­ trast, the later seventeenth century, though it held Shakespeare in high regard, did not defer to his text. As Dryden wrote in the "Preface" to Fa­ bles, "words are not like landmarks, so sacred as never to be removed."6 Yet, although our performances of Shakespeare reflect our reverence for the written word, even without changing the text twentieth-century stagings alter Shakespeare as substantially as did the Restoration play­ wrights.7 What differentiates us from the Restoration is that while we feel free to alter Shakespeare's context, we do not change his text. Our sense oftextual sanctity and its antithesis as exemplified by the adaptations form the basis of this study. We clearly find genius within the words of Shakespeare's text, hence our horror at these attempts to rewrite or remove his words. Equally clearly, the playwrights and critics ofthe Restoration and eighteenth century, while they revered the poet, did not revere his language per see In the intervening two hundred and fifty years, attitudes toward Shakespeare and his text have been inverted. This shift is not simply an attempt to canonize an author, as argued by R.W. Babcock but an attempt to canonize words, a crucial distinction.8 Shakespeare as author also becomes Shakespeare as document.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Non-Traditional Authorship Attribution Studies of William Shakespeare’S Canon: Some Caveats
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Firenze University Press: E-Journals Journal of Early Modern Studies, n. 5 (2016), pp. 307-328 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13128/JEMS-2279-7149-18094 Non-Traditional Authorship Attribution Studies of William Shakespeare’s Canon: Some Caveats Joseph Rudman Carnegie Mellon University (<[email protected]>) Abstract The paper looks at the problems in conducting non-traditional authorship attribution studies on the canon of William Shakespeare. After a short introduction, the case is put forth that these studies are ‘scientific’ and must adhere to the tenets of the scientific method. By showing that a complete and valid experimental plan is necessary and pointing out the many and varied pitfalls (e.g., the text, the control groups, the treatment of errors), it becomes clear what a valid study of Shakespearean non-traditional authorship attribution demands. I then come to the conclusion that such a valid study is not attainable with the limits of present-day knowledge. Keywords: Attribution, Authorship, Shakespeare, Statistics, Stylistics It is not possible, in the compass of a single essay, to deal with very many – let alone all – of the tests by which investigators in their wisdom or folly have sought to prove authorship by style. (Schoenbaum 1966, 197) 1. Introduction There are a few ‘givens’ framing this paper: 1) William Shakespeare was an actor and playwright – exactly who he was is not relevant here. 2) The First Folio constitutes the basis of what has come down to us as Shakespeare’s canon.1 1 Non-traditional authorship attribution studies are those that make use of stylistics, statistics, and the computer.
    [Show full text]
  • On Morals, Fictions, and Genres
    On Morals, Fictions, and Genres by Shen-yi Liao A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Philosophy) in The University of Michigan 2011 Doctoral Committee: Professor Kendall L. Walton, Chair Professor Daniel Jacobson Associate Professor Sarah Buss Assistant Professor Sekhar Chandra Sripada c Shen-yi Liao 2011 All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To start, I would like to thank the members of my committee, whose incisive feedback and patient guidance made this dissertation possible. Ken Walton sparked my interest in aesthetics and guided this project from the very beginning. The influence of his thoughtful criticisms can be seen on nearly every page. Sarah Buss has been a source of constant encouragement and her attention to detail greatly improved this work. Dan Jacobson consistently provided invaluable comments on this work and equally invaluable advice on navigating academia. Chandra Sripada served as an exemplary model for integrating empirical methods into philosophical inquiry. I also owe much gratitude to all others who have contributed to the finished dissertation and my growth as a philosopher. In particular, although their names do not appear on the cover page, Tamar Gendler, Shaun Nichols, and Andy Egan more than deserve the title of unofficial committee members. Each of them had a tremendous impact on the way I think about the topics covered in this dissertation, and more importantly, the way I think as a philosopher. In addition, Lina Jansson taught me much about scientific explanation and Nina Strohminger taught me much about experimental design and statistical analysis. Other members of the Michigan philosophical community deserve thanks.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Cambridge Shakespeare
