DOCSLIB.ORG

A Chronology of Playbook Advertisements from English Serials, 1650–1665

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Chronology of Playbook Advertisements from English Serials, 1650–1665 A Chronology of Playbook Advertisements from English Serials, 1650–1665 By Joshua J. McEvilla ([email protected]) [uploaded 28 July 2017] Sometimes a reorientation of information is helpful to make significant information useful in a new way. This bibliographic resource aims to do just that: it aims to make useful, principally to literary historians and canon scholars, the print chronology of playbook advertising in English serials from 25 November 1650 to 12 June 1665. I made this information available, principally for bibliographers engaged in the study of editions and issues, in my 2013 Catalogue published by the journal of this Society.1 The following chronology of a small class of information is intended to serve three functions. First, it is to collect together in a single place the dates of all advertisements originally published by Sybil Rosenfeld and copied by W. W. Greg that pertain to the editions and issues described in Greg’s magnum opus A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration.2 For reasons of scope and length, my 2013 Catalogue for the Society omitted all advertisements to which I was unable to add significant new research, and it included entries for the Restoration plays that Rosenfeld overlooked.3 Consider this problem now resolved. Second, its purpose is to simplify the presentation 1 See Joshua McEvilla, “A Catalogue of Book Advertisements from English Serials: Printed Drama, 1646–1668,” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 107, no. 1 (2013): 10–48. 2 Sybil Rosenfeld, “Dramatic Advertisements in the Burney Newspapers 1660–1700,” PMLA 51, no. 1 (March, 1936): 123–52; W. W. Greg, “Advertisements in Newspapers” (3:1189–90), in A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration, 4 vols. (London: For the Bibliographical Society, 1939–59); Greg, Bibliography, volumes 1 and 2. 3 McEvilla, “Catalogue,” 13–17. A Chronology of Playbook Advertisements from English Serials, 1650–1665 by Joshua McEvilla (ver. 2017-07-28) — Page 1. of the data for non-bibliographers—scholars who may not see the need to find in one place the comparative date, title, and author entries from resources of a similar nature to the advertisements, such as the licences in the Stationers’ Registers, the Thomason tract title-page inscriptions, and variant issues of the title pages.4 Such notes are a reflection of the fascinating original scholarship of the Catalogue but often overshadow the sequential printing of the advertisements as part of a chronology. Third, the Chronology allows me to redress what I see as an unfortunate omission of two images that help to illustrate the deficiencies of a barely modified system of quasi-facsimile for capturing the visual features of a few advertisements. Two advertisements may convey essential information on the possible sale of serial play collections as partial ‘nonce’ volumes.5 The impact of these advertisements is too nuanced to be conveyed effectively through textual transcription, and proper visual reproduction of the adverts, via surrogate imaging, would have been beyond the financial limits of PBSA’s budget. So I would argue that this reorientation of the information of playbook advertising, from the earliest advertisement that I found through to the last such advertisement before the first ‘term catalogue,’ is essential to scholarship: it presents a very different canon of early modern drama, both theatrically and bibliographically, from any other resource.6 With regard to theatrical authorship, the list conveys 93 plays with acknowledged contributions from 44 authors and 5 translators. The advertisements refer to as many as 41 bibliographically independent publications.7 What is especially remarkable, the list contains no Shakespeare and no Jonson, no Marlowe and only a couple of small nods to Fletcher.8 Unlike the booksellers’ catalogues of the period and the advertising lists printed separately from but bound into books, the advertisements from serials omit virtually all reference to these celebrity authors of ‘The Shakespearian Stage.’9 Such a point makes the list fundamentally more progressive than the grouping and selective- 4 G. E. B. Eyre and G. R. Rivington (ed.), A Transcript of the Registers of the Worshipful Company of Stationers from 1640–1708 A.D., 3 vols. (London: Privately Printed, 1913–14); G. F. Fortescue, Catalogue of the Pamphlets, Books, Newspapers and Manuscripts Relating to the Civil War, the Commonwealth, and Restoration, Collected by George Thomason, 1640–1661, 2 vols. (London: British Museum, 1908). 