DOCSLIB.ORG

Gary Taylor, John Jowett, Terri Bourus, and Gabriel Egan, (Eds.), the New Oxford Shakespeare: the Complete Works: Modern Critical Edition 47

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gary Taylor, John Jowett, Terri Bourus, and Gabriel Egan, (Eds.), the New Oxford Shakespeare: the Complete Works: Modern Critical Edition 47 Gary Taylor, John Jowett, Terri Bourus, and Gabriel Egan, (eds.), The New Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works: Modern Critical Edition 47 London: HMSO, 1911. 409-412. British History Online. Web. 20 March 2019. <http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/pp409- 412>. Bacon, Roger. The Mirror of Alchimy . with Certaine Other Treatises of the Like Argument. London, 1597. STC 1182. Bauthumley, Jacob. The Light and Dark Sides of God. London, 1650. Wing B1165A. Cartwright, William. The Plays and Poems of William Cartwright. Ed. G. Bleakmore Evans. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1951. Collinson, Patrick. The Elizabethan Puritan Movement. London: Cape, 1967. Crawford, Patricia. “Charles Stuart, That Man of Blood.” J of British Studies 16 (1977): 41-61. Davies, Julian. The Caroline Captivity of the Church. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Hermes Trismegistus. The Divine Pymander. London, 1649. Wing H1565. Hessayon, Ariel. “The Ranters and Their Sources.” Antiquarianism and Science in Early Modern Urban Networks. Ed. Vittoria Feola. Paris: Blanchard, 2014. 77-101. Hotham, Charles. An Introduction to the Teutonick Philosophie. London, 1650. Wing H2896. Tyacke, Nicholas. Anti-Calvinists. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. フェリス女学院大学 ── 冨 樫 剛 Gary Taylor, John Jowett, Terri Bourus, and Gabriel Egan, (eds.), The New Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works: Modern Critical Edition Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. ix + 3382 pp. Reviewed by OYA Reiko, Keio University In the 1980s, Gary Taylor was deemed the enfant terrible of the Shakespeare world for his revisionist textual scholarship and fearless reevaluation of the playwright’s iconic status. He edited (with Michael Warren) a collection of essays, entitled The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare’s Two Versions of ‘King Lear’ (1983), postulating that the texts in the 1608 Quarto and the 1623 First Folio reproduce discrete versions of the tragedy and that the differences between them are signs of authorial revision. In 1986, Taylor and his senior coeditor Stanley Wells went on to publish the Oxford Shakespeare (hereafter Oxford) to reflect this view. They embraced single-text editing and treated each early edition in its own right, discarding the age-old practice of putting multiple versions together and creating a ‘conflated’ text. Two versions of King Lear were included in Oxford as a result. While earlier 英文学研究96.indd 47 19/11/20 15:16 48 書 評 editors were preoccupied with reconstructing Shakespeare’s original manuscript drafts (‘foul papers’), the Oxford team attended to authorial revision and theatrical collaboration, prioritizing texts in the ‘more theatrical’ First Folio over those in earlier Quartos. They reviewed the Shakespeare canon by examining linguistic features such as function words, which have little lexical meaning. An unremarkable lyric poem in a 17th-century miscellany (‘Shall I die?’) was ascribed to Shakespeare as a result. Oxford was not a user-friendly edition as the plays were given unfamiliar titles and ordered in a new way, and the conventional act- scene division was replaced by consecutive scene numbering̶people struggled to even locate the passage they needed in it. Its assumptions about the manuscripts underlying early- modern playbooks were not unanimously accepted, either. Still, it transformed modern textual reproduction of Shakespeare’s plays and poems and single-text editing would soon become the order of the day. Thirty years on, Taylor and his new editorial team, which includes John Jowett, Terri Bourus, and Gabriel Egan, published the New Oxford Shakespeare (New Oxford), reviewing Shakespeare’s canon yet again with recourse to computer-assisted textual analysis. New Oxford at present comprises the modern-spelling Modern Critical Edition (Modern), the old- spelling Critical Reference Edition (Reference) in two volumes, and the Authorship Companion (Companion). Modern and Reference include the same versions of the same works. The online edition, presented on the Oxford Scholarly Editions Online platform, offers the content of the three print publications. New Oxford also promises an ‘Alternative Versions’ volume for the Quarto and Folio versions not included in Modern and Reference. In Companion, Taylor’s manifesto piece ‘Artiginality’ (a blend of ‘artisanship’ and ‘originality’) reinforces his long-standing revisionism about Shakespeare’s superstardom (‘Shakespeare was a star̶but never the only one in our galaxy’, Reinventing Shakespeare, 1989) by underlining the artisanal poetics and practice common to the famous playwright and his contemporaries. Based on ‘the fundamental ethical principle’ (Companion, p. 20) of giving the early-modern ‘artisans’ credit for their work, the New Oxford team reassessed the authorship, constitution and chronology of the Shakespeare canon with recourse to statistical analyses of digital databases of early-modern plays and other types of writing, such as Literature Online and Early English Books Online. As Taylor claimed in a press release (25 November 2016), ‘Shakespeare has entered the world of Big Data’. The outcomes of their analyses unsettle the standard narrative of Shakespeare collaborating with fellow dramatists on his early plays (such as the three parts of Henry VI and Titus Andronicus) and the final ones (Pericles, Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen) but single-handedly completing the masterpieces that came in-between. New Oxford lists 45 plays (rather than the standard 37) in its Table of Contents and identifies collaborators in 17 of them. His presumed coauthors 英文学研究96.indd 48 19/11/20 15:16 Gary Taylor, John Jowett, Terri Bourus, and Gabriel Egan, (eds.), The New Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works: Modern Critical Edition 49 include Thomas Middleton (in Titus Andronicus, Measure for Measure, All’s Well that Ends Well, Timon of Athens and Macbeth), Christopher Marlowe (Henry VI), Thomas Kyd (The Spanish Tragedy) and Ben Jonson (Sejanus). All in all, New Oxford is a landmark project both in scale and methodology and is far too large to do justice in a short review: its statistical methods and its ‘disintegration’ of the canon, which so far have not generated universal confidence, will be scrutinized by Shakespeare scholars and authorship-attribution experts for many years to come. The following survey will, therefore, focus on the way in which the cutting-edge scholarship underpinning the Reference and Companion is fitted for general use in the Modern edition. Modern arranges the plays authored or part-authored by Shakespeare in the chronological order of composition as established in Companion (Chapters 21, 22, and 25), to offer ‘a kind of biography’ of his creativity (p. 48). Poems, meanwhile, are placed in the years in which their first editions appeared. As a result, The Sonnets, first published in 1609 but probably composed much earlier, is placed between Coriolanus (1608) and The Winter’s Tale (between 1609 and 11). In the Table of Contents, the plays are listed under their full original titles (for instance The Most Lamentable Roman Tragedy of Titus Andronicus) but an alphabetical list of contents is also supplied using the familiar short titles (Titus Andronicus). While Oxford attempted to reproduce the plays as they were originally performed, New Oxford simply chooses the longest version of each play as their copy text, to give readers ‘the most Shakespeare’. As a matter of fact, the editors are now less sure than their 1986 predecessors about the nature of the manuscripts underlying early-modern playbooks: Recent decades have witnessed a collapse of confidence in the earlier categorization of Shakespeare texts. Difficulties relating to the terms ‘foul papers’ and ‘promptbook’ have been mentioned already [in pp. xxv-xxvi]. Editors are also now reluctant to identify the wide separation observed by the New Bibliography between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ quartos. This is not to say that the nature of the manuscript underlying a print edition is completely beyond scrutiny, but rather that our understanding of such matters is provisional, and the proposed dichotomies raise as many questions as they answer. (Jowett, ‘Shakespeare, Early Modern Textual Cultures, and This Edition’, in Reference, p. xli) They therefore use the Second Quarto version of Hamlet (1604-05) rather than the much shorter First Quarto (1603), or the First Folio. Some of their copy texts have act intervals, while others do not. When they do, it is difficult to establish whether the intervals were written by Shakespeare or inserted later by his fellow actors or by printers. For easy reference, 英文学研究96.indd 49 19/11/20 15:16 50 書 評 Modern gives both continuous scene numbering and conventional act-scene division in most plays. The scene division follows the editorial tradition except for a small number of cases (Titus Andronicus, 1.1 and 2.1; A Midsummer Night’s Dream, 3.1 and 4.1; King John, 2.2 and 3.1; Measure for Measure, 1.2, 