DOCSLIB.ORG

A Groatsworth of Wit ...12-143

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Groatsworth of Wit ...12-143 A Groatsworth of Wit Tr u writing span of twelve years Robert Greene composed I some 40 works, mostly romances, pamphlets and a num- Iber of plays. Many passages in these works are autobio- graphical. Greene's Neaer Too Late, written in 1590, tells of a young man who left his wife for a courtesar; Infida, who robbed him of his money and then thrust him out of doors, whereupon the young man fell in with a company of actors who hired him to write plays, succeeding so well that Infida sought to have him back. Greene himself had deserted his wife and infant son in Norwich and took up with one Em Ball in London. When Em Ball deserted him, Greene turned to writing plays for the Queen's men. His first play, Alphonsus, King Of Aragon, was ridiculed from a rival stage by two gen- tlemen poets, thought to be Marlowe and Watson. His next play, A Looking Glass for London and England with Thomas Lodge as co-author, was much better and the third, Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, was so successful that the Queen's mery their ebbing fortunes restored, felt no further need for his services. Robert Wilson" the playwright for the Queen's mery now felt confident that he could do as well. Greene meanwhile fell back on his romances and a new genre that was even L28 Christopher Marlow e (L 5 6+-1 607 ) g 129 more popular: expos6s of shady practices in the iniquitous city of London. But the writing of plays was the more luc-ra- tive pursuit and Greene kept his eye on the progress of his rival. The play that Robert Wilson finally came up with was A Pleasant Comedy of Fair Em, the Miller's Daughter of Manchester; With the Loae of William the Conqueror. A copy of this play, bound up with two others in one volume, was later in the library of Charles II, the back of the volume labeled: "Shake- speare. Vol. L" Since Greene implied that it was Robert Wil- son who wrote i! the Shakespeare volume attests only to the fact that Fair Em was one of William Shakespeare's theatrical properties, one that he had commissioned Wilson to write. The play has two disconnected plots: one based onThe Miller's Daughter of Manchester (it may be that Em Ball came from Manchester), and the other on a fictional William the Con- queror from a novel by ]acques Yver. Perhaps William Shake- speare saw himself in the role of William the Conqueror and insti'ucted Wilson to write a play in which he could play the King. Following is Greene's attack on the author of Fair Em. But, by your leave, gentlemery some, over curious, will carp and say that if I were not beyond, I would not be so bold to teach my betters their duty, and to show them the sun that have brighter eyes than myself. Well, Diogenes told Alexander of his filly and yet he was not a king. Others will flout and over-read every line with a ftt-p and say'tis scurvy, when they themselves are such scabbed lads that they are like to die of the fazion, but if they come to write, or publish anything in prin! it is either distilled out of ballads [i.e., the ballad of The Miller's Daughter of Manchester)l or borrowed of theological poets [i.e., Robert Wilsory who wrote morality plays], which for their calling and gravity being loath to have any profane pamphlets pass under their hand, get some other Batillus to set his name to their verses. [That is, Robert Wilsoru in writing a profane play, did not wish to be known as the author and found someone else, the buyer, no doubt, to claim it as his own.l Thus is the ass [i.e., the buyer of the play] made proud by this underhand brokery. And he [i. e., Shakespeare] that cannot write true English without the help of clerks of parish churches [i.e., Robert Wilsory clerk at St. Giles Cripplegate] will needs make himself the father of interludes. O'tis a jolly L30 ? Louis Ule matter when a man hath a familiar style and can endite a whole year [spend a whole year in writing a play] and never be beholding to art. But to bring Scripture to prove anything he says and kill it dead with the text in a trifling subject of love, I tell you is no small piece of cunning. As, for example, two lovers on the stage arguing one another of unkindness, his mistress runs over him with this canonical sentence: "A man's conscience is a thousand witnesses;" and her knight again excuseth himself with that saying of the Apostle: "Love covereth the multitude of sins." I think this was simple abus- ing of Scripture. ln charity be it spokery I am persuaded the sexton of St. Giles without Cripplegate would have been ashamed of such blasphemous rhetoric. The lines quoted by Greene appear in Act Y of Fair Em, establishing the identity of the play. The play took a year to writg and the author was a theological poet or clerk of a parish church who was loath to have a profane work pass under his hand and who, by "underhandbrokery" got some other "Batillus" to set his name to the