DOCSLIB.ORG

Pericles, Prince of Tyre

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pericles, Prince of Tyre Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Pericles Pericles, Prince of Tyre he play can be dated any time between the . The play was published again in the same year publication of Laurence Twine’s Painefull with some small differences. All subsequent Adventures (possibly as early as 1576 but publications seem to derive from Q2. Tno later than 1594) and the publication of the Quarto in 1609. [Q2. 1609. Title Page as in Q1] Publication A third version appeared two years later: [Q3. 1611.] The Late And much admired Play, Sir Sidney Lee gave a detailed examination of the Called Pericles, Prince of Tyre. With the true publishing history of the play, which Chambers Relation of the whole History, aduentures, and has reviewed. The play was entered into the fortunes of the sayd Prince: As also, The no lesse Stationers’ Register in May 1608, on the same day strange and worthy accidents, in the Birth and as Antony & Cleopatra (which was not published Life, of his Daughter Mariana. As it hath beene until 1623): diuers and sundry times acted by his Maiestyes Seruants, at the Globe on the Banck-side. By [S.R. 1608.] 20 Maij. Edward Blount. Entred William Shakespeare. Printed at London by for his copie vnder thandes of Sir George Buck S(imon) S(tafford). 1611. knight and Master Warden Seton A booke called, the booke of Pericles prynce of Tyre. A fourth version appeared some years later as part of the collection published by Thomas Pavier: Most commentators see this as a ‘blocking entry’, i.e. intended to prevent any other publisher from [Q4. 1619.] The Late, And much admired publishing the play but Chambers discounts Play, Called Pericles, Prince of Tyre. With the true Relation of the whole History, the possibility. The play was published in the aduentures, and fortunes of the saide Prince. following year, but oddly not by Edward Blunt Written by W. Shakespeare. but by Henry Gosson: The play did not appear in the First Folio in 1623 [Q1. 1609.] The Late, And much admired Play, or in the Second Folio of 1632. The rights to the Called Pericles, Prince of Tyre. With the true play were transferred in 1626 to Edward Brewster Relation of the whole Historie, aduentures, and fortunes of the said Prince: As also, The no lesse and Robert Birde and to Richard Cotes in 1630. strange, and worthy accidents, in the Birth and Q5 appeared in 1630 and Q6 in 1635. The play Life, of his Daughter Mariana. As it hath been was eventually included in the Third Folio of diuers and sundry times acted by his Maiesties 1664: Seruants, at the Globe on the Banck-side. By William Shakespeare. Imprinted at London (by [F3. 1664.] . And unto this Impression is William White) for Henry Gosson, and are to added seven Playes, never before Printed in be sold at the signe of the Sunne in Pater-noster Folio, viz, Pericles, Prince of Tyre . [six row, &c. 1609. other titles1] © De Vere Society 1 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Pericles Title page to the first quarto of Pericles, 1609. By permission of Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, shelfmark Arch. G d.41 (5), title page. The much admired Play, Called Pericles, Prince (b) The editors knew the text was badly of Tyre. With the true Relation of the whole corrupted; History, Adventures, and Fortunes of the saide Prince. Written by W. Shakespeare, and (c) The editors knew that the play was co- published in his life-time. authored (which she accepts as most Suzanne Gossett has outlined three suggestions as likely). to why such a popular play, published in quarto Editors agree that the text is very poor, believing under the name of William Shakespeare, did not that the copy was not authoritative. Chambers has appear in the First Folio (1623): outlined many of the problems including irregular (a) The editors of the First Folio, Heminges setting of verse and prose. Edwards states that at and Condell, were unable to obtain either least two different printing shops were used and at a copy of the play or the rights to it or least three different compositors. Bullough points both; out that much of the text is unintelligible, with muddled scenes, confusions of speech and action, and omissions of necessary material. © De Vere Society 2 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Pericles Most editors believe that the text arises from another author. Sams ascribes the difference in a poor memorial reconstruction. Edwards argued style to Shakespeare’s revision of his own earlier that the difference in style was due to the difference play. Hoeniger dismisses this as ‘pure speculation’ in the reporting ability of two different people. without elaboration; Wells & Taylor (1987: 130) Against this, some editors have argued that the call it an ‘intrinsic improbability’, again without text was set from a rough draft of the play.2 Wells explanation. & Taylor create a composite text derived from Q1 Most editors, however, agree that the play was and from Wilkins’s novel. co-authored by George Wilkins.6 In 1608, Wilkins (c. 1576–1618) published a novel, The Painful Early Performance Dates Adventures of Pericles, Prince of Tyre (STC 25638). This work borrowed extensively from Laurence Twine’s 1576 story, in many instances verbatim The title page to Q1 states that the play had been (unlike the play, which