5 On ‘serialization,’ see Paulina Kewes, “‘Give Me the Sociable Pocket-Books …’: Humphrey Moseley’s Serial Publication of Octavo Play Collections,” Publishing History 38 (1995): 5–21. On the idea of ‘nonce’ collections, see Arthur Freeman, “Octavo Nonce Collections of John Taylor,” The Library 5th ser., 18 (1963): 51–57. 6 On the ‘term catalogues,’ see Edward Arber (ed.), The Term Catalogues, 1668–1700 A.D., 3 vols. (London: Privately Printed, 1903–6), 1:xi. 7 I have calculated this figure based on evidence collected from Greg, Bibliography, and English Short Title Catalogue, http://estc.bl.uk, accessed 9 July 2017. 8 See McEvilla, “Catalogue,” 34 (item no. 31), for an advertisement of John Fletcher’s Faithful Shepherdess with Richard Fanshawe’s translation as La Fida Pastora (London: G. Bedell and T. Collins, 1658). The advert for the 5th ed. is in Rosenfeld, “Dramatic Advertisements,” 130, and Greg, Bibliography, 3:1189. 9 Adam G. Hooks, “Booksellers’ Catalogues and the Classification of Printed Drama in Seventeenth- Century England,” PBSA 102, no. 4 (2008): 445–64; Peter Lindenbaum, “Publishers’ Booklists in Late Seventeenth-Century London,” The Library 7th ser., 11, no. 4 (2010): 381–404. A Chronology of Playbook Advertisements from English Serials, 1650–1665 by Joshua McEvilla (ver. 2017-07-28) — Page 2. focus mechanisms offered by other list-resources of period drama, such as the Stationers’ Registers, Henslowe’s Diary, Bawcutt’s reconstruction of the ‘lost’ office book of Sir Henry Herbert, and so on.10 This list is dominated by the likes of the lesser-known Jacobean and Caroline writers Middleton and Massinger, and James Shirley and Richard Brome. Concerning bibliographic canon formation, on the other hand, we can see evanescent signs of stationers applying retail techniques that may inform or challenge our understanding of the reputations of particular dramatists and play-authorship today. Arranged in this way, the data from the advertising calls attention to the wholesale transfer of stock in Richard Brome’s Five New Playes (1653) from the original investors, Humphrey Moseley, Richard Marriot, and Thomas Dring, to a new stationer, John Sweeting, in late 1653.11 Presumably in an attempt to recover his investment capital in the volume as quickly as possible, Sweeting can be seen from the chronology embarking on an advertising campaign to offload his stock to clients within a matter of months. The original stationers advertised the collection twice in two well-established, long-running serials, A Perfect Diurnall (16 May 1653) and Severall Proceedings of State-Affairs (16 June 1653). Sweeting advertised the plays together ten times, in three different journals, between 9 November 1653 and 28 December 1653.12 As various copies of this collection are extant with a cancel title page of “1654” and the location of Sweeting’s shop at the “Angel in Popeshead-Alley,” one may suppose that Brome’s poor reputation as a minor dramatist today might be in part an extension of the unmarketability of his plays as a posthumous volume approximately a year after his death.13 One can infer a problematic relationship between Brome’s print and stage popularity. Moreover, notions of ‘authority’ and ‘genre’ are displayed as strikingly flexible, as a result of this ‘list’ formatting and the embedded facsimile images of a few of the advertisements. Although I remain unsure as to how to interpret the precise meaning of the advertisement of a “newly printed four excellent new Playes, viz.” from The Faithful Scout of 21 September 1655 (see Illustration 1), I am confident that several of the most visible textual features of the advert, best observed from the facsimile image, point to the possible scenario that the stationer was intending a mixed-author, cross-genre collection: 10 Eyre and Rivington, Transcript; Henslowe’s Diary, ed. by R. A. Foakes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); N. W. Bawcutt (ed.), The Control and Censorship of Caroline Drama: The Records of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels 1623–73 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). 