DOCSLIB.ORG

Chambers, William Shakespeare. EK Chambers, Wi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chambers, William Shakespeare. EK Chambers, Wi Notes Place of publication is London unless I state otherwise. The following sources are always cited using the abbreviated form of reference specified; for other sources, full details are given on first reference in each chapter, subsequent references being by surname of author or editor and title or short title. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy. A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy (1904). Chambers, William Shakespeare. E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems (2 vols, Oxford, 1930). OED. The Oxford English Dictionary, ed. James A. H. Murray et al. (13 vols, Oxford, 1933). Plutarch. Shakespeare's Plutarch, ed. T. J. B. Spencer (1964). SR. Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554-1640, ed. Edward Arber (5 vols, privately printed, 1875- 94). INTRODUCTION 1. S. T. Coleridge, Biographia Literaria, ch. 15. 2. A. Scoloker, 1604: see also my Shakespeare's Impact on his Contemporaries (1982) pp. 17-18. 1 IN SEARCH OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE: THE PUBLIC AND THE PRIVATE MAN 1. All the early allusions quoted in this chapter can be found, through the index, in Chambers, William Shakespeare. To avoid a clutter of footnotes I give references in only a few cases. 2. See Leslie Hotson, 'Shakespeare's Sonnets Dated' and Other Essays (1949) p. lllff.; and my Shakespeare: the 'lost years' (Manchester, 1985) p. 77ff. 3. See my ' "There is a world elsewhere": William Shakespeare, businessman' (forthcoming in the Proceedings of the Third Congress 222 Notes 223 of the International Shakespeare Association, ed. P. Brockbank et al. (1988)). 4. A. C. Bradley, Oxford Lectures on Poetry (Oxford, 1909): 'Shakespeare the man'. 5. See my 'Sir John Oldcastle: Shakespeare's martyr', in Fanned and Winnowed Opinions: Shakespearean essays presented to Harold Jenkins, ed. J. Mahon and T. Pendleton (1987) p. 121. 6. Many (but not all) biographers believe that William Herbert (1580-- 1630), who became the third Earl of Pembroke in 1601, was the Young Man ('Mr W.H.') of the Sonnets. Clarendon, in his History of the Rebellion, said that Pembroke 'was immoderately given up to women. But therein he retained such a power and jurisdiction over his very appetite, that he was not so much transported with beauty and outward allurements, as with those advantages of the mind as manifested an extraordinary wit, and spirit.' Compare Shakespeare's picture of the Dark Lady's outward allurements and 'advantages of the mind'! 7. See my Shakespeare's Impact on his Contemporaries (1982) pp. 13-14. 8. Bradley, Oxford Lectures on Poetry, p. 321. 9. Chambers, William Shakespeare, II, 243. My italics. 10. Bradley, Oxford Lectures on Poetry, p. 322. 11. See my John Weever: a biography of a literary associate of Shakespeare and Jonson (Manchester, 1987) p. 26ff. 12. See my Shakespeare's Impact, pp. 9-11. 13. M. H. Spielmann, 'Shakespeare's portraiture', in Studies in the First Folio, ed. Sir Israel Gollancz (Oxford, 1924). 14. As in note 13. The discussion of Droeshout's engraving follows my 'Shakespeare and London's immigrant community circa 1600', in Elizabethan and Modern Studies Presented to Willem Schrickx, ed. J. P. Vander Motten (R.U.G. 1985). See also Samuel Schoenbaum, Shakespeare's Lives (Oxford, 1970) pp. 10--11. 2 POLffiCS, RHETORIC AND WILL-POWER IN JULIUS CAESAR 1. T. S. Eliot, 'Shakespeare and the stoicism of Seneca', Selected Essays (ed. 1953) p. 136. 2. See Chambers, William Shakespeare, II, 210. 3. Harley Granville-Barker, Prefaces to Shakespeare, First Series (ed. 1948) p. 105. 4. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, p. 60. 5. M. W. MacCallum, Shakespeare's Roman Plays and their Background (1910) p. 214. 