merely has similarities). acted by the King’s Men at the Globe ‘diuers The title page of Wilkins’s novel presents itself as and sundry times’, without indication of when; ‘The true History of the Play of Pericles, as it was Hoeniger assumes that the play’s performances lately presented by the worthy and ancient Poet occurred in the first half of 1608, before the John Gower’ which shows it to derive from the theatres were closed on 28 July due to plague. play. Wilkins makes a further mention of the play The play was witnessed by the Venetian in the Argument, asking the reader: Ambassador in 1607 or 1608: . to receiue this Historie in the same manner All the ambassadors, who have come to England as it was vnder the habite of ancient Gower the have gone to the play more or less. Giustinian famous English Poet by the Kings Majesties went with the French ambassador and his wife Players excellently presented. to a play called Pericles, which cost Giustinian more than 20 crowns. He also took the Secretary From this, it is inferred that Wilkins’s prose novel of Florence.3 derives from the play. Thus the use of the names Another performance is recorded at Gowthwaite ‘Pericles’ and ‘Marina’ which differ from the Hall, Nidderdale, Yorks, by a troupe of travelling sources would been used first in the play and then actors on 2 Feb 1610. A further performance is in the novel. Chambers accepted co-authorship recorded at court in 1619.4 The play’s continuing of the play but was undecided as to whether popularity is recorded with distaste by Ben Jonson Wilkins was the co-author. Chambers notes that in 1629 in Ode to Myself: ‘verbally the novel is much less close to the play than one would expect’ especially as Wilkins is No doubt some mouldy tale, Like Pericles ; and usually taken to be paraphrasing some of his own stale As the Shrieve’s crusts, and nasty as his writing. Wells & Taylor (1987: 557) suggest that fish— Scraps out of every dish Throwne forth, Wilkins may have contributed his scenes but was and rak’t into the common tub. left without a copy of his own writing. They refer to the Shakespearean sections as Scenes 10–22 Jonson’s criticism seems to be concerned with the because Q1 has no act or scene divisions. disjointed nature of the material rather than that The arguments for co-authorship have been the play was out of date. reviewed by Vickers and examined in detail by Jackson, who concur with Wells & Taylor in Attribution assigning authorship as follows: Only a few editors accept ‘William Shakespeare’ by George Wilkins by Shakespeare as sole author.5 Eric Sams has noted that in six Acts 1, 2 (scenes 1–9) Acts 3, 4, 5 quartos and in F3, the attribution of the play (Scenes 10–22) was to Shakespeare alone; three of the quartos had been published in Wilkins’s lifetime. He There are two main ways in which co-authorship further notes that none of the references to the may have worked: play (eg by Jonson or Dryden) ever mention © De Vere Society 3 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Pericles (a) Collaboration. The two authors planned Gesner argues that Shakespeare was well versed in the work together and then wrote their works such as those by Heliodorus, Longus and parts independently. Achilles Tatius, giving him an exceptional insight into the tradition as shown in all the romances (b) Revision. A shortened form of the play including Pericles. by one of the authors was revised and There are also some similarities with Sidney’s expanded by the other author. Since Arcadia (1590). Bullough also mentions close Wilkins was younger and his novel was parallels between Marina’s plight and Declamation published at the same time as the play, it is 53 in Alexandre Silvain’s Cent Histoires (published usually assumed that he was the reviser of in 1581 and translated into English by Lazarus Piot a short or unfinished play by Shakespeare. in 1596). Hoeniger mentions some dependence According to this view, it is possible for on a Latin treatise by J. Falckenburgk: Britannia, there to be a lapse of time between the Sive de Apollonice Humilitatis, Virtutis et Honoris composition of the original play and its Porta (STC 10674) which was dedicated to subsequent revision.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Dimensions of Geography in Shakespeare's Pericles SEDERI Yearbook, Núm
    SEDERI Yearbook ISSN: 1135-7789 [email protected] Spanish and Portuguese Society for English Renaissance Studies España Laureano Domínguez, Lorena Pericles’ "unknown travels": the dimensions of geography in Shakespeare's Pericles SEDERI Yearbook, núm. 19, 2009, pp. 71-97 Spanish and Portuguese Society for English Renaissance Studies Valladolid, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=333527606004 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Pericles’ “unknown travels”: the dimensions of geography in Shakespeare’s Pericles 1 Lorena Laureano Domínguez University of Huelva ABSTRACT The present essay explores the complex notion of geography and its manifold implications in Shakespeare’s first romance, Pericles . It will be argued that the role of geography and travelling in the play cannot be reduced to a mere formal strategy. In the play’s treatment and representation of geography, psychological, moral and political aspects intertwine. Thus Pericles can be understood simultaneously as an individual’s life journey, as a spiritual journey, and even as an exploration of different forms of government and power. Taking as a point of departure John Gillies’ concept of “geographic imagination” and Freud’s notion of “the uncanny,” I will focus on the psychological meaning and on the poetic and dramatic effectiveness of the author’s imaginative use of geography. Examination of the different locations demonstrates that, beyond their existence as specific external spaces, they are relevant as inner mental entities informing Pericles’ experience and acquiring meaning within the hero’s microcosm.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of English and American Studies English Language And
    Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature Helena Haraštová The Puzzle of Pericles: the Play versus the Novel Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: Mgr. Filip Krajník, Ph. D. 2017 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. …………………………………………….. MgA. Helena Haraštová 2 Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my husband and my daughter for their love, patience and understanding during the process of writing this thesis. 3 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1. Sources of Inspiration ................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Apollonius of Tyre .............................................................................................. 6 1.2 John Gower's Confessio Amantis ....................................................................... 8 1.3 Lawrence Twine's The Pattern of Painful Adventures ....................................... 9 1.4 Change of Names ............................................................................................. 11 1.5 Other Sources ................................................................................................... 13 2. Pericles – the Play ..................................................................................................... 14 2.1 Historical
    [Show full text]
  • Redating Pericles: a Re-Examination of Shakespeare’S
    REDATING PERICLES: A RE-EXAMINATION OF SHAKESPEARE’S PERICLES AS AN ELIZABETHAN PLAY A THESIS IN Theatre Presented to the Faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS by Michelle Elaine Stelting University of Missouri Kansas City December 2015 © 2015 MICHELLE ELAINE STELTING ALL RIGHTS RESERVED REDATING PERICLES: A RE-EXAMINATION OF SHAKESPEARE’S PERICLES AS AN ELIZABETHAN PLAY Michelle Elaine Stelting, Candidate for the Master of Arts Degree University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2015 ABSTRACT Pericles's apparent inferiority to Shakespeare’s mature works raises many questions for scholars. Was Shakespeare collaborating with an inferior playwright or playwrights? Did he allow so many corrupt printed versions of his works after 1604 out of indifference? Re-dating Pericles from the Jacobean to the Elizabethan era answers these questions and reveals previously unexamined connections between topical references in Pericles and events and personalities in the court of Elizabeth I: John Dee, Philip Sidney, Edward de Vere, and many others. The tournament impresas, alchemical symbolism of the story, and its lunar and astronomical imagery suggest Pericles was written long before 1608. Finally, Shakespeare’s focus on father-daughter relationships, and the importance of Marina, the daughter, as the heroine of the story, point to Pericles as written for a young girl. This thesis uses topical references, Shakespeare’s anachronisms, Shakespeare’s sources, stylometry and textual analysis, as well as Henslowe’s diary, the Stationers' Register, and other contemporary documentary evidence to determine whether there may have been versions of Pericles circulating before the accepted date of 1608.
    [Show full text]
  • View Fast Facts
    FAST FACTS Author's Works and Themes: Hamlet “Author's Works and Themes: Hamlet.” Gale, 2019, www.gale.com. Writings by William Shakespeare Play Productions • Henry VI, part 1, London, unknown theater (perhaps by a branch of the Queen's Men), circa 1589-1592. • Henry VI, part 2, London, unknown theater (perhaps by a branch of the Queen's Men), circa 1590-1592. • Henry VI, part 3, London, unknown theater (perhaps by a branch of the Queen's Men), circa 1590-1592. • Richard III, London, unknown theater (perhaps by a branch of the Queen's Men), circa 1591-1592. • The Comedy of Errors, London, unknown theater (probably by Lord Strange's Men), circa 1592-1594; London, Gray's Inn, 28 December 1594. • Titus Andronicus, London, Rose or Newington Butts theater, 24 January 1594. • The Taming of the Shrew, London, Newington Butts theater, 11 June 1594. • The Two Gentlemen of Verona, London, Newington Butts theater or the Theatre, 1594. • Love's Labor's Lost, perhaps at the country house of a great lord, such as the Earl of Southampton, circa 1594-1595; London, at Court, Christmas 1597. • Sir Thomas More, probably by Anthony Munday, revised by Thomas Dekker, Henry Chettle, Shakespeare, and possibly Thomas Heywood, evidently never produced, circa 1594-1595. • King John, London, the Theatre, circa 1594-1596. • Richard II, London, the Theatre, circa 1595. • Romeo and Juliet, London, the Theatre, circa 1595-1596. • A Midsummer Night's Dream, London, the Theatre, circa 1595-1596. • The Merchant of Venice, London, the Theatre, circa 1596-1597. • Henry IV, part 1, London, the Theatre, circa 1596-1597.