11 Richard Brome, Five New Playes, ed. by Alexander Brome (London: Humphrey Moseley, Richard Marriot, and Thomas Dring, 1653); Richard Brome, Five New Playes, ed. by Alexander Brome (London: J. Sweeting, 1654). 12 See McEvilla, “Catalogue,” 26–27 (item 17). Sweeting advertised the volume in A Perfect Diurnal (once), A Perfect Account of the Daily Intelligence (6 times), and The Faithful Scout (3 times). 13 Eleanor Lowe, “Confirmation of Richard Brome’s Final Years in Charterhouse Hospital,” Notes & Queries 252, no. 4 (December, 2007): 416–18. On copies of the collection with the Sweeting imprint, see Richard Brome Online, ed. by Richard Cave, https://www.hrionline.ac.uk/brome, uploaded 2010, accessed 9 July 2017. A Chronology of Playbook Advertisements from English Serials, 1650–1665 by Joshua McEvilla (ver. 2017-07-28) — Page 3. the triple-star symbol (an upside-down ‘asterism,’ “⁂”), the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction to the 1645 Volume: Poems of Mr. John Milton
    C01.qxd 8/18/08 14:44 Page 1 Introduction to the 1645 Volume: Poems of Mr. John Milton In 1645, Milton published most but not all of the poems he had composed by that date. The publisher Humphrey Moseley had been bringing out volumes of lyric poetry by royalist poets such as Edmund Waller, and it was likely, as he claims in the intro- duction to the volume, that he approached Milton and encouraged him to publish his verse. Moseley also arranged for the engraved portrait of Milton by William Marshall (see Figure 1), beneath which Milton, who considered the engraving unflattering, placed a witty Greek epigram ridiculing it in a language neither Marshall nor Moseley under- stood. Unlike most contemporary poets, Milton neither wrote a preface, solicited commendatory poems, nor acknowledged a patron. He organized his volume more or less chronologically, thus displaying his poetic development, but also carefully grouped together poems of similar themes and genres. With the Latin tag from Virgil’s Eclogues on the title page (“Baccare frontem / Cingite, ne vati noceat mala lingua futuro” – “Bind my forehead with foxglove, lest evil tongues harm the future Bard”), he promises future poems on even greater themes. In the Latin ode sent with a replacement copy of the volume to John Rouse, librar- ian of the Bodleian Library at Oxford, Milton describes the 1645 volume as a “twin book, rejoicing in a single cover, but with a double title page.” The first section of the volume presents his vernacular poems (mostly in English, but also including a mini-sonnet sequence in Italian), and concludes with A MASK Presented At LUDLOW- Castle.
    [Show full text]
  • From Ben Jonson and Shakespeare (1921)
    Greenwood - Ben Jonson and Shakespeare 61 From Ben Jonson and Shakespeare (1921) Sir George Greenwood HE sheet anchor of the traditional belief with regard to the authorship of t he plays and poems of Shakespeare is undoubtedly Ben Jonson. It is to the Jonsonian utterances that the apostles of the Stratfordian faith always makeT their appeal. That faith we are told is based on the “irrefragable rock” of Ben Jonson’s testimony. Well, it was not so very long ago that we used to be told that the truth of a universal deluge and the preservation of mankind and animals of every kind and species, in Noah’s Ark, was established on the “impregnable rock” of Holy Scripture, and yet to-day we find even high Church digni taries—with whom Mr. J. M. Robertson would certainly be in entire agreement here—disavowing any belief in this interesting mythological tradition. Is it not, then, possible that the Jonsonian testi mony may prove no more “irrefragable” or “impregnable” than that of those old chronicles, which age-long tradition has ascribed to the authorship of “Moses”? As a distinguished writer, well-known both in the political and the literary world, has written to me, the difficulties in the way of the orthodox “Shakespearian” belief seem to be insuperable. Are the Jonsonian utterances of such weight as to outweigh them all? I reply, put Jonson in one scale and all the difficulties and improbabilities — if not impossibilities — of the “Stratfordian” hypothesis in the other, and old Ben will kick the beam. Now let us briefly consider this Jonsonian testimony.