224 Notes 3 THE POLITICS IN HAMLET AND 'THE WORLD OF THE PLAY' 1. The Sources of 'Hamlet': with essay on the legend, ed. Israel Gollancz (1926) pp. 225-7. All my quotations from Belleforest are taken from Gollancz's reprint of the seventeenth-century English translation, except where there is a special reason for quoting the French original (also reprinted by Gollancz), which was either Shakespeare's immediate source, or the source of his source. 2. Bradley noticed this 'curious parallelism' (Shakespearean Tragedy, p. 90). 3. Cf. V.1.138-57. Both princes are given the same epithet - 'young Fortinbras', 'young Hamlet' - and the play generally suggests that they are of roughly the same age. 4. J. E. Hankins, 'The Character of Hamlet' and other Essays (1941) p. 11. 5. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, pp. 103, 107, etc. 6. For the contribution of the 'Fortinbras story', cf. also Hankins, Character ofHamlet, pp. 244-5. 7. Ibid., p. 96. Unlike Wilson, Hankins recognised 'that the Danish king was chosen by some group', but, like Wilson (whose discussion of the same subject Hankins seems to have overlooked), he interpreted the politics of the play from a too inflexibly 'historical' viewpoint. 8. For instance, Shakespeare brings in at regular intervals words such as 'act', 'scene', 'stage', 'prompt', 'cue', 'tragedy'. Cf. S. L. Bethell's admirable account of the 'unreality' of Shakespeare's plays, Shakespeare and the Popular Dramatic Tradition (1944). 9. Cf. also H. D. F. Kitto, Form and Meaning in Drama (1956) p. 258: 'But surely it does not follow, as Wilson says it does, that Shakespeare must have composed the scene with the English constitution in mind .... It is surely the common experience that we go to the theatre willing to accept, without prepossessions, what the dramatist offers us . since nobody in the audience knew or cared what the Danish constitution was, in whatever century this is supposed to be, the dramatist could go ahead and assume what suited him best.' 10. The good Second Quarto includes the Council in the stage-direction for 1.2: 'Florish. Enter Claudius, King of Denmark£, Gertrad the Queene, Counsaile . .' 11. Quoted in Malone's Variorum Shakespeare (1821) VII, 200. 12. 'Claudius's description of Gertrude (1.2.9) as 'imperial jointress' is important ... since the phrase signifies, not joint-monarch as some editors explain, but a widow who retains the jointure or life interest in the crown, and so points to the legal argument or quibble by means of which Hamlet was supplanted' - J. Dover Wilson, What Happens in 'Hamlet' (Cambridge, 1935) p. 38. Even if 'jointress' later acquired the meaning advocated by Wilson (cf. OED), this tells us little about Shakespeare's meaning, especially if, as seems likely, he invented the word. In Belleforest, incidentally, Old Hamlet and Claudius are joint governors ('Rorique ... donna le gouvernement de Jutie ... a deux Notes 225 seigneurs ... nommez Horvvendille et Fengon'- p. 180), which might have suggested joint monarchs for the play. But clearly Shakespeare wished only to stir vague thoughts about Gertrude's rights, not to define them meticulously. 13. 'It is permanently ambiguous. Indeed the very word "ghost", by putting it into the same class with the "ghosts" of Kyd and Chapman, nay by classifying it at all, puts us on the wrong track. It is "this thing", "this dreaded sight" .. .'-C. S. Lewis, 'Hamlet: the prince or the poem,' in Proceedings of the British Academy, XXVIII, 1942, p. 147. 14. 'The elder Hamlet had died two months before, at which time his son was presumably at Wittenberg . it is probable that in Hamlet's absence he [Claudius] had taken over control of affairs' (Hankins, Character of Hamlet, p. 98). Bradley, however, has shown that at the time of his father's death Hamlet was almost certainly not at Wittenberg (Shakespearean Tragedy, Note B). It therefore seems more likely that the shock of his mother's marriage stunned Hamlet's interest in the succession; but this matter lies genuinely 'outside the play', and so cannot be pursued. 