    [Show full text]
  • This Item Was Submitted to Loughborough's Institutional Repository by the Author and Is Made Available Under the Following
    This item was submitted to Loughborough’s Institutional Repository by the author and is made available under the following Creative Commons Licence conditions. For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ Egan, Gabriel. 2006b. "'As it Was, Is, or Will be Played': Title-pages and the Theatre Industry to 1610." From Stage to Print in Early Modern England. Edited by Peter Holland and Stephen Orgel. Redefining British Theatre History. London. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 92-110 "'As it was, is, or will be played': Title-pages and the theatre industry to 1610" by Gabriel Egan Whereas modern actors usually start with a printed text of some form, we are used to the idea that early modern actors started with manuscripts and that printing followed performance. Confirming this, the title-pages of printed plays refer back to past performance with such phrases "As it hath beene publikely acted by the right Honourable the Lorde Chamberlaine his Seruants" (Shakespeare 1597, A1r) or "As it was acted by the Kings Maiesties seruants at the Globe" (Shakespeare 1609b, A1r) to take examples from two first printings of Shakespeare plays. These locutions promise the reader that the contents will be "as" the play was acted, that the text captures something of the pleasure of performance, although my second example, the phrasing on the title-page of the first printing of Troilus and Cressida, comes from a book that survives in two states (Qa and Qb). Qb has a reset title-page that removes the reference to performance but adds that the lovers' 'history' is "Famous" (Shakespeare 1609a, ¶1r).
    [Show full text]
  • University of Oklahoma Graduate College “The Lord That Counseled Thee to Give Away Thy Land”: the Wardship Controversy in Th
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE “THE LORD THAT COUNSELED THEE TO GIVE AWAY THY LAND”: THE WARDSHIP CONTROVERSY IN THE FIRST QUARTO VERSION OF KING LEAR A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS By BRIDGET M. BARTLETT Norman, Oklahoma 2019 “THE LORD THAR COUSELED THEE TO GIVE AWAY THY LAND”: THE WARDSHIP CONTROVERSY IN THE FIRST QUARTO VERSION OF KING LEAR A THESIS APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH BY Dr. David Anderson, Chair Dr. William Endres Dr. Daniel Ransom © Copyright by BRIDGET M. BARTLETT 2019 All Rights Reserved iv Table of Contents Abstract v Introduction 1 Background 3 Evidence the Play Concerns the Wardship Controversy 8 Instability and Disrupted Familial Bonds 8 Callousness and Corruption 12 Future Poverty 16 Pity and Identification 18 Expanding Pity 19 Drawing Attention to the Need Underlying Wardship 22 Willfulness 24 Edgar’s “Good Pity” 25 Lear’s Humble Acceptance “Good Pity” 26 Albany’s Unproductive Pity 27 Conclusion 28 v Abstract This thesis argues that the 1608 First Quarto (Q) version of William Shakespeare’s tragedy King Lear responds to then-ongoing popular agitation in England against the institution of wardship. Q implicitly affirms routinely-made complaints about wardship routinely but also implicitly critiques the popular agitation against the wardship system for failing to recognize the importance of wardship. After providing background information on the unpopularity of wardship, this thesis details ways in which Q references and reiterates common critiques about wardship and then explains how Q ultimately emphasizes the goodness and importance of having a system for providing care and guidance to those who lack the wisdom or rationality needed for independence.
