DOCSLIB.ORG

Richard the Second Free

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Richard the Second Free FREE RICHARD THE SECOND PDF William Shakespeare,William Dolan Shakespeare | 113 pages | 09 Jan 2001 | Penguin Books Australia | 9780140714821 | English | Hawthorn, Australia Richard II of England - Wikipedia Although the First Folio edition of Shakespeare's works lists the play as a history play, the earlier Quarto edition of calls it The tragedie of King Richard the second. The play spans only the last two years of Richard's life, from to The first Act begins with King Richard sitting majestically on his throne in full state, having been requested to arbitrate a dispute between Thomas Mowbray and Richard's cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, later Henry Richard the Secondwho has accused Mowbray of squandering money given to him by Richard for the king's soldiers and of murdering Bolingbroke's uncle, the Duke of Gloucester. Bolingbroke's father, John of Gaunt1st Duke of Lancaster, meanwhile, believes it was Richard himself who was responsible for his brother's murder. After several attempts to calm both men, Richard acquiesces and it is determined that the matter be resolved in the established method of trial by battle between Bolingbroke and Mowbray, despite the objections of Gaunt. The tournament scene is very formal with a long, ceremonial introduction, but as the combatants are about to fight, Richard interrupts and sentences both to banishment from England. Bolingbroke is originally sentenced to ten years' banishment, but Richard reduces this to six years upon seeing John of Gaunt's grieving face, while Mowbray is banished permanently. The king's decision can be seen as the first mistake in a series leading eventually to his overthrow and death, since it is an error which highlights many of his Richard the Second flaws, displaying as it does indecisiveness in terms of whether to allow the duel to go aheadabruptness Richard waits until the last possible moment to cancel the dueland arbitrariness there is no apparent reason why Bolingbroke should Richard the Second allowed to return and Mowbray not. In addition, the decision fails to dispel the suspicions surrounding Richard's involvement in the death of the Duke of Gloucester — in fact, by handling the situation so high-handedly and offering no coherent explanation for his reasoning, Richard only manages to appear more guilty. Mowbray predicts that the king will sooner or later fall at the hands of Bolingbroke. John of Gaunt dies and Richard II seizes all of his land and money. This angers the nobility, who accuse Richard of wasting England's money, of taking Gaunt's money belonging by rights to his son, Bolingbroke to fund war in Ireland, of taxing the commoners, and of fining the nobles for crimes committed by their ancestors. There remain, however, subjects who continue to be faithful to the king, among them Bushy, Bagot, Green and the Duke of Aumerle son of the Duke Richard the Second Yorkcousin of both Richard and Bolingbroke. When King Richard leaves England to attend to the war in Ireland, Bolingbroke seizes the opportunity to assemble an army and invades the north coast of England. Executing both Bushy and Green, he wins over the Duke of York, whom Richard has left in Richard the Second of his government in his absence. Upon Richard's return, Bolingbroke not Richard the Second reclaims his lands but lays claim to the very throne. Aumerle and others plan a rebellion against the new king, but York discovers his son's treachery and reveals it to Henry, who spares Aumerle as a result of the intercession of the Duchess of York while executing the other conspirators. After interpreting King Henry's "living fear" as a reference to the still-living Richard, an ambitious nobleman Exton goes to the prison and murders him. King Henry repudiates the murderer and vows to journey to Jerusalem to cleanse himself of his part in Richard's death. Shakespeare's primary source for Richard IIas for most of his chronicle histories, was Raphael Holinshed 's Chronicles ; the publication of the second edition in provides a terminus post quem for the play. This play, which exists in one incomplete manuscript copy at the British Museum is subtitled Thomas of Woodstockand it is by this name that scholars since F. Boas have usually called it. This play treats the events Richard the Second up to the start of Shakespeare's play though Richard the Second two texts do not Richard the Second identical characters. This closeness, along with the anonymity of the