DOCSLIB.ORG

Proquest Dissertations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proquest Dissertations THE FORTUNES OF KING LEAR IN LONDON BETWEEN 1681 AND 1838: â chronological account of its adaptors, actors and editors, and of the links between them. Penelope Hicks University College London Ph.D ProQuest Number: U642864 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest U642864 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract This thesis examines three interwoven strands in the dramatic and editorial history of King Lear between 1681 and 1838. One strand is the history of the adaptations which held the London stage during these years; the second is the changing styles of acting over the same period; the third is the work of the editors as they attempted to establish the Shakespearean text. This triple focus enables me to explore the paradoxical dominance of the adaptations at a time which saw both the text being edited for the first time and the rise of bardolatry. The three aspects of the fortunes ofKing Lear are linked in a number of ways, and I trace these connections as the editors, adaptors and actors concentrated on their own separate concerns. The thesis evolves chronologically. The arrival of the adaptations is discussed, each adaptation is examined, and the major revisions are noted as the adaptors shifted backwards and forwards towards a gradual return to Shakespeare’s text and the final abandonment of the adaptations. The major productions ofKing Lear are explored, and I have included criticisms of the changing styles of acting among the players who were important in a King Lear role. The pioneering work of the editors and their growing confidence is studied and representative examples of their glosses and notes are offered. My final chapter draws together the links between the adaptors, actors and editors. It explores why Shakespeare, at a time when his reputation was in the ascendancy and whose plays were at the centre of developing skills in editing, nonetheless had many of these plays, represented in this thesis by King Lear, staged only in adaptation. I offer explanations for the initial interest in adaptations, why the audiences remained faithful to them and why they were finally abandoned. 3 Contents page List of Illustrations 5 Preface 6 Acknowledgements 8 Chapter 1 An outline of the position of the theatre after the Restoration to 1681; Nahum Tate’sKing Lear and its first performance in 1681 10 Chapter 2 Confusion in the theatres and in the country; the return to stability and the publication of Nicholas Rowe’s edition of 1709 26 Chapter 3 The rise of the Triumvirate (1710) and the performances to 1724 43 Chapter 4 King Lear in Alexander Pope’s edition of Shakespeare’s works (1725) and the stage fortunes of the play from 1725 to 1732 55 Chapter 5 Lewis Theobald’s edition ( 1733) to the arrival of David Garrick (1741) 73 Chapter 6 David Garrick as actor of King Lear 91 Chapter 7 The editions of Thomas Hanmer ( 1744) and William Warburton (1747) 110 Chapter 8 David Garrick as adaptor of King Lear, together with the performances between 1748 and 1756 123 Chapter 9 Samuel Johnson’s edition of Shakespeare (1765) together with the performances between 1757 and 1765 136 Chapter 10 George Steevens, George Colman the Elder and Edward Capell, 1766 to 1773, and the performances between those dates 153 Chapter 11 The Johnson-Steevens editions 1773, 1778 and 1785, and the performances between 1774 and 1785 176 Chapter 12 Edmond Malone’s edition 1790; George Steevens’s edition 1793; John Kemble’s adaptation; and the performances between 1786 and 1802 203 Chapter 13 The Variorum editions 1803 to 1821 and the performances between those dates 222 Chapter 14 William Charles Macready and the return to Shakespeare’s text 246 4 Chapter 15 Conclusion: The editors, the actors and the adaptors ofKing Lear, what they attempted to do, what they achieved, and the link between them 262 Appendix A The cast list for the first performance of Nahum Tate’s King Lear in March 1681 at the Dorset Garden Theatre 276 Appendix B The main differences between Shakespeare’s and Tate’s King Lear 277 Appendix C The main changes made to King Lear by the adaptors 278 Appendix D Adaptations staged at Drury Lane and Covent Garden between 1756 and 1838 giving the name of the adaptor and followed by the name of the actor playing Lear (in brackets) 279 List of works cited and consulted 280 5 List of Illustrations Page 1 The title-page of the 1 st edition of Nahum Tate’sKing Lear (1681), taken from BL 841 .d.39 (7) 9 2 The frontispiece from Nicholas Rowe’sKing Lear ( 1709), taken from BL C. 123.fff.2 25 3 Portrait of Colley Cibber, leading member of the Triumvirate, taken from BL 010855.f.22 42 4 Portrait of James Quin, the leading actor before the arrival of David Garrick, taken from BL 1418.C.34 ( 1 ) 54 5 The title-page of Lewis Theobald’s edition of 1733, taken from BL 1344.e.4-10 72 6 David Garrick as Lear from a painting by Benjamin Wilson (1761), taken from King Lear, ed. R.A. Foakes, (Arden, 1997) 90 7 The title-page of the anonymous Shakespeare ( 1745), taken from BL 11766.L32 109 8 