DOCSLIB.ORG

Titus Andronicus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Titus Andronicus Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Titus Andronicus The Lamentable Tragedy of Titus Andronicus itus Andronicus can be dated between version, discovered in Sweden in 1904, and 1579 (the publication of North’s Plutarch) now in the Folger Library. It is usually asserted and 1594, when it was first published. that the play was set up from foul papers, i.e. T “from Shakespeare’s Working Manuscript” Publication date (Bate). Chambers suggests that Strange’s Men transferred it to Pembroke’s, who transferred it to Sussex’s, where it was revised into its present form. The play was apparently first registered on 6 However, it is not clear whether the play had been February 1594: performed by the playing companies separately, as is usually thought, or once in combination, as [SR 1594] John Danter. Entred for his Copye vnder thandes of bothe the wardens a booke argued by George and accepted by Bate. intitled A Noble Roman Historye of Tytus The second quarto followed in 1600: Andronicus. vjd. John Danter. Entred also vnto him by warraunt from Master Woodcock the [Q2, 1600] The most lamentable Romaine ballad thereof. tragedie of Titus Andronicus. As it hath sundry times beene playde by the Right Waith has reviewed the interpretations of “a Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke, the Earle of Darbie, the Earle of Sussex, and booke” cautiously accepting that the SR refers to the Lorde Chamberlaine theyr seruants. the play. It is also possible that “a booke” refers At London: printed by I. R. [James Roberts] to the prose history, whose title was transferred for Edward White, and are to bee sold at his from Pavier’s widow in 1626 to Edward Brewster shoppe, at the little north doore of Paules, at the and Robert Bird. It was transferred again in 1630. signe of the Gun, 1600. If Waith is correct that the SR refers to this play, then it would be the earliest reference in the SR There were very few changes from Q1 to Q2, only to a play by Shakespeare (1594). It was published some corrections and some new errors. A third in the same year and its status was changed from quarto appeared in 1611. “a noble Roman History” to “a most lamentable Roman Tragedy”: [Q3, 1611] The most lamentable Romaine tragedie of Titus Andronicus. As it hath sundry times [Q1 1594] The most lamentable Romaine beene plaide by the Kings Maiesties seruants. tragedie of Titus Andronicus as it was plaide by London: printed [by Edward Allde] for Eedward the Right Honourable the Earle of Darbie, Earle [sic] White, and are to be solde at his shoppe, of Pembrooke, and Earle of Sussex their seruants. nere the little north dore of Pauls, at the signe of London: printed by Iohn Danter, and are to be the Gun, 1611. sold by Edward White & Thomas Millington, at the little North doore of Paules at the signe of All these quarto editions were anonymous, the Gunne, 1594. despite Meres’s attribution of the play in 1598 to There is only one extant copy of that quarto Shakespeare. The play occurs in the 1623 First Folio (F1): © De Vere Society 1 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Titus Andronicus Title page to the anonymous first quarto of Titus Andronicus, 1594. By permission of the Folger Shakespeare Library. [F1, 1623] The Lamentable Tragedy of Titus and errors. F1 adds more detailed stage directions Andronicus and the fly-killing scene (3.2). There has been varied speculation about the time of composition It occupies the second position in the tragedies of this extra scene: Waith, followed by Wells & after Coriolanus and before Romeo and Juliet. Taylor (TxC ), consider that it was composed at the It is usually accepted that the initial plan of same time as the rest of the play; Bate, however, the First Folio intended Troilus and Cressida considers it a later addition, perhaps written c. for this position. The subsequent pagination is 1600 by another author. inconsistent, with a blank page before the next play, suggesting that there had been problems in acquiring the copyright of Troilus. It has also been Performance dates proposed that the manuscript of Titus required There are three possible references to a play about a hasty change of plan, perhaps contributing to Titus in the late 1580s or early 1590s. In the some of the inconsistencies. F1 gives the running induction to Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair (1614), title as The Tragedy of Titus Andronicus and the there is a mocking reference to a spectator who text follows Q3 with a few further corrections © De Vere Society 2 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Titus Andronicus is “fixed and settled in his censure . He that given by a particular company for the first time. will swear Jeronimo or Andronicus are the best Honigmann points out that Henslowe was able plays yet, shall pass unexcepted at here as a man to write “newe” on occasions and often had room whose judgement shows it is constant, and hath for more letters than ‘ne’; this consistent variation stood still these five and twenty or thirty years.” suggests that ‘ne’ was not intended to stand for A literal reading of this would indicate that a play the word ‘new’, and that Chambers went too about Titus was being performed between 1584 far in claiming that a play marked ‘ne’ seems and 1589 (presumably alongside Kyd’s Spanish generally to have been a new play in a full sense. Tragedy).1 Similarly, a reference in an anonymous Frazer notes that the same play was marked as ‘ne’ play called A Knack to know a Knave, performed on 11 June 1596 and again on 11 February 