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-82544-3 - The Merchant of Venice Edited by M. M. Mahood Frontmatter More information THE NEW CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE GENERAL EDITOR Brian Gibbons ASSOCIATE GENERAL EDITOR A. R. Braunmuller, University of California, Los Angeles From the publication of the first volumes in 1984 the General Editor of the New Cambridge Shakespeare was Philip Brockbank and the Associate General Editors were Brian Gibbons and Robin Hood. From 1990 to 1994 the General Editor was Brian Gibbons and the Associate General Editors were A. R. Braunmuller and Robin Hood. THE MERCHAnt OF VENICE The Merchant of Venice has been performed more often than any other comedy by Shakespeare. Molly Mahood pays special attention to the expectations of the play’s first audience, and to our modern experience of seeing and hearing the play. In a substantial new addition to the Introduction, Charles Edelman focuses on the play’s sex- ual politics and recent scholarship devoted to the position of Jews in Shakespeare’s time. He surveys the international scope and diversity of theatrical interpretations of The Merchant in the 1980s and 1990s and their different ways of tackling the troubling figure of Shylock. © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-82544-3 - The Merchant of Venice Edited by M. M. Mahood Frontmatter More information THE NEW CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE All’s Well That Ends Well, edited by Russell Fraser Antony and Cleopatra, edited by David Bevington As You Like It, edited by Michael Hattaway The Comedy of Errors, edited by T.
    [Show full text]
  • "Fictionalism: Morality and Metaphor"
    - 1 - Fictionalism: Morality and metaphor Richard Joyce Penultimate draft of paper appearing in F. Kroon & B. Armour-Garb (eds.), Philosophical Fictionalism (Oxford University Press, forthcoming). 1. Introduction Language and reflection often pull against each other. Ordinary ways of talking appear to commit speakers to ontologies that may, upon reflection, be deemed problematic for a variety of empirical, metaphysical, and/or epistemological reasons. The use of moral discourse, for example, appears to commit speakers to the existence of obligation, evil, desert, praiseworthiness (and so on), while metaethical reflection raises a host of doubts about how such properties could exist in the world and how we could have access to them if they did. One extreme solution to the tension is to give up reflection—to become like those “honest gentlemen” of England, as Hume described them, who “being always employ’d in domestic affairs, or amusing themselves in common recreations, have carried their thoughts very little beyond those objects” (Treatise 1.4.7.14). Hume sounds a touch envious of the unreflective idyll, but the very fact that he is penning a treatise on human nature shows that this is not a solution available to him; and, likewise, the very fact that you are reading this chapter shows that it’s unlikely to be a solution for you. Another extreme solution to the tension is to give up language—not in toto, of course, but selectively: to stop using those elements of discourse that are deemed to have unacceptable commitments. How radical this eliminativism is will depend on the nature of the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • The Low-Status Character in Shakespeare's Comedies Linda St
    Western Kentucky University TopSCHOLAR® Masters Theses & Specialist Projects Graduate School 5-1-1973 The Low-Status Character in Shakespeare's Comedies Linda St. Clair Western Kentucky University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses Part of the English Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation St. Clair, Linda, "The Low-Status Character in Shakespeare's Comedies" (1973). Masters Theses & Specialist Projects. Paper 1028. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/1028 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses & Specialist Projects by an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARCHIVES THE LOW-STATUS CHARACTER IN SHAKESPEAREf S CCiiEDIES A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Department of English Western Kentucky University Bov/ling Green, Kentucky In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Linda Abbott St. Clair May, 1973 THE LOW-STATUS CHARACTER IN SHAKESPEARE'S COMEDIES APPROVED >///!