15. Cf. A. C. Sprague, Shakespeare and the Audience: a study in the technique of exposition (1935) p. 243, and the excellent section on 'Testimony'. Bradley (Shakespearean Tragedy, p. 168) thought Claudius 'courteous and never undignified' as a king, an opinion that is, I believe, the accepted one. 16. Hankins (Character of Hamlet, p. 96) felt that when Fortinbras called 'the noblest to the audience' (V.2.379) this 'indicates that the kingdom's affairs were handled by a council of nobles'. In Belleforest, on the other hand, Hamlet is chosen king after his harangue 'en l'assemblee des citoyens' ('among the multitude of people') (pp. 264, 265). 17. Lewis, 'Hamlet: the prince or the poem', Proceedings of the British Academy, 1942, p. 147. After Lewis's lecture the 'mystery' and 'doubt' in Hamlet received even greater emphasis, in D. G. James's The Dream of Learning (1951), ch. 2 ('The new doubt'); Maynard Mack's 'The world of Hamlet', in Tragic Themes in Western Literature, ed. Cleanth Brooks (1955); Harry Levin's The Question of'Hamlet' (1959); and elsewhere. 18. Probably a technical reason also dictated the allusions to Hamlet's popularity in Act IV. In several tragedies Shakespeare felt a need to rehabilitate his hero in the audience's sympathy at this point, partly, perhaps, because the tensions of Act III brought into notice some of the hero's less amiable qualities. Thus he invented Brutus's solicitude for the sleepy boy Lucius in Julius Caesar (IV.3.238ff.), and underlined Lear's humility in his reunion with Cordelia. 19. The technique is not unfamiliar. Kitto wrote 'We have to observe first how Shakespeare uses his Clowns much as the Greek dramatist used his Chorus; for they fill our minds with generalised thoughts about mortality and the vanity of human life, before we are brought, as by a gradual contraction of the focus, to the particular tragedy' (Form and Meaning, p. 283). Mack also explored 'umbrella speeches', 'mirror situations' and that 'inward action' which fills 'our minds with 226 Notes impressions analogous to those which we may presume to be occupying the conscious or unconscious mind of the hero' ('The Jacobean Shakespeare', in Stratford-upon-Avon Studies 1, 1960).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Non-Traditional Authorship Attribution Studies of William Shakespeare’S Canon: Some Caveats
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Firenze University Press: E-Journals Journal of Early Modern Studies, n. 5 (2016), pp. 307-328 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13128/JEMS-2279-7149-18094 Non-Traditional Authorship Attribution Studies of William Shakespeare’s Canon: Some Caveats Joseph Rudman Carnegie Mellon University (<[email protected]>) Abstract The paper looks at the problems in conducting non-traditional authorship attribution studies on the canon of William Shakespeare. After a short introduction, the case is put forth that these studies are ‘scientific’ and must adhere to the tenets of the scientific method. By showing that a complete and valid experimental plan is necessary and pointing out the many and varied pitfalls (e.g., the text, the control groups, the treatment of errors), it becomes clear what a valid study of Shakespearean non-traditional authorship attribution demands. I then come to the conclusion that such a valid study is not attainable with the limits of present-day knowledge. Keywords: Attribution, Authorship, Shakespeare, Statistics, Stylistics It is not possible, in the compass of a single essay, to deal with very many – let alone all – of the tests by which investigators in their wisdom or folly have sought to prove authorship by style. (Schoenbaum 1966, 197) 1. Introduction There are a few ‘givens’ framing this paper: 1) William Shakespeare was an actor and playwright – exactly who he was is not relevant here. 2) The First Folio constitutes the basis of what has come down to us as Shakespeare’s canon.1 1 Non-traditional authorship attribution studies are those that make use of stylistics, statistics, and the computer.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Seneca on 1934) Pp. 33-54; Philip Edwards, Thomas Kyd
