DOCSLIB.ORG

February 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
February 2014 Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance studies Proclamation ! The Trident Vol. XXI, Issue 3 Jan/Feb 2014 Want to be rewarded for your la- bors? Submit your essay to the AMRS Essay Competition and win cash! Dr. Arnold’s Castles and Cathedrals class put theory into practice and built this castle on AMRS Movie Nights will coming Feb. 5. soon! Keep an eye out for the e-mail What Professors do When They Aren’t Teaching Part I* and join us! By Donald Lateiner would cooperate with him in or- In August 2013, soon ganizing a panel on DISGUST at The Staff of the Trident after I delivered a paper on the biennial Celtic Classics Con- “Disgust in Greek Epic, Tragedy ference to be held in June 2014 Student Editor: Madeline Lank and Comedy,” near Geneva, at Edinburgh. Previously the Tri- Switzerland, I received a query ple C has met in Ireland, Scot- Contributing Students: Alyssa Reed, Jake Simpson from Professor Dimos land, Wales and Bordeaux Spatharas. The promising young (Brittany). The Triple C beck- Contributing Alumni: Sidney Kochman scholar from the University of oned! Contributing Faculty: Dr. Donald Lateiner Crete (Rethymnon) asked if I Cont. on pg 2 AMRS Chair: Dr. Patricia DeMarco IN THIS ISSUE OWU’s Second Folio—--pg. 4-5, 10-11 Speaker Preview———-———pg 8-9 Want to write a story? Have ideas for the next issue? AMRS Abroad——————-pg 6-7 Announcements…——————-pg.. 12 Complaints? Send them to [email protected]. 2 11 We wrote to the two or- extant ancient data (visual as ganizers (Scots and Welsh) well as literary)? How do an- about our proposal. They wel- cient creators show and commu- comed a topic involving nicate feelings with the mind “ancient emotions.” Sixteen and the body (especially the ex- other panels engaged with vari- pressive mouth) and in speech. ous aspects of antiquity will Philosophers and psychologists meet at the same time, compet- today consider this a “hot,” if ing for attention during three not “slimy” topic. days in late June. We first con- My own paper (aside tacted a select group of scholars from co-leading the introduc- who have published on maters tory and summary sessions) will relevant to DISGUST to estab- examine disgust in the Latin lish a core group of speakers, novels of Petronius and Apu- and then we advertised the exis- leius—where detailed descrip- tence of the panel to scholarly tions disgust characters within lists on the WWW in Europe the novels and audiences read- and North America, inviting ing or hearing them. This picture of Shakespeare (above) is substantially older than the rest of the text. If you anyone (PhD or not) to submit Currently we are seeking look closely, you can see the edge. The watermark on the back (below) is another indica- an abstract or summary of about the best image for the Poster for tor. 300 words. The CFP (Call for our Panel. The Brouwer paint- Papers) produced exciting ab- ing below in the middle, entitled stracts from Finland, Greece, “the bitter potion,” is one popu- Britain, Italy, Germany, France, lar contender. Some are too the United States, etc. Topics gross for this student publica- include the aesthetics, psychol- tion. ogy, and promulgation of dis- Unlike the “rules” at gust. Which acts, substances, many other conferences, we two and creatures elicit disgust in as sole “referees” could accept “The Bitter Potion” (left) and other images considered for the poster. 10 3 Continued from title page and Effigies page do as many or few speakers as we sharing of contributions and Page 5 not match: they are made of thought suitable and we could criticisms on a website open completely different card stock. give them little or lots of time. only to contributors and a time The Effigies was printed on a After receiving about 40 submis- for revisions, leading eventually heavier card stock than any of sions, we accepted 20 (including to publication. the pages, and has darkened con- the solicited core members). In Edinburgh, there will siderably more. The page itself Thus, each speaker will have 25 be trips into the hinterland (we was visibly pasted into the book- minutes for his or her paper, fol- won’t be far from the Romans’ along the spine by a restorer. lowed by five minutes for ques- Antonine Wall), tastings at whis- Another interesting