manuscript, has led certain scholars to attribute all or part of the play to Shakespeare, though many critics view this play as a secondary influence on Shakespeare, not as his work. The second and third quartos followed in — the only time a Shakespeare play was printed in three editions in two years. Q4 followed inand Q5 in The play was next published in the First Folio in Richard II exists in Richard the Second number of variations. The quartos vary to some degree from one another, and the folio presents further differences. The first three quartos printed in andcommonly assumed to have been prepared from Shakespeare's holograph lack the deposition scene. The fourth quarto, published inincludes a version of the deposition scene shorter than the one later printed, presumably from a prompt-bookin the First Folio. The scant evidence makes explaining these differences largely conjectural. Traditionally, it has been supposed that the quartos lack the deposition scene because of censorship, either from the playhouse or by the Master of the Revels Edmund Tylney and that the Folio version may better reflect Shakespeare's original intentions. There is no external evidence for this hypothesis, however, and the title page of the quarto refers to a "lately acted" deposition scene although, again, this could be due to earlier censorship which was later relaxed. The play is divided into five acts and its structure is as formal as its language. Elliott Jr. The normal structure of Shakespearean tragedy is modified to portray a central political theme: the rise of Bolingbroke to the throne and the conflict between Richard and Bolingbroke over the kingship. Literary critic Hugh M. Richmond notes that Richard's beliefs about the Divine Right of Kings tend to fall more in line with the medieval view of the throne. Bolingbroke on the other hand represents a more modern view of the throne, arguing that not only bloodline but also intellect and political savvy contribute to the makings of a good king. Elliott argues that this mistaken notion of his role as king ultimately leads to Richard's failure. Elliott goes on further to point out that it is Bolingbroke's ability to relate Richard the Second speak with those of the middle and lower classes that allows him to Richard the Second the throne. Unusually for Shakespeare, Richard II is written entirely in verseand this is one Richard the Second only four plays of his which are, the others being King John and the first and third parts of Henry VI. It thus contains no prose. There are also great differences in the use of language amongst Richard the Second characters. Traditionally, Shakespeare uses prose to distinguish social classes — the upper class generally speaks in poetry while the lower classes speak in prose. In Richard IIwhere there is no prose, Richard uses flowery, metaphorical language in his speeches whereas Bolingbroke, who is also of the noble class, uses a more plain and direct language. In Richard II besides the usual blank verse unrhymed pentameters there are long stretches of heroic Richard the Second pairs of rhymed pentameters. The play contains a number of memorable metaphors, including the extended comparison of England with a garden in Act III, Scene iv and of its reigning king to a lion or to the sun in Act IV. The language of Richard II is more eloquent than that of the earlier history plays, and serves to set the tone and Richard the Second of the play. Shakespeare uses lengthy verses, metaphors, similesand soliloquies to reflect Richard's character as a man who likes to analyse situations rather than act upon them. He always speaks in tropes using analogies such as the sun as a symbol of his kingly status. Richard places great emphasis on symbols which govern his behaviour. His crown serves as a symbol of his royal power and is of more concern to Richard the Second than his actual kingly duties. The play was performed and published late in the reign of the childless Elizabeth I of Englandat a time when the queen's advanced age made the succession an important political concern. The historical parallels in the succession of Richard Richard the Second may not have Richard the Second intended as political comment on the contemporary situation, [11] with the weak Richard II analogous to Queen Elizabeth and an implicit Richard the Second in favour of her replacement by a monarch capable of creating a stable dynasty, but lawyers investigating John Hayward 's historical work, The First Part of the Life and Raigne of King Henrie IVa book previously believed to have taken from Shakespeare's Richard IIchose to make this connection. Samuel Schoenbaum contests that Hayward had written his work prior to Richard IIjoking that "there is nothing like a hypothetical manuscript to resolve an awkwardness of chronology", as Hayward noted he had written the work several years before its publication. That Hayward had made his dedication was fortunate for Shakespeare, otherwise he too might have lost his liberty over the affair. Shakespeare's play appears to have played a minor role in the events surrounding the final downfall of Richard the Second.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Play of 'Sir Thomas More' and Shakespeare's Hand in It
