DOCSLIB.ORG

Newsletter a Publication Ojthe Shakespeare Oxford Society "Dedicated to Researching and Honoring the True Bard"

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Newsletter a Publication Ojthe Shakespeare Oxford Society \lCbe ~bake5peare exforb Newsletter A Publication oJthe Shakespeare Oxford Society "Dedicated to Researching and Honoring the True Bard" Vol. 44: No. I "The rarer action is / in virtlle than in vengeallce " The Tempest 5.1.26 Winter 2008 Reverend Ward's Complaints about A Lover's Complaint Diary: The Early by Katherine Chiljan Tradition Very few Shakespeare fans have read or even know about Shakespeare's poem, ALover s· By R. Thomas Hunter, Ph.D. Complain!. Although published together with SHAKE-SPEARE 'S SONNETS in 1609, both making their print debut,A Lover s Complain! is usually left out of most modern editions of Patt ofeducating the public and ourselves the Sonnets, and in scholarship, it is among Shakespeare's most neglected works. Currently about the authorship issue is to understand one scholar is tlying to expel it from the Shakespeare canon, which is odd, considering the Stratfordian research, histOlY, criticism, and trend of adding works to it. Why is this the case? Does A Lover s· Complaint have some biography. Recently, I was fOltunate enough biographical elements, as do the Sonne!s? Are these two works connected? There are to come upon a copy of Rev. John Ward 's distinct parallels between the r----------------------, diaty; Its importance is that it has been rec­ young man of A Lover s Com­ ognized as the earliest third-party testimony plain! and the older poet of the A Louers complaint. as to Stratford Shakspere's life. This edition Sonnets. If they were the same was published in 1839 in London by Hemy person, then the great author Col bum and edited by Charles Sevem just BT was a nobleman-courtier who a half centUlY after Gallick's Shakespeare did not spend his youth in mral Jubilee.1 The edition is instmctive as to the Stratford-upon-Avon. state of bardolahy in the early 191h cen­ A Lover s Complaint opens Rom off' ahill whore conc:\ue wotnbe reworded" tUlY. The scarcity of reliable, documented with the poet describing, in the A plaintfull flory from a {i(lring vale evidence has inh·oduced much reasonable F first person "I," a scene he is My {pirrits t'attend this doble voyceaccordtd, doubt about Stratford Shakspere as the hue witnessing in the counhyside. And downe I laid to Jill: the fad tun'd tale, author. AclosereadingofRev. Ward 'sdialY, A woman is ripping up letters Ere long efpied a fickle maid full pale relied on by so many Stratfordians, does and tossing rings into a river. Tearing ofpapers breaking rings a twaine, nothing to clarify the situation. An old man appears and asks Storming her world with forrowes, wind 3nd nine. Of the 315 page volume, the Rev. to know her stOlY. The poet is Ward's entries regarding Shakespeare take The print deb/lt of A Lover's Complaint occllrred in close enough to hear it. Her up barely Thomas Tholpe 's 1609 edition ofth e Sonnets, and it )lias "complaint" is regret for allow­ specifically allributed to Shakespeare. (cont 'd on p. 20) ing herself to be seduced by a 1----------------------' known womanizer who pleaded tme love, and later "betrayed" her. The poem gives few • INSIDE· details about the woman, but her ex-lover is fully described in eight stanzas. He is twice President's Page 2 called a "youth," and this is confirmed with line 92, "small show of man was yet upon his GREETINGS 2 chin." He is handsome and velY popular. Hypothetical Tudor Princes 3 Sue Sybersma 4 Hamlet in 1603: o one by nature's outwards so conunended A Quick-and-Dirty Quarto 9 That maidens' eyes stuck over all his face (80-81) Who Was the Author of Five Plays that Shakespeare Rewrote as His Own? 13 Women obtain his picture and fantasize being his lover or wife, and they send him gifts New Eric Sams Website, 20 of sonnets, pieces of their hair, and jewels, like offerings to a god. He has had numerous Book Review 25 Shakespearian Character Pairs conquests including man·ied women, some of whom had his children ("his plants in oth­ Anagram Puzzle 27 ers' orchards grew," 171). He attracts followers, young and old, "in personal dUty." He Report on Oxfordian Activity is also "accomplished." He is an expelt horseman, intelligent, and has a pleasing voice in Seattle, Washington 28 and persuasive speech. In this passage, the woman could easily have been describing Shakespearian Character Pairs Shakespeare's particular gifts: Anagram Puzzle Solutions 28 (cont 'd all p. 5) page 2 Winter 2008 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Shakespeare Oxford President's Page Newsletter By Matthew Cossolotto Published quarterly by the Shakespeare Oxford Society Dear Society Members and Friends: Our Founding Purposes P.O. Box 808 As many of you are well aware, last As part of the Foreword to the anthology, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 th year marked the 50 annivers31Y of our I wrote about the Society's histOlY and the Tel: (914)962-1717 Society. I hope you are also aware that we vision our founders had about the mission Fax: (914) 254-9713 