DOCSLIB.ORG

6 X 10.Three Lines .P65

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
6 X 10.Three Lines .P65 Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-88917-9 - The Struggle for Shakespeare’s Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice Gabriel Egan Index More information Index All plays that Shakespeare had a hand in are indexed under his name alone and where he is believed to have collaborated on a play his co-authors’ contributions are separately indexed under their names. Early editions with uncertain relationships to Shakespeare plays (such as The Taming of a Shrew)are indexed under the names of their related Shakespeare plays. accidentals 44–6, 67, 72, 88, 96, 138, 147, 150, Ariosto, Ludovico, I Suppositi 106 151, 171, 172, 174, 183, 261, 265 Aristotle, Metaphysics 45 distinction from substantives 44, 45, 131, Aspley, William 245 171 Auden, W. H. 149 philosophical meaning of 45 authorial papers 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, Act to Restrain Abuses of Players 1606 42, 53, 23, 31, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 53, 54, 65, 178, 243 66, 70, 88, 96, 112, 123, 132, 135, 139, 140, actors’ names 143, 145, 146, 154, 155, 164, 165, 171, 172, in printed texts 28–9, 215 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 185, 186, 187, in theatrical manuscripts 49, 52, 215 188, 192, 205, 207, 217, 218, 221, 224, 245, actors’ parts 23, 24, 39, 54, 109, 165, 212, 225–6, 249, 252, 253, 257, 258, 261, 265 248 Greg’s characterization of 25–8 Adams, John Cranford, his Globe playhouse signs of in printed texts 47–50, 162, 168–70, reconstruction 34 172, 200, 214–15 agreement-in-error as evidence of textual descent treatment in the theatre of 14, 30–1, 32–3, 48, 33–5, 138, 142, 170, 244, 253 50–3, 205, 263–4 Alexander, Nigel 191 Alexander, Peter 108, 240, 246 bad quartos xi, 14–16, 33, 46, 99, 100, 101, his Complete Works edition of Shakespeare 102, 103, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 250–1, 259 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 123, 127, 147, 164, on the origins of the bad quartos of The 182, 185, 188, 190, 192, 198, 201, 215, 217, Contention of York and Lancaster and 218, 221, 223, 224, 237, 265, 266, 268, Richard Duke of York 103, 104–6, 111, 269 113, 116 Baender, Paul 87, 88, 131, 146, 148 on the origins of The Taming of a Shrew Bald, R. C. 63 106–7, 123 Banks, Carol 204 Allde, Edward 201 Barish, Jonas A. 254 Alleyn, Edward 105, 108 Barnes, Barnabe, The Devil’s Charter 77, Allott, Robert 216 England’s Parnassus 220 Barthes, Roland 151 Alsop, Bernard 96 ‘La mort de l’auteur’ (‘The Death of the anti-theatrical bias of editors, alleged 41–2, 43, Author’) 79, 84, 149 65, 99, 112, 129, 181, 262, 263–4 Bate, Jonathan 212, 268 Arden Shakespeare series 5, 115, 132, 181, 192, 211, Bawcutt, N. W. 215–16, 223 212, 215, 229, 241–6, 247, 251–4, 256, 261, Beaumont, Francis 8, 26, 119, 217, 221, 228, 262, 267–70 255–6 309 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-88917-9 - The Struggle for Shakespeare’s Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice Gabriel Egan Index More information 310 Index Beaurline, L. A. 255, 264 Cairncross, Andrew S. 93, 98, 117, 170, 252–3 Bentley, G. E. 216 disregarding importance of The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare’s agreement-in-error 34 Time 130, 228 Cambridge University Press 4, 10, 82, 85, 89, Berger, Thomas L. 94, 95, 183, 184 159, 192 Berthoud, Jacques 257, 258 Cambridge–Macmillan Shakespeare edition of Bertram, Paul 184 1863–6 6–8, 9, 13, 241, 243, 244, 247, Bevington, David 178, 184, 200, 240, 260, 261 248, 250, 251, 