    Notes CHAPTER ONE. COMMON ELEMENTS I. For Senecan influence, see John W. Cunliffe, The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy (London: Macmillan, 1893); F. L. Lucas, Seneca and Elizabethan Tragedy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922); T. S. Eliot, 'Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca', in Elizabethan Essays (London: Faber, 1934) pp. 33-54; Philip Edwards, Thomas Kyd and Early Elizabethan Tragedy, Writers and their Work Series (London: Longmans, 1966) pp. 10-11. The importance of Senecan influence has been denied by Howard Baker in Induction to Tragedy: A Study in Development ofForm in •Gorboduc', 'The Spanish Tragedy' and 'Titus Andronicus' (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1939), and by George Hunter in 'Seneca and the Elizabethans: A Case Study in "Influence"', ShS, XX (1967) 17-26. 2. Sir Philip Sidney, An Apology for Poetry, ed. Geoffrey Shepherd (London: Nelson, 1965) p. 118. 3. John Foxe, Actes and Monuments (London, 1583). For a pictorial anthology of 'sundrye kindes ofTormentes' (including blinding), see pp. 794f. at the end ofvol. 1. A chained copy of this immensely popular work was made available in every cathedral, and regular public readings were prescribed by Church ordinance. 4. This meaning has not been recorded by the OED. For examples, see Chapman, Hero and Leander, Ill. 59-64,146; Middleton and Rowley, The Changeling, I.i.l91; Hamlet, v.ii.289-90. 5. Romeo and Juliet, II.vi.9-15; Othello, I.iii.341-2, u.i.219-20. 6. On the Greek attitude to change, see J. B. Bury, The Idea ofProgress (London: Macmillan, 1932) pp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moral Basis of Family Relationships in the Plays of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries: a Study in Renaissance Ideas
    The Moral Basis of Family Relationships in the plays of Shakespeare and his Contemporaries: a Study in Renaissance Ideas. A submission for the degree of doctor of philosophy by Stephen David Collins. The Department of History of The University of York. June, 2016. ABSTRACT. Families transact their relationships in a number of ways. Alongside and in tension with the emotional and practical dealings of family life are factors of an essentially moral nature such as loyalty, gratitude, obedience, and altruism. Morality depends on ideas about how one should behave, so that, for example, deciding whether or not to save a brother's life by going to bed with his judge involves an ethical accountancy drawing on ideas of right and wrong. It is such ideas that are the focus of this study. It seeks to recover some of ethical assumptions which were in circulation in early modern England and which inform the plays of the period. A number of plays which dramatise family relationships are analysed from the imagined perspectives of original audiences whose intellectual and moral worlds are explored through specific dramatic situations. Plays are discussed as far as possible in terms of their language and plots, rather than of character, and the study is eclectic in its use of sources, though drawing largely on the extensive didactic and polemical writing on the family surviving from the period. Three aspects of family relationships are discussed: first, the shifting one between parents and children, second, that between siblings, and, third, one version of marriage, that of the remarriage of the bereaved.