    [Show full text]
  • HOFSTRA Prince of Tyre
    HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF DRAMA AND DANCE PERICLES Prince of Tyre William Shakespeare STUDY GUIDE Written and compiled by James J. Kolb, Professor of Drama HOFSTRA/DRAMA 1996 A Study Guide to Hofstra University’s Department of Drama and Dance Production of PERICLES Prince of Tyre by William Shakespeare March 1996 Table of Contents About Shakespeare 2 The New Penguin Shakespeare version of Pericles, the text used in the current production, is published in paperback by Title Page of the First Folio Edition Penguin Books, a Division of Viking Penguin Inc., of Shakespeare’s Plays 2 40 West 23rd Street, New York, New York 10010 ISBN # 0-14-070729-8 ($5.50) Shakespeare’s Coat of Arms 3 Shakespeare’s Plays 3 Shakespeare’s Theatre 4 HOFSTRA/DRAMA Summary of the Story 5 Department of Drama and Dance Hofstra University (516) 463-5444 The Sources of the Story 6 The Date of Composition and Special Problems With the Text of Pericles 6 A Few Critical Comments 7 About the Play on Stage 10 About the Play in Other Forms 15 The idea and format of this study guide is by Peter Sander. He prepared and wrote the content of pp. 2-3. The material Questions for Discussion 16 on pp. 4-5 has been adapted and rewritten from his study guide prepared for Romeo and Juliet, as have the questions A Selected Reading List 16 for discussion and selected reading list. Other materials have been written or compiled by James Kolb. Hofstra University’s 47th Annual Shakespeare Festival 17 ABOUT SHAKESPEARE went off to join a touring company of players.
    [Show full text]
  • See the Programme from Cheek by Jowl's 2018 Production of Périclès, Prince De
    Périclès, Prince de Tyr by William Shakespeare and George Wilkins To keep up-to-date with Cheek by Jowl, please visit cheekbyjowl.com/subscribe.php to join our mailing list /cheekbyjowl @wearecheekbyjowl @CbyJ /CheekbyJowl www.cheekbyjowl.com 1 Baldwin. Cover photo: Christophe Grégoire © Patrick 2 Welcome Welcome Welcome to our 2018 season with Périclès, Prince de Tyr. We are delighted to be co-producing Cheek by Jowl’s latest work, Pericles (Périclès, Prince de Tyr) featuring the company’s stunning It’s a pleasure to return to the UK with our French company. This marks French ensemble. Cheek by Jowl have been a Barbican Artistic the first time Cheek by Jowl has produced Shakespeare in the French Associate since 2005 and their performances in English, Russian language. We are extremely grateful for the support of Jeune Théâtre and French consistently draw both loyal and new audiences. National France and the Laura Pels International Foundation for Theater. We warmly welcome back co-Artistic Directors Declan Donnellan Thanks also to Toni Racklin, Leanne Cosby, Alex Jamieson and the and Nick Ormerod with their first Shakespeare production in the entire team at the Barbican for their support and enthusiasm, and also French language. to Laura Elliot and Louise Chantal at the Oxford Playhouse. Toni Racklin We would also like to thank our co-producers, the Barbican, London; Head of Theatre, Barbican Les Gémeaux/Sceaux/Scène Nationale; Théâtre du Nord, CDN Lille- Tourcoing-Hauts de France, as well as Arts Council England. We hope you enjoy the
    [Show full text]
  • Actes Des Congrès De La Société Française Shakespeare, 34 | 2016 Young Shakespeare/Late Shakespeare: the Case of Pericles 2
    Actes des congrès de la Société française Shakespeare 34 | 2016 Jeunesses de Shakespeare Young Shakespeare/Late Shakespeare: The Case of Pericles Lucy Munro Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/shakespeare/3668 DOI: 10.4000/shakespeare.3668 ISSN: 2271-6424 Publisher Société Française Shakespeare Electronic reference Lucy Munro, « Young Shakespeare/Late Shakespeare: The Case of Pericles », Actes des congrès de la Société française Shakespeare [Online], 34 | 2016, Online since 01 March 2016, connection on 30 April 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/shakespeare/3668 ; DOI : 10.4000/shakespeare.3668 This text was automatically generated on 30 April 2019. © SFS Young Shakespeare/Late Shakespeare: The Case of Pericles 1 Young Shakespeare/Late Shakespeare: The Case of Pericles Lucy Munro 1 I begin with lines from an epilogue by John Dryden,1 first printed in his Miscellany Poems in 1684: Shakespeare’s own Muse her Pericles first bore: The Prince of Tyre was elder than the Moor. ’Tis miracle to see a first good play, All hawthorns do not bloom on Christmas Day.2 Dryden appears to have considered Pericles a youthful work, Shakespeare’s first play. He contrasts its modest achievement with that of Othello, here positioned as a work of the dramatist’s maturity, and aligns its perceived deficiencies with its chronological position within the canon of Shakespeare’s works. “A slender poet must have time to grow”, he comments, “no man can be Falstaff-fat at first” (l. 20, 23). As I explain below, although it was viewed as an early play for much of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, by the late nineteenth century Pericles had been re-dated to around 1608, and had instead become the first of Shakespeare’s “late” plays.