    79 THE PLAY OF 'SIR THOMAS MORE' AND SHAKESPEARE'S HAND IN IT. Downloaded from I HE announcement late last year by an expert in palaeography that a holo- I graph manuscript of Shakespeare is http://library.oxfordjournals.org/ preserved in the British Museum was an event of national importance, though the Press universally ignored it. Perhaps that was characteristic of * the usual channels of information,' as we call them in satiric moments; but the omission was deplorable, even in war time. For the claim was not the shallow guesswork of at University of California, San Diego on June 5, 2015 an amateur; it was the outcome of an exhaustive study of Shakespeare's handwriting, made by so high an authority as Sir Edward Maunde Thompson.1 The work crowned with this unique distinction is a play entitled 'The Bookc of Sir Thomas Moore,' preserved in Harlcy MS. 7368. It is a thin folio, the thirteen original leaves of which have been identified as in the autograph of Anthony Munday. A mixed assortment of plays, pageants, poems, translations of romances, annals, and miscel- laneous pamphlets issued from his facile pen between 1577 and 1633. Once, and once only, a contem- porary made the mistake of placing him on a 1 ' Shakespeare's Handwriting. A Study by Sir Edward Maunde Thompson.' Oxford, the Clarendon Press, 1916. See also the first Review. 80 THE PLAY OF 'SIR T. MORE' pinnacle of genius. Looking round on the the- atrical world in 1598, Francis Meres enumerated the chief English writers of comedy, and from a group which ^included Shakespeare, singled out Munday as ' our best plotter.' Even if his other Downloaded from plays afforded any justification for this extravagant eulogy, ' Sir Thomas More' would go far to in- validate it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oxfordian Volume 21 October 2019 ISSN 1521-3641 the OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019
    The Oxfordian Volume 21 October 2019 ISSN 1521-3641 The OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019 The Oxfordian is the peer-reviewed journal of the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship, a non-profit educational organization that conducts research and publication on the Early Modern period, William Shakespeare and the authorship of Shakespeare’s works. Founded in 1998, the journal offers research articles, essays and book reviews by academicians and independent scholars, and is published annually during the autumn. Writers interested in being published in The Oxfordian should review our publication guidelines at the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship website: https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/the-oxfordian/ Our postal mailing address is: The Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship PO Box 66083 Auburndale, MA 02466 USA Queries may be directed to the editor, Gary Goldstein, at [email protected] Back issues of The Oxfordian may be obtained by writing to: [email protected] 2 The OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019 The OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019 Acknowledgements Editorial Board Justin Borrow Ramon Jiménez Don Rubin James Boyd Vanessa Lops Richard Waugaman Charles Boynton Robert Meyers Bryan Wildenthal Lucinda S. Foulke Christopher Pannell Wally Hurst Tom Regnier Editor: Gary Goldstein Proofreading: James Boyd, Charles Boynton, Vanessa Lops, Alex McNeil and Tom Regnier. Graphics Design & Image Production: Lucinda S. Foulke Permission Acknowledgements Illustrations used in this issue are in the public domain, unless otherwise noted. The article by Gary Goldstein was first published by the online journal Critical Stages (critical-stages.org) as part of a special issue on the Shakespeare authorship question in Winter 2018 (CS 18), edited by Don Rubin. It is reprinted in The Oxfordian with the permission of Critical Stages Journal.
