DOCSLIB.ORG

Winter School: 13Th to 16Th January 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Winter School: 13Th to 16Th January 2020 Winter School: 13th to 16th January 2020 Monday 13th January From 12.00 noon Registration at the Mercure Shakespeare Hotel, Chapel Street, Stratford-upon-Avon 12.15 to 1.45 pm Buffet lunch at the Mercure Shakespeare Hotel 2.00 pm Welcome and introduction by Nick Walton at the Shakespeare Centre 2.10 pm ‘Early Modern English conceptions of Islam and the Ottoman Empire’ [Professor Matthew Dimmock, University of Sussex] 3.00 pm Tea and biscuit break [James 1 Lounge and Wolfson bar area] 3.30 to 4.30 pm Theatre Music: Guy Woolfenden [Dr Leah Broad, Christ Church, Oxford University] 7.30 pm Performance of A Museum in Baghdad at the Swan Theatre Tuesday 14th January 9.45 am Post-performance discussion of A Museum in Baghdad Group 1 – Queen Elizabeth Hall Group 2 – Wolfson Hall 10.30 am Coffee and biscuit break [James 1 Lounge and Wolfson bar area] 11.00 am Panel discussion on ‘Shakespeare and Museums’ Chaired by Rev. Dr Paul Edmondson, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust with Professor Ewan Fernie, Shakespeare Institute, Ros Sklar, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and Helen Hopkins, PhD research student 12.00 noon Lunch (own arrangements) 1.30 pm Question and answer session with a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company on A Museum in Baghdad 2.30 pm Tea and biscuit break [James 1 Lounge and Wolfson bar area] 3.00 to 4.00 pm ‘The Boy in the Dress: Shakespeare and Costume’ [Patricia Lennox, Co-editor of ‘Shakespeare and Costume’] Shakespeare Birthplace Trust – Winter School 2020 7.00 pm Performance of The Boy in the Dress at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre Wednesday 15th January 10.00 am ‘King John: Then and Now’ [Dr Nick Walton and Dr Darren Freebury-Jones, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust] 10.30 am Coffee and biscuit break [James 1 Lounge and Wolfson bar area] 11.00 am ‘King John in the Archives’ [Dr Anjna Chouhan, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust] 12.00 noon Lunch (own arrangements) 1.30 pm Pre-performance talk on King John [Dr Robert Smallwood] 2.30 pm Tea and biscuit break [James 1 Lounge and Wolfson bar area] 3.00 to 4.00 pm ‘King John’s Reign’ [Dr Marc Morris, author of King John: Treachery, Tyranny and the Road to Magna Carta] 7.30 pm Performance of King John at the Swan Theatre Thursday 16th January 10.00 am Post-performance discussion of King John Group 1 – Queen Elizabeth Hall Group 2 – Wolfson Hall 11.00 am Coffee and biscuit break [James 1 Lounge and bar area] 11.30 am Question and answer session with a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company on King John 12.30 pm approx. Programme ends Displays on boards provided by our Collections Team. Winter School participants are also very welcome to explore our collection in the Reading Room during breaks in the programme. The Reading Room is open from 10-4.30 Wednesday to Friday and from 9.30 to 12.30 on Saturday mornings. Come in to look at reviews, archive materials relating to past productions, peruse our new book display or to find out more about Stratford-upon-Avon or William Shakespeare. Shakespeare Birthplace Trust – Winter School 2020 SPEAKERS Dr Anjna Chouhan is Senior Lecturer in Shakespeare Studies at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, where she teaches Shakespeare and his contemporaries to schools, universities and enthusiasts from around the world, and acts as dramaturge for the in- house performance teams. Anjna specialises in Shakespeare reception and performance in the 19th century and edited the Pickering and Chatto sourcebook on Henry Irving for the Lives of Shakespearian Actors series (2012). Anjna is a Shakespeare consultant for the BBC, appearing on Great British Railway Journeys, Songs of Praise, and acting as lead Shakespearian for their digital project, ShakespeareMe, which allows users to select emojis in order to generate a corresponding Shakespeare quotation. She has contributed chapters to Dorling Kindersley’s Shakespeare Book (2015) and Bloomsbury’s 1616: Shakespeare and Tang Xianzu’s China (2016). As well as working with Cambridge Schools Shakespeare and Digital Theatre, Anjna has featured in Massive Open Online Courses with the RSC and British Council, respectively. Anjna delivers talks for the National Theatre to support their Shakespeare productions (including Macbeth and Antony and Cleopatra – 2018), and she co-devised the Shakespeare edition of Trivial Pursuit with her colleague, Dr Nick Walton. Anjna is currently developing the Shakespedia content on the Trust's website (www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/shakespedia). Dr Leah Broad