DOCSLIB.ORG

Shopping-Mall Shakespeare: Quartos, Folios, and Social Difference Author(S): Leah S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shopping-Mall Shakespeare: Quartos, Folios, and Social Difference Author(S): Leah S Shopping-Mall Shakespeare: Quartos, Folios, and Social Difference Author(s): Leah S. Marcus Source: The Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 2 (1995), pp. 161-178 Published by: University of California Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3817819 Accessed: 16/11/2009 14:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Huntington Library Quarterly. http://www.jstor.org Shopping-MallShakespeare: Quartos,Folios, and SocialDifference LEAHS. MARCUS I n his groundbreakingedition of the poetryof John Donne, publishedin 1912, HerbertJ. C. Griersontook particularcare to distinguishbetween the discipline of history and his own discipline of literary criticism. "Literary history,"he asserted, "has for the historian a quite distinct interest from that which it possessesfor the student and lover of literature."The historianmay take "positiveinterest" in connecting "Donne'swit with the generaldisintegration of mediaeval thought" or in recognizing Machiavelli'sinfluence on Elizabethan drama. But for the "loverof literaturenone of these facts has any positive inter- est whatsoever.Donne's wit attractsor repelshim equallywhatever be its source; Tamburlaineand Iago lose none of their interestfor us though we know nothing of Machiavelli."For Grierson, the literary text's historical setting and material embodiments were clearlyseparable from its essence-so many veils of "outworn fashions and conventions" that had to be cast off by literary scholars before a given work could be relished in its true nature.The literaryscholar "studieshis- tory that he may discount it."1 It is amusing, even astonishing, to reflect upon the ways in which our con- ceptions of the twin disciplines of literatureand history have changed in the eighty years since Grierson'spronouncement. At the time he made it, English was a relativelynew discipline, still not formally taught as such at some major universities,still in danger of being re-engulfedin the historicalphilology of the nineteenth century out of which it had only recentlyemerged. Now, eighty years later, the discipline of English has reversedGrierson's clear sense of disciplinary strengths and priorities. It is no longer the business of the literary scholar to I wouldlike to acknowledgethe contributions of KevinSharpe, David Cressy, and other participants at the 1993Huntington Library Conference "Culture, Politics, and Society in Elizabethanand Early Stuart England,"at whichthis paper was originally delivered. Scattered material in theessay is reproducedwith permissionfrom Unediting the Renaissance: Shakespeare, Marlowe, Milton (London, 1996). 1. ThePoems ofJohn Donne, ed. HerbertJ. C. Grierson(Oxford, 1912), 2:v-vi. HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY - 58:2 o 161 162 .~ LEAH S. MARCUS uncover the "essential"work of literaturebeneath the veil of history. The very idea that there is such an unchanging essence to literature,as opposed to the untidyflux of history,has been discountedby literaryscholars of the lastdecade who have dismantledwhat we now scornfullyterm essentialistviews of litera- turein favorof a new paradigmthat reinvestsliterature with all of the localcon- tingenciessurrounding its creationand reception.These days, we do not "study historythat we may discountit," but that we may redefinethe workof litera- ture as alwaysand intrinsicallyhistorically situated, radically dependent for its meaningon the matrixof institutionsand ideologieswithin which it is placed at any given time. Nevertheless,we literaryscholars are arguably as devotedto certaintiesand absolutesas Griersonwas-we simply look for them in disciplinesapart from our own, especiallyin the socialsciences.2 We look to historiansto provideus with reliablemodels of the past so that we can breakthe literarywork out of its spell- bindingaura of inalterabilityand reinscribeit within one or manysituations of culturalcontingency that somehow feel more real to us than the appealsto "uni- versalhuman nature" and "experience"that felt so realto Grierson. The New Historicism is particularlynoteworthy for its essentializationof his- toricalcontingencies through its use (or abuse)of the "initialanecdote"-a brief, strikinghistorical narrative that begins an essayand servesas a "ground,"almost in the musicalsense of the term, upon which arabesquesof