    [Show full text]
  • The Picture of Nobody: Shakespeare's Anti-Authorship
    The Picture of Nobody: Shakespeare’s anti-authorship RICHARD WILSON Contributor: Richard Wilson is the Sir Peter Hall Professor of Shakespeare Studies at Kingston University, London. His books include Will Power, Secret Shakespeare, and Shakespeare in French Theory. He is the author of numerous articles in academic journals, and is on the editorial board of the journal Shakespeare. 1. Bare life At the end, ‘his nose was as sharp as a pen’ as he ‘babbled of green fields’ (Henry V, 2,3,15). In September 1615, a few weeks before Shakespeare began to make his will and a little over six months before his death, Thomas Greene, town clerk of Stratford, wrote a memorandum of an exchange biographers treasure as the last of the precious few records of the dramatist’s spoken words: ‘W Shakespeares tellyng J Greene that I was not able to beare the enclosinge of Welcombe’.1 John Greene was the clerk’s brother, and Shakespeare, according to previous papers, was their ‘cousin’, who had lodged Thomas at New Place, his Stratford house. So the Greenes had appealed to their sharp-nosed kinsman for help in a battle that pitted the council against a consortium of speculators who were, in their own eyes, if ‘not the greatest… almost the greatest men of England’.2 The plan to enclose the fields of Welcombe north of the town was indeed promoted by the steward to the Lord Chancellor, no less. But the predicament for Shakespeare was that it was led by his friends the Combes, rich money-lenders from whom he had himself bought 107 acres adjacent to the scheme.
    [Show full text]
  • WRAP Theses Crowther 2017.Pdf
    A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/ 97559 Copyright and reuse: This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected] warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications James Shirley and the Restoration Stage By Stefania Crowther A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Renaissance Studies University of Warwick, Centre for Renaissance Studies June 2017 2 3 Acknowledgements This thesis was supported by the James Shirley Complete Works Project, and funded by the AHRC, and Centre for Renaissance Studies, University of Warwick. I would like to thank these organisations, and in particular Jayne Browne, Ingrid de Smett, David Lines, Jayne Brown, Heather Pilbin, Paul Botley, and especially Elizabeth Clarke and Paul Prescott for their very helpful guidance during the upgrade process. Special thanks are due to Hannah Davis, whose URSS project on Restoration Shirley, supervised by Teresa Grant, provided the starting point for this thesis. I am also enormously grateful to the colleagues, friends and tutors who have inspired and supported my work: Daniel Ashman, Thomasin Bailey, Stephen Clucas, Michael Dobson, Peter Foreshaw, Douglas Hawes, Simon Jackson, Victoria Jones, Griff Jameson, Peter Kirwan, Chris Main, Gerry McAlpine, Zois Pigadas, Catherine Smith, Lee White, Susan Wiseman.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Literary Records
    Shakespearean Biografiction: How modern biographers rely on context, conjecture and inference to construct a life of the Bard A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Arts and Humanities Brunel University By Kevin Gilvary November 2014 ii Candidate Kevin Gilvary (1955- ) B.A. (Hons), Classics, Southampton, 1976 M.A., Classics, Southampton, 1978 M.A. (Ed), Language in Education, Southampton 1996 P.G.C.E., Institute of Education, London, 1980 Doctoral Study 2007-2014 (part-time), Brunel University Supervisor 1 Professor William Leahy, School of Arts, Brunel University Supervisor 2 Dr. Sean Gaston, School of Arts, Brunel University Examiner 1 Professor Tom Betteridge, School of Arts, Brunel University Examiner 2 Professor Tom Healey, University of Sussex iii Abstract Modern biographies of William Shakespeare abound: new studies appear almost every year, each claiming new research and new insights, while affirming that there are enough records for a documentary life. In this thesis, I argue that no biography of Shakespeare is possible due to insufficient material, that most of what is written about Shakespeare cannot be verified from primary sources, and that Shakespearean biography did not attain scholarly or academic respectability until Samuel Schoenbaum’s Documentary Life (1975). The thesis therefore is concerned with demythologising Shakespeare by exposing numerous “biogra-fictions.” I begin by reviewing the history and practice of biography as a narrative account of a person’s life based on primary sources. Next I assess the very limited biographical material for Shakespeare identifying the gaps, e.g. there is no record that he spent any of his childhood in Stratford or ever attended school.