is a music lecturer at Christ Church, St John’s, and Queen’s Colleges at the University of Oxford. Her research is focused on incidental music, particularly on Scandinavian incidental music of the early twentieth century. Leah is a BBC/AHRC New Generation Thinker and won the Observer/Anthony Burgess Prize for Arts Journalism for an article on Sibelius. She is also the founder and editor of The Oxford Culture Review, a website dedicated to arts and humanities research. Leah’s writing has appeared on online platforms such as the Huffington Post, The Observer, The Conversation, and Corymbus. Professor Matthew Dimmock completed a BA and MA in English at the University of Leeds before spending three years at Royal Holloway, University of London, studying for a PhD. His thesis explored the ways in which Islam and the Ottoman Empire were understood in early modern English culture - particularly how the 'terrible Turk' was represented on the professional stage. After completing his PhD Matthew took up a Visiting Scholarship at the University of Leiden in The Netherlands during which time he undertook courses in early Dutch, worked in the National Archives in The Hague, and taught on the MA in European Expansion. Upon his return to the UK he continued his research as Visiting Scholar at the Centre for Editing Lives and Letters at Queen Mary, University of London, for a few months in the summer of 2003. After which he took up a position as Lecturer in English Literature at the University of Sussex, becoming Professor of Early Modern Studies in early 2013. Rev. Dr Paul Edmondson is Head of Research and Knowledge and Director of the Stratford-upon- Avon Poetry Festival for the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. He is the author, co-author, and co-editor of many books and articles about Shakespeare, including The Shakespeare Circle: An Alternative Biography (with Stanley Wells for Cambridge University Press), Shakespeare’s Creative Legacies (with Peter Holbrook for The Arden Shakespeare); and Finding Shakespeare’s New Place: an archaeological biography (with archaeologists Kevin Colls and William Mitchell for Manchester University Press). His Shakespeare: Ideas in Profile is an overview of Shakespeare for the general reader, and a collection of his Shakespeare-related poetry, Destination Shakespeare has recently appeared (www.misfitpress.co : the publishers donate a pair of prescription spectacles to a child in India for each copy sold). He is currently working on New Places: Shakespeare and Civic Creativity (with Ewan Fernie, The Arden Shakespeare, 2018). He is Chair of the Hosking Houses Trust for women writers, a Trustee of the British Shakespeare Shakespeare Birthplace Trust – Winter School 2020 Association, and a priest in the Church of England. He has lived and worked in Stratford- upon- Avon since 1995. @paul_edmondson Professor Ewan Fernie is Chair of Shakespeare Studies and Fellow of the Shakespeare Institute, where he devised and co-convened the Institute’s MA in Shakespeare and Creativity. He is also Director of the ‘Everything to Everybody’ Project, which is using Birmingham’s forgotten past to inspire our future. The project aims to unlock the world’s first great people’s Shakespeare library for all. After completing his PhD at the University of St Andrews, Ewan previously taught at Queen’s University, Belfast and the Royal Holloway, University of London before moving to the Shakespeare Institute. Dr Darren Freebury-Jones is Lecturer in Shakespeare Studies (International – USA) at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. His role involves building and developing relationships with schools, universities, and organisations in the USA through regular teaching tours; working on the Trust’s online educational resources; as well as lecturing at the Shakespeare Centre. His 2016 doctoral thesis examined Thomas Kyd’s influence on Shakespeare’s early work and he is one of the editors for the first edition of Kyd’s collected works since 1901. He has also investigated the boundaries of John Marston’s dramatic corpus as part of the Oxford Marston project. His recent and forthcoming work on the plays of authors such as Shakespeare, Kyd, Lyly, Marlowe, Peele, Nashe, Marston, Dekker, Fletcher, and others can be found in such journals as American Notes and Queries, Archiv fuer das Studium der Neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, Authorship,Journal of Early Modern Studies, Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, Notes and Queries, Renaissance and Reformation, Studia Metrica et Poetica, and Texas Studies in Literature and Language. Dr Patricia Lennox edited a volume of articles, Shakespeare and Costume, for the Arden Shakespeare series in 2019. Her articles have been included in numerous Shakespeare publications, and she edited As You Like It for the New Kitteredge Shakespeare Series. Her articles and reviews appear regularly in Studies in Costume and Performance. She has taught at New York University in New York, London, and Florence. Dr Marc Morris is a historian who specializes in the Middle Ages. He studied and taught history at the universities of London and Oxford, and his doctorate on the thirteenth- century earls of Norfolk was published in 2005. An expert on medieval monarchy and aristocracy, and a fellow of the Royal Historical Society, Marc has written numerous articles for History Today and BBC History Magazine.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2014-15 Wooden O.Indd