}<•/ -J?/ /f?3\ (Date) a D TfV OfThesis / A, ^ of the Grafduate School ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With gratitude I express my appreciation to Dr. Addie Milliard who gave so generously of her time and knowledge to aid me in this study. My thanks also go to Dr. Nancy Davis and Dr. v.'ill Fridy, both of whom painstakingly read my first draft, offering invaluable suggestions for improvement. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii INTRODUCTION 1 THE EARLY COMEDIES 8 THE MIDDLE COMEDIES 35 THE LATER COMEDIES 8? CONCLUSION 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ill iv INTRODUCTION Just as the audience which viewed Shakespeare's plays was a diverse group made of all social classes, so are the characters which Shakespeare created.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • The Eighteenth-Century Playbill at Scale
    Archives, Numbers, Meaning: The Eighteenth-Century Playbill at Scale Mark Vareschi and Mattie Burkert In response to the growing prominence of quantifcation in the humanities, scholars of media and digital culture have highlighted the friction between the cultural and disciplinary roles of data and the epistemologies of humanistic inquiry. Johanna Drucker aptly characterizes the humanities as felds that emphasize “the situated, partial, and constitutive character of knowledge production,” while data are often taken to be representations of “observer-independent reality.”1 Lisa Gitelman and Virginia Jackson likewise critique the dominant assumption of data’s transparency: data, they insist, “are always already ‘cooked’ and never entirely ‘raw.’”2 The choices involved in data collection and preparation are not objective; they are shaped by the always subjective, often tacit, and sometimes shared presuppositions of the domain-specialist researcher. Practitioners of computational approaches to literature have shown that analyzing large corpora of texts “at a distance” may reveal phenomena not readily accessible through close reading of individual texts.3 Yet, the notion of distance fosters an illusion Mark Vareschi is an assistant professor in the Department of English at the University of Wisconsin– Madison. His work in eighteenth-century literature and culture is situated at the intersection of literary history, media studies, performance studies, and digital humanities. He has published articles in Eng- lish Literary History, Eighteenth-Century Life, and Authorship. He is currently completing a monograph on authorial anonymity and mediation in eighteenth-century Britain. Mattie Burkert is an assistant professor in the Department of English at Utah State University. She is currently at work on a monograph that examines the relationship between public finance and the London theatre during the decades following the 1688 Revolution Settlement.
    [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 Moral Basis of Family Relationships in the Plays of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries: a Study in Renaissance Ideas
    The Moral Basis of Family Relationships in the plays of Shakespeare and his Contemporaries: a Study in Renaissance Ideas. A submission for the degree of doctor of philosophy by Stephen David Collins. The Department of History of The University of York. June, 2016. ABSTRACT. Families transact their relationships in a number of ways. Alongside and in tension with the emotional and practical dealings of family life are factors of an essentially moral nature such as loyalty, gratitude, obedience, and altruism. Morality depends on ideas about how one should behave, so that, for example, deciding whether or not to save a brother's life by going to bed with his judge involves an ethical accountancy drawing on ideas of right and wrong. It is such ideas that are the focus of this study. It seeks to recover some of ethical assumptions which were in circulation in early modern England and which inform the plays of the period. A number of plays which dramatise family relationships are analysed from the imagined perspectives of original audiences whose intellectual and moral worlds are explored through specific dramatic situations. Plays are discussed as far as possible in terms of their language and plots, rather than of character, and the study is eclectic in its use of sources, though drawing largely on the extensive didactic and polemical writing on the family surviving from the period. Three aspects of family relationships are discussed: first, the shifting one between parents and children, second, that between siblings, and, third, one version of marriage, that of the remarriage of the bereaved.