interpretationand deconstructionare playedin nearinfinite variation. But for most New Histor- icists,history is synchronic:the grounditself is positedas stableand reliable even thoughits significationmay be perceivedas multiplerather than single, and even thoughour senseof its meaningmay alter-indeed is likelyto do so-during the courseof a givenessay. Where Grierson turned to literaturefor a refugefrom the vicissitudesof history,literary critics are now moreinclined to usehistory as a sta- ble jumping-off point into the vicissitudesof literature. Historians of the early modern era frequentlyuse literaturein the same way thatwe literaryscholars use the historicalanecdote and historical data: as a device forconfirming and anchoring meaning. Even historians who arestrongly aware of the mediatednature of literarytexts are prone to cite them as striking,concrete illustrationsof an interpretationthey are puttingforth-a frozenimage of the realitythey want to posit.We each use the otherdiscipline to confera kind of 2. The context of the conferenceat which this paperwas deliveredled me to focus on the relationsbetween literarystudy and history,as opposedto anthropologyand sociology,although these two disciplinesare as prominentin the field of literarystudies as historyis. - QUARTOS, FOLIOS, AND SOCIAL DIFFERENCE 163 truthvalue upon our own thatwe arenot willingto grantour discipline within its own methodologicalterms. Indeed, that tendency may be one of the fewclear dis- ciplinarymarkers left within the largerfield of earlymodern studies: if we trust literature,we mustbe historians;if we trusthistory, we mustbe literarycritics. HereI wouldlike to concentrateon an interestingarea in whichthe collab- orationof the two disciplinesis particularlyrewarding, and in which they need to cooperatemuch morethan they have-that is, the new field of textualstud- ies that investigatesthe historicallysituated nature of textual production (whethermanuscript or printedmaterial) and textual alteration over time. As lit- erarycritics have done untilvery recently, historians of the earlymodern era have reliedon the standardeditions of literaryworks of the Elizabethanand Stuart era as thoughthey offered transparent windows on the age,unmediated access to the mindsand moresof the culture.Given the growthwithin the disciplineof liter- atureof a new textualstudies-or, as I preferto think of it, a "newphilology," becausein manyways we arereviving a nineteenth-centuryphilological vision of the interpenetrationof literatureand history-that sense of transparencyhas becomeincreasingly occluded. The new philologycan be considereda branchof the new internationalmovement studying the "historyof the book."It takesa firmlyrevisionist stance toward the mainstreamtwentieth-century editorial tra- dition, investigatingthe waysin whichthe materialtexts of a workof literature havealtered over time and reinvestingthem with a historicalcontingency that Grierson-and mosttwentieth-century editors-have soughtto lift themout of. ForGrierson, history was to be studiedin orderto be discounted.We needhis- toriansto help us study differencesamong earlyversions of Shakespeareand Marloweand Donne, so thatwe will not be temptedto discountthe phenome- non of historicaldifference among variant early texts. WhatI wouldlike to do hereis consideralternative early versions of canoni- cal Renaissancetexts that the editorialtradition has suppressed (and suppressed is not too stronga term).3How canboth literary scholars and historians cast offa set of editorialconventions that have causedus passivelyto receiveour standard 3. I am by no meansthe firstto take an interestin such matters;see, for example,Gary Taylor and Michael Warren,eds., TheDivision of theKingdoms: Shakespeare's Two Versions of KingLear (Oxford, 1983); Random Cloud [RandallMcLeod], "The Marriageof Good and Bad Quartos,"Shakespeare Quarterly 33 (1952): 421-31; StevenUrkowitz, Shakespeares Revision ofKing Lear (Princeton, N.J., 1980); and ArthurMarotti, Manuscript,Print, and theEnglish Renaissance Lyric (Ithaca, N.Y., 1994). Among these proponentsof the new
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 'The New (Old) Play': Q1 Hamlet and the Texts Around