    67 The Filial Dagger: The Case of Hal and Henry IV in 1 & 2 Henry IV and The Famovs Victories Kristin M. S. Bezio University of Richmond nglish culture and politics in the last decade of the sixteenth century were both patriarchal and patrilineal, in spite of— E or, perhaps, in part, because of—the so-called bastard queen sitting on the throne. The prevailing political questions of the day concerned Elizabeth’s successor and the fate of the nation that, so many believed, hung precariously in the balance. Questions of legality, legitimacy, and fitness formed the crux of these debates, but almost all claimants attempted to justify their right by tracing their bloodlines back to either Henry VII or Edward III, the respective patriarchs of the Tudor dynasty and the houses of York and Lancaster.1 These debates hinged on the 1543 Third Act of Succession, in which Henry VIII stipulated that the heirs of his younger sister Mary (the Grey line) should take precedence over the heirs of his elder sister Margaret (the Stuart line). After Elizabeth suffered a dangerous bout with fever in 1593, these discussions intensified.2 By 1595, when Richard II, the first play in Shakespeare’s Henriad, initially appeared on stage, the conversation had spread out from the Court, appearing in public discourse, both in pamphlet and on stage. In December of 1595, the Queen’s Men were replaying an anonymous play entitled The Famous Victories of Journal of the Wooden O. Vol 14-15, 67-83 © Southern Utah University Press ISSN: 1539-5758 68 Kristin M.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamlet (Arden Shakespeare: Third Series)
    Hamlet (Arden Shakespeare: Third Series) PDF This self-contained, free-standing volume gives readers the Second Quarto text. In his illustrated introduction to the play’s historical, cultural, and performance contexts, Neil Taylor presents a thorough survey of critical approaches to the play.  He addresses the challenges faced in reading, editing, or acting a play with the depth of content and tradition that Hamlet possesses. He also establishes the historical and cultural context in which the play was written and explains the arguments about the merits and deficiencies of the First and Second Quarto and the First Folio. Taylor points to the many novelists, both men and women, whose work refers to or bears commonalities with Hamlet, to suggest an ongoing to need to resolve "the continuing mystery of Hamlet" in print and on stage.  An appendix contains the additional passages found only in the 1623 text, and other appendices on the editorial process, the traditions regarding the act division at 3.4/4.1, casting, and music are also included. Table of ContentsList of illustrationsGeneral editors’ prefacePrefaceINTRODUCTION The challenges of Hamlet   The challenge of acting Hamlet   The challenge of editing Hamlet   The challenge to the greatness of Hamlet: Hamlet versus Lear Hamlet in our time   The soliloquies and the modernity of Hamlet   Hamlet and Freud   Reading against the Hamlet traditionHamlet in Shakespeare’s time   Hamlet at the turn of the century   The challenge of dating Hamlet   Â
    [Show full text]
  • Impact Case Study (Ref3b) Institution: King’S College London
    Impact case study (REF3b) Institution: King’s College London Unit of Assessment: 29 English Language and Literature Title of case study: From page to stage: editing two Shakespeare plays for use in the theatre. 1. Summary of the impact (indicative maximum 100 words) Academics at King’s have long been involved in the editing of Shakespeare. Their editions have benefited school students and teachers, general readers, and theatre practitioners. Here we describe the impact which two King’s-edited plays have had on theatrical performances and cultural life. Both were published in the Arden Shakespeare series, the general editorship of which has been located at King’s for nearly 30 years. Hamlet and King Henry the Eighth, edited by Ann Thompson (co-editor, with Neil Taylor) and Gordon McMullan respectively, were used in major theatrical productions by the RSC in 2009 and Shakespeare’s Globe in 2010. Impact is demonstrable in sales figures, directors’ statements, viewing figures, and in related media appearances by Thompson and McMullan. 