DOCSLIB.ORG

'The Shakes ]V Ews[Etter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
'The Shakes ]V Ews[Etter 'The Shakes ]Vews[etter Vol.34:no.4 "Let me study so, to !OlOW the thing 1 am forbid to know" Winter 1999 22nd Annual Conference Report Teaching the next generation San Francisco hosts record that Oxford was Shakespeare Oxfordian turnout How educator Robert Barrett is shaking up The Society's 22nd Annual Conference the status quo in the state of Washington in San Francisco last November set several by Roger Stritmatter records. There were about 145 attendees overall, including many complimentary Robert Barrett Jr. 's essay, guests, and the entertainment was eye-catch­ "Shakespeare Meets Robert ing, as was the famous, glamorous Clift Frost" seems destined to remain Hotel. But as members have recently leamed an underground classic. The es­ in a letter from new Society President Aaron say recounts Barrett's experience Tatum there was a price to be paid for some teaching the de Vel'e story to eager of this glamour, as a serious deficit resulted students at Central Kitsap Junior (see page 20 for some further discussion of High in Silverdale, Washington. this matter and Aaron Tatum's presidency). "Something there is," writes Nonetheless, for those attending it was Barrett-quoting Frost-in that an eventful, fulfilling three days in the Bay essay, "that doesn't love a wall. area, with Oxfordians from around the US and "Hollywood's the thing ... " When I finished reading The Mys­ England on the scene, and, as usual, some terious William Shakespeare, by interesting, provocative papers presented, Cate Blanchet (left) in Elizabeth and Judi DencJI Charlton Ogburn Jr., something and, on the final day, an eye-opening panel (right) in Shakespeare In Love have treated movie­ there was within me that didn't discussion on the ever-elusive goal of a goers to two portrayals of Queen Elizabeth in two love the wall that hid the true "Unified Authorship Theory." movies that take modern audiences back to the Shakespeare. " Another major event during the weekend Elizabethan era. Can such films be ofhelp to those Afterreading Ogburn in 1990, was the premier of Alan Hovey's play Aye, of us engaged in the Shakespeare authorship de­ Barrett brought his iconoclasm Shakespeare! at the Palace of Fine Arts bate? Well, yes. See pages 4-5. into the classroom and soon found Theatre in San Francisco. The Marin Shake­ that his students were as inspired speare Company was contracted to produce by the Shakespeare inquiry as he the play, a one-man show in which Edward de had been when first reading Vere speaks of his life and his times. Noted British actor Rob Clare starred, and his per­ Ogburn. fonnance received a standing ovation. "As a layman, newly intro­ The play was followed by a public dis­ duced to a difficult subject, I re­ cussion on Shakespeare and the authorship sponded to my reading in a way issue, led by moderator Peter Robinson, with that was undoubtedly visceral­ panelists Lord Charles Burford, Katherine just in pati, though, a small part. Chiljan and Randall Sherman (all trustees of The larger part-I submit-was the Shakespeare Oxford Society) alsopartici­ intellectual. I looked for reason, pating. plausibility, evidence, and con­ The Marin production followed an "out­ viction in Ogbum's words, and I of-town" tlyout earlier in the week at the found those qualities much more Eclectic Theatre Festival in Petaluma. Two often present in the book than staged readings of the play preceded the San absent." (Contillued all page 6) (Continued on page 10) page 2 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Shakespeare Everywhere It's been hard to miss these past few stream media coverage, indicating perhaps a 18) and screenwriter Tom Stoppard (Shake­ months. Shakespeare has become fashion­ strong awareness of the authorship issue speare III Love) appeared on the Charlie able, and-of much greater importance­ just beneath the surface, and perhaps also a Rose TV interview show in the same week newswOlihy and saleable. Two mainstream readiness to "pounce" on anything that last December, talking about their respec­ Hollywood movies about Shakespeare tive projects. And naturally there were and about Elizabeth (see our story, questions about the authorship asked pages 4-5) are reaching millions. ofboth ofthem (though, unfOliunately, In the print media Shakespeare sto­ both were quite dismissive of it). ries are also popping up more fi'equently, But amidst it all, we are happy to