260 Binns, James 77, 96, 122, 131 Cantrell, Paul L. 56, 57 Birde, William 136, 199 Carter, John 85 Bjelland, Karen 195 Case, R. H. 241, 245, 246, 251 Blake, William 149 casting off manuscript copy 68, 90, 94, 97, 191, Blayney, Peter W. M. 75, 89, 90, 134, 193, 203, 267, 268 219, 258 the advantages and disadvantages of doing so on the popularity of playbooks 198–9 73–5 refuted 199 Cauthen Junior, I. B. 56 revised Introduction to The Norton Facsimile Chamberlain’s/King’s men playing company 14, of the First Folio of Shakespeare 258–9 54, 91, 102, 103, 110, 122, 179, 208, 216, The Texts of King Lear and Their Origins 217, 218, 219 158–9 Chambers, E. K. 10, 17, 64, 110, 114, 124, 158, Bodenham, John, Bel-ved´ere or the Garden of the 248, 250 Muses 220 ‘Disintegration of Shakespeare, The’ 108, Bond, R. Warwick 245 246 Bond, William H. 73 Elizabethan Stage, The 154 Bonian, Richard 183 William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and book-keeper. See prompter Problems 109 Bowers, Fredson 8, 38, 47, 54, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, Chambers, R. W. 205 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83, Chapman, George 119, 140, 157 85, 86, 87, 147, 149, 150, 152, 153, 158, 159, Charlemagne (anonymous) 156–8 166, 177, 195, 210, 225, 241, 254 Chaucer, Geoffrey 98 Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Chettle, Henry 127, 201, 202 Canon, The 255–6 Chinese Whispers, the children’s game 1, 2, 4 his edition of Thomas Dekker 167 Clare, Robert 194 his review of Philip Gaskell, A New Clark, W. G. 6 Introduction to Bibliography 89 Clayton, Thomas 135 On Editing Shakespeare and the Elizabethan co-authorship. See collaborative authorship of Dramatists 65–8 plays Studies in Bibliography 54–8 Coghill, Nevill 130 Braunmuller, A. R. 262 Coleridge, S. T. 228, 246 Bricmont, Jean 87 collaborative authorship of plays 226–9 Brigstocke, W. Osborne 243 Columbia University 54 Brockbank, Philip 252, 253, 262–3, 264 compositors Brome, Richard 119, 223 Folio apprentice identified as ‘E’ 57, 92, 93, The Antipodes 216 98, 136, 138, 141, 142, 143, 145, 160, 208, Brooks, Harold F. 251, 253 267 Brown, Arthur 18 Folio man identified as ‘A’ 55, 56, 57, 92, 93, Brown, John Russell 56, 167, 168, 96, 160, 171, 172, 173, 208 252 Folio man identified as ‘B’ 55, 57, 59, 67, 79, Bruster, Douglas 199 80, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 98, 138, 141, 142, Buc, George 135, 215, 223, 224, 242 143, 144, 145, 160, 175, 187, 208, 253, Bulwer-Lytton, Edward, Pelham 149 267 Burke, Edmund 85 his alleged carelessness 56, 58 Busby, John 242, 243 disproved 96–7, 136, 269 Butter, Nathaniel 183, 242 Folio man identified as ‘C’ 57, 92, 93, 95, 160, Byron, George Gordon 149 208 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-88917-9 - The Struggle for Shakespeare’s Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice Gabriel Egan Index More information Index 311 Folio man identified as ‘D’ 57, 92, 93, 95, 160, responding to D. F. McKenzie’s ‘Printers of 208–9 the Mind’ 86–7, 95 Folio man identified as ‘F’ 92, 93, 208–9 Day, John, George Wilkins and William Rowley Foliomenidentifiedas‘H’,‘I’,and‘J’ 160, The Travels of the Three English Brothers 20 171–2, 209, 256 de Grazia, Margreta 6, 163, 192–4, 195, 196, 197 identified by their psycho-mechanical habits ‘Essential Shakespeare and the Material Book, 84, 92, 93, 95, 98, 159–62, 171, 267 The’ 154–5 identified by their spelling preferences. See Shakespeare Verbatim 194 spelling, used to identify compositors de Grazia, Margreta and Peter Stallybrass, ‘The man identified as Valentine Simmes’s ‘A’ 92, Materiality of Shakespeare’s