Frontispiece from Bell’sKing Lear, (1773-74), the first published edition of Garrick’s adaptation, taken from BL 82.C.1-9 122 9 The title page of Samuel Johnson’s edition of 1765, taken from BL 11761.c. 15 135 10 The so-called Shakespeare portrait in Charles Jennens’s King Lear (1770), taken from BL 80.i.23 (1) 152 11 Edmond Malone’s notes onKing Lear in his An Attempt to Ascertain the Order in which the Plays attributed to Shakspeare were Written in the Johnson-Steevens edition of 1778, taken from BL 642.L1-10 175 12 Portrait of John Philip Kemble, taken from BL 2407.e.7 202 13 King Lear in The British Theatre (1806-1809) with a frontispiece showing Cordelia dead in Lear’s arms but with a text in which Cordelia survives, taken from BL 1507/312 (5) 221 14 Priscilla Horton as the Fool in the Covent Garden performance of January 1838, taken from King Lear, ed. R.A. Foakes, (Arden, 1997) 245 Preface Between 1681, the date of the first performance of Nahum Tate’s King Lear, and 1838, when William Charles Macready returned to Shakespeare’s text there were no performances of Shakespeare’s play on the London stage as far as we know. During these years, Tate’s adaptation was itself to be adapted and versions of his King Lear continued to hold the stage for over one hundred and fifty years. In the course of the eighteenth century, while Shakespeare’s play was never seen on the public stage, a nascent editorial tradition emerged which attempted to clarify the text where either printers’ errors had made nonsense of the words or where obscure language needed explanation. During these years a number of the major cruces were confronted and solutions were suggested for the first time, sometimes successfully and sometimes bordering on the ludicrous. Editors started to offer criticism on the play itself and this constituted the tentative beginnings of what has developed into an essential and major part of Shakespearean scholarship. During the same period, the adaptors continued to work on Tate’s version. Lines from Shakespeare’s play were reintroduced; parts of the plot in Tate’s play were cut and Shakespeare resubstituted only for the next adaptor to return to Tate again. Contemporaneously with this ebb and flow in the adaptations, the style of acting also shifted, influenced by the style offered by each leading player. This was most apparent with the arrival of David Garrick but held true to an extent with all of the leading names. My thesis follows these three strands in the history ofKing Lear and I have chosen to present this work in chronological order because I wish to outline the changing aspects of the strands as they occurred, between 1685 and 1838. I look at the work of the editors and what they achieved; their gradual progress towards establishing the text from the earliest decision on acts and scenes, through to the first awareness of the problems of the two versions in quarto and Folio. Parallel to this, I give an account of the fluctuating fortunes ofKing Lear on stage by considering both the adaptations and the changing acting styles. I outline the major changes and trace the gradual return to Shakespeare’s play and I study the leading players and their acting in and staging of King Lear. 7 Because of the large amount of material, I have had to make a representative selection and this is particularly so with regard to the editorial tradition. Similarly, I have confined myself to the theatre in London only and been selective with the players significant to King Lear over the same period which featured a large number of minor names.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shearer West Phd Thesis Vol 1
    THE THEATRICAL PORTRAIT IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY LONDON (VOL. I) Shearer West A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St. Andrews 1986 Full metadata for this item is available in Research@StAndrews:FullText at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/2982 This item is protected by original copyright THE THEATRICAL PORTRAIT IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY LONDON Ph.D. Thesis St. Andrews University Shearer West VOLUME 1 TEXT In submitting this thesis to the University of St. Andrews I understand that I am giving permission for it to be made available for use in accordance with the regulations of the University Library for the time being in force, subject to any copyright vested in the work not being affected thereby. I also understand that the title and abstract will be published, and that a copy of the I work may be made and supplied to any bona fide library or research worker. ABSTRACT A theatrical portrait is an image of an actor or actors in character. This genre was widespread in eighteenth century London and was practised by a large number of painters and engravers of all levels of ability. The sources of the genre lay in a number of diverse styles of art, including the court portraits of Lely and Kneller and the fetes galantes of Watteau and Mercier. Three types of media for theatrical portraits were particularly prevalent in London, between ca745 and 1800 : painting, print and book illustration.