fea- tions and comments. Some are key distilleries and beer brewer- ture of our copy is the page fac- still graduate students: at least ies, and excursions to the local ing the title page. It contains, as one has won a MacArthur castle and art museums such as do other complete copies of sec- “genius” award. The Greek and the Scottish National Gallery ond folio, a short poem by Ben Roman topics range from ex- and the National War Museum. Jonson addressed “To the pressions of disgust in art, in lit- The Edinburgh Film Festival Reader.” In our copy this poem erature (prose and poetry, fiction will interest cinephiles. I hope to is handwritten, not printed as it and non-fiction), and in histori- get away and visit the Outer Our Second Folio in comparison to our re- is in others. cal records. All participants are Hebrides (mentioned by Pliny) printed First Folios. Both are in Special Col- This oddity, taken with expected to attend all papers, but before or after the conference lections. the incongruity of our Title and there will be more sessions than itself, perhaps while Scotland With the number of dif- Effigies pages, lead to the con- we are filling, so there will be declares its independence from ferent distributors, it is no sur- clusion that our copy is a com- time to hear something different, Great Britain. prise that there are many variant posite of parts from several dif- perhaps more elevated. +++++++++++++++++++++ versions of the second folio. ferent copies. Our panel’s title is THE *Future Trident contributions to this series will examine various matters of the not- Both the title page and the If you are interested in EMOTION OF DISGUST IN always sedentary Professorial Life. Stay “Effigies” page--the one con- learning more about the Second ANTIQUITY AND ITS EX- tuned for: taining Milton’s poem--have Folio outside of a class visit, PRESSION. Over the three days choosing research topics, writing articles and books and getting multiple versions, the chronol- contact the Rare Books Librar- of the conference, we will hold them published, ogy of which have been hotly ian Bernard Derr. an opening and closing general attending disciplinary conventions contested. If you believe Robert session defining our topic(s) and (MLA, APA, AHA, etc.), organizing and planning Study Abroad Metcalf Smith, the title page in its limits. We will also discuss adventures for students and our copy is one of the latest ver- whether we should try to publish alumni, sions. According to William B. the proceedings as a volume. administering AMRS or other pro- grams and departments, Todd, on the other hand, our title Two publishing houses have al- examining archives and finding excite- page is from the second state of ready expressed interest, al- ment in new cuisines, the first printing. Our Effigies though so far they have seen traveling to AMRS territories (Ireland to Afghanistan, Russia to Egypt) page is the oldest according to nothing except the title. Some- participating in archaeological re- Smith, and one of more recent times papers sizzle and some- search (battlefields, sanctuaries ones according to Todd. Which- times fizzle, beyond the one- and their pottery, monasteries, highways, mines, castles, ceme- ever bibliographer you agree page abstract phase, but we hope teries with ecofacts, etc.), with, however, it is clear that our that there will be subsequent 4 9 The Whole Equals the Sum of “fuzziness”, as she puts it, was that you didn’t need a clergyman its Parts: OWU’s Second Folio to validate the marriage, nor did you need to register your rela- tionship. Marriage existed as an exchange of vows, not necessar- ily in front of a church or wit- nesses. Add to this the complica- tion that there was no way to divorce a spouse: the marriage was either annulled, or termi- nated by death. Karras covers a large swath of time and customs over the Karras’ work on medieval gender has been called “paradigm shifting” course of her book, and peppers her work with the stories of vari- Prize by the American Historical ous complicated women. As Association and has been Mathew Kuefler of San Diego dubbed “a must-read for medie- State University claims, “Her valists” by Judith M. Bennet of conclusions about changing defi- the University of Southern Cali- nitions of the marital union, its fornia. imprecise boundaries, and the The book focuses