1597. in 1592, contains the following allusion: She argues that ‘ne’ must be an abbreviation for the theatre at Newington Butts, which Henslowe As Titus was to the Roman Senators, may have owned. Thus, Henslowe might not have When he had made a conquest on the Goths: been recording Titus Andronicus as a ‘new’ play That in requital of his seruice done, in 1594. Did offer him the imperial Diademe, The play was soon performed at the home of Sir John Harrington in Rutland, (east Midlands) on A Knack, which Henslowe marked as ‘ne’, was 1 January 1596 by a London company.3 published in 1594, perhaps from a memorial reconstruction, and it is possible that the reference The Henry Peacham Drawing & to Titus was added after the company acquired a Chronogram new play.2 A third possible allusion occurs when Strange’s Men (i.e. before they changed their title to Derby’s Men on 25 September 1593) were playing at the Rose. There is an entry in Henslowe’s diary on 11 April 1592 for tittus & vespacia which Henslowe also marks as ‘ne’. It was a popular play: performances continued until January 1593. Maxwell thinks that these three allusions refer to Shakespeare’s play. Most commentators tend to believe that these are not alluding to Titus Andronicus but to another play which may have been Shakespeare’s source. The consensus is that the earliest references to Detail of Peacham ms. Titus are Henslowe’s entries for January and February 1594, when Sussex’s Men played: Among the papers of the Marquis of Bath (held ne – Rd at titus & ondronicus the 23 of jenewary in the library at Longleat House, Somerset) is a . iijli viijs single sheet, folio size, with a detailed illustration of Tamora’s entrance and some 40 lines of text Since the 23 January 1594 was a Sunday, this date from Titus. There is a signature by ‘Henricus is usually corrected to 24 Jan. Henslowe records Peacham’ (usually identified as Henry Peacham, two further performances in June 1594 by “my born 1576 and the author of The Compleat Lord Admeralle men & my Lorde Chamberlen Gentleman, 1620).4 There is also a series of letters men” although again it is not clear whether the identified as a chronogram, usually explained as companies had played jointly or separately. indicating a date of 1594 or 1595 (taking the third Chambers tends to assume that Henslowe’s ‘ne’ symbol to be a nine). David Roper has explained attached to Titus & Ondronicus means ‘new’ in the system of symbols thus: the sense ‘the first ever performance’. Sometimes, however, as Chambers records, it may refer to a The system used by Peacham was a medieval newly revised, corrected or augmented play, or response to the need for abbreviation. It required to a play new at that theatre, or even to a play that the initial letter of a word be written in the © De Vere Society 3 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Titus Andronicus normal manner, followed by the final letter, According to the 1687 testimony of Edward or letters in superscript form. ... The date on Ravenscroft (later supported by Malone and the Peacham Document should therefore be others), Shakespeare’s contribution to this play a straightforward exercise in expanding these was limited to a few master touches (Chambers, written abbreviations. Unfortunately, this has WS, not proved to be the case. The third symbol has II, 254–5): proved to be an insurmountable obstacle for I have been told by some anciently conversant all those who have made the attempt. Indeed, with the Stage, that it was not Originally his, there is even uncertainty as to whether it was but brought by a private Author to be Acted, intended as a ‘q’ or a ‘g’. and he only gave some Master-touches to one or Hence, either Anno mo qo g qto or Anno mo qo two of the Principal Parts or Characters; this I q qto gives the required date.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arden of Faversham, Shakespearean Authorship, and 'The Print of Many'
    Chapter 9 Arden of Faversham, Shakespearean Authorship, and 'The Print of Many' JACK ELLIOTT AND BRETT GREATLEY-HIRSCH he butchered body of Thomas Arden is found in the field behind the Abbey. After reporting Tthis discovery to Arden's wife, Franklin surveys the circumstantial evidence of footprints in the snow and blood at the scene: I fear me he was murdered in this house And carried to the fields, for from that place Backwards and forwards may you see The print of many feet within the snow. And look about this chamber where we are, And you shall find part of his guiltless blood; For in his slip-shoe did I find some rushes, Which argueth he was murdered in this room. (14.388-95) Although The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland by Raphael Holinshed and his editors records the identities and fates of Arden's murderers in meticulous detail (Holinshed 1587, 4M4r-4M6v; 1587, 5K1v-5K3v), those responsible for composing the dramatization of this tragic episode remain unknown. We know that the bookseller Edward White entered The Lamentable and True Tragedy ofArden ofFaversham in Kent into the Stationers' Register on 3 April 1592 (Arber 1875-94, 2: 607 ), and we believe, on the basis of typographical evidence, that Edward Allde printed the playbook later that year ( STC 733). We know that Abel Jeffes also printed an illicit edition of the playbook, as outlined in disciplinary proceedings brought against him and White in a Stationers' Court record dated 18 December 1592 (Greg and Boswell 1930, 44). No copies of this pirate edition survive, but it is assumed to have merely been a reprint of White's; Jeffes was imprisoned on 7 August 1592, so his edition must have appeared prior to this date.
