DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction Notes Introduction 1. Andrew Gurr, The Shakespearean Stage, 1574–1642, 3rd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 191. 2. For further discussion of the myth of the bare stage see Chapter 1 of this book; Jonathan Gil Harris and Natasha Korda, ‘Introduction: Towards a Materialist Account of Stage Properties’, in Jonathan Gil Harris and Natasha Korda (eds.), Staged Properties in Early Modern English Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 2–7. 3. Aristotle Poetics (trans. Stephen Halliwell) (London: Harvard University Press, 1995), VII.16–20, p. 55. 4. Glynne Wickham, ‘Heavens, Machinery, and Pillars in the Early Theatre and Other Early Playhouse’, in Herbert Berry (ed.), The First Public Playhouse: The Theatre in Shoreditch, 1576–1598 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1979), p. 6. 5. Thomas H. Dickinson (ed.), Robert Greene (London: Fisher Unwin, 1911), pp. lix–lxi. 6. Kenneth Muir, ‘Robert Greene as Dramatist’, in Richard Hosley (ed.), Essays on Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama in Honor of Hardin Craig (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963), p. 48; Charles W. Crupi, Robert Greene (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1986), p. 115; Charles Mills Gayley, Representative English Comedies (London: Macmillan, 1903), p. 419. 7. Bernard Beckerman, Shakespeare at the Globe, 1599–1609 (New York: Macmillan, 1962); Gerald Eades Bentley, The Professions of Dramatist and Player in Shakespeare’s Time, 1590–1642 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); T. J. King, Shakespearean Staging, 1599–1642 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971); Andrew Gurr, Playgoing in Shakespeare’s London, 3rd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); S. P. Cerasano, ‘Editing the Theatre, Translating the Stage’, Analytic and Enumerative Bibliography, 4 (1990), pp. 21–34; John H. Astington, ‘Descent Machinery in the Playhouses’, Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, 2 (1985), pp. 119–33; John H. Astington, ‘The London Stage in the 1580s’, in Augusta Lynne Magnusson and C. E. McGee (eds.), The Elizabethan Theatre, XI (Port Credit, Ont.: P. D. Meany, 1990), pp. 1–18. 8. Michela Calore, ‘Enter Out: Perplexing Signals in Some Elizabethan Stage Directions’, Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, 13 (2001), pp. 117–35. 9. Kirk Melnikoff, ‘“That will I see, lead and ile follow thee”: Robert Greene and the Authority of Performance’, in Kirk Melnikoff and Edward Gieskes (eds.), Writing Robert Greene: Essays on England’s First Notorious Professional Writer (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), p. 43; Bruce R. Smith, The Acoustic World of Early Modern England (London: University of Chicago Press, 1999). 10. Sarah Werner, ‘Introduction’, in Sarah Werner (ed.), New Directions in Renaissance Drama and Performance Studies (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 145 146 Notes 2010), p. 8; Hugh Grady and Terence Hawkes (eds.), Presentist Shakespeares (London: Routledge, 2007); Hugh Grady, ‘Shakespeare Studies, 2005: A Situated Overview’, Shakespeare: A Journal, 1.1 (2005), pp. 102–20. 11. Kirk Melnikoff’s recent volume Robert Greene (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011) is one of a series from Ashgate, which sets out to reassess the work of the ‘University Wits’. 12. The Shakespeare and the Queen’s Men Project (SQM), http://tapor.mcmaster. ca/~thequeensmen/ (accessed 7 June 2011). 13. Joe Falocco, Reimagining Shakespeare’s Playhouse: Early Modern Staging Conventions in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2010), p. 2. 14. Ewan Fernie, ‘Shakespeare and the Prospect of Presentism’, Shakespeare Survey, 58 (2005), p. 169; Terence Hawkes, Shakespeare in the Present (London: Routledge, 2002). 15. Hugh Grady and Terence Hawkes, ‘Introduction: Presenting Presentism’, in Grady and Hawkes (eds.), Presentist Shakespeares, p. 5. 16. Grady and Hawkes, ‘Introduction: Presenting Presentism’, p. 4. 17. Grady, ‘Shakespeare Studies, 2005: A Situated Overview’, p. 115. 18. Fernie, ‘Shakespeare and the Prospect of Presentism’, p. 169. 19. Gillian Rose, Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials, 3rd edition (London: Sage, 2012), p. xix; W. J. T. Mitchell, Picture Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); W. J. T. Mitchell, ‘Interdisciplinary and Visual Culture’, Art Bulletin, 77 (1995), pp. 540–1. 