    [Show full text]
  • EDITING for PERFORMANCE: DR JOHNSON and the STAGE I Want
    Editing for performance... 75 EDITING FOR PERFORMANCE: DR JOHNSON AND THE STAGE Peter Holland Notre Dame University I want to begin by quoting one of Dr Johnson’s notes on Hamlet, a passage that, though entirely characteristic, may be less than familiar to many. Johnson is commenting on the punctuation of a passage and is concerned about a sequence of dashes towards the end of the play: To a literary friend of mine I am indebted for the following very acute observation: “Throughout this play,” says he, “there is nothing more beautiful than these dashes; by their gradual elongation, they distinctly mark the balbuciation and the increasing difficulty of utterance observable in a dying man.” To which let me add, that, although dashes are in frequent use with our tragic poets, yet they are seldom introduced with so good an effect as in the present instance. (qtd. in Wells 1: 69) Johnson’s reliance on others—and their cloaked identity—is something we are used to. So too Johnson’s yearning here both to generalize about tragic practice and to praise the particular local effect in Shakespeare can be paralleled frequently elsewhere. There is that precision that is Ilha do Desterro Florianópolis nº 49 p.075-098 jul./dez. 2005 76 Peter Holland also apparent in Johnson’s note on Ophelia’s reference to “a rope of onions”, a phrase that Pope had suggested emending to “a robe of onions”: Rope is, undoubtedly, the true reading. A rope of onions is a certain number of onions, which, for the convenience of portability, are, by the market-women, suspended from a rope: not, as the Oxford editor ingeniously, but improperly, supposes, in a bunch at the end, but by a perpendicular arrangement.
    [Show full text]
  • This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Joseph Ritson and the Publication of Early English Literature Genevieve Theodora McNutt PhD in English Literature University of Edinburgh 2018 1 Declaration This is to certify that that the work contained within has been composed by me and is entirely my own work. No part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification. Portions of the final chapter have been published, in a condensed form, as a journal article: ‘“Dignified sensibility and friendly exertion”: Joseph Ritson and George Ellis’s Metrical Romance(ë)s.’ Romantik: Journal for the Study of Romanticisms 5.1 (2016): 87-109. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/rom.v5i1.26422. Genevieve Theodora McNutt 2 3 Abstract This thesis examines the work of antiquary and scholar Joseph Ritson (1752-1803) in publishing significant and influential collections of early English and Scottish literature, including the first collection of medieval romance, by going beyond the biographical approaches to Ritson’s work typical of nineteenth- and twentieth- century accounts, incorporating an analysis of Ritson’s contributions to specific fields into a study of the context which made his work possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Essay by Julian Pooley; University of Leicester, John Nichols and His
    'A Copious Collection of Newspapers' John Nichols and his Collection of Newspapers, Pamphlets and News Sheets, 1760–1865 Julian Pooley, University of Leicester Introduction John Nichols (1745–1826) was a leading London printer who inherited the business of his former master and partner, William Bowyer the Younger, in 1777, and rose to be Master of the Stationers’ Company in 1804.1 He was also a prominent literary biographer and antiquary whose publications, including biographies of Hogarth and Swift, and a county history of Leicestershire, continue to inform and inspire scholarship today.2 Much of his research drew upon his vast collection of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century newspapers. This essay, based on my ongoing work on the surviving papers of the Nichols family, will trace the history of John Nichols’ newspaper collection. It will show how he acquired his newspapers, explore their influence upon his research and discuss the changing fortunes of his collection prior to its acquisition by the Bodleian Library in 1865. 1 For useful biographical studies of John Nichols, see Albert H. Smith, ‘John Nichols, Printer and 2 The first edition of John Nichols’ Anecdotes of Mr Hogarth (London, 1780) grew, with the assistance Publisher’ The Library Fifth Series 18.3 (September 1963), pp. 169–190; James M. Kuist, The Works of Isaac Reed and George Steevens, into The Works of William Hogarth from the Original Plates of John Nichols. An Introduction (New York, 1968), Alan Broadfield, ‘John Nichols as Historian restored by James Heath RA to which is prefixed a biographical essay on the genius and productions of and Friend.
    [Show full text]