    [Show full text]
  • WRAP Theses Crowther 2017.Pdf
    A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/ 97559 Copyright and reuse: This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected] warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications James Shirley and the Restoration Stage By Stefania Crowther A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Renaissance Studies University of Warwick, Centre for Renaissance Studies June 2017 2 3 Acknowledgements This thesis was supported by the James Shirley Complete Works Project, and funded by the AHRC, and Centre for Renaissance Studies, University of Warwick. I would like to thank these organisations, and in particular Jayne Browne, Ingrid de Smett, David Lines, Jayne Brown, Heather Pilbin, Paul Botley, and especially Elizabeth Clarke and Paul Prescott for their very helpful guidance during the upgrade process. Special thanks are due to Hannah Davis, whose URSS project on Restoration Shirley, supervised by Teresa Grant, provided the starting point for this thesis. I am also enormously grateful to the colleagues, friends and tutors who have inspired and supported my work: Daniel Ashman, Thomasin Bailey, Stephen Clucas, Michael Dobson, Peter Foreshaw, Douglas Hawes, Simon Jackson, Victoria Jones, Griff Jameson, Peter Kirwan, Chris Main, Gerry McAlpine, Zois Pigadas, Catherine Smith, Lee White, Susan Wiseman.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of English Literature MICHAEL ALEXANDER
    A History of English Literature MICHAEL ALEXANDER [p. iv] © Michael Alexander 2000 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W 1 P 0LP. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted his right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2000 by MACMILLAN PRESS LTD Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and London Companies and representatives throughout the world ISBN 0-333-91397-3 hardcover ISBN 0-333-67226-7 paperback A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 O1 00 Typeset by Footnote Graphics, Warminster, Wilts Printed in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wilts [p. v] Contents Acknowledgements The harvest of literacy Preface Further reading Abbreviations 2 Middle English Literature: 1066-1500 Introduction The new writing Literary history Handwriting
    [Show full text]
  • Preservation and Innovation in the Intertheatrum Period, 1642-1660: the Survival of the London Theatre Community
    Preservation and Innovation in the Intertheatrum Period, 1642-1660: The Survival of the London Theatre Community By Mary Alex Staude Honors Thesis Department of English and Comparative Literature University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2018 Approved: (Signature of Advisor) Acknowledgements I would like to thank Reid Barbour for his support, guidance, and advice throughout this process. Without his help, this project would not be what it is today. Thanks also to Laura Pates, Adam Maxfield, Alex LaGrand, Aubrey Snowden, Paul Smith, and Playmakers Repertory Company. Also to Diane Naylor at Chatsworth Settlement Trustees. Much love to friends and family for encouraging my excitement about this project. Particular thanks to Nell Ovitt for her gracious enthusiasm, and to Hannah Dent for her unyielding support. I am grateful for the community around me and for the communities that came before my time. Preface Mary Alex Staude worked on ​Twelfth Night​ 2017 with Alex LaGrand who worked on ​King Lear​ 2016 with Zack Powell who worked on ​Henry IV Part II ​2015 with John Ahlin who worked on ​Macbeth​ 2000 with Jerry Hands who worked on ​Much Ado About Nothing​ 1984 with Derek Jacobi who worked on ​Othello ​1964 with Laurence Olivier who worked on ​Romeo and Juliet​ 1935 with Edith Evans who worked on ​The Merry Wives of Windsor​ 1918 with Ellen Terry who worked on ​The Winter’s Tale ​1856 with Charles Kean who worked on ​Richard III 1776 with David Garrick who worked on ​Hamlet ​1747 with Charles Macklin who worked on Henry IV​ 1738 with Colley Cibber who worked on​ Julius Caesar​ 1707 with Thomas Betterton who worked on ​Hamlet​ 1661 with William Davenant who worked on ​Henry VIII​ 1637 with John Lowin who worked on ​Henry VIII ​1613 with John Heminges who worked on ​Hamlet​ 1603 with William Shakespeare.