on the varied alternatives to it— The title page of OWU’s Second Folio. The Ben Jonson poem is on the left page. kinds of relationships between cohabitation and concubinage, By Sidney Kochman and Made- is entirely complete, the closer couples outside of “traditional” clerical marriages and marriages line Lank observer will notice that the fo- marriage. In a podcast interview between individuals of different It’s one of the many lio is a myriad of mixed parts. with the University of Pennsyl- faiths, to name but a few—bear treasures of the Special Collec- 1000 copies of the Sec- vania Press, Karras explains that meaningful repercussions for tions Library—the Second Folio ond Folio were printed follow- “although marriage was univer- modern debates about marriage." of Shakespeare’s works, printed ing the success of First Folio in sally acknowledged as an ideal Why does Karras think we in 1632.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Plays & Poems of Robert Greene;
    tiiP-^Miffli LfBRARY "W'VER.^fTY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE K,<? V * V * V £x Libris ISAAC FOOT ul THE PLAYS AND POEMS OF ROBERT GREENE HENRY FROWDE, M.A. PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD LONDON, EDINBURGH NEW YORK AND TORONTO ,ViV7 (^^ vn^Mf iM3^ \- 1 1 Ifl ^f^yt^S- 111*' -fe? -A nW" Cm?^ ' -' >-i / iL\ -ii- >?viM.^ ' r ^c'lr^r'^ 7^ ^^W*^" ^^'-'^ W^^. /^-^i I'rom ALLliVN MS. ot Orlando Fiirioso (sir />. .'7^) THE PLAYS & POEMS OF ROBERT GREENE EDITED WITH INTRODUCTIONS AND NOTES By J. CHURTON COLLINS, Litt.D. (professor of ENGLISH LITEKATURE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM) VOL I GENERAL INTRODUCTION. ALPHONSUS. A LOOKING GLASSE. ORLANDO FURIOSO. APPENDIX TO ORLANDO FURIOSO (THE ALLEYN MS.) NOTES TO PLAYS OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS MDCCCCV V.I C.2- OXFORD PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS BY HORACE HART, M.A. PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY TO FREDERICK JAMES FURNIVALL PH.D., D.LITT. THESE VOLUMES ARE RESPECTFULLY AND AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED PREFACE When the Delegates of the Clarendon Press entrusted me with the preparation of an edition of Greene's Plays and Poems I determined to spare no pains to make it, so far at least as the text was concerned, a final one. And the method adopted was this. Each play was transcribed literally from the oldest Quarto extant : thus the Looking Glasse was copied from the Quarto of 1594, Orlando and Frier Bacon and Frier Bongay from the Quartos of the same year, AlpJionsus from the Quarto of 1599, James IV from that of 1597, and TJie Pinner from that of 1599.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare in Geneva
    Shakespeare in Geneva SHAKESPEARE IN GENEVA Early Modern English Books (1475-1700) at the Martin Bodmer Foundation Lukas Erne & Devani Singh isbn 978-2-916120-90-4 Dépôt légal, 1re édition : janvier 2018 Les Éditions d’Ithaque © 2018 the bodmer Lab/université de Genève Faculté des lettres - rue De-Candolle 5 - 1211 Genève 4 bodmerlab.unige.ch TABLE OF CONTENts Acknowledgements 7 List of Abbreviations 8 List of Illustrations 9 Preface 11 INTRODUctION 15 1. The Martin Bodmer Foundation: History and Scope of Its Collection 17 2. The Bodmer Collection of Early Modern English Books (1475-1700): A List 31 3. The History of Bodmer’s Shakespeare(s) 43 The Early Shakespeare Collection 43 The Acquisition of the Rosenbach Collection (1951-52) 46 Bodmer on Shakespeare 51 The Kraus Sales (1970-71) and Beyond 57 4. The Makeup of the Shakespeare Collection 61 The Folios 62 The First Folio (1623) 62 The Second Folio (1632) 68 The Third Folio (1663/4) 69 The Fourth Folio (1685) 71 The Quarto Playbooks 72 An Overview 72 Copies of Substantive and Partly Substantive Editions 76 Copies of Reprint Editions 95 Other Books: Shakespeare and His Contemporaries 102 The Poetry Books 102 Pseudo-Shakespeare 105 Restoration Quarto Editions of Shakespeare’s Plays 106 Restoration Adaptations of Plays by Shakespeare 110 Shakespeare’s Contemporaries 111 5. Other Early Modern English Books 117 NOTE ON THE CATALOGUE 129 THE CATALOGUE 135 APPENDIX BOOKS AND MANUscRIPts NOT INCLUDED IN THE CATALOGUE 275 Works Cited 283 Acknowledgements We have received precious help in the course of our labours, and it is a pleasure to acknowl- edge it.