3.1 and 4.1; Macbeth, 3.4 and 3.5). The edition also includes original musical scores for the songs within the texts. While modernizing the spelling, the edition modifies some of the speech prefixes and adds many stage directions implied by the dialogue. For instance, when Romeo and Juliet first meet and speak in a shared sonnet toward the end of the ball scene (1.5), the editors insert the direction, ‘He kisses her’, at lines 102 and 106, even though the early texts do not clarify the exact moment when the lovers kiss. Interpretive interventions such as this one are indicated by square brackets. The page layout of Modern is legible. The plays and poems are printed in a single column and there are helpful glosses at the bottom of each page. The side margin is used to provide Performance Notes, which supplement stage directions and explore various staging possibilities. Meanwhile, textual notes are postponed to the Reference volume and full collation will only be available in the forthcoming Alternative Versions. Instead of regular introductions, individual plays and poems are supplied with a selection (‘Bricolage’) of quotations representing different critical perspectives from 1592 to 2016.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PDF Download Hamlet: the Texts of 1603 and 1623 Ebook
    HAMLET: THE TEXTS OF 1603 AND 1623 PDF, EPUB, EBOOK William Shakespeare,Ann Thompson,Neil Taylor | 384 pages | 31 May 2007 | Bloomsbury Publishing PLC | 9781904271802 | English | London, United Kingdom Hamlet: The Texts of 1603 and 1623 PDF Book The New Cambridge, prepared by Philip Edwards, also conflated while using the Folio as its base text. It looks like you are located in Australia or New Zealand Close. For your intent In going back to school in Wittenberg, It is most retrograde to our desire, And we beseech you bend you to remain Here in the cheer and comfort of our eye, Our chiefest courtier, cousin, and our son. An innnovative and stimulating contribution. On approval, you will either be sent the print copy of the book, or you will receive a further email containing the link to allow you to download your eBook. This wonderful ternion gives the serious students of Hamlet everything they need to delve deeply into the Dane. You can unsubscribe from newsletters at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in any newsletter. A beautiful, unmarked, tight copy. By using our website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy. Password Forgot Password? What says Polonius? While Jonson and other writers labored over their plays, Shakespeare seems to have had the ability to turn out work of exceptionally high caliber at an amazing speed. Gerald D. May show signs of minor shelf wear and contain limited notes and highlighting. Who's there? But, look, the morn in russet mantle clad, Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastern hill.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shakespeare Authorship Companion
    All That Is Shakespeare Melts into Air The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion reviewed by Michael Dudley, Gary Goldstein, and Shelly Maycock. The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion. Edited by Gary Taylor & Gabriel Egan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. $168.84 USD. he Shakespeare deniers are at it again. Here is yet another book filled with so- called “evidence” hidden in the texts – which only the deniers can decode – Tto support their conspiracy theory that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare. It’s the old hoary argument that a commoner from Stratford-Upon-Avon could not have possibly written the greatest works in the English language. By himself, at any rate. Yes, the argument in The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion – a supplemen- tary volume to Oxford University Press’ prestigious new edition of the Shakespeare plays – is that Shakespeare wrote with some eleven collaborators and co-authors. These would include Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, and Anonymous on seventeen of the dramas; the editors also suggest we need to ex- pand the size of the canon from 37 to 44 plays, only two-thirds of which are entirely by Shakespeare. Yet, as we shall see, the theories and methods used to reach these conclusions are as problematic as the scholarship’s all but single-minded focus on cryptic analysis at the level of single words and even syllables, in service of a group authorship theory. The rhetorical conceit in the opening paragraph above is intend- ed to be more than tongue-in cheek; instead, it underscores the extent to which the Shakespeare establishment has started to resemble the nineteenth century Baconians it professes to abhor.