2. Underpinning research (indicative maximum 500 words) King’s English Department has longstanding strengths in textual editing, especially in the editing of Shakespeare. Ann Thompson (appointed Professor in 1999) is one of the four General Editors of the Arden Shakespeare third series. Gordon McMullan (appointed Lecturer in 1995, Professor in 2007) is one of two General Textual Editors of the forthcoming third edition of the Norton Shakespeare; he is also a General Editor of the Arden Early Modern Drama series. Their aims as editors are twofold: first, to produce widely-useable high-quality texts that will introduce the non- specialist to the latest research findings; and second, to have a direct influence on the way theatre professionals research, rehearse and prepare for performance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shakespeare Authorship Debate Continued: Uncertainties and Mysteries
    The Shakespeare Authorship Debate Continued: Uncertainties and Mysteries by Luke Prodromou his essay is a response to the fascinating collection of articles on the Shakespeare Authorship Question that appeared in the Winter 2019 Tissue of the journal Critical Stages (critical-stages.org/18/). Read together, those articles not only confirm that there really is a case for rea- sonable doubt about the Stratford man as the author of the works; they also suggest that pursuing this question can actually be an effective critical tool for a better understanding of those works. As a graduate of the Shakespeare Institute, Birmingham, I have often won- dered, from a scholarly point of view, why the eddies under Clopton Bridge in Stratford have seemed to arouse more curiosity as evidence linking the man from Stratford to the plays and poems of “Shakespeare” than do the growing number of details of a historical or cultural nature, which seem to me more enlightening. Scrutinizing Shakespearean texts for evidence of the author’s possible links to glove-making has consumed more scholarly energy than the abundant indications that our elusive author seems to have actually known Italy and Italian culture at first-hand and Elizabethan court life with an insider’s confidence. Even Stratfordian scholars have noticed that “the extent and loudness of the documentary silence are startling” (Worden, 2006: 24). Indeed, the chal- lenge of teasing out an explanation for this startling silence has been left to non-Stratfordians like Diana Price (see her volume, excerpted in CS 18, THE OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019 13 The Shakespeare Authorship Debate Continued: Uncertainties and Mysteries Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography, 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • The Polyxena Pattern
    J. Weiner / PsyArt 20 (2016) 104–115 The Polyxena Pattern Jeffrey Weiner UC Davis Abstract The title of this article is based on Seneca's description of the sacrifice of Polyxena in "The Trojan Women." The fear, desire, and transcendence that the sacrificed maiden elicits in the audience put the feminine at the center of an experience of fear and wonder that characterizes Shakespearean romance. This paper explores the paradoxical, early modern concept of "amazement" in relation to traumatic wounding and gender. Focusing on Shakespeare's late romances, especially Cymbeline and The Winter's Tale, I link the experience of terror to a traumatizing "evil queen" archetype. This fantasy inspires a sense of amazement as terror and results in the punishment of another archetypal character, the sacrificed maiden. When the female figure returns as the redeeming maiden at the end of Shakespeare's romances, she allows the male spectator to approach the terror and desire that the feminine inspire in him by providing him with an escape into fantasy. Keywords Early modern, theory of the soul, amazement, terror, romance, transformation To cite as Weiner, J., 2016, ‘The Polyxena Pattern’, PsyArt 20, pp. 104–115. In Shakespeare’s Pericles, Cymbeline, and The Winter’s Tale the men succumb to their fantasies of feminine threat and allure. If we think of Shakespeare’s plays chronologically, this is not surprising given the sharpening polarization of female characters in his late tragedies, which directly precede the romances: the malevolent sisters and the misunderstood, sacrificed daughter in King Lear; maligned Desdemona, who in Othello’s mind flutters between irresistible goodness and repugnant evil; the polar opposite wives, Lady Macbeth and Lady Macduff; and, of course, the seductive, but debauched temptress Cleopatra and the self-sacrificing, chaste Octavia.