propelled in part by these recent mov­ report-despite the likes of a Bloom or ies, and also certainly by the numerous a Stoppard-the Shakespeare author­ film adaptions of the plays (with eight ship story seems to be attracting more more to come in the next 1-2 years!). The and more attention, and is perhaps also films have brought forth such Shakes­ taking off into the same stratosphere. pearean luminaries as Prof. Stephen Of primary interest was the one­ Greenblatt writing in The New York two punch of major authorship stories Times op-ed pages (February 6th)­ that appeared in The Washington Post confessing that SIL co-screenwriter on Janumy 24th, followed three weeks Marc Norman once approached him for later by a two-page spread in the Feb­ ideas about how to tell the story of rualY 15th Time magazine (with a small Shakespeare's life when so little is box on the front page asking, "Who known. Yes, indeed, a tough problem. Wrote Shakespeare?") By the time The heightened media attention on both might constitute new, decisive evidence in members have received this issue of the Shakespeare and the authorship really be­ resolving the authorship debate. newsletter, the biggest story ofthem all will gan in earnest last November with the pub­ Then in December Shakespeare was be on the newsstands, a major treatment of lication in Science magazine of Dr. Eric voted "Man of the Millennium" in a BBC the issue by Harper's Magazine (see box Altschuler's "Searching for Shakespeare in Radio 4 poll in Great Britain. This prompted below). the Stars." Dr. Altschuler presented his Richard Malim to write "They haven't got In all three instances, it is the Oxfordian thesis-that there are no references to any the Will" in the Spectator, letting his readers thesis that is being promoted as the most post-1604 astronomical discoveries in the know the true identity of the Briton of the viable alternative to the Stratford story. Shakespeare Canon-at the Society's San Millennium-Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of The Post story was about Peter Dickson Francisco Conference (see page seven). Oxford. and his recent research, much of which has The 1604 date, of course, is a perfect fit for Also in December personalities such as been presented to our readers in the last two postulating Oxford as Shakespeare. The academic HaroldBloom (Shakespeare: The newsletters. Dickson tells us that the re­ aJiicle did generate a fair amount of main- Invention a/the Human-reviewed on page sponse to the article has been overwhelm- ard F, Whalen, society past president and author PBS Frontline "The Shakespeare Mystery," Harper s Up Next of Shakespeare: Who Was He? broadcast three times since 1989 in prime time, The Stratfordians are Professor Jonathan and now the recent Time magazine article are all Harper's Magazine has undertaken a major Bate of Liverpool University, author of The part of a continuing process over the past ten review of the Shakespeare authorship question. Genius a/Shakespeare (reviewed in the Fall 1998 years to give the case for Oxford as the true Five Oxfordians and five Stratfordians have newsletter); Professor Harold Bloom ofYaleand author the broadest national cOlllUlunication written articles for a "folio," as Harper's calls it, New York University, author of Shakespeare: since Looney identified Oxford as Shakespeare to be featured on the cover oftheupcoming April the Invention 0/ the Human; Professor Marjorie in 1920. The Harper's folio, totaling more than issue. Four ofthe Oxfordians are contributors to Garber of Harvard, author of several books on 20,000words written by ten contributors, should the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter. Shakespeare; IrvinMatus, author ofShakespeare, stimulate even more interest in the subject. The Oxfordian writers are Mark Anderson, InFact; andProfessorGailKernPasterofGeorge Nearly sixty years ago Halper's carried an journalist and columnist for the society newslet­ Washington University, editor of Shakespeare article claiming to refute the case for Oxford. ter; Tom Bethell, Washington cOlTespondentfor Quarterly, the leading Shakespeare journal. Prof. Oscar James Campbell ofColumbia wrote The American Spectator and author of several Bethell and Matus are makingrepeatappear­ the 1940 article, which was largely a response to .books; Joe Sobran, syndicated columnist and ances in a debate fonnat in a literary magazine. Charles Wisner Barrell's Ashboume portrait author of Alias Shakespeare; Professor Daniel They squared offeight years ago in a cover spread article in the Scientific American. At the time Wright ofConcordia University, organizer ofthe in TheAtlallticMonthrycalled "Looking for Shake­ Harper's refused to give any Oxfordian writers Edward de Vere Studies Conference and the speare." an opportunity to reply. So the times and editors author of The Anglican Shakespeare; and Rich- The Atlantic Monthly articles of 1991, the have changed, and now the balance is redressed. Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 3 ingly positive (after tallying phone calls and Journal Review letters that he and Post writer Don Oldenburg have received to date, plus the letters to the Yes, But, is Authorship Dead? editor). The Time article was, in part, a direct The Folger reports on George Greenwood vs. Mark Twain result of the exposure resulting from the by Richard F. Whalen Post article. While the article took no posi­ tion, most readers could detect a clear pro­ Mark Twain's marginalia in a book by right law by lifting a whole chapter from authorship, pro-Oxford subtext in it.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sonnets. Edited by C. Knox Pooler
    Presented to the LIBRARY of the UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO hy The 'Estate of the late PROFESSOR A. S. P. WOODHOIISE Head of the Department of English -» University College 1944-1964 \ '^/i^ /F. ^r:y r. -1 "^ NiL- ' 7^ ( ^S, U , - ^ ^' ^ ^/f '^i>-, '^Si^6,i(i? THE ARDEN SHAKESPEARE GENERAL EDITOR : W. J. CRAIG 1899-1906: R. H. CASE, 1909 SONNETS J^' THE WORKS OF SHAKESPEARE SONNETS EDITED BY C. KNOX POOLER ? METHUEN AND CO. LTD. 36 ESSEX STREET : STRAND LONDON First Published in igi8 z£4S CONTENTS PAOE Introduction ^* Dedication ^ Sonnets ..... 3 A Lover's Complaint *45 INTRODUCTION According to the Stationers' Registers, a license to print a book called Shakespeare's Sonnets was granted to Thomas Tjiprpe on the 20th of May, 1609. It appeared with the : Sonnets Never before following title-page Shake-speares | | At London G. Eld for T. T. and are to be ] Imprinted. | | by solde William Some instead of by Apsley. \ 1609. copies " " William have " lohn at Christ Apsley Wright, dwelling j Church gate," an indication that these two publishers shared in the venture. The publication cannot have been long delayed, for Edward Alleyn, the actor, bought a copy (for ^d.) in June. " " The words never before imprinted are not strictly accurate, as two of the sonnets, cxxxviii. and cxliv., had already ap- peared in The Passionate Pilgrim (1599). The book seems to have been issued without Shakespeare's his are knowledge, certainly without super\'ision ; misprints the often both sense unusually frequent ; punctuation neglects and and there are other errors of more rhythm ; consequence which no author or competent reader could have overlooked.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare in Geneva
    Shakespeare in Geneva SHAKESPEARE IN GENEVA Early Modern English Books (1475-1700) at the Martin Bodmer Foundation Lukas Erne & Devani Singh isbn 978-2-916120-90-4 Dépôt légal, 1re édition : janvier 2018 Les Éditions d’Ithaque © 2018 the bodmer Lab/université de Genève Faculté des lettres - rue De-Candolle 5 - 1211 Genève 4 bodmerlab.unige.ch TABLE OF CONTENts Acknowledgements 7 List of Abbreviations 8 List of Illustrations 9 Preface 11 INTRODUctION 15 1. The Martin Bodmer Foundation: History and Scope of Its Collection 17 2. The Bodmer Collection of Early Modern English Books (1475-1700): A List 31 3. The History of Bodmer’s Shakespeare(s) 43 The Early Shakespeare Collection 43 The Acquisition of the Rosenbach Collection (1951-52) 46 Bodmer on Shakespeare 51 The Kraus Sales (1970-71) and Beyond 57 4. The Makeup of the Shakespeare Collection 61 The Folios 62 The First Folio (1623) 62 The Second Folio (1632) 68 The Third Folio (1663/4) 69 The Fourth Folio (1685) 71 The Quarto Playbooks 72 An Overview 72 Copies of Substantive and Partly Substantive Editions 76 Copies of Reprint Editions 95 Other Books: Shakespeare and His Contemporaries 102 The Poetry Books 102 Pseudo-Shakespeare 105 Restoration Quarto Editions of Shakespeare’s Plays 106 Restoration Adaptations of Plays by Shakespeare 110 Shakespeare’s Contemporaries 111 5. Other Early Modern English Books 117 NOTE ON THE CATALOGUE 129 THE CATALOGUE 135 APPENDIX BOOKS AND MANUscRIPts NOT INCLUDED IN THE CATALOGUE 275 Works Cited 283 Acknowledgements We have received precious help in the course of our labours, and it is a pleasure to acknowl- edge it.