    [Show full text]
  • READING LIST for IED 366 SHAKESPEARE
    READING LIST for IED 366 SHAKESPEARE Shakespeare’s Plays: Comedies: The Two Gentlemen of Verona The Comedy of Errors The Taming of the Shrew A Midsummer Night’s Dream Twelfth Night As You Like It History Plays: Richard III Richard II Tragedies: Romeo and Juliet Hamlet Othello Macbeth King Lear Problem Plays: The Merchant of Venice Troilus and Cressida Measure for Measure Romances: A Winter’s Tale The Tempest Criticism on Shakespeare, TheElizabethan Theatre, Modern Approaches and Interpretations: Stanley Wells Shakespeare: A Dramatic Life Sinclair and Stevenson, London, 1997. Stanley Wells Shakespeare: The Writer and His Work Longman, Essex, 1978. E.M.Tillyard The Elizabethan World Picture London, 1943. Andrew Gurr The Shakespearian Stage 1571-1642 Cambridge, 1970. J. Styan Shakespeare’s Stagecraft Cambridge, 1967. Leslie Hotson Shakespeare’s Wooden O London, 1959. Walter Hodges The Globe Restored Oxford, 1968. Emrys Jones Scenic Form in Shakespeare Oxford , 1971. Wolfgang Clemen Shakespeare’s Dramatic Art London, 1972. Alexander Leggatt Shakespeare’s Comedy of Love London, 1974. Bradbury and Palmer Shakespearian Comedy Stratford-upon-Avon Studies 14, 1972. Gary Walker Shakespeare’s Comedies Longman, London, 1991. Barbara Freedman Staging the Gaze: Postmodernism, Psychoanalysis and Shakespearean Comedy Cornell UP, London, 1991. A.C.Bradley Shakespearean Tragedy London, 1904. John Drakakis Shakespearean Tragedy Longman, London, 1992. Garner and Sprengnether Shakespearean Tragedy and Gender Indiana UP,1996 Lilly Campbell Shakespeare’s Tragic Heroes: Slaves of Passion Cambridge, 1930. Ernest Jones Hamlet and Oedipus London, 1949. Norman Holland Psychoanalysis and Shakespeare Peter Alexander Hamlet, Father and Son Oxford, 1955. Nigel Alexander Poison, Play and Duel London, 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Sources of Lear
    Meddling with Masterpieces: the On-going Adaptation of King Lear by Lynne Bradley B.A., Queen’s University 1997 M.A., Queen’s University 1998 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of English © Lynne Bradley, 2008 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photo-copying or other means, without the permission of the author. ii Meddling with Masterpieces: the On-going Adaptation of King Lear by Lynne Bradley B.A., Queen’s University 1997 M.A., Queen’s University 1998 Supervisory Committee Dr. Sheila M. Rabillard, Supervisor (Department of English) Dr. Janelle Jenstad, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Michael Best, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Annalee Lepp, Outside Member (Department of Women’s Studies) iii Supervisory Committee Dr. Sheila M. Rabillard, Supervisor (Department of English) Dr. Janelle Jenstad, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Michael Best, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Annalee Lepp, Outside Member (Department of Women’s Studies) Abstract The temptation to meddle with Shakespeare has proven irresistible to playwrights since the Restoration and has inspired some of the most reviled and most respected works of theatre. Nahum Tate’s tragic-comic King Lear (1681) was described as an execrable piece of dementation, but played on London stages for one hundred and fifty years. David Garrick was equally tempted to adapt King Lear in the eighteenth century, as were the burlesque playwrights of the nineteenth. In the twentieth century, the meddling continued with works like King Lear’s Wife (1913) by Gordon Bottomley and Dead Letters (1910) by Maurice Baring.