Text’ 192–4, 93, 95, 175 202, 214 men identified as George Eld’s ‘A’ and ‘B’ 94 degressive principle 85, 202 men identified as James Roberts’s ‘X’ and ‘Y’ Deighton, K. 245 56–7, 68 Dekker, Thomas 51, 119, 167 concurrent printing of multiple books in a The Welsh Ambassador 51 printshop 82, 84, 85, 89, 95, 96, 98, 159, DelVecchio, Doreen 264 259 Derrida, Jacques 153, 164, 195, 196, 197, 205, 227 Condell, Henry 13, 14, 15, 19, 66, 69, 79, 205, Dick of Devonshire (anonymous) 51 243, 244 Dickens, Charles 140 Congreve, William 131 Dillon, Janette 191 The Way of the World 151 DiPietro, Cary 10 continuous copy, the theory of 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, division of King Lear into two plays. See William 25, 26, 52, 53, 65, 155, 156, 245, 248, 249 Shakespeare, King Lear control text 40, 68, 172, 185, 210, 261 Dobson, Michael 189, 191 defined 171 Doran, Madeleine 107–8, 109, 110, 114, 115, 138, Cooke, William 96 254 Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum Dorsch, T. S. 252 mechanics 87 Dowden, Edward 241, 242 copyright 12, 96, 183 Drakakis, John 203, 212 Cowl, R. P. 245 Dusinberre, Juliet 229 Cox, John D. 212, 214 Duthie, George Ian 111, 113, 127, 191, 249, 250 Craig, Hardin 240 Dutton, Richard 216–17 Craig, W. J. 241–2, 245 Craik, T. W. 253, 261, 268 Early English Books Online (EEBO) database of Crane, Ralph 91, 92, 122, 165, 208–9, 214–15, 248 printed book facsimiles xi, 192 writing stage directions for The Tempest Edmond Ironside (anonymous) 49 176–7 Edwards, Philip 161, 263–4 Craven, Alan E. 92, 93, 95, 175 Einstein, Albert, his Theory of Relativity 87 Creede, Thomas 161 Eld, George 94 Cuningham, Henry 244 Ellis-Fermor, Una 241, 251, 252 cutting of plays 18, 106, 113, 170, 203, 207, 221, Erne, Lukas 119, 207, 213, 223, 229 222–5 ‘Shakespeare and the Publication of his Plays’ 217–19 Daborne, Robert 16 Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist 219–22 letters to Philip Henslowe 26–7, 65 Evans, G.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Dark Lady of the Merchant of Venice
    3 The dark lady of The Merchant of Venice ‘The Sonnets of Shakespeare offer us the greatest puzzle in the history of English literature.’ So began the voyage of Alfred Leslie Rowse (1903–97) through the murky waters cloaking the identi- ties of four persons associated with the publication in 1609 of Shakespeare’s ‘sugared sonnets’: the enigmatic ‘Mr. W.H.’ cited in the forepages as ‘onlie begetter’ of the poems; the unnamed ‘fair youth’ addressed in sonnets 1–126; the ‘rival poet’ who surfaces and submerges in sonnets 78–86; and the mysterious ‘dark lady’ celebrated and castigated in sonnets 127–52.1 Doubtless, even as Thomas Thorpe’s edition was passing through George Eld’s press, London’s mice-eyed must have begun their search for the shadowy four; it has not slacked since. As to those nominated as ‘Mr. W.H.’, the list ranges from William Herbert to Henry Wroithesley (with initials reversed) to William Harvey (Wroithesley’s stepfather). In 1964 Leslie Hotson proposed one William Hatcliffe of Lincolnshire [!], while Thomas Tyrwitt, Edmond Malone, and Oscar Wilde all favoured a (fictional) boy actor, Willie Hughes. Among candidates for the ‘fair youth’, Henry Wroithesley, Earl of Southampton (1573–1624), appears to have outlasted all comers. Those proposed as the rival poet include Christopher Marlowe (more interested in boys than ladies dark or light); Samuel Daniel (Herbert’s sometime tutor);2 Michael Drayton, drinking partner of Jonson and Shakespeare; George Chapman, whose Seaven Bookes of the Iliades (1598) were a source for Troilus and Cressida; and Barnabe Barnes, lampooned by Nashe as ‘Barnaby Bright’ in Have with you to Saffron-Walden.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shakespeare Authorship Companion