20. Angela Ndalianis, Neo- Baroque Aesthetics and Contemporary Entertainment (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005); Albert A. Hopkins, Magic, Stage Illusions, Special Effects and Trick Photography (New York: Dover Publications, 1976); Andrew Darley, Visual Digital Culture: Surface, Play and Spectacle in New Media Genres (London: Routledge, 2000). 21. Ndalianis, Neo- Baroque Aesthetics, p. 5. 22. Ndalianis, Neo- Baroque Aesthetics, p. 5. 23. Ndalianis, Neo- Baroque Aesthetics, p. 5. 24. Wendy Griswold offers a detailed discussion of why a society revives certain cultural objects at specific times in Renaissance Revivals: City Comedy and Revenge Tragedy in the London Theatre, 1576–1980 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986). 25. Harold Love, Attributing Authorship: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 39. 26. Peter Brooker, ‘Postmodern Adaptation: Pastiche, Intertextuality and Re-Functioning’, in Deborah Cartnell and Imelda Wheleham (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 108. 27. On the status of the playwright in early modern theatre, see Jeffrey Masten, ‘Playwriting: Authorship and Collaboration’, in John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan (eds.), A New History of Early English Drama (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), pp. 357–82. 28. Tiffany Stern, Documents of Performance in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 1. 29. Michael Hattaway, Elizabethan Popular Theatre (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982), p. 4. 30. Hattaway, Elizabethan Popular Theatre, pp. 110, 106. Notes 147 31. Hattaway, Elizabethan Popular Theatre, p. 106. 32. Hattaway, Elizabethan Popular Theatre, pp. 101–2. 33. Hattaway, Elizabethan Popular Theatre, p. 95. 34. Iain Wright, ‘“Come like shadowes, so depart”: The Ghostly Kings in Macbeth’, in Peter Holbrook (ed.), The Shakespeare International Yearbook 6 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), p. 216. 35. J. A. Lavin (ed.), Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay (London: New Mermaids, 1969), p. xvii; G. E. Bentley, The Development of English Drama (New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1950), pp. 61–2. 36. Brian Walsh, ‘“Deep Prescience”: Succession and the Politics of Prophecy in Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay’, Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, 23 (2010), p. 73. 37. David Bordwell, ‘The Idea of Montage in Soviet Art and Film’, Cinema Journal, 11 (1972), p. 14. 38. Mark Joyce, ‘The Soviet Montage Cinema of the 1920s’, in Jill Nelmes (ed.), An Introduction to Film Studies (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 427; David Bordwell, The Cinema of Eisenstein (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), p. 6; Jacques Aumont, Montage Eisenstein (trans. Lee Hildreth, Constance Penley and Andrew Ross) (London: BFI, 1987), p. 42. 39. Sergei Eisenstein, ‘Montage of Attractions: For “Enough Stupidity in Every Wiseman”’ (trans. Daniel Gerould), The Drama Review, 18 (1974), p. 78. 40. Aumont, Montage Eisenstein, p. 42. 41. S. M. Eisenstein, Writings, 1922–34, in Richard Taylor (ed. and trans.), S. M. Eisenstein: Selected Works, vol. 1 (London: BFI, 1988), p. 39; Robert Robertson, Eisenstein on the Audiovisual: The Montage of Music, Image and Sound in Cinema (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. 3. 42. Michele Pierson, Special Effects: Still in Search of Wonder (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), p. 168; Ndalianis, Neo- Baroque Aesthetics. For fur- ther theoretical work on film special effects, see Leger Grindon, ‘The Role of Spectacle and Excess in the Critique of Illusion’, PostScript, 13.2 (1994), pp. 35–43; John Brosnan, Movie Magic: The Story of Special Effects in the Cinema (New York: Plume, 1976). 43. Hattaway, Elizabethan Popular Theatre, p. 3; Stevie Simkin, Early Modern Tragedy and Cinema of Violence (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006); Pascale Aebischer, ‘Vampires, Cannibals and Victim- Revengers: Watching Shakespearean Tragedy Through Horror Film’, Shakespeare Jahrbuch, 143 (2007), pp. 119–31; Emma Smith, ‘Performing Relevance/Relevant Performances: Shakespeare, Jonson, Hitchcock’, in Werner (ed.), New Directions in Renaissance Drama and Performance Studies, pp. 147–61. 