are publishing a 50th allllivers31Y anthology Email: [email protected] and objectives of the organization. It was ofal1icles in a volume entitled "Report My particularly interesting to me to read the ISSN 1525-6863 Calise Aright." The anthology is going to www.shakespeare-oxford.com following excerpt from one of our first press as I write this in early March 2008 presidents, Richard Horne. In our June Editor: and should be in the mail in the velY near 30, 1966, newsletter, Richard Horne wrote Lew Tate future. Many thanks to Stephanie Hughes the following: for heroically seeing this demanding project Editorial Board: "Forthe benefit of our recent joiners and through to completion. John Hamill for those of our regulars who may not be All Society members in good standing in Frank Davis too familiar with the history and purposes 2008 will receive a copy of this landmark Dr. Jim Brooks of the Society, it may be well to outline publication free of charge. If you have Ramon Jimenez what it is and what it hopes to accomplish. not already done so, I encourage you to James Shelwood [The Shakespeare Oxford Society] is an be sure to renew your membership in the Dr. Richard Smiley Educational Foundation, tax-free, and dues Shakespeare Oxford Society without delay. Katherine Chiljan and contributions are tax-deductible. The We operate on a calendar year membership Brian Bechtold objects or purposes to be promoted and basis so you should renew your membership carried on are to conduct and encourage Layout and Printing at the beginning of each year. Don't delay. research into the histOlY of the Elizabethan St. Martin de Pones Lay Dominicans Renew today! New Hope, Kentucky period of English literature, to disseminate We hope members will buy a few extra the results of such research in the form of All contents copyright © 2008 copies ofthe anthology and give them away books, pamphlets, periodicals, papers and Shakespeare Oxford Society as gifts to friends, relatives, libraries, and other publications in fm1herance of or The Newsletter welcomes research articles, book schools. We need your support to ensure connected with the increasing knowledge reviews, leiters and news items. Contributions that this anthology not only helps us spread ofthe English literature of said period and should be reasonably concise and, when appro- the word about Oxford and the authorship priate, validated by peer review. Assignment of to aid or assist individuals, institutions or copyright is required for publication. The views issue, but also turns into a fundraising ve­ (conf 011 of contributors do not necessari ly reflect those of hicle for the Society. 'd p. 12) the Shakespeare Oxford Society as a literary and educational organization. GREETINGS Welcome to the winter newsletter. This information conceming the issues surround­ is a good one. We hear from the conference ing The Oxfordian. We have no resolutions in Carmel again with a paper by Katherine as of this writing, but Matthew Cossolotto Board of Trustees Chiljan about the poem "A Lover's Com­ comments in his letter. On the subject of The Shakespeare Oxford Society plaint." You can never read enough about Oxfordian, in the ftuny ofexchanges regard­ Lifetime HOI/oral)' Trustee Hamlet. Carlton Sterling offers us "Hamlet ing the editorship ofthe book, p31ticularly on Charles Boyle in 1603." P.T. is back. "Hypothetical Tudor Phaeton the question of how the newsletter 2008 Princes" is here by Dr. Sterling. Thomas will be affected came up a couple of times. President: Matthew Cossolotto Hunter has for us "Rev. Ward's Di31y." Nothing on the subject has been suggested, First Vice President: John Hamill Ramon Jimenez asks us a question, "Who certainly not mandated. Brian Bechtold Was the Author of Five Plays That Shake­ Erratum: A thorough report of the Car­ Virginia Hyde speare Wrote On His On?" He answers it, mel Conference was in the last edition by Michael Pisapia of course. Richard Whalen sent a report Richard 10yrich.Acontributorto that report Randall Shelman on Oxford studies in Seattle. Mr. Whalen's was Richard Smiley. I failed to include him Dr. Richard Smiley Dr. Richard Joyrich book, Macbeth: Fully Annotated From an and apologize. James Sherwood Oxford Perspective, is reviewed in this Please enjoy this newsletter, and keep re­ Andrew Freye. edition. Also, for fun, Richard Joyrich has searching, writing, repOiting, and teaching. a puzzle for all of you scholars. The winternewsletter is a bit late; we have Lew Tate held off some hoping to include substantive tate32 1 I @bellsouth.net Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Winter 2008 page 3 Hypothetical Tudor Princes By Carleton W.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • C Entro De E Studios De Postgrado