    [Show full text]
  • Streatham T Th Eea Rcompany
    streatham presents in association with theatrecompany A promenade performance in and around St. Leonard’s Design: dnharvey 20, 21, 22 Sept 2018 at 7.30pm plus Matinee on 22 Sept at 3pm Doors and licensed bar open 30 minutes prior St. Leonard’s Church, Tooting Bec Gardens, Streatham, SW16 1HS. Tickets: Adults £10, Members/Concessions £8. www.streathamtheatre.org.uk 0333 666 3366 No booking fee for online booking with e-ticket Standard rate, booking fee Streatham Theatre Company presents By William Shakespeare and adapted by Liz Burton The Streatham Connection “Hamlet off the Street in the hamlet on the street…” During most of Shakespeare’s Streatham means ‘hamlet on the street’, but performing a career, Edmund Tylney (or show literally on a street is a major headache, so we’re taking Tilney) was Master of the Revels William Shakespeare’s Hamlet off the street, to our beautiful responsible for the censorship St. Leonard’s church with the audience following the action as of drama in England. it unfolds inside and outside the building. Tylney is buried Hamlet is justly one of Shakespeare’s best-known plays, with a in a tomb in powerful story and some of the most beautiful speeches and St. Leonards familiar sayings ever written in English. It is normally 3 hours and celebrated long, but our much shorter adaptation tells the story by in the Streatham linking the most famous scenes with narration and music. Window. It introduces Hamlet to people who may not have the In the film Shakespeare in Love, inclination or opportunity to see a full production, and to give Tylney’s role was played by actors who are inexperienced in acting Shakespeare a chance Streathamite Simon Callow.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare and the Supernatural
    Introduction: Shakespeare and the supernatural V i c t o r i a B l a d e n a n d Ya n B r a i l o w s k y Supernatural elements constitute a signifi cant dimension of Shakespeare ’ s plays: ghosts haunt political spaces and internal psyches; witches foresee the future and disturb the present; fairies meddle with love; natural portents and dreams foreshadow events; and a magus conjures a tempest from the elements. Th ese aspects contribute to the dramatic power and intrigue of the plays, whether they are treated in performance with irony, comedic eff ect or unsettling gravity. Although Shakespeare ’ s plays were written and performed for early modern audiences, for whom the supernatural, whether sacred, demonic or folkloric, was still part of the fabric of everyday life, these supernatural elements continue to enthral us, and maintain their power to raise a range of questions in more contemporary contexts. Supernatural elements implicitly question the border between the human and the non-human, and between the visible and the unseen. Th ey also raise questions of control and agency that intersect with the exercise of power, a central focus across Shakespeare ’ s œuvre . Shakespeare drew on the supernatural in all of his dramatic genres and throughout his career, from the early histories (such as Richard III and Henry VI, Part II ) to the late romances (such as Th e Winter’s Tale, Cymbeline and Th e Tempest ), in tragedies ( Julius Caesar, Hamlet and Macbeth ) and in comedy ( A Midsummer Night’s Dream ), suggesting the importance of the supernatural in his approach to drama.
    [Show full text]
  • GON/4* Founded 1886 a J*
    p VOL. XLIX. No. 166 PRICE 10/- POST FREE : GON/4* Founded 1886 A j* June, 1966 A CONTENTS Editorial 1 Times Literary Supplement Correspondence 11 r *! Obituaries ... 16 The Stratford Tragi-Comedy 19 Shakespeare Dethroned 42 Odd Numbers 108 Bacon’s Reputation ... 123 - Correspondence 139 Shakespeare Quatercentenary Report © Published Periodically LONDON: Published by The Francis Bacon Society Incorporated at Canonbury Tower, Islington, London, N.l, and printed by Lightbowns Ltd., 72 Union Street, Ryde, Isle of Wight. I THE FRANCIS BACON SOCIETY ■ (incorporated) ; Among the Objects for which the Society is established, as expressed in the Memorandum of Association, are the following: 1. To encourage for the benefit of the public, the study of the works of Francis Bacon as philosopher, statesman and poet; also his character, genius and life; his influence on his own and succeeding times, and the tendencies and results ; of his writing. 2. To encourage for the benefit of the public, the general study of the evidence in favour of Francis Bacon’s authorship of the plays commonly ascribed to Shakespeare, and to investigate his connection with other works of the Eliza­ : bethan period. Officers and Council: :■ Hon. President: . Comdr. Martin Pares, R.N. Past Hon. Presidents: . Capt. B. Alexander, m.r.i. Edward D. Johnson, Esq. ; Miss T. Durnino-Lawrence Mrs. Arnold J. C. Stuart l Hon. Vice-Presidents: ) Wilfred Woodward, Esq. Thomas Wright, Esq. Council: ; Noel Fermor, Esq., Chairman T. D. Bokenham, Esq., Vice-Chairman Comdr. Martin Pares, R.N. Nigel Hardy, Esq. J. D. Maconachie, Esq. A. D. Searl, Esq. C. J.