44. Thomas Postlewait, ‘Eyewitness to History: Visual Evidence for Theater in Early Modern England’, in Richard Dutton (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theatre (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 577, 604, 606. 45. Emma Smith, ‘“Freezing the Snowman”: (How) Can We Do Performance Criticism?’, in Laurie E. Maguire (ed.), How To Do Things With Shakespeare: New Approaches, New Essays (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), p. 283. 46. Joel Fineman, ‘The History of the Anecdote: Fiction and Fiction’, in H. Aram Vesser (ed.), The New Historicism (New York: Routledge, 1989), p. 56. 47. Catherine Belsey, ‘Historicizing New Historicism’, in Grady and Hawkes (eds.), Presentist Shakespeares, p. 35. 148 Notes 48. For a similar methodological approach to authorship, see Gillian Austen, George Gascoigne (Woodbridge: D. S. Brewer, 2008), pp. 6–21. 49. Robert Greene, The repentance of Robert Greene […] (London, 1592), sig. C1b. 50. John Clark Jordan, Robert Greene (New York: Octagon Books, 1965), pp. 201–2; Kirk Melnikoff and Edward Gieskes, ‘Introduction: Reimagining Robert Greene’, in Melnikoff and Gieskes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Plays & Poems of Robert Greene;
    tiiP-^Miffli LfBRARY "W'VER.^fTY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE K,<? V * V * V £x Libris ISAAC FOOT ul THE PLAYS AND POEMS OF ROBERT GREENE HENRY FROWDE, M.A. PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD LONDON, EDINBURGH NEW YORK AND TORONTO ,ViV7 (^^ vn^Mf iM3^ \- 1 1 Ifl ^f^yt^S- 111*' -fe? -A nW" Cm?^ ' -' >-i / iL\ -ii- >?viM.^ ' r ^c'lr^r'^ 7^ ^^W*^" ^^'-'^ W^^. /^-^i I'rom ALLliVN MS. ot Orlando Fiirioso (sir />. .'7^) THE PLAYS & POEMS OF ROBERT GREENE EDITED WITH INTRODUCTIONS AND NOTES By J. CHURTON COLLINS, Litt.D. (professor of ENGLISH LITEKATURE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM) VOL I GENERAL INTRODUCTION. ALPHONSUS. A LOOKING GLASSE. ORLANDO FURIOSO. APPENDIX TO ORLANDO FURIOSO (THE ALLEYN MS.) NOTES TO PLAYS OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS MDCCCCV V.I C.2- OXFORD PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS BY HORACE HART, M.A. PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY TO FREDERICK JAMES FURNIVALL PH.D., D.LITT. THESE VOLUMES ARE RESPECTFULLY AND AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED PREFACE When the Delegates of the Clarendon Press entrusted me with the preparation of an edition of Greene's Plays and Poems I determined to spare no pains to make it, so far at least as the text was concerned, a final one. And the method adopted was this. Each play was transcribed literally from the oldest Quarto extant : thus the Looking Glasse was copied from the Quarto of 1594, Orlando and Frier Bacon and Frier Bongay from the Quartos of the same year, AlpJionsus from the Quarto of 1599, James IV from that of 1597, and TJie Pinner from that of 1599.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare in Geneva
    Shakespeare in Geneva SHAKESPEARE IN GENEVA Early Modern English Books (1475-1700) at the Martin Bodmer Foundation Lukas Erne & Devani Singh isbn 978-2-916120-90-4 Dépôt légal, 1re édition : janvier 2018 Les Éditions d’Ithaque © 2018 the bodmer Lab/université de Genève Faculté des lettres - rue De-Candolle 5 - 1211 Genève 4 bodmerlab.unige.ch TABLE OF CONTENts Acknowledgements 7 List of Abbreviations 8 List of Illustrations 9 Preface 11 INTRODUctION 15 1. The Martin Bodmer Foundation: History and Scope of Its Collection 17 2. The Bodmer Collection of Early Modern English Books (1475-1700): A List 31 3. The History of Bodmer’s Shakespeare(s) 43 The Early Shakespeare Collection 43 The Acquisition of the Rosenbach Collection (1951-52) 46 Bodmer on Shakespeare 51 The Kraus Sales (1970-71) and Beyond 57 4. The Makeup of the Shakespeare Collection 61 The Folios 62 The First Folio (1623) 62 The Second Folio (1632) 68 The Third Folio (1663/4) 69 The Fourth Folio (1685) 71 The Quarto Playbooks 72 An Overview 72 Copies of Substantive and Partly Substantive Editions 76 Copies of Reprint Editions 95 Other Books: Shakespeare and His Contemporaries 102 The Poetry Books 102 Pseudo-Shakespeare 105 Restoration Quarto Editions of Shakespeare’s Plays 106 Restoration Adaptations of Plays by Shakespeare 110 Shakespeare’s Contemporaries 111 5. Other Early Modern English Books 117 NOTE ON THE CATALOGUE 129 THE CATALOGUE 135 APPENDIX BOOKS AND MANUscRIPts NOT INCLUDED IN THE CATALOGUE 275 Works Cited 283 Acknowledgements We have received precious help in the course of our labours, and it is a pleasure to acknowl- edge it.
