DOCSLIB.ORG

Vol. VII, No. 2 (1946, April)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

'(...., -. AUG 14 1946 SE~lTLE. W~SMING TQt The Shakespeare Fellowship 11,1as founded in Landon in 1922 under the pre..ruiency of Sir George Greenwood. VOL. vn APRIL, 1946 NO. 2 Another Stratf ordian Aids the Oxford Cause B'Y Louis P. Bi:NEZET~ M.A., Pd.D. ''WE ARE NOT QUITE certain of the identity of the story of Shakspere•s attendance at the Strat­ espeare's father; we are by no means certain ford Grammar School, and pointing out that Au­ !he identity of his wife •. we do not know when brey's story of his having been a country school­ began his dramatic car~r; we know the actual master "is entirely unsupported," gives a table of of the first production of very few of his the authenticated facts of William's life which oc­ , let alone that of their composition. Almost cupies ju.et two-thirds of .a printed page. Accept­ e commonly received stuJf of his Hf e story ing the Stratford man's career as an actor, on the s and patches of traJition if not positive basis of tbe Countess· oi ~outhampton's question­ work. We do not know whether he ever went able post-dated entry 1 in the muddled accounts of school. The early journey to London is first her late husband, he says that the rest of Shak­ of a hundred years after date. The deer steal• spere's life in London has to be plentifully inter• reason for it is probably twenty years later. spersed with "doubtleM" or "probably" or "may crystallization of the!le and other traditions in have" to pass muster... But the nature of com­ e's biography took place a hundred and forty­ mentators," says Dr. Saintsbury, "abhors a vac• , years after the poet's supposed birth. uum/' This vacuum has to be filled up with a "ser• "l'o huk back; it is not certain, although it is ies of conjectures about Shakspere's novitiate as ble1 that the 'Shake-scene' in Greene's out• actor and playwright" and by "the application of is Shakspere. 'Shake•scene' is not so very hypothetical hermeneutics to the Sonnets." ore unlikely a term of abuse for an actor Professor Saintsbury continues: "The first is ion' or •tub-thumper' for a minister. And guessw·ork pure and unadulterated, or, to speak le's supposed apology is absolutely, and, it with more correctness, adulteration without any dseem, studiously anonymous." purity. , .. We do not knaw that Shakspere ever &!countering the above· quotation by chance, personally knew a single one of the 'university think that he had run upon the writings wits/ The ·Greene reference, taken at its fullest erackbrained anti-Stratfordian in the "lun• possible, is, distinctly, against personal knowledge. fringe" of English scholarship. The Chettle reference, from its obvious and defi• k is a mock, then, to be told that it is taken nite disclaimer of personal knowledge, strengthens the great Cambridge History of English lit• the c:ounter•evidence."' , and that it is from the pen of the famous Excepting his family and business associates, gt Saintsbury, M.A., LL.D .• of Merton Col­ Oxford; later Professor of English Litera­ 1. Mary Brown, Dowager Countess of Southampton, ~ the University of Edinburgh. mother of the 3rd Ear! of Southampton, and ,1t tht: time shocks are to come; for Dr. Saintsbury, she made out the voucher li,iting "Willm Shakespear.:" as ~r~ one of the "servants to the Lord Chamblcync;• (1595} g that there is only :supposition lo support widow of Sir Thomas Heneage, 18 QUARTERLY says Saintsbury, the only two persons with whom sons at Elizabeth's court who are named in prop­ we can connect him are Ben Jonson and Lord erly sponsored Shakespeare publications, South• Southampton. Readers of the QUARTERLY do not ampton, to whom the two great poems are dedi­ have to he reminded of the strange story of Jon­ cated, and the Herbert brothers, to whom the First son's envious remarks about the Shakespeare Folio is dedicated; and that the only person in all works, followed by a complete about-face in 1623 Engla,ul who wa.s closely connected with all three when he suddenly conceived nothing but love and was Edward De Vere. For one of the Herherts admiration for the man. Also we remember the married one of his daughters, while the other fruitless thirteen-year search made through the brother and Southampton were at one time en, papers of the Southampton family by Mrs. C. C. gaged to marry the remaining daughters. If, as Stopes for the faintest hint that any one of them most of the critics have decided, Southampton is ever heard of the Stratford man. the one to whom the first seventeen sonnets were Coming back to Dr. Saintsbury; after confess­ written, and Southampton from 1590 to '92 was ing