    [Show full text]
  • VII Shakespeare
    VII Shakespeare BRETT GREATLEY-HIRSCH, PETER J. SMITH, ELISABETTA TARANTINO, DOMENICO LOVASCIO, SHIRLEY BELL, CHRISTIAN GRIFFITHS, KATE WILKINSON, SHEILAGH ILONA O’BRIEN, AND LOUISE POWELL This chapter has three sections: 1. Editions and Textual Studies; 2. Shakespeare in the Theatre; 3. Criticism. Section 1 is by Brett Greatley- Hirsch; section 2 is by Peter J. Smith; section 3(a) is by Elisabetta Tarantino; section 3(b) is by Domenico Lovascio; section 3(c) is by Shirley Bell; section 3(d) is by Christian Griffiths; section 3(e) is by Kate Wilkinson; section 3(f) is by Sheilagh Ilona O’Brien; section 3(g) is by Louise Powell. 1. Editions and Textual Studies Readers will, I hope, forgive the relative brevity and narrow scope of this section as a necessary consequence of accepting the YWES brief three-quarters into the year. To avoid piecemeal, superficial treatment of the full range of this year’s offerings in Shakespearean textual studies, I limit my focus to a more manageable section of scholarship: studies in authorship attribution and the apocrypha. My discussion thus excludes a great deal of interesting and important work across a field whose vibrancy and rapid evolution is reflected by the range of topics brought together in Margaret Jane Kidnie and Sonia Massai’s Shakespeare and Textual Studies (CUP). My capacity as interim caretaker of this section similarly does not allow me to give the third edition of The Norton Shakespeare (Norton) and three impressive monographs — Laura Estill’s Dramatic Extracts in Seventeenth-Century English Manuscripts (UDelP), Judith Milhous and Robert D.
    [Show full text]
  • Renaissance Drama Professor Maura Tarnoff Fall 2010, Tues, 5:30-8Pm PR 15 Office Hours: MW, 5:30-6:30; 1-5Pm (Manresa Hall) Email: [email protected]
    ENGL 631: Renaissance Drama Professor Maura Tarnoff Fall 2010, Tues, 5:30-8pm PR 15 Office hours: MW, 5:30-6:30; 1-5pm (Manresa Hall) Email: [email protected] This survey of early modern English drama will traverse and hopefully challenge the traditional period boundaries of "medieval" and "Renaissance." While we will attend to differences in genre and historical context, we will also seek out points of continuity and comparison as we move from readings of late medieval mystery and morality plays to dramatic works by Shakespeare and his contemporaries. How does the economic language of interiority, emerging from pre-Reformation rituals of penance, serve to connect Everyman (where the soul is an account book to be balanced) with the representation and quantification of selfhood in Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus ? To what extent do the conventions of allegory inform the language of difference (moral, social, national, racial, gendered etc.) in Shakespeare's Hamlet or Philip Massinger’s The Renegado ? We will conclude with a play whose place within early modern dramatic history is currently being contested, namely Double Falsehood , the eighteenth-century alleged revision of a lost play by Shakespeare and John Fletcher based on an episode from Don Quixote . Required Texts: Brean Hammond, ed. Double Falsehood (Arden Shakespeare, 2009) Ben Jonson, The Alchemist and Other Plays (Oxford World’s Classics, 2008) Christopher Marlowe, The Complete Plays (Penguin Classics, 2003) Philip Massinger, The Renegado (Arden 2010) William Shakespeare, Othello (Arden Shakespeare 2001) Requirements: -Regular attendance and participation 10% -Two essays: 5-7 pages and 8-10 pages. The fi8rst essay will focus on applying a particular theoretical approach to a reading of one or more of the dramatic texts covered.