    [Show full text]
  • Piteous Massacre’: Violence, Language, and the Off-Stage in Richard III
    Journal of the British Academy, 8(s3), 91–109 DOI https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/008s3.091 Posted 15 June 2020 ‘Piteous massacre’: violence, language, and the off-stage in Richard III Georgina Lucas Abstract: Shakespeare regularly stages extreme violence. In Titus Andronicus, Chiron and Demetrius are baked in a pie and eaten by their mother. Gloucester’s eyes are plucked out in King Lear. In contradistinction to this graphic excess are moments when violence is relegated off-stage: Macbeth kills King Duncan in private; when Richard III suborns the assassination of his nephews—the notorious ‘Princes in the Tower’—the boys are killed away from the audience. In such instances, the spectator must imagine the scope and formation of the violence described. Focussing on Richard III, this article asks why Shakespeare uses the word ‘massacre’ to express the murder of the two princes. Determining the varied, and competing, meanings of the term in the 16th and 17th centuries, the article uncovers a range of ways an early audience might have interpreted the killings—as mass murder, assassination, and butchery—and demonstrates their thematic connections to child-killing across the cycle of plays that Richard III concludes. Keywords: Shakespeare, massacre, Richard III, off-stage violence, child-killing. Notes on the author: Georgina Lucas is Lecturer in Shakespeare and Renaissance Literature in the School of Arts, English and Languages at Queen’s University, Belfast. Her research focusses upon the representation of mass and sexual violence on the early modern stage, and the performance and reception of Shakespeare during and after acts of atrocity.
    [Show full text]
  • Christopher Marlowe and the Golden Age of England
    The Marlowe Society Christopher Marlowe and the Research Journal - Volume 05 - 2008 Golden Age of England Online Research Journal Article Michael J. Kelly Christopher Marlowe and the Golden Age of England Poet, spy and playwright, Christopher Marlowe was the embodiment of the Elizabethan Golden Age. Marlowe’s work was the product of his ‘Erasmian,’ or Christian humanist, education, the state of affairs in England and his own ability and readiness to satirize the world around him. Marlowe and his fellow contemporaries were a testament to the development of English drama, its pinnacle at the end of the English Renaissance and its eventual decline and suppression at the outbreak of the English Civil War. Their work is historically important because it illustrates, in addition to the development of English theatre, the dramatic political and social events of the time through the public medium of the playhouse. Specifically, the development of the theatre helps explain key features of the English Renaissance such as the creation of English self-identity, adoption of humanistic ideal, the advancement of English over Latin, the role of religion, the intellectual development of a people and parliament and their gradual alienation from the monarchy, the ultimate assertion of parliamentary power, and Civil War. Furthermore, the development of commercial playwriting, acting, stage management and private investment in theatres, an aspect of life today taken for granted, began during this Golden Age in English drama. The history of English playwriting and performance stretches back to at least the ninth century trope ‘Alle Luia’ sung at Easter masses. However, post-classical Christian ritual performance itself probably developed from the ritualistic repetitions of the Empirical Roman Senate.1 This tradition, established in the Church at some point during the early formation of Roman successor states, likely spread to England from Spain, via Ireland, through missionaries.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shakespeare Association of America I » 1982 Meeting ((