    [Show full text]
  • Romeo Revived .Pdf
    McGirr, E. (2017). "What's in a Name?": Romeo and Juliet and the Cibber Brand. Shakespeare. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450918.2017.1406983 Peer reviewed version Link to published version (if available): 10.1080/17450918.2017.1406983 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Taylor and Francis at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17450918.2017.1406983. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ Elaine M. McGirr Reader in Theatre & Performance Histories University of Bristol “What’s in a name?”: Romeo and Juliet and the Cibber brand Abstract: The 1744 and 1748/50 performances of Romeo and Juliet by Theophilus Cibber, Jenny Cibber and Susannah Cibber explain the significance of the play’s return to the repertory, uncover the history of rival interpretations of Juliet’s character, and make sense of the careers and reputations of the theatrical Cibbers. The “Cibberian” airs of all three Cibbers were markedly different, as were their interpretations of Shakespeare’s star-crossed lovers. Keywords: Shakespearean adaptation, performance history, celebrity, authorial reputation, repertory In Romeo and Juliet, Juliet apostrophizes Romeo to deny thy father and refuse thy name, assuring her (supposedly) absent lover that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eighteenth-Century Playbill at Scale
    Archives, Numbers, Meaning: The Eighteenth-Century Playbill at Scale Mark Vareschi and Mattie Burkert In response to the growing prominence of quantifcation in the humanities, scholars of media and digital culture have highlighted the friction between the cultural and disciplinary roles of data and the epistemologies of humanistic inquiry. Johanna Drucker aptly characterizes the humanities as felds that emphasize “the situated, partial, and constitutive character of knowledge production,” while data are often taken to be representations of “observer-independent reality.”1 Lisa Gitelman and Virginia Jackson likewise critique the dominant assumption of data’s transparency: data, they insist, “are always already ‘cooked’ and never entirely ‘raw.’”2 The choices involved in data collection and preparation are not objective; they are shaped by the always subjective, often tacit, and sometimes shared presuppositions of the domain-specialist researcher. Practitioners of computational approaches to literature have shown that analyzing large corpora of texts “at a distance” may reveal phenomena not readily accessible through close reading of individual texts.3 Yet, the notion of distance fosters an illusion Mark Vareschi is an assistant professor in the Department of English at the University of Wisconsin– Madison. His work in eighteenth-century literature and culture is situated at the intersection of literary history, media studies, performance studies, and digital humanities. He has published articles in Eng- lish Literary History, Eighteenth-Century Life, and Authorship. He is currently completing a monograph on authorial anonymity and mediation in eighteenth-century Britain. Mattie Burkert is an assistant professor in the Department of English at Utah State University. She is currently at work on a monograph that examines the relationship between public finance and the London theatre during the decades following the 1688 Revolution Settlement.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Early Modern Low Countries 1 (2017) 1, pp. 30-50 - eISSN: 2543-1587 30 ‘Before she ends up in a brothel’ Public Femininity and the First Actresses in England and the Low Countries Martine van Elk Martine van Elk is a Professor of English at California State University, Long Beach. Her research interests include early modern women, Shakespeare, and vagrancy. She is the author of numerous essays on these subjects, which have appeared in essay collections and in journals like Shakespeare Quarterly, Studies in English Literature, and Early Modern Women. Her book Early Modern Women’s Writing: Domesticity, Privacy, and the Public Sphere in England and the Low Countries has been pub- lished by Palgrave Macmillan (2017). Abstract This essay explores the first appearance of actresses on the public stage in England and the Dutch Republic. It considers the cultural climate, the theaters, and the plays selected for these early performances, particularly from the perspective of public femininity. In both countries antitheatricalists denounced female acting as a form of prostitution and evidence of inner corruption. In England, theaters were commercial institutions with intimate spaces that capitalized on the staging of privacy as theatrical. By contrast, the Schouwburg, the only public playhouse in Amsterdam, was an institu- tion with a more civic character, in which the actress could be treated as unequivocally a public figure. I explain these differences in the light of changing conceptions of public and private and suggest that the treatment of the actress shows a stronger pub- lic-private division in the Dutch Republic than in England.