work. This would ex- plain William Shakespeare's connection with the play and absolve him of authorship. Wilsory a suspected Puritan, could admit to the writing of moralities, whiCh he did, but not to the writing of a romance like Fair Em. William Shakespeare had no such scruples and assumed the role of author, not without some pride. According to C. F. Tucker Brooke, "Fair Em is a thoroughly childish and inartistic production. Its only charm rests in the fact that it exhibits, with much of the cru- dity, also something of the heartiness and freshness of child- ish performances." Robert Wilsorg thus exposed as the author of Fair Em, felt the shoe pindr, and in an epistle, signed R. W., to Martin Mar-Sixtus attacked those lascivious writers who "when with shame they see their folly, they are fain to put on a mouming garment and cry, 'Farewell'." Greene had just published two pamphlets, lis Greene's Mourning Garment and his Farewell to Folly.ButGreene's feud with Wilson and Shakespeare did not extend to all the players. The following year he sold a play to the Admiral's men" from whose stage he had once been ridiculed. He was still sensitive to criticism and imagined that he was being slanderously misrepresented as the character Master Greene in the play Arden of Faaersham. The following Christopher Marlowe (1- 5 6+1. 607 ) g L31 passage from his Menaphon would seem to make Marlowe the author of "a Canterbury tale [i.e., Arden of Faoersham.l: "...some prophetical full-mouth that as he were a cobler's eldest sory would by the last tell where another's shoe wrings." Cer- tainly, if Marlowe had meant to fit the murderer's shoe on Robert Greene's foot, he was wide of the mark. Marlowe him- self must have been amused, for it was all a misunderstanding on Greene's part. Master Greene in Arden of Faaersham was a historical charactet as Greene himself could vei$ by reading Holinshed's Chronicles. When Marlowe apprised Greene of his errot it may have been the beginning of that congenial acquaintance between the two men that Greene wrote about later. Greene must have been then particularly amused when Shakespeare was similarly misled (as he must have beery not being familiar with Kentish local history) into thinking that the two villains in the play, Black Will and George Shakebag, were intended to villify him, but again, these two characters were also historical. Shakespeare probably had a good laugh on himself, and, in his pleasant way, apologized for being overly suspicious. The play, Fair Em, did not improve the fortunes of the Queen's merL whose revenues declined while the rival Admi- ral's men prospered. The play finally found its way into the hands of Lord Strange's company of players. The Queen's men's chief attractiory Richard Tarletory was dead and royal patronage, though it might impress the local authorities in whatever town the players visited, was not what lured an audience. Swallowing their pride, the Queen's men came back to Greene. They needed a good play, and Greene, by now addicted to Rhenish wine, needed the money. Nor could he forget the shabby treatment he had received from the players after he had revived them with his earlier plays. He became a little more difficult to deal with, demanding to be paid in advance. He then wrote two plays for them: Orlando Furioso and lames the Fourth, saving his revenge for later. He kept a copy of Orlando for himself, and after the Queen's players had left town he sold this copy of the play to the Admiral's men. His revenge would not be complete unless the Queen's men were made to know that he had outwitted them. Greene at this time was engaged in writing his supposed expos6s of dishonest practices: A Notable Discourse of Cozenage, 132 g Louis Ule The Second Part of Connycatching, The Third of Last part of Con- nycatching, A Disputation Between a He Coniycatcher and a She Conny cat cher, and The Bl ack B o ok' s Me s s en ger.-These pamphlets are among the more entertaining of Greeie's writings.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Thesis
    This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ Telltale women the dramaturgy of female characters in Shakespeare's history plays Bachrach, Hailey Awarding institution: King's College London The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT Unless another licence is stated on the immediately following page this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions: Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 02. Oct. 2021 Bachrach 1 TELLTALE WOMEN The Dramaturgy of Female Characters in Shakespeare’s History Plays By Hailey Bachrach Submitted to King’s College London English Department in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 30 September 2020 Bachrach 2 Abstract .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Kyd and Shakespeare: Authorship, Influence, and Collaboration