    THE SHAKESPEARE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA I » 1982 MEETING (( APRIL 8TH , 10TH MARQUETTE HoTEL MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA THE SHAKESPEARE ASSOCIATION TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF AMERICA OF President, BERNARD BECKERMAN (Columbia Unitersic:v) THE SHAKESPEARE AssociATION oF AMERICA Executit•e Secretary, ANN ) ENNALIE CooK (Vanderbilt University) Adminismuit·e Assistant, RoSEMARY ALLEN (Vanderbilt Unit•ersity) INCORPORATED 1972 TRUSTEES )OHN ANDREWS S. SCHOENBAUM (Folger Shakespeare Library) (Unit·ersity of Maryland) ANNUAL MEETINGS )ONAS BARISH CHARLES SHATTUCK (Unit•ersity of California, Berkeley) (University of Illinois) MARCH 29-31, 1973 STATLER HILTON HoTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C. ANNUAL LECTURER, HARRY LEVIN (Harvard University) STEPHEN BooTH SUSAN SNYDER (University of California, Berkeley) (Swarthmore College) MARCH 28-30, 1974 HuNTINGTON-SHERATON HoTEL, PASADENA, CALIFORNIA ANNUAL LECTURER, RoBERT B. HEILMAN (University of Washington) THELMA GREENFIELD R. W. VAN FossEN (Unit•ersity of Oregon) (University of Toronto) MARCH 20-22, 1975 SHERATON PARK PLAZA HoTEL, NEw HAVEN, CoNNECTICUT ANNUAL LECTURER, HALLETT D. SMITH (Huntington Library) LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS *APRIL 19-25, 1976 STATLER HILTON HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C. THOMAS CLAYTON (Unit•ersity of Minnesota) ANNUAL LECTURER, KENNETH MuiR (University of Liverpool) WITH THE ASS ISTANCE OF MARSHA L. RIEBE, ExEcuTivE AssiSTANT, AcADEMIC AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA APRIL 7-9, 1977 FAIRMONT HoTEL, NEw ORLEANS, LouiSIANA ANNUAL LECTURER, EuGENE W AITH (Yale University) WELCOMING COMMITTEE APRIL 13-15, 1978 HYATT REGENCY HoTEL, ToRONTO, ONTARIO AGNES MARIE FLECK (College of St. Scholastica) ANNUAL LECTURER, VIRGIL WHITAKER (Stanford University) SHIRLEY NELSON GARNER (Unit•ersity of Minnesota) MADELON GoHLKE (University of Minnesota) APRIL 12-14, 1979 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE HoTEL, SAN FRANCISCo, CALIFORNIA LowELL E. JoHNSON (St. Olaf College) ANNUAL LECTURER, G.
    [Show full text]
  • Selected Contemporary Allusions
    Appendix A Selected Contemporary Allusions 1. Robert Greene, Groats- Worth of Witte ( 1592). Quoted and discussed above, pp. 1-6, 53-4. See also Appendix B. 2. Henry Chettle, Kind-Harts Dreame (1592; SR 8 Dec. 1592), from the Epistle, 'To the Gentlemen Readers'. Discussed pp. 7, 21. he that offendes being forst, is more excusable than the wilfull faultie ... lie shew reason for my present writing, and after proceed to sue for pardon. About three moneths since died M. Robert Greene, leauing many papers in sundry Booke sellers hands, among other his Groats­ worth of wit, in which a letter written to diuers play-makers, is offensiuely by one or two of them taken, and because on the dead they cannot be auenged, they wilfully forge in their conceites a liuing Author: and after tossing it two and fro, no remedy, but it must light on me. How I haue all the time of my conuersing in printing hindred the bitter inueying against schollers, it hath been very well knowne, and how in that I dealt I can sufficiently prooue. With neither of them that take offence was I acquainted, and with one of them I care not if I neuer be: The other (i.e. Shakespeare], whome at that time I did not so much spare, as since I wish I had, for that as I haue moderated the heate of liuing writers, and might haue vsde my owne discretion (especially in such a case) the Author beeing dead, that I did not, I am as sory, as if the originall fault had beene my fault, because my selfe haue seene his demeanor no !esse ciuill than he exelent in the qualitie he professes: Besides, diuers of worship haue reported, his vprightnes of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writting, that aprooues his Art.