that all attempts to identify members of the being strongly urged to marry Elizabeth de Vere, Stratford man's family and friends (in Stratford') let us think of the interest in this match which the with any characters in the plays have failed, he girPs father had. A widower, without a legitimate says: son, head of a five hundred year-old house, which "It may, however, be fully admitted that the will "fall into decay" unless one of the daughters Sonnets stand in a very di!Terent category from produces an heir, he has a vital stake in the wed­ that of the plays. Not only does the poet speak ding negotiations. With this situation in mind, let ex professo from his heart, ... but there is no us reread the first seventeen sonnets. To our astou• poetry of this kind which approaches Shake­ ishment, we find "Shakespeare" impersonating tlu speare's Sonnets in apparent vehemence and in• Earl of Oxford. He pleads the cause of the noblt'­ tensity of feeling. There is even hardly any which man with "vehemence and intensity of feeling," 81 mingles, with the expression of that feeling, so Saintshury has said. He begs Southampton to mar• many concrete hints, suggesting so broadly a whole ry, if only for love of the writer, he begs him lo romance of personal experience, as they do. How get a son, he cajoles him, he puts pressure upon are we to take all this?" him, he scolds him for self-love. If the Earl had After confessing that debates over the Dramatis been sitting at his elbow as he wrote, "Shak­ Personae of the Sonnets have "occupied a not small s peare" could not have done a better job for Ult library of discussion," he admits that all the Shake• house of Oxford. speare scholars are helpless in trying to explain Dr. Saintsbury confesses that he cannot sol¥e them, and wagers that many more people than the problem. He asks, helplessly, "Who was 1hr would confess it "have inclined to Hallam's cur• friend, Southampton, Pembroke or another?" aad ious but courageous wish that Shakespeare 'had "Who was the lady? Mary Fitton ( who seems to never written them.' But he did write them," says have been a love of Pembroke, but who was fair,. 0 Saintsbury, and, in so many words, asks, What are not dark), or somebody else? When the criti11 we going to do about it? get to speculating and supposing on the Sonndf The answer, as members of the Fellowship know, "we have, obviously, passed into cloudland." is to be found in the story of the Earl of Oxford's · In his comments c,n the plays, Dr. SaintsbUl'f stormy personal life, as illustrated in the Sonnets, makes one point which is very significant. He lillt · and interpreted by Mr. Looney, Canon Rendall, the eleven plays which Meres in 1598 attribul!I and especially hy Mr. Barrell. Dr. Saintsbury says to Shakespeare's pen, and calls attention to the that all commentators admit that the "Fair Youth" surprising output that this represents for a lllll, was a "person of quality." It does not seem to sur• who "during four years unquestionably and, !t­ prise him that an actor should reprove a young yond reasonable doubt, for a good deal lon~et. nobleman for "self-love" and adding to his bless• had been busily employed in acting." He says tbi 1 ings "a curse, being fond on praise, which makes "so large a bulk as this, greater than the wholt your praises worse." theatre of some considerable dramatists, mui To digress for a moment, in order to drive home have taken no short time to write." He admits tbi 1 a point already made by others in the columns of it is all the more noteworthy because Meres bit the QUARTERLY, it· is strange that commentators failed to include several whole plays, such as tlat have not pointed out that there are just three per• Henry VI series, besides parts of others. ,AP It IL, l 9 4 6 19 Here we must remind Dr. Saintsbury that Hens­ outsmarting its "grand possessors,'' at the same lowe records productions of Ham let, Henry JI, time warning the reading public that very soon, "king lea:re," "seaser" and "the taming of a when such Shakespeare manuscripts were no long· Shrowe" four years before Meres published his er to be begged, borrowed or stolen, a ''new Eng• list;· that Hotson has proved that The Merry Wives lish inquisition" would hunt for them in vain. and Twelfth Night were played in 1596 and '97; We may note in this connection that our genius, and that Cairncross shows in his Problem of Ham• in order, evidently, to have plenty of leisure for let that Othello, Pericle.;, Macbeth and both parts land speculations, brewing and suing, has washed of Henry /JI had been acted in the early 1590's.
Recommended publications
  • Arden of Faversham, Shakespearean Authorship, and 'The Print of Many'