    [Show full text]
  • Pericles by William Shakespeare
    Pericles by William Shakespeare Know-the-Show Audience Guide researched and written by Brian B. Crowe, Jamie Weisbach and Doug West for the Education Department of The Shakespeare Theatre of New Jersey Cover art by Scott McKowen The Shakespeare Theatre of New Jersey PERICLES: Know-the-Show Guide In This Guide – The Life of William Shakespeare.................................................................................2 – Shakespeare’s London.................................................................................................3 – Shakespeare’s Romances.............................................................................................4 – Are You Sure This is English?........................................................................................5 – Pericles: An Introduction.............................................................................................6 – Pericles: Sources for the Play.......................................................................................8 – Pericles: The Authorship Debate.................................................................................9 – Pericles: About the Play.............................................................................................10 – Who’s Who in Pericles?.............................................................................................11 – Commentary and Criticism.......................................................................................12 – In This Production.....................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Scratch Pad 67 August 2007 Hitting the Big 60
    Scratch Pad 67 August 2007 Hitting the big 60 My sixtieth birth- day gathering, Greensborough Hotel, 17 February 2007: Top (l. to r.): my sis- ter Jeanette Gillespie; me; Jeanette’s partner Duncan Brown. Bottom (l. to r.): Myfanwy Thomas; and two of the con- tributors to this issue of *brg*: Tony Thomas; and Jennifer Bryce. Others who can be spotted on the back table are Thomas Bull, John Davies, Alan Stewart and Maureen Brewster. (Photos: Helena Binns.) Hitting the big Six-O It was time for one of those decade parties that swing by with monotonous regular- ity. A few moments ago it was my Big 4-O; a short while later the Big 5-O. On 17 February 2007, to my surprise and chagrin I found myself hitting 60, so I thought I had better do something about it. I couldn’t quite see Elaine putting on a surprise party, as she was knee-deep in work. I found myself without a Mount Everest restaurant. There are almost no photos of my fiftieth birthday in 1997. If Helena Binns had been there, we might have had a photographic record of nearly every SF person in Melbourne, plus several from interstate, plus quite a few people from other worlds Elaine and I inhabit, especially publishing. George Turner only lasted about half an hour before leaving, not feeling well; it was the last time I saw him. I saw Brian McCurdy only once or twice more. Mount Everest restaurant, in Collingwood, man- aged to put on a feast for the 99 people who turned up.
    [Show full text]
  • Collaboration
    Shakespearean Authorship Trust Collaboration Paper presented by Mike Llewellyn at the Shakespearean Authorship Trust Conference July 9 2005 at the Globe Theatre, London. 1 My talk is an introduction to collaboration in Shakespeare’s day. First, I’m going to look at collaboration generally in the period. Then I’ll look at Shakespeare himself as a collaborator. Finally, I’ll look briefly at 3 specific plays –Two Noble Kinsmen, Timon of Athens and Pericles. Please remember, this is a very big field – a great amount of work has been done and is being done on attribution. COLLABORATION GENERALLY Francis Meres (1598) said that amongst the best for comedy were Edward de Vere, Shakespeare and other playwrights If he were alive today, I’m sure he’d say that amongst the best for comedy were these famous collaborators: British Comedy – Collaboration Today Graham Lineham & Arthur Mathews Father Ted Rob Grant & Doug Naylor Red Dwarf John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones Monty Python Dick Clements & Ian le Frenais Porridge, Auf Wiedersehn Pet Matt Luca & David Walliams Little Britain John Cleese & Connie Booth Fawlty Towers Richard Curtis & Ben Elton Blackadder Ricky Gervais & Stephen Marchant The Office [Ref: My own information, mostly from the BBC website] In film, screenplays often have more than one writer. And in playwrighting too, modern writers such as T.S Eliot, Ezra Pound, David Hare, Trevor Griffiths, David Edgar and others have written plays collaboratively. In fact, collaboration has existed ever since plays were first written in English, well over 400 years ago. But of course collaboration isn’t the image people have of playwrights – generally, the image is the single author.
    [Show full text]