    [Show full text]
  • |||GET||| King Henry IV Part 2 Third Series 3Rd Edition
    KING HENRY IV PART 2 THIRD SERIES 3RD EDITION DOWNLOAD FREE William Shakespeare | 9781904271376 | | | | | King Henry IV Part 2: Third Series See more. King Henry IV Part 2 Third Series 3rd edition landmark new edition by textual expert and General Editor of the Arden Shakespeare, Richard Proudfoot, offers a full account of the play's text and Namespaces Article Talk. Please keep the receipt. Namespaces Article Talk. James C. Each edition features facing-page notes, short definitions of words, guidance on metre and punctuation, large font for easy reading, and plenty of blank space to write notes. Macbeth is one of Shakespeare's most performed King Henry IV Part 2 Third Series 3rd edition studied tragedies. One unusual aspect of this series was its edition of Hamletwhich presents the play in two separate volumes. This major new Arden edition offers students detailed on-page commentary notes highlighting meaning and theatrical ideas and themes, as well as an illustrated, lengthy introduction setting the play in its Stock photo. It presents fully edited modern-spelling editions of the plays and poems, with lengthy introductions and King Henry IV Part 2 Third Series 3rd edition commentaries. Bulman is Henry B. Cymbeline: Third Series. Hardcover William Shakespeare Collectibles. The Passionate Pilgrim To the Queen. Its first publication was Edward Dowden 's edition of Hamletpublished in The play was published in quarto the same year printing by Valentine Simmes. Thank you for shopping at our store. We ship within Three business days of payment, usually sooner. Loved Henry the IV's speech about sleep, or the lack thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Edward De Vere and the Two Shrew Plays
    The Playwright’s Progress: Edward de Vere and the Two Shrew Plays Ramon Jiménez or more than 400 years the two Shrew plays—The Tayminge of a Shrowe (1594) and The Taming of the Shrew (1623)—have been entangled with each other in scholarly disagreements about who wrote them, which was F written first, and how they relate to each other. Even today, there is consensus on only one of these questions—that it was Shakespeare alone who wrote The Shrew that appeared in the Folio . It is, as J. Dover Wilson wrote, “one of the most diffi- cult cruxes in the Shakespearian canon” (vii). An objective review of the evidence, however, supplies a solution to the puz- zle. It confirms that the two plays were written in the order in which they appear in the record, The Shrew being a major revision of the earlier play, A Shrew . They were by the same author—Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, whose poetry and plays appeared under the pseudonym “William Shakespeare” during the last decade of his life. Events in Oxford’s sixteenth year and his travels in the 1570s support composition dates before 1580 for both plays. These conclusions also reveal a unique and hitherto unremarked example of the playwright’s progress and development from a teenager learning to write for the stage to a journeyman dramatist in his twenties. De Vere’s exposure to the in- tricacies and language of the law, and his extended tour of France and Italy, as well as his maturation as a poet, caused him to rewrite his earlier effort and pro- duce a comedy that continues to entertain centuries later.