    All That Is Shakespeare Melts into Air The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion reviewed by Michael Dudley, Gary Goldstein, and Shelly Maycock. The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion. Edited by Gary Taylor & Gabriel Egan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. $168.84 USD. he Shakespeare deniers are at it again. Here is yet another book filled with so- called “evidence” hidden in the texts – which only the deniers can decode – Tto support their conspiracy theory that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare. It’s the old hoary argument that a commoner from Stratford-Upon-Avon could not have possibly written the greatest works in the English language. By himself, at any rate. Yes, the argument in The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion – a supplemen- tary volume to Oxford University Press’ prestigious new edition of the Shakespeare plays – is that Shakespeare wrote with some eleven collaborators and co-authors. These would include Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, and Anonymous on seventeen of the dramas; the editors also suggest we need to ex- pand the size of the canon from 37 to 44 plays, only two-thirds of which are entirely by Shakespeare. Yet, as we shall see, the theories and methods used to reach these conclusions are as problematic as the scholarship’s all but single-minded focus on cryptic analysis at the level of single words and even syllables, in service of a group authorship theory. The rhetorical conceit in the opening paragraph above is intend- ed to be more than tongue-in cheek; instead, it underscores the extent to which the Shakespeare establishment has started to resemble the nineteenth century Baconians it professes to abhor.
    [Show full text]
  • The History, Printing, and Editing of the Returne from Pernassus
    W&M ScholarWorks Undergraduate Honors Theses Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1-2009 The History, Printing, and Editing of The Returne from Pernassus Christopher A. Adams College of William and Mary Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses Recommended Citation Adams, Christopher A., "The History, Printing, and Editing of The Returne from Pernassus" (2009). Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 237. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses/237 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The History, Printing, and Editing of The Returne from Pernassus A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in English from The College of William and Mary by Christopher A. Adams Accepted for____________________________ (Honors, High Honors, Highest Honors ) _________________________ ___________________________ Paula Blank , Director Monica Potkay , Committee Chair English Department English Department _________________________ ___________________________ Erin Minear George Greenia English Department Modern Language Department Williamsburg, VA December, 2008 1 The History, Printing, and Editing of The Returne from Pernassus 2 Dominus illuminatio mea -ceiling panels of Duke Humfrey’s Library, Oxford 3 Acknowledgments I am deeply indebted to my former adviser, Dr. R. Carter Hailey, for starting me on this pilgrimage with the Parnassus plays. He not only introduced me to the world of Parnassus , but also to the wider world of bibliography. Through his help and guidance I have discovered a fascinating field of research.