    Kyd and Shakespeare: Authorship, Influence, and Collaboration Darren Anthony Freebury-Jones A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Cardiff University 2016 Abstract The aim of this thesis is to establish the canon of Thomas Kyd’s plays and to explore Shakespeare’s relationship with that oeuvre. Chapter One begins by examining Shakespeare’s verbal indebtedness to plays that have been attributed to Kyd for over two centuries, including The Spanish Tragedy (1587), Soliman and Perseda (1588), and The True Chronicle History of King Leir (1589). The first chapter argues that Shakespeare’s extensive knowledge of Kyd’s plays contributed towards the development of his dramatic language. The second chapter provides an overview of some of the complex methods for identifying authors utilized throughout the thesis. Chapter Three then seeks to establish a fuller account of Kyd’s dramatic canon through a variety of authorship tests, arguing that in addition to the three plays above Arden of Faversham (1590), Fair Em (1590), and Cornelia (1594) should be attributed to Kyd as sole authored texts. The fourth chapter examines the internal evidence for Kyd’s hand in Shakespeare’s Henry VI Part One (1592). The chapter contends that Shakespeare’s chronicle history play was originally written by Kyd and Thomas Nashe for the Lord Strange’s Men, and that Shakespeare subsequently added three scenes for the Lord Chamberlain’s Men. The fifth chapter argues that Shakespeare and Kyd collaborated on The Reign of King Edward III (1593) and that Kyd should thus be recognized as one of Shakespeare’s earliest co-authors.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tragédia De Macbeth (The Tragedy of Macbeth)
    W E I L R L WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE I A A M E S P H S A E K K E S A A vida é apenas uma sombra errante, um mau ator P E H A S A se pavonear e afligir no seu momento sobre o palco R E do qual nada mais se ouve. É uma história E M Contada por um idiota, cheia de som e fúria, A tragédia de A I Significando nada. L A tragédia de MACBETH A tragédia de Macbeth L I W MACBETH Tradução Rafael Raffaelli William Shakespeare provavelmente finalizou A tragédia de Tradução Edição bilíngue Inglês e Português Macbeth em 1606. Densa, enigmática, estranha, sinistra, Rafael Raffaelli não são poucos os adjetivos para qualificar essa notável tragédia em cinco atos, que é considerada pela crítica uma de suas mais importantes obras. Embora possa ser interpretada como uma tragédia da ambição, Shakespeare vai além da análise da personalidade dos personagens e suas motivações, versando com maestria única sobre a sempiterna questão da editora ufsc www.editora.ufsc.br 9 788532 807847 origem do Mal. A tragédia de Macbeth The tragedy of Macbeth UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA CATARINA Reitor Luiz Carlos Cancellier de Olivo Vice-Reitora Alacoque Lorenzini Erdmann EDITORA DA UFSC Diretora Executiva Gleisy R. B. Fachin Conselho Editorial Gleisy R. B. Fachin (Presidente) Ana Lice Brancher Andreia Guerini Clélia Maria Lima de Mello e Campigotto João Luiz Dornelles Bastos Kátia Maheirie Luis Alberto Gómez Marilda Aparecida de Oliveira Effting Editora da UFSC Campus Universitário – Trindade Caixa Postal 476 88010-970 – Florianópolis-SC Fone: (48) 3721-9408 [email protected] www.editora.ufsc.br
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare Apocrypha” Peter Kirwan
    The First Collected “Shakespeare Apocrypha” Peter Kirwan he disparate group of early modern plays still referred to by many Tcritics as the “Shakespeare Apocrypha” take their dubious attributions to Shakespeare from a variety of sources. Many of these attributions are external, such as the explicit references on the title pages of The London Prodigal (1605), A Yorkshire Tragedy (1608), 1 Sir John Oldcastle (1619), The Troublesome Raigne of King John (1622), The Birth of Merlin (1662), and (more ambiguously) the initials on the title pages of Locrine (1595), Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602), and The Puritan (1607). Others, including Edward III, Arden of Faversham, Sir Thomas More, and many more, have been attributed much later on the basis of internal evidence. The first collection of disputed plays under Shakespeare’s name is usually understood to be the second impression of the Third Folio in 1664, which “added seven Playes, never before Printed in Folio.”1 Yet there is some evidence of an interest in dubitanda before the Restoration. The case of the Pavier quar- tos, which included Oldcastle and Yorkshire Tragedy among authentic plays and variant quartos in 1619, has been amply discussed elsewhere as an early attempt to create a canon of texts that readers would have understood as “Shakespeare’s,” despite later critical division of these plays into categories of “authentic” and “spu- rious,” which was then supplanted by the canon presented in the 1623 Folio.2 I would like to attend, however, to a much more rarely examined early collection of plays—Mucedorus, Fair Em, and The Merry Devil of Edmonton, all included in C.