    [Show full text]
  • Sir John Oldcastle and the Construction of Shakespeare's
    SEL38 (1998) ISSN 0039-3657 SirJohn Oldcastle and the Construction of Shakespeare's Authorship DOUGLAS A. BROOKS Let vs returne vnto the Bench againe, And there examine further of this fray. -SirJohn Oldcastle, I.i.124-5 A decade ago the editors of the Oxford William Shakespeare: The CompleteWorks replaced the name of the character called Falstaff in Henry IVPart Iwith a hypothetically earlier version of the character's name, Sir John Oldcastle. The restoration of Oldcastle to the Oxford edition makes it the first authoritative text to undo an alteration which, as scholars have long suspected, Shakespeare himself must have made sometime between a non-extant 1596 performance text and the 1598 quarto of the play. The resulting scholarly debate over this editorial decision has touched on a number of significant issues linked to the authority and authenticity of "Shakespearean" texts, and it has raised important questions about how these texts were shaped by the material, religious, and political conditions in which they were produced.l In the case of HenryIVPart I, crit- ics have struggled to reconstruct how an early version of the text with Oldcastle as the protagonist of the unworthy knight plot might have placed the play and its author in a complicated Douglas A. Brooks recently completed his Ph.D. at Columbia University, and is assistant professor of Shakespeare and Renaissance Drama at Texas A&M University. He is currently working on a book about early modern dramatic authorship and print. 334 SIR JOHN OLDCASTLE position between an individual's reputation and a nation's.
    [Show full text]
  • Sidney, Shakespeare, and the Elizabethans in Caroline England
    Textual Ghosts: Sidney, Shakespeare, and the Elizabethans in Caroline England Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Rachel Ellen Clark, M.A. English Graduate Program The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: Richard Dutton, Advisor Christopher Highley Alan Farmer Copyright by Rachel Ellen Clark 2011 Abstract This dissertation argues that during the reign of Charles I (1625-42), a powerful and long-lasting nationalist discourse emerged that embodied a conflicted nostalgia and located a primary source of English national identity in the Elizabethan era, rooted in the works of William Shakespeare, Sir Philip Sidney, John Lyly, and Ben Jonson. This Elizabethanism attempted to reconcile increasingly hostile conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, court and country, and elite and commoners. Remarkably, as I show by examining several Caroline texts in which Elizabethan ghosts appear, Caroline authors often resurrect long-dead Elizabethan figures to articulate not only Puritan views but also Arminian and Catholic ones. This tendency to complicate associations between the Elizabethan era and militant Protestantism also appears in Caroline plays by Thomas Heywood, Philip Massinger, and William Sampson that figure Queen Elizabeth as both ideally Protestant and dangerously ambiguous. Furthermore, Caroline Elizabethanism included reprintings and adaptations of Elizabethan literature that reshape the ideological significance of the Elizabethan era. The 1630s quarto editions of Shakespeare’s Elizabethan comedies The Merry Wives of Windsor, The Taming of the Shrew, and Love’s Labour’s Lost represent the Elizabethan era as the source of a native English wit that bridges social divides and negotiates the ii roles of powerful women (a renewed concern as Queen Henrietta Maria became more conspicuous at court).
    [Show full text]
  • Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare's King Lear
    Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear By Greg Maillet Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear By Greg Maillet This book first published 2016 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 © 2016 by Greg Maillet 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): 1-4438-9729-9 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-9729-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Polemical Prologue .................................................................................... vii Criticism, Theology, and the Value of Shakespeare’s King Lear Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 “See Better”: Christian Paradox in Act One of King Lear Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 27 “I Nothing Am”: Confusion and Clarification of Identity in Act Two of King Lear Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 51 “This Night will turn us all to Fools and Madmen”: Storm and the Transformation of Identity
    [Show full text]
  • Doing Wrong with Just Cause? a History of Julius Caesar 3.1.47-48 by M. L. Stapleton and Sarah K. Scott Relative to Some Of