    UNIVERSIDAD DE JAÉN Centro de Estudios de Postgrado Master’s Dissertation/ Trabajo Fin de Máster EDITING HAMLET. AN ANALYSIS OF Q1 AND ITS STATUS Student: Jara Bonache, Fabio Tutor: Dr. Luciano García García Dpt.: English Philology Centro de deCentro Estudios Postgrado July, 2020 “Cor. What doe you reade my Lord? Ham. Wordes, Wordes.” (Q1 Hamlet, lines 1229-30, in The Three-Text Hamlet) 1 EDITING HAMLET. AN ANALYSIS OF Q1 AND ITS STATUS TABLE OF CONTENTS: 0. ABSTRACT - RESUMEN page 3 1. INTRODUCTION page 4 2. OBJECTIVES page 5 3. SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON THE EDITORIAL PROBLEM IN SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS AND IN HAMLET page 6 3.1. Editorial problems in Shakespeare’s plays page 6 3.2. Editorial problems in Hamlet page 9 4. THE 1603 QUARTO page 10 4.1. Origin and main peculiarities page 10 4.2. Length page 12 4.3. Stage directions page 15 4.4. Characters page 16 4.5. Structure page 20 5. Q1 PRESENCE IN MODERN EDITIONS page 23 5.1. Hamlet publications from 1603 to 1703 page 23 5.2. Combiners and revisionists page 24 5.3. Q1 only editions page 27 6. CONCLUSIONS page 33 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY page 34 2 ABSTRACT Shakespeare’s Hamlet has been for centuries a challenge for editors and scholars as it is, together with Romeo and Juliet, his only play for which there are three early printed texts, Q1, Q2 and F1. Orthodoxy has placed Q1 in an inferior position, being dismissed for centuries as incomplete and pirated. Nevertheless, new approaches to bibliographical studies have concluded that some of Q1’s traditional hypotheses are not supported by consistent evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Concerning the Interpretations of William Shakespeare's “Hamlet” К
    DOI 10.24249/2309-9917-2018-29-3-9-15 A.A. Lipgart (Moscow, Russia) Concerning the Interpretations of William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” Abstract: In Shakespearology there are no generally accepted interpretations of “Hamlet” either conceptually or textologically. Many interpretations of this tragedy make a demoralizing reading, for they ignore the obvious solutions to the “Hamlet enig- ma”: accepting the early dating of the first drafts of Shakespeare’s play, treating the so-called “Bad Quarto” of 1603 as an early variant of Shakespeare’s celebrated text and explaining the intricacies and the possible inconsistences of the plot within the context of the religious conflicts of the Elizabethan England. Key-words: William Shakespeare, “Hamlet”, “Bad Quarto”, Catholicism, Protestantism А.А. Липгарт (Москва, Россия) К проблеме интерпретации трагедии «Гамлет» Уильяма Шекспира Аннотация: В шекспироведении не существует общепринятых интерпретаций «Гамлета» ни в текстологическом, ни в концептуальном плане. Однако эту тупи- ковую ситуацию можно преодолеть, если принять во внимание доказательства создания первых вариантов «Гамлета» в ранний период творчества Шекспира, признать принадлежность перу Шекспира так называемого «Плохого Кварто» 1603 года и рассмотреть «загадки» содержания пьесы в контексте религиозных конфликтов елизаветинской Англии. Ключевые слова: Уильям Шекспир, «Гамлет», «Плохое Кварто», католичество, протестантство We have all heard about “the Hamlet enigma”. So enigmatic is the main character that interpretations here are of necessity multiple and endless. Every generation will see in the play and in its main character something unique, every soul will find in him and in it some- thing relevant to that soul’s particular experience. Every actor will play Hamlet the man – and, in fact, does play him – differently (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford and Onions
    <http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:21-opus-46739> | <https://doi.org/10.25623/conn001.2-sams-1> Connotations Vo!. 1.2 (1991) ''If you have tears ". Oxford and Onions ERIC SAMS The Oxford editors1 Gary Taylor and Stanley Wells have spent seven years disintegrating Shakespeare and distributing the pieces among "pirates,,2 and "collaborators,,3. Not even his vocabulary has escaped attack. From the latest edition4 of the Oxford Shakespeare Glossary, all its eight hundred specific Shakespeare references have been silently excised. The Glossary was originally conceived as the brain-child of the distinguished grammarian and lexicographer C. T. Onions, who served for fifteen years as an editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. His declared intentions were to show how far Shakespeare's use of vocabulary was idiosyncratic, what special senses it exemplified, and what new usages it introduced into the language. For these purposes, Onions adapted the QED system of illustrative quotations, which avowedly aimed to show the age as well as the source of each usage by citing its first known occurrence. In this exacting task the QED had been aided by teams of specialist researchers. Of course their results were neither exhaustive nor infallible, and several antedatings have since been discovered. An Oxford monographS has been devoted to counselling caution about the validity of QED first citations, especially in such disputable categories as hyphenated compounds and participial adjectives. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Shakespeare was a linguistic innovator of the highest and most prolific order, whose immense contribution to the growth and development of English included thousands of new-minted words and expressions, most of which will have been duly documented in the QED in accordance with its explicit intention.