    ‘THE NEW (OLD) PLAY’: Q1 HAMLET AND THE TEXTS AROUND PERFORMANCE, 1980-2015 Scott Shepherd Royal Holloway, University of London PhD Thesis TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY ................................................................4 ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................7 A NOTE ON TEXTS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................9 CHAPTER ONE WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HAMLET ................................11 Approaching the Archive .............................................................................................16 The First Quarto from 1825 to 1980: A Pre-History ....................................................23 The Origins of Q1: A Survey of Scholarship .................................................................35 Summary of the Argument and Outline of the Thesis ....................................................44 CHAPTER TWO: 1980-1989 THE MOST VALUABLE OF ALL SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES ....................................50 RSC 1980: Reviewing Authenticity ...............................................................................58 Orange Tree 1985: Absolute Fidelity? .........................................................................66 RSC 1989: Common Sense, I Suppose ..........................................................................72
    [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]
  • '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]
  • Hamlet on the Page
    ‗To the great Variety of Readers‘: Hamlet on the Page Reed Reibstein Pierson College, Class of 2011 Advisor: Edward S. Cooke, Jr. 1.] Introduction 9.] The Second Quarto (1604/5) 15.] The First Folio (1623) 19.] ―Theobald‖ (1733) 24.] Cranach Press (1930) 28.] Barnes & Noble (2007) 33.] Illustrations 46.] Bibliography 0 Introduction On October 7, 1930, Beatrice Warde gave a lecture to the British Typographers‘ Guild on ―printing,‖ by which she meant specifically the design of books.1 Throughout the lecture, subsequently widely reprinted, she constructed an analogy between wineglasses and books, arguing that just as the finest cup would be a ―crystal goblet,‖ allowing the drinker to focus on the wine rather than the vessel, ―Printing Should Be Invisible.‖ Warde explained, … the most important thing about printing is that it conveys thought, ideas, images, from one mind to other minds…. We may say, therefore, that printing may be delightful for many reasons, but that it is important, first and foremost, as a means of doing something. That is why it is mischievous to call any printed piece a work of art, especially fine art: because that would imply that its first purpose was to exist as an expression of beauty for its own sake and for the delectation of the senses.2 Warde‘s dichotomy between printing and art illustrates the difficulty of examining book design through the lens of art history. We view a painting or sculpture as the result of an artist‘s thought and labor. A poster may be thought of similarly (except with a more overtly commercial motive).
    [Show full text]
  • Dramaturgy of the Acting Version of the First Quarto of Hamlet
    Dramaturgy of the Acting Version of the First Quarto of Hamlet Jesús Tronch Pérez UNIVERSITAT DE VALÈNCIA It is relatively known that the First Quarto of Hamlet (1603), the first text ever printed in which the tragical history of the Prince of Denmark is related to the playwright William Shakespeare, presents a version notably different from the one commonly known, from the standard version which is reflected in the texts of the Second Quarto (1604/5) and the First Folio (1623). Among its most striking differences we could point out the following. It is a much shorter ver- sion, 2,220 lines, just over half as long as the Second Quarto (the longest textual version) or any modern critical edition. Variation in dialogue ranges from passages of total similitude, paraphrases, to fragments unique to the First Quarto (about 130 lines), together with a number of transpositions and echoes. Some characters bear different names, for instance, Corambis for Polonius, Montano for Reynaldo1, or Rossencraft and Gilderstone for Rosencrantz2 and Guilderstern. There are important structural differences, especially at two points where the line of action is markedly altered: 1) the soliloquy “To be, or not to be” and the subsequent nunnery episode occur immediatly after Corambis plans to “loose” his daughter to Hamlet3, and 2) after Ofelia has become mad, Horatio informs the queen of Hamlet’s return in a scene which is unique to the First Quarto. And finally, characterizations are different, especially the queen who in the closet scene unambiguously denies any complicity with the murder of Hamlet’s father and vows to assist his son in his revenge.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CASE for the FOLIO Jonathan Bate