    [Show full text]
  • Weaver, Words, and Dancing in the Judgment of Paris
    On Common Ground 5:Weaver, Dance inWords, Drama, and Drama Dancing in in DanceThe Judgment of Paris DHDS March 2005 Text copyright © Moira Goff and DHDS 2005 Weaver, Words, and Dancing in The Judgment of Paris Moira Goff On 31 January 1733, the Daily Post let its readers know that ‘The Judgment of Paris, which was intended to be perform’d this Night, is deferr’d for a few Days, upon Account of some Alterations in the Machinery’. John Weaver’s new afterpiece, which was to be his last work for the London stage, received its first performance at Drury Lane on 6 February 1733.1 Weaver had not created a serious dance work since his ‘Dramatic Entertainments of Danc- ing’ The Loves of Mars and Venus of 1717 and Orpheus and Eurydice of 1718. When the description for The Judgment of Paris was published to accompany performances, it an- nounced a change from Weaver’s earlier practice by referring to the work as a ‘Dramatic Entertainment in Dancing and Singing’.2 Why did Weaver resort to words? Did he feel that they were necessary to attract audiences and explain the story to them? The Judgment of Paris was performed six times between 6 and 15 February 1733, and then dropped out of the repertoire. On 31 March The Harlot’s Progress; or, The Ridotto Al’Fresco was given its first performance. This afterpiece by Theophilus Cibber, based on the very popular series of paintings and prints by William Hogarth, included a ‘Grand Masque call’d, The Judgment of Paris’.
    [Show full text]
  • Othello and Its Rewritings, from Nineteenth-Century Burlesque to Post- Colonial Tragedy
    Black Rams and Extravagant Strangers: Shakespeare’s Othello and its Rewritings, from Nineteenth-Century Burlesque to Post- Colonial Tragedy Catherine Ann Rosario Goldsmiths, University of London PhD thesis 1 Declaration I declare that the work presented in this thesis is my own. 2 Acknowledgements Firstly, I want to thank my supervisor John London for his immense generosity, as it is through countless discussions with him that I have been able to crystallise and evolve my ideas. I should also like to thank my family who, as ever, have been so supportive, and my parents, in particular, for engaging with my research, and Ebi for being Ebi. Talking things over with my friends, and getting feedback, has also been very helpful. My particular thanks go to Lucy Jenks, Jay Luxembourg, Carrie Byrne, Corin Depper, Andrew Bryant, Emma Pask, Tony Crowley and Gareth Krisman, and to Rob Lapsley whose brilliant Theory evening classes first inspired me to return to academia. Lastly, I should like to thank all the assistance that I have had from Goldsmiths Library, the British Library, Senate House Library, the Birmingham Shakespeare Collection at Birmingham Central Library, Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust and the Shakespeare Centre Library and Archive. 3 Abstract The labyrinthine levels through which Othello moves, as Shakespeare draws on myriad theatrical forms in adapting a bald little tale, gives his characters a scintillating energy, a refusal to be domesticated in language. They remain as Derridian monsters, evading any enclosures, with the tragedy teetering perilously close to farce. Because of this fragility of identity, and Shakespeare’s radical decision to have a black tragic protagonist, Othello has attracted subsequent dramatists caught in their own identity struggles.
    [Show full text]
  • Diprose's Theatrical Anecdotes
    ^ :> Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/diprosestheatricOOdipruoft ^DIP ROSE'S theatrical anecdotes' CONTAINING ANECDOTES OF THE SCENES-OLD iIIE STAGE AND THE PLAYERS-BEHIND PLACES OF AMUSEMENT-THEATRICAL JOTTINGS- == MUSIC-AUTHORS-EPITAPHS, &c., &c. London : DIPROSE & BATEMAN, Sheffield Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. : LONDON DIPROSE, BATEMAN AND CO., PRINTEUS, SHEFFIELD STREET, LINCOLN'S INN, THE STAGE I AND THE PLAYERS BY JOHN DIPROSE. ^ THE ORIGIN OF THE STAGE. -:o:- HE first religious spectacle was, probably, the miracle play of St Catherine^ mentioned by Matthew Paris as having been written by Geoffrey, a Norman, afterwards Abbot of St. Albans, and played at Dunstable Abbey in mo. In the Description of the Most Noble City of London^ by Fitz Stephen, a monk, about 1174, in treating of the ordinary diversions of the inhabitants of the metropolis, says, that, instead of the common interludes belonging to theatres, they have plays of a more holy subject. The ancient religious dramas were distinguished by the names Origin of the Stage. of mysteries, properly so called, wherein were exhibited some of the events of Scripture story, and miracles which were of the nature of tragedy, representing the acts of Martyrdom of a Saint of the Church. One of the oldest religious dramas was written by Gregory, entitled Christ's Passion, the prologue to which states that the Virgin Mary was then for the first time brought upon the stage. In 1264, the Fraternite del Goufal'one Avas established, part of whose occupation was to represent the sufferings of Christ in Passion Week.