    [Show full text]
  • Actes Des Congrès De La Société Française Shakespeare, 34 | 2016, “Jeunesses De Shakespeare” [Online], Online Since 29 February 2016, Connection on 08 July 2021
    Actes des congrès de la Société française Shakespeare 34 | 2016 Jeunesses de Shakespeare Young Shakespeare Laetitia Sansonetti (dir.) Electronic version URL: https://journals.openedition.org/shakespeare/3626 DOI: 10.4000/shakespeare.3626 ISSN: 2271-6424 Publisher Société Française Shakespeare Electronic reference Laetitia Sansonetti (dir.), Actes des congrès de la Société française Shakespeare, 34 | 2016, “Jeunesses de Shakespeare” [Online], Online since 29 February 2016, connection on 08 July 2021. URL: https:// journals.openedition.org/shakespeare/3626; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/shakespeare.3626 This text was automatically generated on 8 July 2021. © SFS 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Avant-propos Laetitia Sansonetti Foreword Laetitia Sansonetti Pièces de jeunesse? Love’s Labour’s Lost and Much Ado About Nothing: An Early Diptych? Sophie Chiari Young Shakespeare/Late Shakespeare: The Case of Pericles Lucy Munro Jeunesse des personnages Enter Shakespeare’s Young Hamlet, 1589 Terri Bourus Learning to be Boys: Reading the Lessons of Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost and Marston’s What You Will Edel Lamb « So young, and so untender? » : le don du père à la jeune génération dans Le Roi Lear Anne-Kathrin Marquardt Shakespeare pour la jeunesse, ou l'éternelle jeunesse de Shakespeare “Appertaining to thy young days”: The End of the Academe in Love’s Labour’s Lost and A Curriculum for the Future Daniel Bender “A Classic for the Elders”: Marketing Charles and Mary Lamb in the Nineteenth Century Kate Harvey Shakespeare dans Candy : mais est-ce vraiment
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT a Director's Approach to William Shakespeare's Hamlet
    ABSTRACT A Director’s Approach to William Shakespeare’s Hamlet Nathan D. Records, M.F.A. Thesis Chairperson: DeAnna M. Toten Beard, Ph.D. This thesis provides an in-depth analysis of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, as directed by Nathan Records at Baylor University Theatre from September 26 through October 1, 2006. Chapter one provides the historical context for the play and offers discussions of various sources for Shakespeare’s tragedy along with a review of literature and a brief examination of production history. Chapter two offers a detailed analysis of the play and comments on the project cutting the text of Hamlet to create a production script. Chapter three discusses the collaborative process between director and designers, detailing the production decisions made for scenery, costumes, lighting, and sound. Chapter four focuses on auditions, actor rehearsals, and technical implementation of the elements of the play in production. Chapter five concludes with the director’s critical self-evaluation of the production process. A Director’s Approach to William Shakespeare’s Hamlet by Nathan D. Records, B.S. A Thesis Approved by the Department of Theater Arts ___________________________________ Stan C. Denman, Ph.D., Chairperson Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Baylor University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts Approved by the Thesis Committee ___________________________________ DeAnna M. Toten Beard, Ph.D., Chairperson ___________________________________ Marion D. Castleberry, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Maurice A. Hunt, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Thomas Ward, M.F.A. Accepted by the Graduate School May 2007 ___________________________________ J. Larry Lyon, Ph.D., Dean Page bearing signatures is kept on file in the Graduate School.