    Doing Wrong with Just Cause? A History of Julius Caesar 3.1.47-48 by M. L. Stapleton and Sarah K. Scott Relative to some of its fellows in the First Folio, the text of Julius Caesar appears at first glance to present few problems for editors and commentators. There are no troublesome quartos with readings that diverge wildly from the copy text. There is no incomprehensible “I see that men make rope’s in such a scarre” (AWW 4.2.38 / 2063). Nor does the play provide a spectacular opportunity to illuminate a passage with the mere substitution of a few letters, such as Lewis Theobald’s extension of Mistress Quickly’s pastoral conceit as she describes Falstaff in extremis, his “’a babbl’d” for the Folio’s “a Table of greene fields” (H5 2.3.16-17 / 839). However, in our work on the New Variorum edition of the play—compiling a commentary, collating editions, and writing performance appendices—we have found that the 1623 text cannot be described as problem-free.1 Twenty-first century textual scholars tend to advise against emendation for sensible, if doctrinaire reasons. Surely no one would wish to violate a play’s textuality or deny her students the opportunity to purchase a multi-version Hamlet or Lear, a deprivation they would surely see as an impediment to their quest for knowledge. Yet many of our predecessors, even those of a fairly conservative bent such as Capell or Dr. Johnson, might well find such reasons for nonintervention ridiculous: or, as they spell one of their favorite euphemisms for strong disapproval, “surprizing.” Eighteenth and early nineteenth-century editors especially engage in somewhat ferocious combat about many passages in Julius Caesar.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2014
    Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance studies Proclamation ! The Trident Vol. XXI, Issue 3 Jan/Feb 2014 Want to be rewarded for your la- bors? Submit your essay to the AMRS Essay Competition and win cash! Dr. Arnold’s Castles and Cathedrals class put theory into practice and built this castle on AMRS Movie Nights will coming Feb. 5. soon! Keep an eye out for the e-mail What Professors do When They Aren’t Teaching Part I* and join us! By Donald Lateiner would cooperate with him in or- In August 2013, soon ganizing a panel on DISGUST at The Staff of the Trident after I delivered a paper on the biennial Celtic Classics Con- “Disgust in Greek Epic, Tragedy ference to be held in June 2014 Student Editor: Madeline Lank and Comedy,” near Geneva, at Edinburgh. Previously the Tri- Switzerland, I received a query ple C has met in Ireland, Scot- Contributing Students: Alyssa Reed, Jake Simpson from Professor Dimos land, Wales and Bordeaux Spatharas. The promising young (Brittany). The Triple C beck- Contributing Alumni: Sidney Kochman scholar from the University of oned! Contributing Faculty: Dr. Donald Lateiner Crete (Rethymnon) asked if I Cont. on pg 2 AMRS Chair: Dr. Patricia DeMarco IN THIS ISSUE OWU’s Second Folio—--pg. 4-5, 10-11 Speaker Preview———-———pg 8-9 Want to write a story? Have ideas for the next issue? AMRS Abroad——————-pg 6-7 Announcements…——————-pg.. 12 Complaints? Send them to [email protected]. 2 11 We wrote to the two or- extant ancient data (visual as ganizers (Scots and Welsh) well as literary)? How do an- about our proposal.
    [Show full text]
  • The Private Theaters in Crisis: Strategies at Blackfriars and Paul’S, 1606–07
    ABSTRACT Title of Document: THE PRIVATE THEATERS IN CRISIS: STRATEGIES AT BLACKFRIARS AND PAUL’S, 1606–07 Christopher Bryan Love, Ph.D., 2006 Directed By: Professor Theodore B. Leinwand, Department of English This study addresses the ways in which the managers and principal playwrights at second Paul’s and second Blackfriars approached opportunities in the tumultuous 1606–07 period, when the two troupes were affected by extended plague closures and threatened by the authorities because of the Blackfriars’ performance of offensive satires. I begin by demonstrating that Paul’s and Blackfriars did not neatly conform to the social and literary categories or commercial models typically employed by scholars. Instead, they were collaborative institutions that readily adapted to different circumstances and situations. Their small size, different schedules, and different economics gave them a flexibility generally unavailable to the larger, more thoroughly commercial adult companies. Each chapter explores a strategy used by the companies and their playwrights to negotiate a tumultuous theatrical market. The first chapter discusses the mercenary methods employed by the private children’s theaters. Occasionally, plays or play topics were commissioned by playgoers, and some performances at Paul’s and Blackfriars may even have been “private” in the sense of closed performances for exclusive audiences. In this context, I discuss Francis Beaumont’s The Knight of the Burning Pestle (Blackfriars, 1607), in which Beaumont uses the boorish citizens George and Nell to lay open the private theaters’ mercenary methods and emphasize sophisticated playgoers’ stake in the Blackfriars theater. The second chapter discusses the ways private-theater playwrights used intertextuality to entertain the better sort of playgoers, especially those who might buy quartos of plays.
    [Show full text]