    THE CASE FOR THE FOLIO Jonathan Bate ‘The First Folio remains, as a matter of fact, the text nearest to Shakespeare’s stage, to Shakespeare’s ownership, to Shakespeare’s authority’ (Charlotte Porter and Helen Clarke, preface to their Pembroke Edition, 1903) © Jonathan Bate 2007 THIS ESSAY OFFERS A MORE DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE EDITORIAL PROBLEM IN SHAKESPEARE THAN THAT PROVIDED ON pp. l-lvii/50-57 OF THE GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE RSC SHAKESPEARE: COMPLETE WORKS THE QUARTOS The original manuscripts of Shakespeare’s works do not survive: the sole extant composition in his hand is a single scene from Sir Thomas More, a multi-authored play that cannot really be described as ‘his’. Shakespeare only survives because his works were printed. In his lifetime there appeared the following works (all spellings of titles modernized here, numbering inserted for convenience only, sequence of publication within same year not readily established). They were nearly all printed in the compact and relatively low- priced format, which may be thought of as the equivalent of the modern paperback, known as quarto (the term is derived from the fact that each sheet of paper that came off the press was folded to make four leaves): 1] Venus and Adonis (1593) – poem. 2] Lucrece (1594) – poem. 3] The most lamentable Roman tragedy of Titus Andronicus, as it was played by the right honourable the Earl of Derby, Earl of Pembroke and Earl of Sussex their servants (1594) – without the fly-killing scene that appears in the 1623 First Folio. 4] The first part of the contention betwixt the two famous Houses of York and Lancaster, with the death of the good Duke Humphrey, and the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolk, and the tragical end of the proud Cardinal of Winchester, with the notable rebellion of Jack Cade, and the Duke of York’s first claim unto the crown (1594) – a variant version of the play that in the 1623 First Folio was called The Second Part of Henry the Sixth.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 04 Woudhuysen 1226 7/12/04 12:01 Pm Page 69
    04 Woudhuysen 1226 7/12/04 12:01 pm Page 69 SHAKESPEARE LECTURE The Foundations of Shakespeare’s Text H. R. WOUDHUYSEN University College London EIGHTY YEARS AGO TODAY my great-grandfather, Alfred W. Pollard, delivered this Annual Shakespeare Lecture on ‘The Foundations of Shakespeare’s Text’, the lecture coinciding with the tercentenary of the publication of the First Folio. To compare great things to small, this year all we can celebrate is the quatercentenary of the first quarto of Hamlet— a so-called ‘bad’ quarto. Surveying current knowledge about the quarto and Folio editions of Shakespeare’s plays, Pollard argued that, compared to the fate of Dr Faustus (‘a few fine speeches overladen with much alien buffoonery’) or the texts of the plays of Greene and Peele (‘scanty and mangled’), Shakespeare’s plays ‘have come down to us in so much better condition’, the texts presenting ‘to the sympathetic reader, and still more to the sympathetic listener . very few obstacles’. No wonder he called himself ‘an incurable optimist’—a characteristic I have not fully inherited from him.1 That general optimism about the state of Shakespeare’s texts was largely shared by Pollard’s friends and followers R. B. McKerrow and W. W. Greg, the proponents of what became known as the ‘New Bibliography’. The three of them elaborated an essential model of textual transmission, involving two sorts of lost manuscript—autograph drafts (called in con- temporary documents ‘foul papers’) and the theatrical ‘promptbook’— and two types of quarto. There were ‘bad’ quartos, containing shorter, Read at the Academy 23 April 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • Where There's a Will