    [Show full text]
  • Egan, Gabriel. 2004E. 'Pericles and the Textuality of Theatre'
    Egan, Gabriel. 2004e. 'Pericles and the Textuality of Theatre': A Paper Delivered at the Conference 'From Stage to Print in Early Modern England' at the Huntington Library, San Marino CA, USA, 19-20 March "Pericles" and the textuality of theatre" by Gabriel Egan The subtitle of our meeting, 'From Stage to Print in Early Modern England, posits a movement in one direction, from performance to printed book. This seems reasonable since, 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. In fact, the capacity of a printed play to originate fresh performances was something that the title-pages and the preliminary matter of the first play printings in the early sixteenth century made much of. Often the printings helped would-be performers by listing the parts to be assigned, indicating which could be taken by a single actor, and even how to cut the text for a desired performance duration: . yf ye hole matter be playd [this interlude] wyl conteyne the space of an hour and a halfe but yf ye lyst ye may leue out muche of the sad mater as the messengers p<ar>te and some of the naturys parte and some of experyens p<ar>te & yet the matter wyl depend conuenytently and than it wyll not be paste thre quarters of an hour of length (Rastell 1520?, A1r) The earliest extant printed play in English is Henry Medwall's Fulgens and Lucrece (Medwall 1512-16) but the tradition really begins with the printing of the anonymous Summoning of Every Man (Anonymous c.1515) that W.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Norton Elizabeth 121093
    This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ The Blount Family in the long Sixteenth century Norton, Elizabeth Anna 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: 26. Sep. 2021 The Blount Family in the Long Sixteenth Century Elizabeth Norton Doctor of Philosophy 2019 King’s College London 1 Abstract This thesis is an extended case study of the lives, attitudes, actions and concerns of one gentry family – the Blounts of the West Midlands –from the second half of the fifteenth century to the early years of the seventeenth, described as the long sixteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare's Impossible Doublet
    Rollett - The Impossible Doublet 31 Shakespeare’s Impossible Doublet: Droeshout’s Engraving Anatomized John M. Rollett Abstract The engraving of Shakespeare by Martin Droeshout on the title page of the 1623 First Folio has often been criticized for various oddities. In 1911 a professional tailor asserted that the right-hand side of the poet’s doublet was “obviously” the left-hand side of the back of the garment. In this paper I describe evidence which confirms this assessment, demonstrating that Shakespeare is pictured wearing an impossible garment. By printing a caricature of the man from Stratford-upon-Avon, it would seem that the publishers were indicating that he was not the author of the works that bear his name. he Exhibition Searching for Shakespeare,1 held at the National Portrait Gallery, London, in 2006, included several pictures supposed at one time or another Tto be portraits of our great poet and playwright. Only one may have any claim to authenticity — that engraved by Martin Droeshout for the title page of the First Folio (Figure 1), the collection of plays published in 1623. Because the dedication and the address “To the great Variety of Readers” are each signed by John Hemmings and Henry Condell, two of Shakespeare’s theatrical colleagues, and because Ben Jonson’s prefatory poem tells us “It was for gentle Shakespeare cut,” the engraving appears to have the imprimatur of Shakespeare’s friends and fellows. The picture is not very attractive, and various defects have been pointed out from time to time – the head is too large, the stiff white collar or wired band seems odd, left and right of the doublet don’t quite match up.
    [Show full text]
  • The Other W.S., William Stanley, Sixth Earl of Derby
    The Other W.S., William Stanley, Sixth Earl of Derby John Raithel n the following, I hope to provide a reasonable summary of the evidence I that I believe points to William Stan- ley, the sixth earl of Derby, as the author of the works generally attributed to Shake- speare. I do not intend, of course, to pre- sent all the material here, but do hope to give a reasonable history of the Derbyite conviction, and in so doing point to some of the sources, compilers, and interpreters of this information, and then bring it up to date with recent discoveries and publica- tions. Beginning with the referenced works, I believe the interested reader will find much to flesh-out the skeleton sketched here. There are good reasons for suspecting that the traditional assignation of the authorship of Shakespeare’s works is misplaced. These are based on statements made about the works at the time of their appearance, evidence concerning the traditional candidate, and inferences derived from the works themselves. There are also good reasons for suspecting the true author to be William Stanley, the sixth earl of Derby. Some of these, too, are based on statements made about the author of the works, and inferences derived from the works themselves. And some are based on evidence concerning William Stanley. None of the statements, evidence, or inferences is conclusive—for Stanley or anyone else—or there would be no controversy. The case for Derby is made by examining the available material and attempting to weight it appropriately, assigning, for example, less weight to inferences drawn from the plays by a Derbyite—where there must be a natural bias toward interpreting the evidence in support of Derby—and more weight to a contemporary’s comments about the author, or to modern research by a non-Derbyite scholar.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Shakespeare, the Critics, and Humanism 1