    [Show full text]
  • "'A Complicated and Unpleasant Investigation': the Arden Shakespeare 1899-1924" by Gabriel Egan This Paper Arises From
    Egan, Gabriel. 2007d. "'''A complicated and unpleasant investigation': The Arden Shakespeare 1899-1924': A paper delivered on 12 July at the conference 'Open the Book, Open the Mind: The 2007 meeting of the Society for History of Authorship, Reading, and Publishing (SHARP)' at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 11-15 July." "'A complicated and unpleasant investigation': The Arden Shakespeare 1899-1924" by Gabriel Egan This paper arises from a survey of Shakespeare play editions in the twentieth century. I'm particularly interested in what those who made editions thought they were doing, how confident they felt about their work, how they thought readers would respond to the textual problems that arise in editing old plays, and how editors' assumptions about their readers were manifested in the editions that they produced. My published title in the programme covers the whole century of editions, but I'm going largely to confine my remarks to just one editorial project. For those of you who like to see the big picture first, however, I can offer a brief overview of just one of those variables I mentioned: editorial confidence [SLIDE]. I see it going like this, from a low at the start of the twentieth-century, through to a peak in the 1970s, and back to a low now. From the detailed history behind this pattern, I have room on this chart to pull just a few keys moments. [SLIDE] First, A. W. Pollard's book Shakespeare Folios and Quartos (1909) distinguished the good from the bad quartos and gave editors reasons to suppose that the good ones are textually close to Shakespeare's own papers.
    [Show full text]
  • William Shakespeare. Love's Labour's Lost
    1 William Shakespeare. Love’s Labour’s Lost Bibliographie établie par Sophie Chiari * Une étoile signale un article ou un ouvrage particulièrement utile dans le cadre de la préparation au concours. ** Deux étoiles indiquent les textes à consulter en priorité. I. Bibliographie HARVEY, Nancy Lenz et Anna Kirwan Carey, Love’s Labor’s Lost : An Annotated Bibliography New York, Garland, 1984. II. Éditions (19 e et 20 e siècles) Note : l’in-quarto de la pièce (1598) est consultable sur le site de la British Library, http://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/labours.html • En anglais ——. A ew Variorum Edition of Love’s Labour’s Lost (1904), Réimprimée par Dover Publications, New York, 1964. ——. Love’s Labour’s Lost , ed. H.C. Hart, Londres, The Arden Shakespeare, 1 st Series, 1906. ——. Love’s Labour’s Lost , eds. Arthur Quiller-Couch et John Dover Wilson, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, The New Shakespeare, 1923 (2 e édition de Dover Wilson seul, 1962). ——. Love’s Labour’s Lost , ed. Richard David, Londres, Methuen & Co Ltd, 1951. ——. Love’s Labour’s Lost , ed. AlFred Harbage, Londres, Penguin, The Pelican Shakespeare, 1963 (édition révisée, 1973). ——. Love’s Labour’s Lost , ed. John Arthos, New York, Signet, Signet Classic Shakespeare, 1965 (édition révisée, 1988; 2e édition révisée, 2004). ——— in The Complete Works , eds. Stanley Wells et Gary Taylor, OxFord, Clarendon Press, (1986), 2005. **—. Love’s Labour’s Lost , ed. John Kerrigan, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, The New Penguin, (1982), 1986. **——. Love’s Labour’s Lost , ed. G. R. Hibbard, OxFord, OxFord University Press, 1990. ——. Love’s Labour’s Lost in The orton Shakespeare , eds.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare's King Lear
    Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear By Greg Maillet Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear By Greg Maillet This book first published 2016 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2016 by Greg Maillet All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-9729-9 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-9729-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Polemical Prologue .................................................................................... vii Criticism, Theology, and the Value of Shakespeare’s King Lear Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 “See Better”: Christian Paradox in Act One of King Lear Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 27 “I Nothing Am”: Confusion and Clarification of Identity in Act Two of King Lear Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 51 “This Night will turn us all to Fools and Madmen”: Storm and the Transformation of Identity