    [Show full text]
  • This Dissertation Has Been 64—3183 Microfilmed Exactly As Received
    This dissertation has been 64—3183 microfilmed exactly as received MURPHY, John Leo, 1923- SOME PROBLEMS IN THE ANONYMOUS DRAMA OF THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE. The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1963 Language and Literature, modern University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THE UNIVERSITÏ OP OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE SOME PROBLEMS IN THE ANONYMOUS DRAMA OP THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE PACULTY In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OP PHILOSOPHY BY JOHN l V‘ MURPHY Norman, Oklahoma 1963 SOME PROBLEMS IN THE ANONYMOUS DRAMA OF THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE APPROVED BY DISSERTATION COMMITTEE MAGISTRO ET AMIGO GARISSIMO JOSEPH HANGOGK MARSHBÜRN namque tu solebas meas esse allquid putare nugas 111 I should like above all to acknowledge my many obliga­ tions to Professor Calvin G, Thayer, Department of English, University of Oklahoma, and director of this dissertation. My brother, Donald Murphy, and my mother, Mrs. Leo Murphy, gave help without which I could not have brought this study to a conclusion. Finally, I wish to give special thanks to the following professors for serving as members of my disser­ tation committee: Philip J, Nolan, Chairman, Department of Classics, University of Oklahoma; Alphonse J, Fritz, Department of English, University of Oklahoma; Jack L, Kendall, Department of English, University of Oklahoma, iv TABLE OP CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION................. 1 II. LOCRINE AND SELIMUS: SOMÉT IMPLICATÏÔJJ3 OP THE BORROWINGS PROM SPENSER AND GREENE.......... 7 III. LOCRINE: CONJECTURES AND ÏRPË5ENCES PROM QUARTO TO M A N U S C R I P T ...... 58 IV. SELIMUS: THE TEXT AND THE " l (5S5Le a t m a n u s c r i p t ...
    [Show full text]
  • Million Book Collection
    CENTRE for REFORMATION and RENAISSANCE STUDIES VICTORIA UNIVERSITY EXTRACTS FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF THE REVELS AT COURT. Erd. oft! EXTRACTS FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF THE REVELS AT COURT, IN THE REIGNS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH AND KING JAMES I., FROM THE ORIGINAL OFFICE BOOKS OF THE MASTERS AND YEOMEN. WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES, BY PETER CUNNINGHAM. LONDON: PRINTED FOR THE SHAKESPEARE SOCIETY. 1842. v. LONDON : F. SHOBERL, JUN., 51, RUPERT STREET, HAYMARKET, PRINTER TO H. R. H. PRINCE ALBERT. COUNCIL THE SHAKESPEARE SOCIETY. THE MOST NOBLE THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY. RT. HON. LORD BRAYBROOKE, F.S.A. RT. HON. LORD F. EGERTON, M.P. RT. HON. THE EARL OF GLENGALL. RT. HON. LORD LEIGH. AMYOT, THOMAS, ESQ., F.R.S., TREAS. S.A. AYRTON, WILLIAM, ESQ.. F.R.S., F.S.A. BOTFIELD, BERIAH, ESQ., M.P. BRUCE, JOHN, ESQ., F.S.A. COLLIER, J. PAYNE, ESQ., F.S.A., DIRECTOR. CRAIK, GEORGE L., ESQ. CUNNINGHAM, PETER, ESQ., TREASURER. DYCE, REV. ALEXANDER. HALLIWELL, J. O. ESQ., F.R.S., M.R.I.A. HARNESS, REV. WILLIAM. JERROLD, DOUGLAS, ESQ. KENNEY, JAMES, ESQ. MACREADY, WILLIAM C., ESQ. MADDEN, SIR F., F.R.S., F.S.A., KEEPER OF THE MSS. IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. MILMAN, REV. HENRY HART. TALFOURD, MR. SERGEANT. THOMS, WILLIAM J. ESQ. TOMLINS, F. GUEST, ESQ., SECRETARY. WATSON, SIR FREDERICK. WRIGHT, THOMAS, ESQ., F.S.A. YOUNG, CHARLES M., ESQ. INTRODUCTION. When, by the kindness of the Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Peel, I wasappointed to a situation in the Audit Office, SomersetHouse, one of my first inquiries,unconnected with my official duties,was, What old papersthere were in the place.