    Arden of Faversham, Shakespearean Authorship, and 'The Print of Many'

    Chapter 9 Arden of Faversham, Shakespearean Authorship, and 'The Print of Many' JACK ELLIOTT AND BRETT GREATLEY-HIRSCH he butchered body of Thomas Arden is found in the field behind the Abbey. After reporting Tthis discovery to Arden's wife, Franklin surveys the circumstantial evidence of footprints in the snow and blood at the scene: I fear me he was murdered in this house And carried to the fields, for from that place Backwards and forwards may you see The print of many feet within the snow. And look about this chamber where we are, And you shall find part of his guiltless blood; For in his slip-shoe did I find some rushes, Which argueth he was murdered in this room. (14.388-95) Although The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland by Raphael Holinshed and his editors records the identities and fates of Arden's murderers in meticulous detail (Holinshed 1587, 4M4r-4M6v; 1587, 5K1v-5K3v), those responsible for composing the dramatization of this tragic episode remain unknown. We know that the bookseller Edward White entered The Lamentable and True Tragedy ofArden ofFaversham in Kent into the Stationers' Register on 3 April 1592 (Arber 1875-94, 2: 607 ), and we believe, on the basis of typographical evidence, that Edward Allde printed the playbook later that year ( STC 733). We know that Abel Jeffes also printed an illicit edition of the playbook, as outlined in disciplinary proceedings brought against him and White in a Stationers' Court record dated 18 December 1592 (Greg and Boswell 1930, 44). No copies of this pirate edition survive, but it is assumed to have merely been a reprint of White's; Jeffes was imprisoned on 7 August 1592, so his edition must have appeared prior to this date.
  • Title Jest-Book Formation Through the Early Modern Printing Industry

    Title Jest-Book Formation Through the Early Modern Printing Industry

    Title Jest-book formation through the early modern printing industry: the two different editions of Scoggin's Jests Sub Title 二つのScoggin's Jests : 異なる版が語ること Author 小町谷, 尚子(Komachiya, Naoko) Publisher 慶應義塾大学日吉紀要刊行委員会 Publication year 2014 Jtitle 慶應義塾大学日吉紀要. 英語英米文学 (The Hiyoshi review of English studies). No.65 (2014. 10) ,p.45- 85 Abstract Notes Genre Departmental Bulletin Paper URL https://koara.lib.keio.ac.jp/xoonips/modules/xoonips/detail.php?koara_id=AN10030060-2014103 1-0045 慶應義塾大学学術情報リポジトリ(KOARA)に掲載されているコンテンツの著作権は、それぞれの著作者、学会または出版社/発行者に帰属し、その権利は著作権法によって 保護されています。引用にあたっては、著作権法を遵守してご利用ください。 The copyrights of content available on the KeiO Associated Repository of Academic resources (KOARA) belong to the respective authors, academic societies, or publishers/issuers, and these rights are protected by the Japanese Copyright Act. When quoting the content, please follow the Japanese copyright act. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Jest-book Formation through the Early Modern Printing Industry: The Two Different Editions of Scoggin’s Jests Naoko Komachiya The confusion and conflation of differently originated jester figures date back to Shakespeare’s time. Scoggin’s Jests is often seen as the primary source of jesting material along with Tarlton’s Jests. The apparent identity of these jests with named figures somewhat obscured the true identity of jesters.1) Modern editors identify the socially ambiguous jester Scoggin in Shallow’s episodic recollection of Falstaff, who breaks ‘Scoggin’s head at the court gate’ in Henry IV, Part 2 (III. 2. 28–29), as the jester to Edward IV. René Weis, in explaining that Scoggin’s name was ‘synonymous with “buffoon” in Shakespeare’s day through a mid sixteenth-century jestbook, Scoggin, his iestes’, comments that the reference demonstrates that ‘even the young Falstaff was always brawling with various buffoons’.2) Weis and other editors simply deduce that Shakespeare’s misunderstanding resulted from the circulated name of Scoggin, and they do not show any evidence how the conflation occurred.
  • 16Th and 17Th Century Books