    [Show full text]
  • Piteous Massacre’: Violence, Language, and the Off-Stage in Richard III
    Journal of the British Academy, 8(s3), 91–109 DOI https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/008s3.091 Posted 15 June 2020 ‘Piteous massacre’: violence, language, and the off-stage in Richard III Georgina Lucas Abstract: Shakespeare regularly stages extreme violence. In Titus Andronicus, Chiron and Demetrius are baked in a pie and eaten by their mother. Gloucester’s eyes are plucked out in King Lear. In contradistinction to this graphic excess are moments when violence is relegated off-stage: Macbeth kills King Duncan in private; when Richard III suborns the assassination of his nephews—the notorious ‘Princes in the Tower’—the boys are killed away from the audience. In such instances, the spectator must imagine the scope and formation of the violence described. Focussing on Richard III, this article asks why Shakespeare uses the word ‘massacre’ to express the murder of the two princes. Determining the varied, and competing, meanings of the term in the 16th and 17th centuries, the article uncovers a range of ways an early audience might have interpreted the killings—as mass murder, assassination, and butchery—and demonstrates their thematic connections to child-killing across the cycle of plays that Richard III concludes. Keywords: Shakespeare, massacre, Richard III, off-stage violence, child-killing. Notes on the author: Georgina Lucas is Lecturer in Shakespeare and Renaissance Literature in the School of Arts, English and Languages at Queen’s University, Belfast. Her research focusses upon the representation of mass and sexual violence on the early modern stage, and the performance and reception of Shakespeare during and after acts of atrocity.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Notes Introduction 1. Andrew Gurr, The Shakespearean Stage, 1574–1642, 3rd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 191. 2. For further discussion of the myth of the bare stage see Chapter 1 of this book; Jonathan Gil Harris and Natasha Korda, ‘Introduction: Towards a Materialist Account of Stage Properties’, in Jonathan Gil Harris and Natasha Korda (eds.), Staged Properties in Early Modern English Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 2–7. 3. Aristotle Poetics (trans. Stephen Halliwell) (London: Harvard University Press, 1995), VII.16–20, p. 55. 4. Glynne Wickham, ‘Heavens, Machinery, and Pillars in the Early Theatre and Other Early Playhouse’, in Herbert Berry (ed.), The First Public Playhouse: The Theatre in Shoreditch, 1576–1598 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1979), p. 6. 5. Thomas H. Dickinson (ed.), Robert Greene (London: Fisher Unwin, 1911), pp. lix–lxi. 6. Kenneth Muir, ‘Robert Greene as Dramatist’, in Richard Hosley (ed.), Essays on Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama in Honor of Hardin Craig (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963), p. 48; Charles W. Crupi, Robert Greene (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1986), p. 115; Charles Mills Gayley, Representative English Comedies (London: Macmillan, 1903), p. 419. 7. Bernard Beckerman, Shakespeare at the Globe, 1599–1609 (New York: Macmillan, 1962); Gerald Eades Bentley, The Professions of Dramatist and Player in Shakespeare’s Time, 1590–1642 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); T. J. King, Shakespearean Staging, 1599–1642 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971); Andrew Gurr, Playgoing in Shakespeare’s London, 3rd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); S. P. Cerasano, ‘Editing the Theatre, Translating the Stage’, Analytic and Enumerative Bibliography, 4 (1990), pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Sidney, Shakespeare, and the Elizabethans in Caroline England
    Textual Ghosts: Sidney, Shakespeare, and the Elizabethans in Caroline England Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Rachel Ellen Clark, M.A. English Graduate Program The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: Richard Dutton, Advisor Christopher Highley Alan Farmer Copyright by Rachel Ellen Clark 2011 Abstract This dissertation argues that during the reign of Charles I (1625-42), a powerful and long-lasting nationalist discourse emerged that embodied a conflicted nostalgia and located a primary source of English national identity in the Elizabethan era, rooted in the works of William Shakespeare, Sir Philip Sidney, John Lyly, and Ben Jonson. This Elizabethanism attempted to reconcile increasingly hostile conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, court and country, and elite and commoners. Remarkably, as I show by examining several Caroline texts in which Elizabethan ghosts appear, Caroline authors often resurrect long-dead Elizabethan figures to articulate not only Puritan views but also Arminian and Catholic ones. This tendency to complicate associations between the Elizabethan era and militant Protestantism also appears in Caroline plays by Thomas Heywood, Philip Massinger, and William Sampson that figure Queen Elizabeth as both ideally Protestant and dangerously ambiguous. Furthermore, Caroline Elizabethanism included reprintings and adaptations of Elizabethan literature that reshape the ideological significance of the Elizabethan era. The 1630s quarto editions of Shakespeare’s Elizabethan comedies The Merry Wives of Windsor, The Taming of the Shrew, and Love’s Labour’s Lost represent the Elizabethan era as the source of a native English wit that bridges social divides and negotiates the ii roles of powerful women (a renewed concern as Queen Henrietta Maria became more conspicuous at court).