    [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]
  • Enter Shakespeare's Young Hamlet, 1589
    2016 Enter Shakespeare’s Young Hamlet, 1589 Terri Bourus, Ph.D. Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Indianapolis, Indiana, USA IUPUI ScholarWorks This is the author’s manuscript: This conference proceeding was published as Bourus, Terri. "Enter Shakespeare’s Young Hamlet, 1589." Actes des congrès de la Société française Shakespeare [Online], vol. 34, 2016, pp. 3-20. https://shakespeare.revues.org/3736#abstract DOI : 10.4000/shakespeare.3736. https://scholarworks.iupui.edu 1 Enter Shakespeare’s Young Hamlet, 1589 Terri Bourus Indiana University/Purdue University Indianapolis Abstract This essay argues that Q1 Hamlet represents the earliest version of Shakespeare’s play, written in the late 1580s. The argument builds upon, and for the first time combines, evidence in Terri Bourus, Young Shakespeare’s Young Hamlet: Print, Piracy and Performance (2014) and Zachary Lesser, Hamlet After Q1 (2015). It concentrates on differences between Q1 and the later, expanded, canonical texts of the play, specifically in relation to the age of Hamlet and the Queen. It emphasizes that Hamlet’s age crucially affects the age, sexuality, and political importance of his mother (an issue ignored by male critics). Hamlet’s age has been a factor in performances of the play from Burbage and Betterton in the seventeenth century to 2015 productions of Q1. Why then did Harold Jenkins in 1982 dismiss the importance of Hamlet’s age? To contextualize Jenkins’ dismissal (founded on the principles of both New Criticism and New Bibliography), this essay traces scholarship on the age difference back to the 1870s. It focuses particularly on the conflict between two influential texts: A.
    [Show full text]
  • Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor, Eds. 2006: Hamlet. the Arden Shakespeare. 3Rd Series. London: Thomson Learning
    Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor, eds. 2006: Hamlet. The Arden Shakespeare. 3rd Series. London: Thomson Learning. 613 + xxii pp. ISBN 1-904271-33-2 Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor, eds. 2006: Hamlet, The Texts of 1603 and 1623. The Arden Shakespeare. 3rd Series. London: Thomson Learning. 368 + xv pp. ISBN 1- 904271-55-3 Jesús Tronch Pérez Universitat de València [email protected] Editing Shakespeare being a national pastime, the publication of any new critical edition of Shakespeare arouses great expectations. Curiosity impels scholars and conoisseurs alike to thumb the newly printed pages in order to verify how the editor solved this or that textual crux, opted for this or that modernization of a character’s name, or whether she or he offered a new-fangled emendation no one had hit upon before. If the new critical edition is Hamlet, the expectations are peculiar since the play has a singular and complex textual situation and a shifting editorial tradition, as is summarized in the next two paragraphs. Hamlet is unique in Shakespeare for having three substantive early texts: the First Quarto of 1603 (Q1), the Second Quarto of 1604/5 (Q2) and the First Folio of 1623 (F). The two latter texts are the basis of the received version of Hamlet but are different in over 1000 substantive variants (most of them single words or phrases in the dialogue), with 7% of F being absent from Q2, and 10% of Q2 absent in F.1 Traditionally defined as a ‘bad’ quarto memorially reconstructed by actor(s), Q1 is a notably different and shorter version, with discrepancies in structure, names of characters and a stylistically uneven dialogue fluctuating from identical to null correspondence with Q2 and F.