    [Show full text]
  • Homeless Shakespeare His Fabricated Life from Cradle to Grave
    “The biographers must re-write their Lives of Shakespeare.” — An Eighteenth Century Critic Homeless Shakespeare His Fabricated Life from Cradle to Grave By E. M. Dutton ―The biographers must re-write their Lives of Shakespeare.‖ —A Critic Homeless Shakespeare His Fabricated Life from Cradle to Grave By E. M. Dutton 1 The Idol By Dr. Holmes An idol? Man was born to worship such. An idol is the image of his thoughts; Sometimes he carves it out of gleaming stone, And sometimes moulds it out of glittering gold. Or rounds it in a mighty frescoed dome, Or lifts it heavenward in a lofty spire. Or shapes it in a cunning frame of words. Or pays his priest to make it, day by day. For sense must have its god as well as soul. The time is racked with birth pangs. Every hour Brings forth some gasping truth; and truth new born Looks a misshapen and untimely growth; The terror of the household and its shame, A monster coiling in its nurse‘s lap That some would strangle, some would only starve; But still it breathes, and passed from hand to hand. And suckled at a hundred half-clad breasts. Comes slowly to its stature and its form; Welcomed by all that curst its hour of birth, And folded in the same encircling arms That cast it like a serpent from their hold. ―Be sure and smash the idol, Shakespere, if you can, with the powerful weapons of fact, before you attempt to set up any poetical divinity in his place.‖ —John H.
    [Show full text]
  • What Role Did the Herbert Family Play in the Shakespeare Cover-Up?
    What Role Did the Herbert Family Play in the Shakespeare Cover-Up? by Bruce Johnston n 1920 John Thomas Looney revealed the profound literary and personal enmity between Philip Sidney and Edward de Vere (Looney, ed. Warren, I122, 145, 180, 212–13, 242–52). Over the next century dozens of Oxford- ian scholars further documented the breadth, depth and details of that con- flict. This essay integrates that extensive scholarship and shows the Herbert family’s motives for continuing de Vere’s anonymity as Shakespeare after his death in 1604, while covering up and misattributing the authorship of the Shakespeare canon in their 1623 play collection known as the First Folio. Edward de Vere vs. Robert Dudley and Philip Sidney Edward de Vere’s enmity for Philip Sidney had deep roots, for it began with wounds inflicted by Sidney’s uncle—Robert Dudley—on de Vere when he was twelve years old. In 1562 a financially destitute Robert Dudley was listed as a supervisor in the last will of Edward’s father, John de Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford, just months before the Earl’s sudden, unexpected death (Green 41–95). Enabled by Queen Elizabeth and William Cecil, Master of the Court of Wards, the Court farmed out the fruits of Edward’s encumbered properties to Dudley (Cutting 105–118). These actions triggered what Roger Stritmatter called “perhaps the greatest, potentially most destructive schism within the English aristocracy” THE OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019 65 What Role Did the Herbert Family Play in the Shakespeare Cover-Up? (“Spenser’s ‘Perfect Pattern” 12).