    [Show full text]
  • “Early Modern Aesthetics” Saa 2015, Vancouver, Bc Abstracts & Bios
    “EARLY MODERN AESTHETICS” SAA 2015, VANCOUVER, BC ABSTRACTS & BIOS “Macbeth’s Raptness, or The Aesthetics of Fascination” Sibylle Baumbach University of Mainz “[T]he longer we gaze, the more we crave, yea so forcible they are, that afterwards being but thought upon, they make us seeke for the like an other time.”1 As suggested by Stephen Gosson, Early Modern theatre worked as an ocular drug. It fascinated spectators not only by its immediacy and inclusiveness, but especially by its ability to stimulate seemingly contradictory aesthetic responses, as suggested, for instance, by the aesthetic credo (‘foul is fair and fair is foul’) of the three weird sisters, whose appearance leaves Macbeth rapt. The discourse of ocular contagion is closely linked to Early Modern notions of fascination, i.e. the notion of bewitchment through corrupted ‘spirits’ that infected spectators’ eyes and minds, which culminated in the belief in the evil eye. As I will argue in my paper, Early Modern drama responded to and countered antitheatrical attacks by employing what I refer to as an aesthetics of fascination, which arises from the simultaneous stimulation of attraction and repulsion. This aesthetic tension can be traced in several plays: the seductive hunchback Richard Gloucester in Richard III, the sweet verse of brutish Caliban in The Tempest, the playful combination (and inversion) of demonic black and angelic white in Othello, or the exotic otherness and infinite variety of the Egyptian queen in Antony and Cleopatra, who as epitome of seductiveness and femme fatale, inhabits an imagined, deferred presence. As I will strive to show, part of the attraction of Early Modern drama is based on a newly established aesthetics of fascination, which challenged aesthetic standards of the time to promote a new kind of theatre – a theatre of fascination, which did not only aim to attract, but also disclosed to the audience the aesthetics of fascination it employed to counter antitheatrical sentiments.
    [Show full text]
  • Dramatic Form in the Early Modern English History Play
    THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA Dramatic Form in the Early Modern English History Play A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the Department of English School of Arts and Sciences Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy © Copyright All Rights Reserved By Shaun Stiemsma Washington, DC 2017 Dramatic Form in the Early Modern English History Play Shaun Stiemsma, Ph.D. Director: Michael Mack, Ph.D. The early modern history play has been assumed to exist as an independent genre at least since Shakespeare’s first folio divided his plays into comedies, tragedies, and histories. However, history has never—neither during the period nor in literary criticism since—been satisfactorily defined as a distinct dramatic genre. I argue that this lack of definition obtains because early modern playwrights did not deliberately create a new genre. Instead, playwrights using history as a basis for drama recognized aspects of established genres in historical source material and incorporated them into plays about history. Thus, this study considers the ways in which playwrights dramatizing history use, manipulate, and invert the structures and conventions of the more clearly defined genres of morality, comedy, and tragedy. Each chapter examines examples to discover generic patterns present in historical plays and to assess the ways historical materials resist the conceptions of time suggested by established dramatic genres. John Bale’s King Johan and the anonymous Woodstock both use a morality structure on a loosely contrived history but cannot force history to conform to the apocalyptic resolution the genre demands.