    [Show full text]
  • Bacon's Nova Resuscitatio; Or, the Unveiling Of
    BACON'S NOVA RESUSCITATIO BACON'S NOVA RESUSCITATIO OR Ube mnveilfng of bis Concealefc Worfes anfc Uravels BY THE REV. WALTER BEGLEY DISCOVERER AND EDITOR OF MILTON'S NOVA SOLYMA AUTHOR OF ' 1 'IS IT SHAKESPEARE?' BIBLIA CABALISTICA, 'BIBLIA ANAGRAMMATICA,' ETC. IN THREE VOLUMES VOL. I. LONDON GAY AND BIRD 22 BEDFORD STREET, STRAND 1905 All rights reserved CONTENTS OF VOL. I. CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTORY: THE LONG-EXISTING MYSTERY OF ' GEORGE TOTTENHAM'S ' ARTE OF ENGLISH POESIE 1 II. THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR FRANCIS BACON - 15 III. THE CANCELLED PAGES AND BEN JONSON - 40 iv. GEORGE PUTTENHAM'S MANUSCRIPT ON THE EXECU TION OF MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS - 58 v. THE AUTHOR'S CURIOUS WORD-MINT, AND HIS EFFORTS TO SECURE THE QUEEN'S FAVOUR - 66 VI. THE ' PARTHENIADESy - 81 VII. THE PURPORT AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE BODENHAM BOOKS - - 94 VIII. WHO WAS JOHN BODENHAM? - 109 ' IX. POLITEUPHUIA, WIT'S COMMONWEALTH' (1597) - 124 x. 'PALLADIS TAMIA' (1598)- - 132 xi. 'WIT'S THEATER' (1599) - - 148 xii. 'PALLADIS PALATIUM' (1604) - 156 xm. 'BELVEDERE' - 166 XIV. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS RESPECTING THE BODEN HAM BOOKS - 183 xv. 'ENGLAND'S PARNASSUS' AND ROBERT ALLOTT - 217 BACON'S KESUSCITATIO CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY : THE LONG-EXISTING MYSTERY OF ' GEORGE PUTTENHAM'S ' ARTE OF ENGLISH POESIE ' ' GEORGE PUTTENHAM'S Arte of English Poesie is one of the most celebrated treatises on poetry that have been handed down to us from Eliza bethan times. It is in many respects superior to the other books on the same subject by Sir Philip ' Sidney, Webbe, and other contemporaries. In this work,' says Hallam, who was a competent ' judge, we find an approach to the higher pro vince of philosophical criticism.' But critics have found the greatest difficulty in the of for the book was settling point authorship ; published anonymously in 1589, and the printer, Richard Field, confessed that he was ignorant of the author's name, when he dedicated it to Lord Burghley.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shakespeare Apocrypha and Canonical Expansion in the Marketplace
    The Shakespeare Apocrypha and Canonical Expansion in the Marketplace Peter Kirwan 1 n March 2010, Brean Hammond’s new edition of Lewis Theobald’s Double Falsehood was added to the ongoing third series of the Arden Shakespeare, prompting a barrage of criticism in the academic press I 1 and the popular media. Responses to the play, which may or may not con- tain the “ghost”2 of Shakespeare and Fletcher’s Cardenio, have dealt with two issues: the question of whether Double Falsehood is or is not a forgery;3 and if the latter, the question of how much of it is by Shakespeare. This second question as a criterion for canonical inclusion is my starting point for this paper, as scholars and critics have struggled to define clearly the boundar- ies of, and qualifications for, canonicity. James Naughtie, in a BBC radio interview with Hammond to mark the edition’s launch, suggested that a new attribution would only be of interest if he had “a big hand, not just was one of the people helping to throw something together for a Friday night.”4 Naughtie’s comment points us toward an important, unqualified aspect of the canonical problem—how big does a contribution by Shakespeare need to be to qualify as “Shakespeare”? The act of inclusion in an editedComplete Works popularly enacts the “canonization” of a work, fixing an attribution in print and commodifying it within a saleable context. To a very real extent, “Shakespeare” is defined as what can be sold as Shakespearean. Yet while canonization operates at its most fundamental as a selection/exclusion binary, collaboration compli- cates the issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction 1