    16Th and 17Th Century Books

    Antiquates – Fine and Rare Books 1 Antiquates – Fine and Rare Books 2 Antiquates – Fine and Rare Books Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century books 3 Antiquates – Fine and Rare Books Catalogue 9 – Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century books Antiquates Ltd The Conifers Valley Road Corfe Castle Dorset BH20 5HU United Kingdom tel: 07921 151496 email: [email protected] web: www.antiquates.co.uk twitter: @TomAntiquates Payment to be made by cheque or bank transfer, institutions can be billed. Alternative currencies can be accommodated. Postage and packaging costs will be added to orders. All items offered subject to prior sale. E. & O.E. All items remain the legal property of the seller until paid for in full. Inside front cover: 91 Inside rear cover: 100 Rear cover: 3 Antiquates Ltd is Registered in England and Wales No: 6290905 Registered Office: As above VAT Reg. No. GB 942 4835 11 4 Antiquates – Fine and Rare Books AN APOTHECARY'S BAD END 1) ABBOT, Robert. The Young Mans Warning-piece. Or, A Sermon preached at the burial of Williams Rogers. Apothecary. With an History of his sinful Life, and Woful Death. Together with a Post-script of the use of Examples. Dedicated to the young Men of the Parish, especially to his Companions. London. Printed by J.R. for John Williams, 1671. 12mo. [20], 76, 79-102pp. Recent antique-style blind-ruled calf, contrasting morocco title-label, gilt, to upper board. New endpapers. Marginal chipping, marking and signs of adhesion to preliminaries. With manuscript biographical notes on William Rogers to title, and the inscription of Edward Perronet to verso: 'The gift of Mr Thos.
  • Edward De Vere and the Two Shrew Plays

    Edward De Vere and the Two Shrew Plays

    The Playwright’s Progress: Edward de Vere and the Two Shrew Plays Ramon Jiménez or more than 400 years the two Shrew plays—The Tayminge of a Shrowe (1594) and The Taming of the Shrew (1623)—have been entangled with each other in scholarly disagreements about who wrote them, which was F written first, and how they relate to each other. Even today, there is consensus on only one of these questions—that it was Shakespeare alone who wrote The Shrew that appeared in the Folio . It is, as J. Dover Wilson wrote, “one of the most diffi- cult cruxes in the Shakespearian canon” (vii). An objective review of the evidence, however, supplies a solution to the puz- zle. It confirms that the two plays were written in the order in which they appear in the record, The Shrew being a major revision of the earlier play, A Shrew . They were by the same author—Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, whose poetry and plays appeared under the pseudonym “William Shakespeare” during the last decade of his life. Events in Oxford’s sixteenth year and his travels in the 1570s support composition dates before 1580 for both plays. These conclusions also reveal a unique and hitherto unremarked example of the playwright’s progress and development from a teenager learning to write for the stage to a journeyman dramatist in his twenties. De Vere’s exposure to the in- tricacies and language of the law, and his extended tour of France and Italy, as well as his maturation as a poet, caused him to rewrite his earlier effort and pro- duce a comedy that continues to entertain centuries later.
  • The Edinburgh Edition of Sidney's "Arcadia."

    The Edinburgh Edition of Sidney's "Arcadia."