    [Show full text]
  • Martin Mueller on Brian Vickers and the Kyd Canon Home › Blogs
    1 Martin Mueller on Brian Vickers and the Kyd canon Home › Blogs › Martin Mueller's blog (1) N-grams and the Kyd canon: a crude test Martin Mueller — Tue, 08/18/2009 – 15:09 Last year Sir Brian Vickers argued in TLS (April 18, 2008) that we should think of Thomas Kyd not only as the author of The Spanish Tragedy but as an author with a substantial oeuvre that in addition to his translation of Garnier's Cornelia and the Turkish tragedy Soliman and Perseda includes Arden of Faversham, The Chronicle of King Leir, Fair Em the Miller's daughter, and substantial parts of 1Henry VI. Vickers based his argument on trigrams that occurred in known works by Kyd and only in the plays that he would like to include in the Kyd corpus. He is not the first to argue for Kyd as the author of those plays, and in fact his goal is to use the modern tool of plagiarism detection software, in particular Pl@giarism, to produce more conclusive evidence for attributions that various early 20th century scholars made independently and on different grounds. I found the argument attractive and largely persuasive. At the same time I was troubled by the loose use of probability arguments. Vickers relies heavily on subjective judgments of the kind that if 'thrust his sickle in' occurs only in Soliman and Arden, this is unlikely to be a coincidence. He knows that it takes more than one swallow to make a summer, and he has found a lot of swallows, but he has no guide beyond common sense to determine how many swallows are enough.
    [Show full text]
  • The Question of Shakespeare's Authorship: Anonymous and the Writing of History
    PERFORMANCE TASK ACADEMY The Question of Shakespeare's Authorship: Anonymous and the Writing of History prepared by Lofton L. Durham Assistant Professor of Theatre Western Michigan University August 8, 2012 Facsimile reprints from Early English Books Online database, accessed 8/7/2012. THE QUESTION OF SHAKESPEARE'S AUTHORSHIP: Anonymous and the Writing of History Scenario You are an 11th grade English teacher in a public school in Michigan. Because William Shakespeare is included in the curriculum, students are required to read several plays over the course of high school. In October 2011, Roland Emmerich, a Hollywood director and producer, releases the film Anonymous, which starts from the premise that William Shakespeare was actually an illiterate, provincial actor who could not have written the plays and poems attributed to him. Moreover, the actual author of the plays, Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, has been purposely obscured by history and later manipulation of facts by academics who wish to crown the son of a glove-maker rather than an effete aristocrat as the greatest playwright of the age. The movie has generated a lot of excitement in your English class, and you are being challenged to take a stand on what the movie says about Shakespeare and the Earl of Oxford. Many of your students are planning to attend the movie's opening weekend. To complicate matters, your principal, a huge Roland Emmerich fan, is also enthusiastic about the movie, and has suggested that "maybe that Shakespeare guy needs to be taken out of the curriculum." Thus you have decided to spend some time Monday responding to the student challenge, and deciding how to respond to the principal's idea.
    [Show full text]
  • The Diminution of Thomas Kyd
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Firenze University Press: E-Journals Journal of Early Modern Studies, n. 8 (2019), pp. 251-277 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13128/JEMS-2279-7149-24889 The Diminution of Thomas Kyd Darren Freebury-Jones The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust (<[email protected]>) Abstract Thomas Kyd is traditionally accepted as the author of The Spanish Tragedy, Soliman and Perseda, and Cornelia. Kyd may also have written a lost Hamlet play that preceded Shakespeare’s version. Among his contemporaries, Kyd enjoyed a far higher reputation than he does today. Thomas Dekker and Ben Jonson’s respective epithets, ‘industrious’ and ‘sporting’, suggest that Kyd’s canon was considerably larger than the three plays now acknowledged as his, and that he may have written comedies. The article explores the ways in which Kyd’s reputation as a major dramatist has been impeded, with scholarly arguments for his authorship of anonymous texts often displaced by claims for Marlowe and/or Shakespeare. Furthermore, the theory that Kyd wrote the original Hamlet play has been countered by Terri Bourus, who argues that Q1 represents an older version of the play written by Shakespeare. The article thus surveys recent attribution and textual scholarship and suggests that Kyd has been the victim of a curious ideological phenomenon in early modern literary studies, which at once isolates Shakespeare, while enforcing notions of authorial plurality, even when the evidence for co-authorship is lacking. The article calls for a reassessment of Kyd’s legacy as a major dramatist of the period.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge Companion Eng Renais Drama