    Notes Introduction 1. Thomas Bodley, Letters of Sir Thomas Bodley to Thomas James, ed. G. W. Wheeler (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926), 35. In 1607, Bodley expresses skepticism about taking more of “those pamphlets left of D. Reinoldes bookes” because the library cannot take “euery riffe raffe” (171). 2. Bodley, 219. 3. Bodley, 222. 4. Heidi Brayman Hackel, “‘Rowme’ of its Own: Printed Drama in Early Libraries,” A New History of Early English Drama, eds. John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan (New York: Columbia, 1997), 113–30. 5. Peter W. M. Blayney, The First Folio of Shakespeare (Washington, DC: Folger Library Publications, 1991), 1. 6. Early in the sixteenth century, William and John Rastell published some individual plays in folio, apparently attempting to establish drama in the 1530 as an early print genre. Their folio plays included Henry Medwall’s Nature (c. 1525), John Heywood’s Johan Johan (1533), and John Skelton’s Magnyfycence (1533). According to Julie Stone Peters, these plays may have been designed for “ease of production” (The Theatre of the Book [Oxford, 2000], 26–7), and the folio format, allowing more space for illustration and larger margins for annotation, may have contributed to his goal. 7. Jeffery Todd Knight, Bound to Read (Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2013), 27. 8. Notably, Bodley is worried here about what new books to acquire, because “Of Protestant writers in f˚. [folio] I doe not thinke but in a maner, we haue all that can be gotten,” which also indicates a privileging of the folio format, at least in acquisitions (62–3).
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare Editions and Editors
    Shakespeare Editions and Editors The 16th and 17th Centuries The earliest texts of William Shakespeare’s works were published during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in quarto or folio format. Folios are large, tall volumes; quartos are smaller, roughly half the size. Early Texts of Shakespeare’s Works: The Quartos and Bad Quartos (1594-1623) Of the thirty-six plays contained in the First Folio of 1623, eighteen have no other source. The eighteen other plays had been printed in separate and individual editions at least once between 1594 and 1623. Pericles (1609) and The Two Noble Kinsmen (1634) also appeared separately before their inclusions in folio collections. All of these were quarto editions, with one exception: the first edition of Henry VI, Part 3 was printed in octavo form in 1594. Popular plays like Henry IV, Part 1 and Pericles were reprinted in their quarto editions even after the First Folio appeared, sometimes more than once. But since the prefatory matter in the First Folio itself warns against the earlier texts, 18th and 19th century editors of Shakespeare tended to ignore the quarto texts in favor of the Folio. Gradually, however, it was recognized that the quarto texts varied widely among themselves; some much better than others. It was the bibliographer Alfred W. Pollard who originated the term “bad quarto” in 1909, to distinguish several texts that he judged significantly corrupt. He focused on four early quartos: Romeo and Juliet (1597), Henry V (1600), The Merry Wives of Windsor (1602), and Hamlet (1603). His reasons for citing these texts as “bad” were that they featured obvious errors, changes in word order, gaps in the sense of the text, jumbled printing of prose as verse and verse as prose, and similar problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Greene King of the Paper Stage
    Robert Greene King of the Paper Stage by Stephanie Hopkins Hughes I am the spirit of Robert Greene, not unknown to thee (I am sure) by my name, when my writings lately privileged on every post, hath given notice of my name unto infinite numbers of people that never knew me by the view of my person. “B.R.” The Ghost of Robert Greene (1593) Greene lies continually. We wish he were more trustworthy, for it would save us trouble in understanding him. John Clark Jordan Robert Greene (1915) As those of you know who have done some digging in the dusty corners of sixteenth- century English literary history, Robert Greene was one of a group of writers known to present-day scholars as “the University Wits.” They are seen as having formed a group of London-based poets, playwrights and proto-journalists (pamphleteers) who were active for a brief period beginning in the mid-1580s, most active in the late ’80s and early ’90s, and who were, for the most part, like some