    [Show full text]
  • "'A Complicated and Unpleasant Investigation': the Arden Shakespeare 1899-1924" by Gabriel Egan This Paper Arises From
    Egan, Gabriel. 2007d. "'''A complicated and unpleasant investigation': The Arden Shakespeare 1899-1924': A paper delivered on 12 July at the conference 'Open the Book, Open the Mind: The 2007 meeting of the Society for History of Authorship, Reading, and Publishing (SHARP)' at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 11-15 July." "'A complicated and unpleasant investigation': The Arden Shakespeare 1899-1924" by Gabriel Egan This paper arises from a survey of Shakespeare play editions in the twentieth century. I'm particularly interested in what those who made editions thought they were doing, how confident they felt about their work, how they thought readers would respond to the textual problems that arise in editing old plays, and how editors' assumptions about their readers were manifested in the editions that they produced. My published title in the programme covers the whole century of editions, but I'm going largely to confine my remarks to just one editorial project. For those of you who like to see the big picture first, however, I can offer a brief overview of just one of those variables I mentioned: editorial confidence [SLIDE]. I see it going like this, from a low at the start of the twentieth-century, through to a peak in the 1970s, and back to a low now. From the detailed history behind this pattern, I have room on this chart to pull just a few keys moments. [SLIDE] First, A. W. Pollard's book Shakespeare Folios and Quartos (1909) distinguished the good from the bad quartos and gave editors reasons to suppose that the good ones are textually close to Shakespeare's own papers.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare's King Lear
    Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear By Greg Maillet Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear By Greg Maillet This book first published 2016 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2016 by Greg Maillet All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-9729-9 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-9729-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Polemical Prologue .................................................................................... vii Criticism, Theology, and the Value of Shakespeare’s King Lear Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 “See Better”: Christian Paradox in Act One of King Lear Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 27 “I Nothing Am”: Confusion and Clarification of Identity in Act Two of King Lear Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 51 “This Night will turn us all to Fools and Madmen”: Storm and the Transformation of Identity
    [Show full text]
  • Top Left-Hand Corner
    Department of English ”Art Made Tongue-tied By Authority”? The Shakespeare Authorship Question Lars Lindholm Bachelor Degree Project Literature VT 2012 Supervisor: Marion Helfer Wajngot Abstract The essay presents the scholarly controversy over the correct attribution of the works by “Shakespeare”. The main alternative author is Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford. 16th century conventions allowed noblemen to write poetry or drama only for private circulation. To appear in print, such works had to be anonymous or under pseudonym. Overtly writing for public theatre, a profitable business, would have been a degrading conduct. Oxford‟s contemporary fame as an author is little matched by known works. Great gaps in relevant sources indicate that documents concerning not only his person and authorship but also the life of Shakspere from Stratford, the alleged author, have been deliberately eliminated in order to transfer the authorship, for which the political authority of the Elizabethan and Jacobean autocratic society had motive and resources enough. A restored identity would imply radical redating of plays and poems. To what extent literature is autobiographical, or was in that age, and whether restoring a lost identity from written works is legitimate at all, are basic issues of the debate, always implying tradition without real proof versus circumstantial evidence. As such arguments are incompatible, both sides have incessantly missed their targets. The historical conditions for the sequence of events that created the fiction, and its main steps, are related. Oxford will be in focus, since most old and new evidence for making a case has reference to him. The views of the two parties on different points are presented by continual quoting from representative recent works by Shakespeare scholars, where the often scornful tone of the debate still echoes.
    [Show full text]
  • AW. Pollard and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Editing
    Shakespeare, More or Less: A-W. Pollard and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Editing Paul Werstine Those who have disputed Shakespeare’s authorship of the plays and poems usually attributed to him have been inclined to name the eminent Shakespeare scholars who have vilified the anti-Stratfordian cause. In the Preface to his 1908 book The Shakes­ peare Problem Restated, the urbane Sir Granville George Greenwood quoted Sidney Lee, then chair of Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust, mocking the Baconian theory as ‘“foolish craze,’ ‘morbid psychology,’ ‘madhouse chatter”’ (vii) and John Churton Collins, chair of English Literature at the University of Birmingham, denouncing it as “‘ignorance and vanity”’ (viii). More recendy, Charlton Ogburn has listed among the detractors of the Oxfordian theory Louis B. Wright, former director of the Folger Shakespeare Library (154, 161,168); S. Schoenbaum, author of Shakespeare’s Lives, which devotes one hundred pages “to denigration of...anti-Stratfordian articles and books” (152); and Harvard Shakespeare professors G. Blakemore Evans and Harry Levin (256-57). In view of the energy and labour expended by numerous prominent scholars defending Shakespearean authorship, it is not surprising to dis­ cover that this defence has influenced reception of Shakespeare’s works and their edi­ torial reproductions. This essay deals with the very successful resistance movement against the anti-Stratfordians that was led by A.W. Pollard from 1916 to 1923, and with the peculiar influence that Pollard’s efforts have continued to exert, even upon today’s Shakespeare editors. FlorUegium 16 (1999) Like those Shakespeareans mentioned by Greenwood and Ogburn, Pollard, as an editor of the important bibliographical and editorial quarterly The Library and as Keeper of Printed Books at the British Museum, was well placed to fend off anti-Stratfordians.