    [Show full text]
  • DVSNL Nov12highqual Corrected
    November 2012 What Malone Really Said De Vere Society Newsletter :KDW0DORQHUHDOO\VDLGDERXW6KDNHVSHDUH E\.HYLQ*LOYDU\ Edmond Malone (1741-–1812) is the scholar most cal account of Shakespeare’s works with some bio- credited with establishing the biography of ‘William graphical comments. Rowe treats biographical data Shakespeare. in about 1000 words, just under one-eighth of his Samuel Schoenbaum refers to him as “per- introductory essay, concerned almost entirely about haps the greatest of all Shakespearean scholars” his life in Stratford (up-bringing and retirement), and (1970, ix). Wells and Taylor describe him as “one of he offers few biographical data about Shakespeare in the greatest intellectuals of the English Enlighten- London despite some investigation on his own part. PHQWWKHPRVWWDOHQWHGDQGLQÁXHQWLDORIDOOVFKRODUV Later, Malone would dismiss Rowe’s Account as to have dedicated his energies to the explication of containing only ten biographical facts, of which eight Shakespeare’s life and work.” (1987, 55). His re- were false. cent biographer, Peter Martin, calls him a “scholar- Rowe’s Account was abridged and re-or- collector, editor, biographer, and critic”, referring to ganised by Alexander Pope in 1725, but without ac- his “heroic and obsessive” approach to his work and knowledgement. This Rowe-Pope version was fre- his “enormous contribution to Shakespeare studies” quently reprinted in the eighteenth century, appearing (1995, xv-–xvii). as a separate pamphlet in 1740 as a preface to the However, a careful reading of Malone’s collected works edited by Thomas Hanmer (1743), works reveals his own considerable scepticism re- William Warburton (1747), Samuel Johnson (1765) garding previously published assertions concern- and George Steevens (1773, 1778, 1785, 1793, 1803, ing Shakespeare’s life and writings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Paradox of Elizabethan Revenge
    THE PARADOX OF ELIZABETHAN REVENGE FROM HORESTES TO HAMLET ANTON CHARLES ARULANANDAM MASTER OF ARTS - HONOURS 1995 THE UNVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES THE PARADOX OF ELIZABETHAN REVENGE FROM HORESTES TO HAMLET CONTENTS Acknowledgement Page 2 List ofIllustrations Page 3 Abstract Page 4 Introduction Page 5 Chapter One Page 33 Chapter Two Page 55 Chapter Three Page 75 Chapter Four · Page 93 Chapter Five Page 112 Conclusion Page 142 ACKNOWLEDGMENT I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to my Supervisor, Dr. Richard Medelaine, and Co-Supervisor, Professor Mary Chan, who not only awakened my serious interest in the drama of the English Renaissance, but tolerated and encouraged this graduate student in the preparation of this thesis. I also wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Bruce Johnson, Professor Michael Hollington, Associate Professor Roslyn Haynes and Associate Professor Peter Alexander, Head, School of English, the staff of the School of English and my colleagues, Pauline Byrnes and Brian Couch, and my wife, Edith, for their assistance and encouragement. A significant debt is owed to the numerous critics mentioned in the footnotes and Bibliography for their scholarly discourse on the revenge genre. Anton C. Arulanandam 2 December 1995. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Gratefully Acknowledged The Revenge of Orestes From Boccaccio's De Mulieribus Claris, Ulm, 1473, fol.xxxv verso, p. 32. The Murder of Horatio in The Spanish Tragedie From the edition of 1633, p. 54. The Revenge of Titus Andronicus From The Lamentable and Tragical History of Titus Andronicus, a ballad ( British Museum, Huth 50 - 69). p. 74. ( By kind courtesy of Willard Farnham, The Medieval Heritage ofElizabethan Tragedy, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1963, ps.