    [Show full text]
  • “Un-Shakespearian” Shakespeare Plays In
    Hartmut Ilsemann: “Un-Shakespearian” Shakespeare Plays In the library of Charles II a volume is labelled "Shakespeare. Vol. I". It contains three plays, namely Fair Em, the Miller's Daughter of Manchester, Mucedorus and The Merry Devil of Edmonton. The attribution of these plays to William Shakespeare has not achieved much acclaim, and Eric Sams complained bitterly in similar circumstances that such testimony was treated as ‘gossip’, ‘stories’ or ‘quite wrong’ and ‘muddled’.1 Tucker Brooke who published these plays together with many other apocryphal plays2 comments: ‘The remaining members of the group [i.e. the above-mentioned plays] belong distinctly to a lower order, that is, except on the theory of apprentice work or the hastiest of retouching, modern criticism can hardly admit their claim of Shakespearian origin to be even plausible’ (Brooke, p. vi). Even worse: ‘There is a curious dramatic irony in the fact that Mucedorus and Fair Em have been attributed by serious and respectable critics to the pen of Shakespeare.’ (Brooke, p. vii) Quite bewildered he notes that as many as six quarto editions of The Merry Devil of Edmonton are recorded between 1608 and 1655, and the above-mentioned Shakespeare library volume is denounced by him as a commentary on knowledge of Shakespeare after the Restoration. Similar dismissals can be found in his introductions to the plays themselves and often Shakespeare attributions attract criticism, scorn, contempt, if not hatred. It is no wonder that traditional stylometry has never been in a position to substantiate any Shakespearian claim to these stylistically “un-Shakespearian” plays. In 2013, however, a version of Rolling Delta became available which had recourse to Burrows’s Delta (2002),3 and had opened up new possibilities of authorship attributions.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Individuality of Shakespeare's History Plays
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-theses Repository REWRITING HISTORY: EXPLORING THE INDIVIDUALITY OF SHAKESPEARE’S HISTORY PLAYS by PETER ROBERT ORFORD A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY The Shakespeare Institute The University of Birmingham January 2006 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. Abstract ‘Rewriting History’ is a reappraisal of Shakespeare’s history cycle, exploring its origins, its popularity and its effects before challenging its dominance on critical and theatrical perceptions of the history plays. A critical history of the cycle shows how external factors such as patriotism, bardolatory, character-focused criticism and the editorial decision of the First Folio are responsible for the cycle, more so than any inherent aspects of the plays. The performance history of the cycle charts the initial innovations made in the twentieth century which have affected our perception of characters and key scenes in the texts. I then argue how the cycle has become increasingly restrictive, lacking innovation and consequently undervaluing the potential of the histories.
    [Show full text]
  • King Edward III Edited by Giorgio Melchiori Frontmatter More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-59673-2 - King Edward III Edited by Giorgio Melchiori Frontmatter More information THE NEW CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE general editor Brian Gibbons associate general editor A. R. Braunmuller, University of California, Los Angeles From the publication of the first volumes in 1984 the General Editor of the New Cambridge Shakespeare was Philip Brockbank and the Associate General Editors were Brian Gibbons and Robin Hood. From 1990 to 1994 the General Editor was Brian Gibbons and the Associate General Editors were A. R. Braunmuller and Robin Hood. KING EDWARD III Edward III is a major new addition to the Shakespearean canon. Presenting this fully annotated, modern-spelling text of Edward III, Giorgio Melchiori does not claim that Shakespeare is the sole author, but author of a significant part of the play, the extent of which is discussed in detail. The Introduction explores the historical background and the genesis of the play in the context of contemporary theatrical practice and of Shakespeare’s own early cycle of history plays. It stresses the original ideological stance and the theatrical qualities of the play as a whole. The Commentary examines in depth the play’s linguistic and poetical features, while an extensive appendix on the use of sources explains the stages of its composition. © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-59673-2 - King Edward III Edited by Giorgio Melchiori Frontmatter More information THE NEW CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE All’s
    [Show full text]
  • Edward III: a Study of Canonicity, Sources, and Influence