    [Show full text]
  • Romeo Y Julieta 1 Romeo Y Julieta
    Romeo y Julieta 1 Romeo y Julieta Romeo y Julieta Representación de la famosa escena del balcón de Romeo y Julieta. Pintura de 1884, por Frank Dicksee. Autor William Shakespeare Género Tragedia Tema(s) Amor prohibido Idioma Inglés [1] Título original The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet País Inglaterra Fecha de publicación 1597 (Q1) 1599 (Q2) 1609 (Q3) 1622 (Q4) 1637 (Q5) Formato En cuarto[d] Romeo y Julieta (1597) es una tragedia de William Shakespeare. Cuenta la historia de dos jóvenes enamorados que, a pesar de la oposición de sus familias, rivales entre sí, deciden luchar por su amor hasta el punto de casarse de forma clandestina; sin embargo, la presión de esa rivalidad y una serie de fatalidades conducen al suicidio de los dos amantes. Esta relación entre sus protagonistas los ha convertido en el arquetipo de los llamados star-crossed lovers.[2] [a] Se trata de una de las obras más populares del autor inglés y, junto a Hamlet y Macbeth, la que más veces ha sido representada. Aunque la historia forma parte de una larga tradición de romances trágicos que se remontan a la antigüedad, el argumento está basado en la traducción inglesa (The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, 1562) de un cuento italiano de Mateo Bandello, realizada por Arthur Brooke, que se basó en la traducción francesa hecha por Pierre Boaistuau en 1559. Por su parte, en 1582, William Painter realizó una versión en prosa a partir de relatos italianos y franceses, que fue publicada en la colección de historias Palace of Pleasure.
    [Show full text]
  • An A2 Timeline of the London Stage Between 1660 and 1737
    1660-61 1659-60 1661-62 1662-63 1663-64 1664-65 1665-66 1666-67 William Beeston The United Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company @ Salisbury Court Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company & Thomas Killigrew @ Salisbury Court @Lincoln’s Inn Fields @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant Rhodes’s Company @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane @ Red Bull Theatre @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields George Jolly John Rhodes @ Salisbury Court @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane The King’s Company The King’s Company PLAGUE The King’s Company The King’s Company The King’s Company Thomas Killigrew Thomas Killigrew June 1665-October 1666 Anthony Turner Thomas Killigrew Thomas Killigrew Thomas Killigrew @ Vere Street Theatre @ Vere Street Theatre & Edward Shatterell @ Red Bull Theatre @ Bridges Street Theatre @ Bridges Street Theatre @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane @ Bridges Street Theatre, GREAT FIRE @ Red Bull Theatre Drury Lane (from 7/5/1663) The Red Bull Players The Nursery @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane September 1666 @ Red Bull Theatre George Jolly @ Hatton Garden 1676-77 1675-76 1674-75 1673-74 1672-73 1671-72 1670-71 1669-70 1668-69 1667-68 The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company Thomas Betterton & William Henry Harrison and Thomas Henry Harrison & Thomas Sir William Davenant Smith for the Davenant Betterton for the Davenant Betterton for the Davenant @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields
    [Show full text]
  • They Were Always Doing Shakespeare: Antebellum Southern
    They Were Always Doing Shakespeare: Antebellum Southern Actresses and Shakespearean Appropriation Robin O. Warren, University of Georgia Abstract Antebellum actresses performed in a wide variety of plays meant to appeal to the diversity of spectators who attended the nineteenth-century theater. Theater historians agree, though, that plays by William Shakespeare dominated standard repertory offerings. No one has recognized, however, that many of the non-Shakespearean plays actually appropriate Shakespearean plots, a phenomenon that may partly account for the popularity of these dramas. While many plays popular on Old South stages appropriated Shakespearean plots, four especially stand out for paralleling closely their early modern inspirations. Evadne (1819), by Richard Lalor Sheil, draws on Much Ado About Nothing (1600); Virginius (1820), by James Sheridan Knowles, uses Titus Andronicus (1592) as a guide; The Wife (1833), also by Knowles, follows the plot of Othello (1603); and The Honey Moon (1805), by John Tobin, corresponds to The