    [Show full text]
  • William Shakespeare: What He Was Not
    On Biography ISSN 2283-8759 DOI 10.13133/2283-8759-2 pp. 81-107 (December 2015) William Shakespeare: What He Was Not Robert Bearman It has become all but obligatory, when embarking on Shakespearean biography, to preface one’s effort with a lament about the lack of material. This, of course, is true if the intent is to portray Shakespeare’s life on a day-by-day, or even a week-by-week basis. However, to tackle Shakespeare’s, or anybody else’s life in this way, we would require at the very least that the subject had kept a diary for his or her whole life and that his or her activities were such as to provoke a string of equally well-documented comments by others to produce a balanced picture of what this person was like. In fact, even in our own time, records for such a reconstruction rarely exist. With the passage of time, and the inevitable decline in the survival rate of documentary evidence – bearing in mind too that fewer records per head of the population were being created in the first place – it is not a reasonable expectation, after 450 years, that sufficient material will have survived to allow for a detailed reconstruction of Shakespeare’s life. He may now occupy a position on the international stage but in his own time he did not. We are therefore obliged to rest content with what has survived almost by chance to document incidents in his life. To expect more would imply a serious misunderstanding of the nature of historical evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms Copyright 1982 by Greenwood, Kathy Lynn All
    8207191 Greenwood, Kathy Lynn THE TRANSFORMING EYE: THE POETIC FICTIONS OF FALSTAFF AND CLEOPATRA The Ohio State University PH.D. 1981 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 Copyright 1982 by Greenwood, Kathy Lynn All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a checkV mark. 1. Glossy photographs or pages______ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_____ 3. Photographs with dark background_____ 4. Illustrations are poor copy______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy_____ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page_____ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages______ 8. Print exceeds margin requirements_____ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_____ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______ 11. Page(s)___________lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)___________seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered 320 Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Other____________________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International THE TRANSFORMING EYE: THE POETIC FICTIONS OF FALSTAFF AND CLEOPATRA DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Kathy L. Greenwood, B.A., M.A. The Ohio State University 1981 Reading Committee: Approved By Prof* Julian Markels Prof* Rolf Soellner Prof. Robert C. Jones Advise) Department cff English VITA Kathy L. Greenwood March 8, 1949. .... B o m - Marfa, Texas 1973 ........
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms International 300 N
    INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Notes Introduction 1. Act, scene, and line numbers are, unless otherwise indicated, keyed to The RSC Shakespeare: Complete Works, ed. by Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen (London: Palgrave, 2007). 2. Lytton Strachey, ‘Shakespeare’s Final Period’, in Book and Characters, French and English (London: Chatto & Windus, 1922), pp. 47–64. Compare Gordon McMullan, Shakespeare and the Idea of Late Writing: Authorship in the Proximity of Death (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 54, p. 96, and p. 162. 3. Frank McGuinness, ‘Foreword’, in Shakespeare and Ireland: History, Politics, Culture, ed. by Mark Thornton Burnett and Ramona Wray (London: Macmillan, 1997), pp. xi–xii (p. xi). 4. Mark Thornton Burnett, ‘Introduction’, in ibid., pp. 1–5 (p. 1). 5. Janet Clare and Stephen O’Neill, ‘Introduction: Interpreting Shakespeare in Ireland’, in Shakespeare and the Irish Writer, ed. by Janet Clare and Stephen O’Neill (Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 2010), pp. 1–23 (pp. 1 and 2). 6. See Declan Kiberd, Inventing Ireland: The Literature of the Modern Nation (London: Vintage, 1996), pp. 268–85. 7. Robin E. Bates, Shakespeare and the Cultural Colonization of Ireland (New York: Routledge, 2008), p. 33. 8. Ibid., p. 9. 9. Rebecca Steinberger, Shakespeare and Twentieth-Century Irish Drama: Conceptualizing Identity and Staging Boundaries (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), p. 1. 10. See Yeats, ‘The Celtic Element in Literature’, in Early Essays (2007), ed. by George Bornstein and Richard J. Finneran, The Collected Works of W.B. Yeats, ed. by George Mills Harper and George Bornstein, 14 vols (New York: Scribner, 1990–2008), IV, pp. 128–38, for an early defence.
    [Show full text]