    LOCAL EXPERTS. curator’s insight GLOBAL REACH. Worldwide the Bonhams Group holds Where There’s a Will close to 400 auctions each year in 60 specialist areas. Our Los Angeles REVERENCE FOR THE BARD PERMEATES THE HUNTINGTON office provides local access to the exceptional resources of this global network. By Stephen Tabor Consignments now invited for auctions in all categories. Marking the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s His method was not to hang around bookshops; death, Stephen Tabor, The Huntington’s curator of he preferred to bag whole collections at once, using +1 (323) 436 5552 early printed books, relates how the institution’s high-end dealers like George D. Smith and A.S.W. [email protected] founder built one of the world’s great collections Rosenbach as stalking horses. His fast-growing of the playwright’s works. library therefore incorporated the knowledge and MATTEO SANDONA (1881-1964) In her Kimono taste of numerous discerning buyers who had pre- signed ‘Sandona’ (lower right) hen Henry Huntington turned 60 ceded him. His first notable en bloc purchase was oil on canvas in 1910, he announced his retire- the library of Elihu Dwight Church in 1911. In 36 x 28 5/8in ment, saying, “I believe I am en- addition to a choice collection of the most impor- Sold for $293,000 titled to some rest and playtime. tant works on American discovery and exploration, WhyW shouldn’t I take it?” For one of America’s this netted Huntington more than 50 early copies richest men, this meant a new commitment to of Shakespeare’s plays and poems and placed him book collecting, in which he had been dabbling immediately among the collectors in the field to be with increasing sophistication during his working reckoned with.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare Texts HAMLET – the 1St Quarto 1603
    Shakespeare Texts HAMLET – the 1st Quarto 1603 st Shakespeare Texts Hamlet: The 1 Quarto HAMLET – the 1st Quarto Introduction There are three major versions of Hamlet – the ‘1st Quarto’ (Q1), published in 1603, the ‘2nd Quarto’ (Q2) published in 1604/5, and the ‘1st Folio’ (F1), published in 1623. Further quarto editions are based on Q2, and further folios are revisions of F1. That the version we call ‘Q1’ was published earlier than ‘Q2’ we have known for four centuries, but only because of the implication of this sentence on the title page of Q2: Newly imprinted and enlarged to almost as much againe as it was, according to the true and perfect Coppie. Q1’s text itself was lost, and only came to light in 1823 when Sir Henry Bunbury discovered a copy in the Manor House of Great Barton in Suffolk. A second copy then turned up over 30 years later in Dublin. They remain the only two copies known. How long it had been lost we cannot know; but it seems almost certain that the first post-Folio editors – Rowe, Pope, Theobald, Johnson, Capell, Malone and others – did not have access to it. And so in 1823 its peculiar readings, not least its version of the ‘To be or not to be’ speech, came as a rude shock – To be, or not to be, ay, there’s the point, To die, to sleep, is that all? Ay, all. No, to sleep, to dream, ay, marry, there it goes, For in that dream of death, when we awake, And borne before an everlasting judge, From whence no passenger ever returned, The undiscovered country, at whose sight The happy smile, and the accursèd damned.
    [Show full text]
  • 2001 Shawangunk Review
    Shawangunk Review State University of New York at New Paltz New Paltz, New York Volume XII Spring 2001 Shawangunk Review editors H.R. Stoneback, Director of Graduate Studies Daniel Kempton, Department Chair managing editor Jason Taylor advisory editor Thomas G. Olsen Shawangunk Review, the journal of the English Graduate Program, is an annual review published by the Department of English at the State University of New York at New Paltz. Shawangunk Review publishes literary articles of interest to the graduate students and faculty, book reviews, poetry, and reports and news about the program. The views expressed in Shawangunk Review are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of English at suny New Paltz. Please address all correspondence to Shawangunk Review, Department of English, State University of New York, New Paltz, New York, 12561. Copyright© 2001 Department of English, State University of New York at New Paltz. All rights reserved. Shawangunk Review Volume Twelve Spring 2001 6 From the Editors H.R. Stoneback Shakespeare 1600-2000: Art, Adaptation, Appropriation 8 Introduction Thomas G. Olsen 11 From Playhouse to Printing House; or, Making a Good Impression David Scott Kastan 33 “Unhonest Desire”: Culture, Schools, and the Misallocation of Blame in Romeo and Juliet Scott K. Jacobs-Royer 39 No Law, The Law, and The Law of Grace: Redemption in King Lear Brenda M. O’Connor 45 The Conception of Narrative Self in King Richard II Eileen Abrahams 51 Henry V’s “reformation in a flood”: The Chosen, Anointed, or Self-Appointed? Elizabeth McGuffey 56 Pogues Me, Kate: Shakespeare, The Irish Wars, and The Taming of the Shrew Lawrence Beemer 62 Set Phasers on Shakespeare: The Bard as Cultural Weapon in Star Trek Adam J.
    [Show full text]