Taming of the Shrew (1592). Evadne and Virginius stress the necessity of protecting a young, unmarried woman's purity while The Wife and The Honey Moon emphasize the importance of wifely fidelity and deference. As the experience of antebellum actresses Eliza Logan, Jane Placide, Frances Denny Drake, and Julia Dean Hayne shows, however, women who performed the lead female parts in these plays did not always live up to the expectations espoused in their stage roles; instead, they often exposed the artificiality of rigidly prescribed gender roles in their daily lives by transgressing against the very norms they affirmed on stage. In 1820, Jane Placide, a young actress from Charleston, South Carolina, debuted with Charles Gilfert's Virginia Company in John Tobin's The Honey Moon (1805), an appropriation of William Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew (1592).
    [Show full text]
  • Annotator As Ordinary Reader Accuracy, Relevance, and Editorial Method
    Annotator as Ordinary Reader Accuracy, Relevance, and Editorial Method Michael Edson Abstract Like the notes in many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century editions of English poetry, Wil- liam Tooke’s explanatory annotations to the Poetical Works of Charles Churchill (1804) have been dismissed as inaccurate and irrelevant. Yet in drawing the bulk of his notes from newspapers and other popular print ephemera of Churchill’s lifetime (1732–64), Tooke (1777–1863) reveals both how Churchill fashioned his satires to appeal to periodical read- ers and how Churchill’s popularity depended on such readers seeking false or exaggerated rumors of celebrity scandal. In addition, by devaluing accuracy, authenticity, and relevance in their own selection of sources, Tooke’s notes raise questions about the place of accuracy and relevance in modern explanatory editing, suggesting that the emphasis on accuracy can sometimes lead to historically inaccurate readings. Inadequate seems too mild a word to describe how modern editors regard the printed notes in early poetry editions. Of William War- burton’s 1751 Works of Alexander Pope, Frederick Bateson observes, “the irrelevance and the verbosity” of the notes “must be read to be believed” (1951, xvi). Though infamous, Warburton’s notes are far from the only editorial explanations from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to offend. Zachary Grey’s 1744 explanatory notes to Samuel Butler’s Hudibras are “informative”, John Wilders admits, but Grey “could seldom resist the temptation to comment, even when he had little of relevance to say” (But- ler 1967, lx). Regarding the annotations to Thomas Evans’s 1779 Works of Matthew Prior, H.
    [Show full text]
  • 'A' That's Past Forget – Forgie': National Drama and the Construction of Scottish National Identity on the Nineteenth
    Studies in Scottish Literature Volume 44 Article 5 Issue 2 Reworking Walter Scott 12-31-2018 ‘A’ that’s past forget – forgie’: National Drama and the Construction of Scottish National Identity on the Nineteenth-Century Stage Paula Sledzinska University of Aberdeen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/ssl Part of the Literature in English, British Isles Commons, and the Theatre History Commons Recommended Citation Sledzinska, Paula (2019) "‘A’ that’s past forget – forgie’: National Drama and the Construction of Scottish National Identity on the Nineteenth-Century Stage," Studies in Scottish Literature: Vol. 44: Iss. 2, 37–50. Available at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/ssl/vol44/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you by the Scottish Literature Collections at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Studies in Scottish Literature by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “A’ THAT’S PAST FORGET—FORGIE”: NATIONAL DRAMA AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF NATIONAL IDENTITY ON THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY STAGE Paula Sledzinska For centuries, theatre has provided a space for a discussion of social, cultural and political affairs. The link between theatre and politics is of a particularly critical kind, as it is often within the dramatic texts, and on the stage, that the turmoil of revolutionary transformations, historical tragedies, and future visions were portrayed or challenged, and the shapes and images of communities, or indeed nations, explored.1 The
    [Show full text]