    SIDNEY'S "ARCADIA." 195 recurrent expenses, which other systems do not If public convenience counterbalances these faults, well and good. But it has yet to be shown that borrowers are, as a matter of faft, and apart from all sentiment, better served by going to the shelves than by using a library that is fully and intelligently catalogued. The general sense of librarians agrees that a good general catalogue is preferable to the class-lists which apparently are thought sufficient for open- access libraries. And this view must be strengthened if the catalogues pay due attention to subject-headings and are annotated. This point is striftly cognate to the argu- ment ; for the counter-contention to the new scheme is that a properly conducted lending library, using an ap- proved method for the issue of books, and with a ju- diciously annotated catalogue, gives at least equal satis- fa&ion to its patrons, is safer, cleaner, and less costly than safeguarded open access. W. E. DOUBLEDAY. THE EDINBURGH EDITION OF SIDNEY'S "ARCADIA." N the year 1598 William Ponsonby, at that time the most important of English publishers, issued a third edition or Sir Philip Sidney's " Arcadia," of which he held the exclusive copyright. The new edition was one of the chief issues of that year. The announcement that it had been revised by the Countess of Pembroke gave the text the stamp of correctness, and there was also added to it for the first time sundry other pieces of Sidney's: u The De- fence of Poesie," "Astrophel and Stella," some other sonnets, and the May Day masque.
  • The Play of 'Sir Thomas More' and Shakespeare's Hand in It

    The Play of 'Sir Thomas More' and Shakespeare's Hand in It

    79 THE PLAY OF 'SIR THOMAS MORE' AND SHAKESPEARE'S HAND IN IT. Downloaded from I HE announcement late last year by an expert in palaeography that a holo- I graph manuscript of Shakespeare is http://library.oxfordjournals.org/ preserved in the British Museum was an event of national importance, though the Press universally ignored it. Perhaps that was characteristic of * the usual channels of information,' as we call them in satiric moments; but the omission was deplorable, even in war time. For the claim was not the shallow guesswork of at University of California, San Diego on June 5, 2015 an amateur; it was the outcome of an exhaustive study of Shakespeare's handwriting, made by so high an authority as Sir Edward Maunde Thompson.1 The work crowned with this unique distinction is a play entitled 'The Bookc of Sir Thomas Moore,' preserved in Harlcy MS. 7368. It is a thin folio, the thirteen original leaves of which have been identified as in the autograph of Anthony Munday. A mixed assortment of plays, pageants, poems, translations of romances, annals, and miscel- laneous pamphlets issued from his facile pen between 1577 and 1633. Once, and once only, a contem- porary made the mistake of placing him on a 1 ' Shakespeare's Handwriting. A Study by Sir Edward Maunde Thompson.' Oxford, the Clarendon Press, 1916. See also the first Review. 80 THE PLAY OF 'SIR T. MORE' pinnacle of genius. Looking round on the the- atrical world in 1598, Francis Meres enumerated the chief English writers of comedy, and from a group which ^included Shakespeare, singled out Munday as ' our best plotter.' Even if his other Downloaded from plays afforded any justification for this extravagant eulogy, ' Sir Thomas More' would go far to in- validate it.
  • Redating Pericles: a Re-Examination of Shakespeare’S

    Redating Pericles: a Re-Examination of Shakespeare’S

    REDATING PERICLES: A RE-EXAMINATION OF SHAKESPEARE’S PERICLES AS AN ELIZABETHAN PLAY A THESIS IN Theatre Presented to the Faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS by Michelle Elaine Stelting University of Missouri Kansas City December 2015 © 2015 MICHELLE ELAINE STELTING ALL RIGHTS RESERVED REDATING PERICLES: A RE-EXAMINATION OF SHAKESPEARE’S PERICLES AS AN ELIZABETHAN PLAY Michelle Elaine Stelting, Candidate for the Master of Arts Degree University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2015 ABSTRACT Pericles's apparent inferiority to Shakespeare’s mature works raises many questions for scholars. Was Shakespeare collaborating with an inferior playwright or playwrights? Did he allow so many corrupt printed versions of his works after 1604 out of indifference? Re-dating Pericles from the Jacobean to the Elizabethan era answers these questions and reveals previously unexamined connections between topical references in Pericles and events and personalities in the court of Elizabeth I: John Dee, Philip Sidney, Edward de Vere, and many others. The tournament impresas, alchemical symbolism of the story, and its lunar and astronomical imagery suggest Pericles was written long before 1608. Finally, Shakespeare’s focus on father-daughter relationships, and the importance of Marina, the daughter, as the heroine of the story, point to Pericles as written for a young girl. This thesis uses topical references, Shakespeare’s anachronisms, Shakespeare’s sources, stylometry and textual analysis, as well as Henslowe’s diary, the Stationers' Register, and other contemporary documentary evidence to determine whether there may have been versions of Pericles circulating before the accepted date of 1608.
  • FRONT9 2.CHP:Corel VENTURA