    [Show full text]
  • AW. Pollard and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Editing
    Shakespeare, More or Less: A-W. Pollard and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Editing Paul Werstine Those who have disputed Shakespeare’s authorship of the plays and poems usually attributed to him have been inclined to name the eminent Shakespeare scholars who have vilified the anti-Stratfordian cause. In the Preface to his 1908 book The Shakes­ peare Problem Restated, the urbane Sir Granville George Greenwood quoted Sidney Lee, then chair of Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust, mocking the Baconian theory as ‘“foolish craze,’ ‘morbid psychology,’ ‘madhouse chatter”’ (vii) and John Churton Collins, chair of English Literature at the University of Birmingham, denouncing it as “‘ignorance and vanity”’ (viii). More recendy, Charlton Ogburn has listed among the detractors of the Oxfordian theory Louis B. Wright, former director of the Folger Shakespeare Library (154, 161,168); S. Schoenbaum, author of Shakespeare’s Lives, which devotes one hundred pages “to denigration of...anti-Stratfordian articles and books” (152); and Harvard Shakespeare professors G. Blakemore Evans and Harry Levin (256-57). In view of the energy and labour expended by numerous prominent scholars defending Shakespearean authorship, it is not surprising to dis­ cover that this defence has influenced reception of Shakespeare’s works and their edi­ torial reproductions. This essay deals with the very successful resistance movement against the anti-Stratfordians that was led by A.W. Pollard from 1916 to 1923, and with the peculiar influence that Pollard’s efforts have continued to exert, even upon today’s Shakespeare editors. FlorUegium 16 (1999) Like those Shakespeareans mentioned by Greenwood and Ogburn, Pollard, as an editor of the important bibliographical and editorial quarterly The Library and as Keeper of Printed Books at the British Museum, was well placed to fend off anti-Stratfordians.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oxford Shakespeare Pdf Free Download
    HENRY V: THE OXFORD SHAKESPEARE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK William Shakespeare,Gary Taylor | 352 pages | 01 Aug 2008 | Oxford University Press | 9780199536511 | English | Oxford, United Kingdom Henry V: The Oxford Shakespeare PDF Book The book uses t Academic Skip to main content. Thank you for shopping at our store. Overview The introduction includes an examination of the Quarto and texts, and of the relationship between them; a critical discussion of the play's historical and literary sources; an examination of conflicting critical attitudes to the play, and of its fluctuating theatrical fortunes; and a demonstration of the range and variety of Shakespeare's characterization. Tillyard supports the idea of the Tudor myth , which considers England's 15th century to be a dark time of lawlessness and warfare, that after many battles eventually led to a golden age of the Tudor Period. Oxford World's Classics Series. Description About the Author s Description Henry V , the climax of Shakespeare's sequence of English history plays, is an inspiring, often comic celebration of a young warrior- king. The French suffered 10, casualties; the English, fewer than Keywords: Shakespeare , Henry V , warfare , ordinances , Renaissance , war , medieval laws , nations. More Shakespeare's Henry V has traditionally been acclaimed for its impressive depiction of the psychological and political impact of warfare, and it remains one of the most widely-discussed plays in the canon. All Rights Reserved. The conductor was Sir Neville Marriner. If you have any queries, please contact us via ebay. Shakespeare Survey , volume 38, Cambridge University Press The Star Ledger. Shakespeare's Money Robert Bearman.