    Edward III: A Study of Canonicity, Sources, and Influence Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Mathur, Amy Elizabeth Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 30/09/2021 01:08:11 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/193983 EDWARD III: A STUDY OF CANONICITY, SOURCES, AND INFLUENCE by Amy Elizabeth Mathur _____________________________ A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the ENGLISH DEPARTMENT In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2009 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Amy Elizabeth Mathur entitled Edward III: A Study of Canonicity, Sources, and Influence and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ____________________________________________________________Date: 08/11/09 Dr. Peter E. Medine ____________________________________________________________Date: 08/11/09 Dr. Roger Dahood ___________________________________________________________Date: 08/11/09 Dr. John C. Ulreich, Jr. Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate's submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. ____________________________________________________________Date: 08/11/09 Dissertation Director: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE and OTHERS – COLLABORATIVE PLAYS (Ed
    WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE AND OTHERS – COLLABORATIVE PLAYS (ed. Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen) Palgrave Macmillan 2013 Reviewed by Richard Malim Although consideration of the authorship question is specifically ruled out (page 642, and 732 n.1 but with a plug for the inept travesties by Messrs. Shapiro, and Wells and Edmondson), there is much to exercise the mind that is open to the questions that arise, particularly in Will Sharpe’s essay titled Authorship and Attribution. “The authorship question”, he writes (p.641), “though fuelled by class prejudice is nonetheless fuelled by love, ….. .” The “class prejudice” tag exists only in the minds of ‘orthodox’ Stratfordians, but the opinion contradicts Wells’ and Edmondson’s attempt to dub us “anti-Shakespeareans”. Sharpe continues, “……its accusations of fraud intended to elevate, not condemn the revered works.” I know of no accusations of fraud, save the forgeries of Ireland and Collier which are equally denounced by the ‘orthodox’, although there are occasions when the ‘orthodox’ perhaps innocently truncate quotations, or less innocently transcribe e.g. “moniment” as “monument” in the First Folio introductory poems. Sharpe makes some perceptive and courageous points: “…. as a pseudo-science [attribution studies] is [sic] bedevilled by an uncomfortable fact that many practitioners seem reluctant to acknowledge. Poetry is not a naturally occurring phenomenon: it is an artificial product of deliberate and considered work, and words, as units of measurement, never occur in predictable patterned ways in poetry as nucleotides can be expected to do in a DNA strand. Poetry is at once able to be broken down into units and stubbornly resistant to non-cognitive measurement.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Hamlet Studies
    An Overview of Hamlet Studies An Overview of Hamlet Studies By Manpreet Kaur Anand An Overview of Hamlet Studies By Manpreet Kaur Anand This book first published 2019 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2019 by Manpreet Kaur Anand All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-3564-9 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-3564-0 To my little sons Charankamal Singh & Sidakpreet Singh CONTENTS Foreword ................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements ................................................................................... xi Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Chapter One ................................................................................................ 5 Hamlet Criticism up to 1978 Chapter Two ............................................................................................. 23 The Journal’s Critical Credo Chapter Three ........................................................................................... 35 Textual Contribution Chapter Four ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Speeches, Speech Order, and Performance in Shakespeare's
    ―According to the Scrippe‖: Speeches, Speech Order, and Performance in Shakespeare‘s Early Printed Play Texts DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Matthew W. Vadnais, M.A., M.F.A. Graduate Program Theatre The Ohio State University 2012 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Jennifer Schlueter, Co-adviser Dr. Alan B. Farmer, Co-adviser Dr. Lesley Ferris Dr. Richard Dutton Copyright by Matthew W. Vadnais 2012 Abstract Shakespeare wrote his plays for performance. More specifically, Shakespeare wrote his plays to be performed according to a particular set of practices by which authorial manuscripts were sundered into parts, distributed in pieces to players for private study, and reassembled in as few rehearsals as possible. Private study included the memorization of speeches and cues, one-to-three word signals for players to deliver their lines. Previous critics interested in authorial negotiation of historical performance practices have focused primarily upon the content of cues in early modern printed play texts. While cues were vital to early modern performers, the specific content of cues did little to ease the considerable difficulty of performance according to parts; early modern playwrights interested in efficient ways to provide players with assistance in real-time performance appear to have turned to the careful distribution and ordering of speeches. Because speeches were basic units by which early modern plays were written, performed, and printed, the authorial distribution and ordering of speeches proved remarkably stable as early modern play texts were transmitted from authorial manuscripts to printed play texts.
    [Show full text]