    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
  • The Oxfordian Volume 21 October 2019 ISSN 1521-3641 the OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019

    The Oxfordian Volume 21 October 2019 ISSN 1521-3641 the OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019

    The Oxfordian Volume 21 October 2019 ISSN 1521-3641 The OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019 The Oxfordian is the peer-reviewed journal of the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship, a non-profit educational organization that conducts research and publication on the Early Modern period, William Shakespeare and the authorship of Shakespeare’s works. Founded in 1998, the journal offers research articles, essays and book reviews by academicians and independent scholars, and is published annually during the autumn. Writers interested in being published in The Oxfordian should review our publication guidelines at the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship website: https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/the-oxfordian/ Our postal mailing address is: The Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship PO Box 66083 Auburndale, MA 02466 USA Queries may be directed to the editor, Gary Goldstein, at [email protected] Back issues of The Oxfordian may be obtained by writing to: [email protected] 2 The OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019 The OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019 Acknowledgements Editorial Board Justin Borrow Ramon Jiménez Don Rubin James Boyd Vanessa Lops Richard Waugaman Charles Boynton Robert Meyers Bryan Wildenthal Lucinda S. Foulke Christopher Pannell Wally Hurst Tom Regnier Editor: Gary Goldstein Proofreading: James Boyd, Charles Boynton, Vanessa Lops, Alex McNeil and Tom Regnier. Graphics Design & Image Production: Lucinda S. Foulke Permission Acknowledgements Illustrations used in this issue are in the public domain, unless otherwise noted. The article by Gary Goldstein was first published by the online journal Critical Stages (critical-stages.org) as part of a special issue on the Shakespeare authorship question in Winter 2018 (CS 18), edited by Don Rubin. It is reprinted in The Oxfordian with the permission of Critical Stages Journal.
  • Hier Finden Sie Vielerlei Fabelwesen, Die Frühe Drucker in Ihren Bücherzeichen Verwendeten

    Hier Finden Sie Vielerlei Fabelwesen, Die Frühe Drucker in Ihren Bücherzeichen Verwendeten

    Hier finden Sie vielerlei Fabelwesen, die frühe Drucker in ihren Bücherzeichen verwendeten. B40b, 12.2015 Über Fabelwesen Einhörner Kentauren oder Zentauren Uroboros Nixen oder Meerjungfrauen Pegasus Wyvern Drachen Phoenix Kerberos Hippokampen Satyrn Sphinx Hippogryph Die Sibylle gleicht einer Harpyie Skylla Hydra Seeschlangen Chimaira Basilisken Über den Greif liegt eine eigene Datei vor – wie es dem Wappentier der Buchdrucker gebührt. Hier sind folgende Drucker mit ihren Fabelwesen vertreten Accademia degli Insensati Guillaume de Bret Peter Drach d.Ä. Familie Gourmont Daniel Adam William Bretton Cristoforo Draconi Richard Grafton Giorgio Angelieri Antonio Bulifon Compagnia del Drago Astolfo Grandi Thomas Anshelm Cuthbert Burby Heinrich Eckert Heinrich Gran Balthasar Arnoullet Vincenzo Busdraghi Guillaume Eustace Jean Granjon Henry Bynneman und Robert Granjon Conrad Bade Bartolomeo Faletti Johannes Gravius Nicolaus de Balaguer Girolamo Calepino Richard Fawkes Cristoforo Griffio Vittorio Baldini Prigent Calvarin Juan Ferrer Johannes Gymnich d.Ä. Robert Ballard d.Ä. Jean Calvet Sigmund Feyerabend Tommaso Ballarino Abraham Jansz Canin Miles Fletcher Hendrick Lodewycxsz Richard Bankes Juan de Canova François Fradin genannt Poitevin, van Haestens Barezzo Barezzi Giovanni Giacomo Carlino Constantin Fradin Joachim Heller Christopher Barker Giovanni Francesco Carrara und Pierre Fradin Pierre L’Huillier Girolami Bartoli Girolamo Cartolari Augustin Fries Guillaume Huyon Giovanni Bazachi Guillaume Cavellat Michael Furter Franz Behem Simon de Colines William und Isaac Jaggard Giovanni Francesco Besozzi Michael Colyn Andreas Geßner d.J. Juan Joffre Girolamo Biondo Comin da Trino und Hans Jakob Geßner Juan de Junta d.J Franz Birckmann Girolamo Concordia Johannes Friedrich Gleditsch Francoys Jansz Boels Vincenzo Conti Anselmo Giaccarelli Thielman Kerver d.Ä. Pellegrino Bonardi Domenico, Girolamo Johannes Kinck William Bonham John Danter und Luigi Giglio Johannes Knoblouch Hirolami Giberti Henry Denham Jacques Giunta d.Ä.
  • A Rare Quarto Edition of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet

    A Rare Quarto Edition of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet

    A rare quarto edition of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet. London: Cuthbert Burby, 1599. 6 5/8 inches x 4 3/4 inches (168 mm x 121 mm), [92] pages, A–L4 M2. The | most ex= | cellent and lamentable | Tragedie, of Romeo | and Iuliet. | Newly corrected, augmented, and | amended: As it hath bene sundry times publiquely acted, by the | right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine | his Seruants. | [Creede’s device] | London | Printed by Thomas Creede, for Cuthbert Burby, and are to | be sold at his shop neare the Exchange. | 1599. Shakespeare’s quartos, so named because of their format (a single sheet folded twice, creating four leaves or eight pages), are the first printed representations of his plays and, as none of the plays survives in manuscript, of great importance to Shakespeare scholarship. Only twenty-one of Shakespeare’s plays were published in quarto before the closure of the theaters and outbreak of civil war in 1642. These quartos were printed from either Shakespeare’s “foul papers” (a draft with notations and changes that was given in sections to actors for their respective roles); from “fair copies” created from foul papers that presented the entire action of the play; from promptbooks, essentially fair copies annotated and expanded by the author and acting company to clarify stage directions, sound effects, etc.; or from a previously published quarto edition. The quartos were inexpensive to produce and were published for various reasons, including to secure the acting company’s rights to the material and to bring in money during the plague years in London when the theaters were closed.
  • Why Was Edward De Vere Defamed on Stage—And His Death Unnoticed?

    Why Was Edward De Vere Defamed on Stage—And His Death Unnoticed?

    Why Was Edward de Vere Defamed on Stage—and His Death Unnoticed? by Katherine Chiljan dward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, died on June 24, 1604. To our knowledge, there was neither public recognition of his death nor Enotice made in personal letters or diaries. His funeral, if one oc- curred, went unremarked. Putting aside his greatness as the poet-playwright “William Shakespeare,” his pen name, Oxford was one of the most senior nobles in the land and the Lord Great Chamberlain of England. During his life, numerous authors dedicated 27 books on diverse subjects to Oxford; of these authors, seven were still alive at the time of his death,1 including John Lyly and Anthony Munday, his former secretaries who were also dramatists. Moreover, despite the various scandals that touched him, Oxford remained an important courtier throughout his life: Queen Elizabeth granted him a £1,000 annuity in 1586 for no stated reason—an extraordinary gesture for the frugal monarch—and King James continued this annuity after he ascend- ed the throne in 1603. Why, then, the silence after Oxford had died? Could the answer be because he was a poet and playwright? Although such activity was considered a déclassé or even fantastical hobby for a nobleman, recognition after death would have been socially acceptable. For example, the courtier poet Sir Philip Sidney (d. 1586) had no creative works published in his lifetime, but his pastoral novel, Arcadia, was published four years after his death, with Sidney’s full name on the title page. Three years after that, Sidney’s sister, the Countess of Pembroke, published her own version of it.