    [Show full text]
  • Abbreviations Titles of Shakespeare's Plays Are Abbreviated As in the SQ
    Notes Abbreviations Titles of Shakespeare's plays are abbreviated as in the SQ Annotated World Bibliography, except that the name Lear is given in its full form. Periodicals are referred to by standard or perspi- cuous abbreviations, but the following may be noted: Cahiers: Cahiers elisabethains ES: English Studies SS: Shakespeare Survey SSt: Shakespeare Studies SAS stands for Straiford-upon-Avon Studies; and Sources for Geoffrey Bullough, Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, I-VIII (1957-75). Modern editions of Shakespeare's plays are referred to as follows: Arden: The Arden Shakespeare, new series inaugurated in 1951. Cam.: The New Shakespeare edited by Sir Arthur Quiller- Couch and John Dover Wilson. New Cam.: The New Cambridge Shakespeare inaugurated in 1984. Oxf.: The Oxford Shakespeare inaugurated in 1982. INTRODUCTION I. William Web be, A Discourse of English Poetrie ( 1586), quoted from G. Gregory Smith (ed.), Elizabethan Critical Essays, vol. I (1904) p.249. See also E. K. Chambers, The Mediaeval Stage, vol. II (1903) p.209. 2. Margeson, The Origins of English Tragedy (1967) pp. 82, 72. See also Clifford Leech, Shakespeare's Tragedies (1965) p.27. It has to be emphasised that 'tragedy' did not necessarily mean drama. 216 Notes to pp. 2 -7 217 3. See also Emrys Jones, The Origins of Shakespeare (1977) pp. 51-7. 4. Dessen, Shakespeare and the Late Moral Plays (1986) pp. 134-5. 5. See T. W. Baldwin, Shakspere's Five-Act Structure (1947, 1963), chs. I-XVI; and Smidt, Unconformities in Shakespeare's Early Comedies (1986) pp. 4-7. 6. See M.
    [Show full text]
  • Existential Needs and Political Deeds in Coriolanus
    EXISTENTIAL NEEDS AND POLITICAL DEEDS IN CORIOLANUS José Manuel González Fernández de Sevilla University of Alicante Should we look for the reason why Coriolanus1 has been so underrated by Shakespearean criticism2 and so neglected as far as stage performances are concerned,3 we shall find that the play “has often been misunderstood and has never been very popular.”4 However Coriolanus should be praised for its uniqueness and complexity as it is a complete literary masterpiece that makes dramatic sense. Thus a new understanding and critical revaluation are needed to come to terms with all its theatrical potential. We intend to show why it is, together with Antony and 1 Textual quotations are taken from the Arden Shakespeare edition. Philip Brockbank ed. Coriolanus. London and New York: Methuen, 1976 (rpt. 1984). 2 A. C. Bradley maintains that Coriolanus stands apart from other tragedies of Shakespeare because it is not one of “the great four”. Critics associated with Scrutiny “expressed their indignation at the growth of impersonal, violent, mass society through their comments on Coriolanus, especially in his guise as heroic warrior.” Finally “Psycho-analytic criticism has strongly emphasized Coriolanus’ infantile relation to his castrating mother.” Cfr. M. Charney, “Coriolanus and Timon of Athens” in S. Wells ed.: Shakespeare: Selected Bibliographical Guides. Oxford University Press, 1974, pp. 217-219. 3 A. C. Bradley wrote in 1912 that Coriolanus “was seldom acted, and perhaps no reader called it his favourite play.” Cfr. B. Vickers, Shakespeare: Coriolanus. London, E. Arnold, 1976, p. 7. Surprisingly there is no direct evidence of its having been performed in Shakespeare’s lifetime, and its stage history has been complicated by adaptations.
    [Show full text]