    [Show full text]
  • “Gary Taylor and Terri Bourus Make Shakespeare Come Alive with Such Enthusiasm, You’D Swear the Bard Himself Was Sitting in the Room with Them
    P RAISE FOR T HE CREATION AND RE -CREATION OF C ARDENIO: PERFORMING SHAKESPEARE, T RANSFORMING CERVANTES! “Gary Taylor and Terri Bourus make Shakespeare come alive with such enthusiasm, you’d swear the Bard himself was sitting in the room with them. Meticulous and passionate scholars, they don’t shy away from questioning long-held theories and testing them—not only through extensive research— but also through the crucible of live performance. It does not surprise me that they would tackle the reconstruction of Cardenio or that Gary would take some twenty years to do it. When they’re done, Cardenio will certainly stand as a testament to how painstaking line-by-line scholarship can combine with academic imagination to create pure joy.” —Jim Simmons, Producer/Writer of “Shakespeare Lost/Shakespeare Found” TV documentary about The History of Cardenio “This persuasive book should put to rest nearly three hundred years of debate over the lost King’s Men play of 1613. Cardenio was indeed a Fletcher/ Shakespeare collaboration, based on episodes from Cervantes’ bestseller Don Quixote. Lewis Theobald was not a forger: his 1727 adaptation Double Falsehood does derive from Cardenio. With meticulous scholarship and cre- ative theatrical acumen the editors assemble a formidable case, and also tri- umphantly publish for the first time Taylor’s ‘unadaptation’ of The History of Cardenio.” —David Carnegie, Emeritus Professor FRSNZ, School of English, Film, Theatre, and Media Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; and co-editor of The
    [Show full text]
  • DVSNL Nov12highqual Corrected
    November 2012 What Malone Really Said De Vere Society Newsletter :KDW0DORQHUHDOO\VDLGDERXW6KDNHVSHDUH E\.HYLQ*LOYDU\ Edmond Malone (1741-–1812) is the scholar most cal account of Shakespeare’s works with some bio- credited with establishing the biography of ‘William graphical comments. Rowe treats biographical data Shakespeare. in about 1000 words, just under one-eighth of his Samuel Schoenbaum refers to him as “per- introductory essay, concerned almost entirely about haps the greatest of all Shakespearean scholars” his life in Stratford (up-bringing and retirement), and (1970, ix). Wells and Taylor describe him as “one of he offers few biographical data about Shakespeare in the greatest intellectuals of the English Enlighten- London despite some investigation on his own part. PHQWWKHPRVWWDOHQWHGDQGLQÁXHQWLDORIDOOVFKRODUV Later, Malone would dismiss Rowe’s Account as to have dedicated his energies to the explication of containing only ten biographical facts, of which eight Shakespeare’s life and work.” (1987, 55). His re- were false. cent biographer, Peter Martin, calls him a “scholar- Rowe’s Account was abridged and re-or- collector, editor, biographer, and critic”, referring to ganised by Alexander Pope in 1725, but without ac- his “heroic and obsessive” approach to his work and knowledgement. This Rowe-Pope version was fre- his “enormous contribution to Shakespeare studies” quently reprinted in the eighteenth century, appearing (1995, xv-–xvii). as a separate pamphlet in 1740 as a preface to the However, a careful reading of Malone’s collected works edited by Thomas Hanmer (1743), works reveals his own considerable scepticism re- William Warburton (1747), Samuel Johnson (1765) garding previously published assertions concern- and George Steevens (1773, 1778, 1785, 1793, 1803, ing Shakespeare’s life and writings.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Shakespeare's Hamlet'?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE 遠藤：What do you mean by‘Shakespeare’s Hamlet’? What do you mean by‘Shakespeare’s Hamlet’? Hanako Endo ‘What do you mean by ‘Shakespeare’s Hamlet’?’1 is a question Edwards asks himself in his in- troduction to Hamlet. The similar question, ‘what does Hamlet mean?’2, is raised in the edition of Hamlet by Thompson and Taylor. Edwards’ answer is that the ideal text of Hamlet ‘does not exist in either of the two main authoritative texts, the second quarto and the Folio, but somewhere between them’,3 whereas Thompson and Taylor do not specify their answer, offering the wider view beyond editing texts. They state as follows: The question is of course impossible to answer in the space of this Introduction: we can only give some pointers towards current debates and hope that readers will also find sug- gestions in the reminder of the Introduction and in the commentary as to how modern performers and critics are interpreting the play, questioning or reaffirming old readings and finding new ones.4 Although the view of Thompson and Taylor is rather ambiguous and does not provide the editorial answer, Edwards and Thompson and Taylor acknowledge that Hamlet is obviously one of the most difficult plays to edit. This essay will venture to find what the text is or what the text should be for modern readers in order to solve the above question. It will give some examples of the problems of editing Hamlet but will also make a general comment on editing.
    [Show full text]