    This page intentionally left blank The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama This second edition of the Companion offers students up-to-date factual and interpretative material about the principal theatres, playwrights, and plays of the most important period of English drama, from 1580 to 1642. Three wide- ranging chapters on theatres, dramaturgy, and the social, cultural, and political conditions of the drama are followed by chapters describing and illustrating various theatrical genres: private and occasional drama, political plays, heroic plays, burlesque, comedy, tragedy, with a final essay on the drama produced during the reign of Charles I. Several of the essays have been substantially revised and all of the references updated. An expanded biographical and bib- liographical section details the work of the dramatists discussed in the book and the best sources for further study. A chronological table provides a full listing of new plays performed from 1497 to 1642, with a parallel list of major political and theatrical events. THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ENGLISH RENAISSANCE DRAMA EDITED BY A. R. BRAUNMULLER AND MICHAEL HATTAWAY SECOND EDITION cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru,UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9780521821155 © Cambridge University Press 1990, 2003 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Canonising the Shakespeare Apocrypha: Shakespeare, Middleton and Co-Existent Canons
    Canonising the Shakespeare Apocrypha: Shakespeare, Middleton and Co-Existent Canons Abstract The Shakespeare Apocrypha has persisted as a category for plays of dubious authorship since 1908. Despite recent calls for this group to be dissolved, it persists as the “other” of the Shakespeare canon. The definition of the plays as a collectively excluded canon leads to their relative obscurity in print and on stage. Yet recent calls for the adoption of different kinds of dramatic canon present a means of reintegrating canon and apocrypha. The new Middleton Collected Works offers a model for “co-existent canons” which share plays and disperse the authority of fixed authorial canons, allowing the plays of the Shakespeare Apocrypha to be read and seen in new, productive contexts. Canonising the Shakespeare Apocrypha: Shakespeare, Middleton and Co-Existent Canons In 2010, director Terry Hands produced a new production — his third— of the anonymous drama Arden of Faversham for Theatr Clwyd Cymru. The programme, white with the theatre’s logo, boldly and simply stated “Arden of Faversham. By Anonymous” (title page). In 2011, a herald in Roland Emmerich’s motion picture Anonymous repeated the latter words. As the elderly Queen Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave) is presented with a gift of a play, she asks who the writer may be. The Herald tentatively says “By Anonymous”. Elizabeth pauses momentarily, puzzled, then leans back with a knowing smile. “Anonymous. I do so admire his verse”. In Emmerich’s film, an anti-Stratfordian (or, as Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells would now have us put it, “anti-Shakespearian”, 32) historical fantasy that has been the occasion and focus of widespread discussion of Shakespearean authorship, “Anonymous” functions as a pseudonym for Edward de Vere, seventeenth Earl of Oxford.
    [Show full text]
  • Revenge Before Kyd in Early Elizabethan Drama
    Early Theatre 12.2 (2009) Bradley J. IrisH Vengeance, Variously: Revenge Before Kyd in Early Elizabethan Drama In 1973, Ronald Broude observed that, though ‘revenge tragedy ranks among the major dramatic forms left us by the English Renaissance, we know rela- tively little about its development prior to its remarkable vogue in the 1580s and ’90s’.1 In his subsequent investigation, Broude suggests that a search for antecedents to the Elizabethan revenge play might first consider the larger ‘trends in religion and politics’ that marked the contemporary cultural scene — a rich milieu that gave rise to certain ‘forerunners’ of the genre, such as the morality plays of the mid-sixteenth-century. Of course, in the decades following the publication of Broude’s essay, scholars have greatly sharpened our sensitivity to this larger cultural context of revenge, and recent work on revenge tragedy — such as Thomas Rist’s Revenge Tragedy and the Drama of Commemoration in Reforming England (2008), the latest full-length treat- ment of the genre — has demonstrated how the classic Elizabethan revenge play is imbricated with a complex series of ideological and ritualistic invest- ments.2 But despite this renewed (and very welcome) contextual focus, there remains a more general sense in which the thrust of Broude’s remark remains fundamentally unanswered: we have yet to produce a full account of literary revenge on the early Elizabethan stage, before the flowering of revenge tra- gedy proper in the century’s final decades. Accordingly, this essay will respond to Broude’s call for ‘a systematic study of revenge tragedy’s dramatic antecedents in England’.
    [Show full text]