    [Show full text]
  • SPECTACLE in EARLY MODERN ENGLISH DRAMA Meg F. Pearson
    ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: SPECTACLE IN EARLY MODERN ENGLISH DRAMA Meg F. Pearson, Doctor of Philosophy, 2006 Dissertation directed by: Professor Theodore B. Leinwand, Department of English The early modern English theater abounds with sights that were prepared, designed, and built to be seen. Playwrights conjured evocative and terrifying spectacles for their productions on the London stages between 1576 and the early 1640s, and publishers preserved those moments in printed plays with stage directions. Early modern play scripts call for flayed skins, arrows shot through hearts, tritons in flowing rivers, Zeus's thunderbolts, fiery hellmouths, brazen heads that speak, vengeful ghosts, bridled kings, cannibalistic feasts, enlivened statues, hungry bears, sea battles, naked puppets, vomiting wives, cursing monsters, and the hand of God. Determining how these spectacles operate is the purpose of this dissertation. I argue that spectacle--the hypervisual shows demanded by playwrights in stage directions and dialogue cues--is a fundamental tool of early modern dramatists. In the hands of certain playwrights, spectacle defamiliarizes the known world, making it strange and evocative in order to guide the audience to re-imagine their understanding of such objects and events. Spectacles such as mythological figures, broken bodies, talking dogs, and military machines compel audiences to recognize but then reassess what those images signify. Each of the dissertation's four chapters focuses on a spectacle that is indicative of a larger pattern in dramatic literature. Chapter One, “Herculean Efforts: Spectacle of Rebellion," studies the liminal figure of Hercules in Thomas Heywood’s The Silver Age (1611), Jasper Heywood’s 1561 translation of Seneca’s Hercules Furens; and Thomas Heywood’s The Brazen Age (1613).
    [Show full text]
  • Hand D and Shakespeare's Unorthodox Literary Paper Trail
    Journal of Early Modern Studies, n. 5 (2016), pp. 329-352 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13128/JEMS-2279-7149-18095 Hand D and Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Literary Paper Trail Diana Price Independent scholar (<[email protected]>) Abstract The biography of William Shakespeare exerts an influence on various areas of research related to Shakespeare, including textual, bibliographical, and attribution studies. A case in point is the theory that Shakespeare wrote the Hand D Additions in the Sir Thomas More manuscript. That theory is now part of received scholarship, even though many of the assumptions and arguments first published in 1923 have been challenged. The original palaeographic argument can be reappraised with reference to the criteria and procedures of the forensic document examiner. Recent scholarship relevant to an investigation of the case that the Hand D Additions are Shakespeare’s ‘foul papers’, including Paul Werstine’s Early Modern Playhouse Manuscripts and the Editing of Shakespeare, provides the foundation for a brief reconsideration of that topic. Supporting arguments for the Hand D attribution, in particular those based on orthography, prove vulnerable to challenge. Keywords: Forensic, ‘Foul Papers’, Hand D, Handwriting Shakespeare, Sir Thomas More 1. Introduction The play entitled The Book of Sir Thomas Moresurvives in manuscript. It is written out in hands that have been designated as Hands A, B, C, D, E, S, and that of the Master of the Revels Edmund Tylney. It is Hand D that is of interest since many, perhaps most, biographers and editors today accept it as Shakespeare’s. This claim has never been front page news.
    [Show full text]
  • Leatherhead S District Local History Society
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEATHERHEAD S DISTRICT LOCAL HISTORY SOCIETY 4 • VOL. 1 No. 5 1951 OCCASIONAL NOTES N numerous occasions members have been asked to report any literature or literary references bearing O on the history of the district and it has been mentioned that some passing reference may prove the clue to important facts. This appeal is repeated and it is not irrelevant to quote a recent and interesting example of a brief phrase which has proved of great and unexpected value. In the course of his examination of various legal records Dr. Kiralfy copied out and sent to your archivist an extract from the Common Roll, Hilary Term, 4 Ed. Ill (1330). This was a complaint by Robt. de Hoton, vicar of Leatherhead, of a Distraint out of the Fee upon him by Robert Darcy, then lord of Pachenesham Manor. The case in itself was interesting, but a close reading revealed the name of the chapel which, as was previously known from records and the excavations there, formed part of the manor-house buildings. The Chapel was called St. Margaret’s Chapel and so, for the first time, it is possible to give a name to the little heap of stones described at (a) on p. 5 of vol. 1, No. 3 of these “ Proceedings.” According to the Pleadings in the case the vicar held certain lands by fealty and service of holding divine service in the chapel every Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. At the time of the distraint in question this chantry service (cantaria) was said to have been five years in arrear.
    [Show full text]