    [Show full text]
  • The Private Theaters in Crisis: Strategies at Blackfriars and Paul’S, 1606–07
    ABSTRACT Title of Document: THE PRIVATE THEATERS IN CRISIS: STRATEGIES AT BLACKFRIARS AND PAUL’S, 1606–07 Christopher Bryan Love, Ph.D., 2006 Directed By: Professor Theodore B. Leinwand, Department of English This study addresses the ways in which the managers and principal playwrights at second Paul’s and second Blackfriars approached opportunities in the tumultuous 1606–07 period, when the two troupes were affected by extended plague closures and threatened by the authorities because of the Blackfriars’ performance of offensive satires. I begin by demonstrating that Paul’s and Blackfriars did not neatly conform to the social and literary categories or commercial models typically employed by scholars. Instead, they were collaborative institutions that readily adapted to different circumstances and situations. Their small size, different schedules, and different economics gave them a flexibility generally unavailable to the larger, more thoroughly commercial adult companies. Each chapter explores a strategy used by the companies and their playwrights to negotiate a tumultuous theatrical market. The first chapter discusses the mercenary methods employed by the private children’s theaters. Occasionally, plays or play topics were commissioned by playgoers, and some performances at Paul’s and Blackfriars may even have been “private” in the sense of closed performances for exclusive audiences. In this context, I discuss Francis Beaumont’s The Knight of the Burning Pestle (Blackfriars, 1607), in which Beaumont uses the boorish citizens George and Nell to lay open the private theaters’ mercenary methods and emphasize sophisticated playgoers’ stake in the Blackfriars theater. The second chapter discusses the ways private-theater playwrights used intertextuality to entertain the better sort of playgoers, especially those who might buy quartos of plays.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oxford Shakespeare Pdf Free Download
    HENRY V: THE OXFORD SHAKESPEARE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK William Shakespeare,Gary Taylor | 352 pages | 01 Aug 2008 | Oxford University Press | 9780199536511 | English | Oxford, United Kingdom Henry V: The Oxford Shakespeare PDF Book The book uses t Academic Skip to main content. Thank you for shopping at our store. Overview The introduction includes an examination of the Quarto and texts, and of the relationship between them; a critical discussion of the play's historical and literary sources; an examination of conflicting critical attitudes to the play, and of its fluctuating theatrical fortunes; and a demonstration of the range and variety of Shakespeare's characterization. Tillyard supports the idea of the Tudor myth , which considers England's 15th century to be a dark time of lawlessness and warfare, that after many battles eventually led to a golden age of the Tudor Period. Oxford World's Classics Series. Description About the Author s Description Henry V , the climax of Shakespeare's sequence of English history plays, is an inspiring, often comic celebration of a young warrior- king. The French suffered 10, casualties; the English, fewer than Keywords: Shakespeare , Henry V , warfare , ordinances , Renaissance , war , medieval laws , nations. More Shakespeare's Henry V has traditionally been acclaimed for its impressive depiction of the psychological and political impact of warfare, and it remains one of the most widely-discussed plays in the canon. All Rights Reserved. The conductor was Sir Neville Marriner. If you have any queries, please contact us via ebay. Shakespeare Survey , volume 38, Cambridge University Press The Star Ledger. Shakespeare's Money Robert Bearman.