    [Show full text]
  • LITERARY EDITING of SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLISH DRAMA by MARIKO NAGASE
    LITERARY EDITING OF SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLISH DRAMA by MARIKO NAGASE A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY The Shakespeare Institute School of English, Drama and American & Canadian Studies University of Birmingham January 2012 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. INFORMATION FOR ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING SERVICES The information on this form will be published. Surname: Nagase First names: Mariko Degree: PhD College/Department: The Shakespeare Institute, Department of English Full title of thesis: Literary Editing of Seventeenth-Century English Drama Date of submission: January 31, 2012 Date of award of degree (leave blank): Abstract (not to exceed 200 words - any continuation sheets must contain the author's full name and full title of the thesis): This thesis explores how literary editing for the dramatic publication was developed in seventeenth-century England. Chapter 1 discusses how the humanist scholars embraced the concept of textual editing and put it into practice about a half century after the invention of the press. Chapter 2 addresses the development of the concept of literary editing in seventeenth-century England by investigating the editorial arguments preserved in the paratextual matter.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNALS of the CAREERS of JAMES and HENRY SHIRLEY. 1596, Sep
    ANNALS OF THE CAREERS OF JAMES AND HENRY SHIRLEY. 1596, Sep. 13 or 18. James Shirley, descended from the Shirleys of Sussex or Warwickshire, was bora near the parish of St. Mary Wool- church, London. 1608, Oct. 4. He was admitted into Merchant Taylor's school. 1612, Mar. 11. He was 'the eighth boy, or last monitor'. c. 1612, June 11. He went to St. John's College, Oxford. Dr. W. Laud, then head of that house, objected to his taking holy orders on account of a large mole on his left cheek, and he migrated to Catha- rine Hall, Cambridge. T. Bancroft the epigrammatist was his contempo- rary there. 1617—8, Jan.4. Eccho and Narcissus, the two unfortunate lovers was entered S. R.: a MS. copy of the title page exists; from which it appears that he was then B. A. In the reprint of 1646 the title was changed to Narcissus or the Self-lover. 1619—1622. He took his M. A. degree, assumed holy orders, and obtained a living in or near St. Albans. 1623. He became a master in St. Albans grammar school; adopted the Roman Catholic belief; and resigned his holy orders. 1624. He removed to London and lived in Grays Inn. 1624—5, Feb. 10. Love Tricks with complements was licensed for Queen Henrietta's company acting at the Phoenix. 1625—6, Feb. 9. The Maid's Revenge was licensed. 1626, May 81. I assign The Wedding to this date on account of a passage in III. 2 'In witness whereof I have hereunto put my hand and seal..
    [Show full text]
  • Durham Research Online
    Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 16 April 2018 Version of attached le: Accepted Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Ravelhofer, B. (2016) 'Shirley's tragedies.', in James Shirley and early modern theatre : new critical perspectives. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 86-107. Studies in performance and early modern drama. Further information on publisher's website: https://www.routledge.com/9781472480361 Publisher's copyright statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge in James Shirley and Early Modern Theatre: New Critical Perspectives on 06/10/2016, available online: http://www.routledge.com/9781472480361 Additional information: Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk Shirley’s Tragedies Barbara Ravelhofer Shirley is perhaps best noted for his comedic elegance, yet it was a tragedy, The Cardinal, which the author himself deemed ‘the best of my flock’.1 In the course of his long career, Shirley wrote five tragedies — The Maid’s Revenge (1626), Love’s Cruelty (1631), The Traitor (1631), The Politician (c.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cavendishes and Ben Jonson
    This is a repository copy of The Cavendishes and Ben Jonson. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/170346/ Version: Published Version Book Section: Rutter, T. orcid.org/0000-0002-3304-0194 (2020) The Cavendishes and Ben Jonson. In: Hopkins, L. and Rutter, T., (eds.) A Companion to the Cavendishes. Arc Humanities Press , Leeds , pp. 107-125. ISBN 9781641891776 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ A COMPANION TO THE CAVENDISHES Companions Arc Humanities’ Reference Works bring together the best of international research in alike. Topics are carefully selected to stand the test of time and, in the best cases, these worksauthoritative are consulted edited for collections decades. that The program have enduring includes benefit historical, to scholars textual, and and students material source books, readers for students that collate and curate required essays for courses, and our Companions program. Arc’s Companions program includes curated volumes that have a global perspective and that earn their shelf space by their authoritative and comprehensive content, up- to- date information, accessibility, and relevance.