    N OTES 1 Shakespeare, the Critics, and Humanism 1 . Virgil Heltzel, for example, in his “Introduction,” to Haly Heron’s The Kayes of Counsaile, A Newe Discourse of Morall Philosophie of 1579 (Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press, 1954), p. xv, describes the work as “bringing grave and sober moral philosophy home to men’s business and bosoms.” 2 . W i l l i a m B a l d w i n , A Treatise of Morall Philosophie . enlarged by Thomas Palfreyman , 20th ed. (London: Thomas Snodham, [?]1620), in Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints (Gainesville, Florida, 1967), with an introduction by Robert Hood Bowers. For the editions, see STC 1475–1640, Vol. I, 2nd ed., 1986, Nos. 1253 to 1269; and STC, 1641–1700 , 2nd ed., Vol. I, 1972, Nos. 548, 1620. Also see Bowers, “Introduction,” pp. v–vi. For the purposes of the present work, I will refer to the treatise as Baldwin’s rather than Baldwin- Palfreyman’s. The volume appears as “augmented” or “enlarged” by Palfreyman only with the fifth edition of 1555 (STC 1255.5) and the 1620 edition (first of the two in that year) says it is “the sixth time inlarged” by him but there has been no comparative study of what was originally Baldwin’s and what was Palfreyman’s and what the successive “enlargements” entailed. Baldwin’s treatise, along with Thomas Crewe’s The Nosegay of Morall Philosophie , for example, are purported sayings and quotations from a great num- ber of scattered Ancient and more recent writers, but they are organized into running dialogues or commentaries designed to express the compiler’s point of view rather than to transmit faith- fully the thought of the original writer.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to William Shakespeare's First Folio
    An Introduction to William Shakespeare’s First Folio By Ruth Hazel Cover illustration courtesy of Stephen Collins This eBook was produced by OpenLearn - The home of free learning from The Open University. It is made available to you under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence. 2 Brush up your Shakespeare The comic gangsters in Kiss Me Kate, Cole Porter’s 1948 musical based on Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew, offer Shakespeare’s poetry – by which they actually mean his plays – as a guaranteed way to a woman’s heart: quoting Shakespeare will impress her and be a sure-fire aphrodisiac. Today, Shakespeare has become a supreme icon of Western European high culture, which is ironic since in his own day Shakespeare’s craft – jobbing playwright – was not a well-regarded one. Indeed, those who wrote plays to entertain the ‘groundlings’ (as the people who paid just one penny to stand in the open yard round the stage in public playhouses were called) were often considered little better than the actors themselves – who, in their turn, were only one level up, in the minds of Puritan moralists, from whores. Shakespeare himself did not seem eager to advertise authorship of his plays by seeing them into print, and when some of his plays were printed, in the handy quarto-sized editions for individual consumption, his name was not always on the title page. (The terms ‘folio’ and ‘quarto’ refer to the size of the pages in a book: in a Folio, each sheet of paper was folded just once, with a page height of approx.
    [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]
  • Folio400 Limited © 2021 Folio400.Com
    The Shakespeare The word ‘folio’ A ‘folio’ edition The ‘folio’ format The Shakespeare First Folio was Unlike Jonson’s Ben Jonson wrote The First Folio ‘First Folio’ was comes from is made of was reserved for modelled on Jonson’s book, but Workes, the First two poems to was prepared by rst published in the Latin for printed sheets works of history, was printed in smaller type and Folio only printed introduce his Shakespeare’s November 1623. ‘leaf’, or ‘sheet’: that are each philosophy and in double columns. Shakespeare’s friend’s First Folio. acting colleagues FIRST folium. folded once. theology – until plays: it was John Heminge Ben Jonson’s folio as a man of the and Henry edition of his own theatre that he Condell, both FOLIO Workes in 1616. was to be chiefly of whom were remembered. remembered in Shakespeare’s 1616 will. Carefully They arranged the Histories The arrangement The First Folio’s full title reads: The word ‘folio’ appears just once in the The First Folio The other William researching by the chronology of the of the Comedies Mr. William Shakespeare’s Shakespeare First Folio: ‘I am for whole was produced members of Jaggard their collection, reigns Shakespeare had seems to follow a Comedies, Histories, volumes in folio,’ brags a character in by a syndicate the publishing was blind, Heminge and dramatized (from King John seasonal cycle, & Tragedies. Love’s Labour’s Lost. of publishers, consortium and died Condell divided to Henry VIII ) – not in the from The Tempest’s led by the were Edward a month their friend’s order of his writing them.
    [Show full text]