    [Show full text]
  • “Gary Taylor and Terri Bourus Make Shakespeare Come Alive with Such Enthusiasm, You’D Swear the Bard Himself Was Sitting in the Room with Them
    P RAISE FOR T HE CREATION AND RE -CREATION OF C ARDENIO: PERFORMING SHAKESPEARE, T RANSFORMING CERVANTES! “Gary Taylor and Terri Bourus make Shakespeare come alive with such enthusiasm, you’d swear the Bard himself was sitting in the room with them. Meticulous and passionate scholars, they don’t shy away from questioning long-held theories and testing them—not only through extensive research— but also through the crucible of live performance. It does not surprise me that they would tackle the reconstruction of Cardenio or that Gary would take some twenty years to do it. When they’re done, Cardenio will certainly stand as a testament to how painstaking line-by-line scholarship can combine with academic imagination to create pure joy.” —Jim Simmons, Producer/Writer of “Shakespeare Lost/Shakespeare Found” TV documentary about The History of Cardenio “This persuasive book should put to rest nearly three hundred years of debate over the lost King’s Men play of 1613. Cardenio was indeed a Fletcher/ Shakespeare collaboration, based on episodes from Cervantes’ bestseller Don Quixote. Lewis Theobald was not a forger: his 1727 adaptation Double Falsehood does derive from Cardenio. With meticulous scholarship and cre- ative theatrical acumen the editors assemble a formidable case, and also tri- umphantly publish for the first time Taylor’s ‘unadaptation’ of The History of Cardenio.” —David Carnegie, Emeritus Professor FRSNZ, School of English, Film, Theatre, and Media Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; and co-editor of The
    [Show full text]
  • DVSNL Nov12highqual Corrected
    November 2012 What Malone Really Said De Vere Society Newsletter :KDW0DORQHUHDOO\VDLGDERXW6KDNHVSHDUH E\.HYLQ*LOYDU\ Edmond Malone (1741-–1812) is the scholar most cal account of Shakespeare’s works with some bio- credited with establishing the biography of ‘William graphical comments. Rowe treats biographical data Shakespeare. in about 1000 words, just under one-eighth of his Samuel Schoenbaum refers to him as “per- introductory essay, concerned almost entirely about haps the greatest of all Shakespearean scholars” his life in Stratford (up-bringing and retirement), and (1970, ix). Wells and Taylor describe him as “one of he offers few biographical data about Shakespeare in the greatest intellectuals of the English Enlighten- London despite some investigation on his own part. PHQWWKHPRVWWDOHQWHGDQGLQÁXHQWLDORIDOOVFKRODUV Later, Malone would dismiss Rowe’s Account as to have dedicated his energies to the explication of containing only ten biographical facts, of which eight Shakespeare’s life and work.” (1987, 55). His re- were false. cent biographer, Peter Martin, calls him a “scholar- Rowe’s Account was abridged and re-or- collector, editor, biographer, and critic”, referring to ganised by Alexander Pope in 1725, but without ac- his “heroic and obsessive” approach to his work and knowledgement. This Rowe-Pope version was fre- his “enormous contribution to Shakespeare studies” quently reprinted in the eighteenth century, appearing (1995, xv-–xvii). as a separate pamphlet in 1740 as a preface to the However, a careful reading of Malone’s collected works edited by Thomas Hanmer (1743), works reveals his own considerable scepticism re- William Warburton (1747), Samuel Johnson (1765) garding previously published assertions concern- and George Steevens (1773, 1778, 1785, 1793, 1803, ing Shakespeare’s life and writings.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Shakespeare's Hamlet'?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE 遠藤：What do you mean by‘Shakespeare’s Hamlet’? What do you mean by‘Shakespeare’s Hamlet’? Hanako Endo ‘What do you mean by ‘Shakespeare’s Hamlet’?’1 is a question Edwards asks himself in his in- troduction to Hamlet. The similar question, ‘what does Hamlet mean?’2, is raised in the edition of Hamlet by Thompson and Taylor. Edwards’ answer is that the ideal text of Hamlet ‘does not exist in either of the two main authoritative texts, the second quarto and the Folio, but somewhere between them’,3 whereas Thompson and Taylor do not specify their answer, offering the wider view beyond editing texts. They state as follows: The question is of course impossible to answer in the space of this Introduction: we can only give some pointers towards current debates and hope that readers will also find sug- gestions in the reminder of the Introduction and in the commentary as to how modern performers and critics are interpreting the play, questioning or reaffirming old readings and finding new ones.4 Although the view of Thompson and Taylor is rather ambiguous and does not provide the editorial answer, Edwards and Thompson and Taylor acknowledge that Hamlet is obviously one of the most difficult plays to edit. This essay will venture to find what the text is or what the text should be for modern readers in order to solve the above question. It will give some examples of the problems of editing Hamlet but will also make a general comment on editing.
    [Show full text]