strange species of human firefly, dead or at least gone from the records, by the late ’90s. Scholars group them together for several reasons: most of them came to London from either Oxford or Cambridge University; there are evident personal and professional connections between some of them, although their real relationships remain unknown; and they share a number of important stylistic similarities. Perhaps more important than anything is the fact, often not accentuated enough by commentators, that it was from this group that the potent force of English journalism, with its cogent and often satirical brilliance, its long history of accomplishment, first flickered, however briefly, into the light of publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    BIbLIOGRApHY NB: Early modern translations are listed under the translator’s name, except in cases of anonymous translations, which are listed under the name of the author. Modern translations are also listed under the name of the author. PRIMARY Ainsworth, Henry. 1609. A defence of the Holy Scriptures, worship, and ministerie, used in the Christian Churches separated from Antichrist.... Amsterdam: Giles Thorp. Anon. 1527?. A copy of the letters wherin the ... king Henry the eight, ... made answere vnto a certayne letter of M. Luther... [anon. tr.]. London: R. Pynson. ———. 1549?. The prayse and commendacion of suche as sought comenwelthes: and to the co[n]trary, the ende and discommendacion of such as sought priuate welthes. Gathered both out of the Scripture and Phylozophers. London: Anthony Scoloker. ———. c.1550. A Ruful complaynt of the publyke weale to Englande. London: Thomas Raynald. ———. 1588. A discourse vpon the present state of France [anon. tr.]. London: John Wolfe. ———. 1632. All the French Psalm tunes with English words ... used in the Reformed churches of France and Germany ... [anon. tr.]. London: Thomas Harper. ———. 1642. Articles of Impeachment exhibited in Parliament, against Spencer Earle of Northamp[ton], William Earle of Devonsh[ire], Henry Earle of Dover, Henry Earle of Monmouth, Robert Lord Rich, Charles Lord Howard Charlton, Charles L. Grey of Ruthen, Thomas Lord Coventry, Arthur Lord Chapell, &c. For severall high Crimes and Misdemeanours.... London: T. F for J. Y. © The Author(s) 2018 279 M.-A. Belle, B. M. Hosington (eds.), Thresholds of Translation, Early Modern Literature in History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72772-1 280 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ashley, Robert, tr.
    [Show full text]
  • Folio Provenance
    5 GABRIEL EGAN The Provenance of the Folio Texts Amongst one particular group of modern readers, facsimile editions of the 1623 Folio are especially cherished. Actors who specialise in Shakespeare prize the Folio in the belief that it gives virtually unmediated access to the finalised, stage-ready versions of his plays. Some of the credit for this mis­ conception belongs to the acting teacher Doug Moston of New York University, whose introduction to the Applause facsimile claims that 'The First Folio ... is the original acting edition of Shakespeare's plays' and 'is the closest version we have to what Shakespeare actually wrote'. 1 But most of the credit must go to Shakespeare's friends and fellow actors John Heminge and Henry Condell, who in the preliminaries to the Folio seek to bolster the claim on the title page that it was made from 'the True Original Copies'. Explaining to the aristocratic patrons their role in providing the publisher with Shakespeare's playscripts, Heminge and Condell write: We haue but collected them, and done an office to the dead, to procure his Orphanes, Guardians, without ambition either of selfe-profit,or fame: onely to keep the memory of so worthy a Friend & Fellow aliue, as was our SHAKESPEARE (nA2v). Some of this we know is true: Shakespeare was their fellow actor in the same company and they were close personal friends. Shakespeare left each of them in his will 26 shillings and 8 pence to buy rings to remember him by. 2 Heminge and Condell claim that they were not motivated by self-profit, and we can take that as literally true, since we have no reason to suppose they would have shared in any profits the book might have made.
    [Show full text]