    [Show full text]
  • Theatres, 1600–1625 29 3 ‘Private’ and ‘Public’ Indoor Theatres, 1625–1640 48 Epilogue: Privacy and Drama, 1640–1660 66
    Early Modern Literature in History General Editors: Cedric C. Brown, Emeritus Professor, University of Reading; Andrew Hadfield, Professor of English, University of Sussex, Brighton International Advisory Board: Sharon Achinstein, University of Oxford; Jean Howard, Columbia University; John Kerrigan, University of Cambridge; Katie Larson, University of Toronto; Richard McCoy, CUNY; Michelle O’Callaghan, University of Reading; Cathy Shrank, University of Sheffield; Adam Smyth, University of London; Steven Zwicker, Washington University, St Louis. Within the period 1520–1740 this series discusses many kinds of writing, both within and outside the established canon. The volumes may employ different theoretical perspectives, but they share a historical awareness and an interest in seeing their texts in lively negotiation with their own and successive cultures. Titles include: John M. Adrian LOCAL NEGOTIATIONS OF ENGLISH NATIONHOOD, 1570–1680 Robyn Adams and Rosanna Cox DIPLOMACY AND EARLY MODERN CULTURE Jocelyn Catty WRITING RAPE, WRITING WOMEN IN EARLY MODERN ENGLAND Unbridled Speech Bruce Danner EDMUND SPENSER’S WAR ON LORD BURGHLEY James Daybell and Peter Hinds (editors) MATERIAL READINGS OF EARLY MODERN CULTURE Texts and Social Practices, 1580–1730 James Daybell THE MATERIAL LETTER IN EARLY MODERN ENGLAND Manuscript Letters and the Culture and Practices of Letter-Writing, 1512–1635 Tania Demetriou and Rowan Tomlinson (editors) THE CULTURE OF TRANSLATION IN EARLY MODERN ENGLAND AND FRANCE, 1500–1660 Maria Franziska Fahey METAPHOR AND SHAKESPEAREAN
    [Show full text]
  • Phd Unimi R07501.Pdf
    TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE THE ROAD NOT TAKEN 1 CHAPTER 1 IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE SPACE 3 1.1 Fashion, refashion and Brome 3 1.2 Poor he came into the world and poor went out 8 1.3 The corpus 15 1.4 The lost plays 18 1.5 Critical reception 19 1.6 My space 26 CHAPTER 2 STAGING A PRESENCE WITHOUT A PRESENCE 33 2.1 The plot 34 2.2 Critical approaches 34 2.3 Social dynamics and spatial interaction 38 2.4 The citizen world 41 2.5 Life at court 46 2.6 The Presence scene: an example of spatial interaction 50 2.7 The geography of the play 55 2.8 Disguising identity 65 CHAPTER 3 EATING AND DRINKING IN EARLY MODERN LONDON 71 3.1 The different faces of Covent Garden 73 3.1.1 The plot 76 3.1.2 Critical approaches 77 3.1.3 The place within the play 78 3.1.4 Once upon a time there were the taverns 82 3.1.5 Inside the Goat Tavern 87 3.1.6 Inside the Paris Tavern 95 3.2 The devil looks ten times worse with a white face 100 3.2.1 Critical approaches 100 3.2.2 The plot 103 3.2.3 The history of the Devil Tavern 104 3.2.4 The place within the play 108 3.2.5 Introduction to the Devil Tavern 111 3.2.6 Inside the Devil Tavern (III, 2) 113 3.2.7 Inside the inn (V, 1) 116 3.3 The Sparagus Garden 118 3.3.1 The plot 119 3.3.2 The title and its contradictions 120 3.3.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Much Virtue in O-Oh: a Case Study
    3201 Early Theatre 20.2 (2017), 121–130 http://dx.doi.org/10.12745/et.20-2.3201 Alan C. Dessen Much Virtue in O-Oh: A Case Study The ‘O, o, o, o’ that follows Hamlet’s ‘The rest is silence’ in Shakespeare’s first folio has often been derided, but this signal is found in five other Shakespeare plays and in the works of dramatists as varied as Jonson, Middleton, Fletcher, Massinger, and Brome to indicate that a figure is dying, mortally wounded, or sick, or to generate a comic effect. Shakespeare was adept at using the tools at hand, but to understand his dis- tinctive implementation of those tools requires a working knowledge of the theatrical vocabulary shared at that time by playwrights, players, and playgoers. For a reader of the first folio, Hamlet’s last utterance is not the much discussed and much admired word ‘silence’ but a sound, printed as ‘O, o, o, o’ (TLN 3847),1 and followed by ‘Dyes’. Those four Os, to put it mildly, have not fared well on the page or on the stage. A notable exception is G.R. Hibbard’s 1987 single volume Oxford edition that replaces them with ‘He gives a long sigh’ and adds a note: ‘In thus “translating” Fs “O,o,o,o,” which has been the object of unjustified derision, I follow the suggestion of E.A.J. Honigmann’.2 Other editors rarely agree with Hibbard, and, as a result, relatively few theatrical professionals have experimented with the folio signal.3 The citation to Honigmann is to a single page of his overview on stage direc- tions of the period where he invokes the term crypto-directions, ‘some of which appear to have served as short-hand directions for a great variety of noises’.
    [Show full text]