    [Show full text]
  • AN EXAMINATION of PLAYS in MANUSCRIPT ET ME Begin by Stating As Clearly As I Can the Purpose L.4 of This Exploratory Study
    TEXTUAL DEGENERATION OF ELlZABETHAN AND STUART PLAYS: AN EXAMINATION OF PLAYS IN MANUSCRIPT ET ME begin by stating as clearly as I can the purpose l.4 of this exploratory study. It has seemed to me that in accounting for variation among Elizabethan and post-Eliza- bethan dramatic texts too little weight has been given to the activities of prompters and actors as compared with those of printers and copyists. According to R. B. McKerrow and Evelyn Albright,l the incompetence of printers has been greatly exaggerated, and the defense they offer seems sound and just, and, as for copyists, they seem, as a class, to have been the most efficient of those who worked on plays. On the other hand, the conditions of play production, now, in the Elizabethan age and in general, are such as not only to pro- voke alteration of texts but to necessitate it. The simplest in- vestigation of the history of Shakespeare on the stage (and on the screen) will reveal habitual and not infrequently vio- Ient modifications of his texts and even of his intentions. A visit to a production lot will convince any visitor that the pro- ducer feels free to alter the script without any reference to the author or what he has written. I remember a conversa- tion in 1908 with Eugene Walter, whose Paid in Full was then en uogue, and of hearing him describe without the least of- fense, indeed with pride, the great changes made in his play when it was produced on Broadway, Stage aIterations are and have been since the Elizabethan age and before the merest commonplace and by no means inconsiderable.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Quarto of Othello Edited by Scott Mcmillin Excerpt More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-61594-5 - The First Quarto of Othello Edited by Scott McMillin Excerpt More information [] Introduction INTRODUCTION The textual problem Othello remains a textual mystery. Not published at all for nearly twenty years after its first recorded performance, then published twice within the space of approximately a year, the Quarto of and the Folio of ( and hereafter) present the same play in the same order of events, even the same order of speeches for the most part, yet the texts differ from one another on thousands of points. Some of these differences are prominent. Each text lacks some lines present in the other. Most noticeably, has about lines which does not, with some of the -only passages running ten or twenty lines. But it is the thousands of tiny differences which form the heart of the mystery. One can make reasonable surmises as to why does without parcels of dialogue present in , but why should use scores of commas and colons where uses periods, or dozens of contractions where uses uncontracted forms, or hundreds of perfectly good words where uses other perfectly good words? Here is Emilia in , refusing to hold her tongue at . –: Em. ’Twill out, ’twill: I hold my peace sir, no, I’le be in speaking, liberall as the ayre, Here is the version: Emil. ’Twill out, ’twill out. I peace? No, I will speake as liberall as the North; As Greg remarked, an essay could be written about these lines, but the first question about the two versions is why should they differ in such numerous and trifling ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Title Jest-Book Formation Through the Early Modern Printing Industry
    Title Jest-book formation through the early modern printing industry: the two different editions of Scoggin's Jests Sub Title 二つのScoggin's Jests : 異なる版が語ること Author 小町谷, 尚子(Komachiya, Naoko) Publisher 慶應義塾大学日吉紀要刊行委員会 Publication year 2014 Jtitle 慶應義塾大学日吉紀要. 英語英米文学 (The Hiyoshi review of English studies). No.65 (2014. 10) ,p.45- 85 Abstract Notes Genre Departmental Bulletin Paper URL https://koara.lib.keio.ac.jp/xoonips/modules/xoonips/detail.php?koara_id=AN10030060-2014103 1-0045 慶應義塾大学学術情報リポジトリ(KOARA)に掲載されているコンテンツの著作権は、それぞれの著作者、学会または出版社/発行者に帰属し、その権利は著作権法によって 保護されています。引用にあたっては、著作権法を遵守してご利用ください。 The copyrights of content available on the KeiO Associated Repository of Academic resources (KOARA) belong to the respective authors, academic societies, or publishers/issuers, and these rights are protected by the Japanese Copyright Act. When quoting the content, please follow the Japanese copyright act. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Jest-book Formation through the Early Modern Printing Industry: The Two Different Editions of Scoggin’s Jests Naoko Komachiya The confusion and conflation of differently originated jester figures date back to Shakespeare’s time. Scoggin’s Jests is often seen as the primary source of jesting material along with Tarlton’s Jests. The apparent identity of these jests with named figures somewhat obscured the true identity of jesters.1) Modern editors identify the socially ambiguous jester Scoggin in Shallow’s episodic recollection of Falstaff, who breaks ‘Scoggin’s head at the court gate’ in Henry IV, Part 2 (III. 2. 28–29), as the jester to Edward IV. René Weis, in explaining that Scoggin’s name was ‘synonymous with “buffoon” in Shakespeare’s day through a mid sixteenth-century jestbook, Scoggin, his iestes’, comments that the reference demonstrates that ‘even the young Falstaff was always brawling with various buffoons’.2) Weis and other editors simply deduce that Shakespeare’s misunderstanding resulted from the circulated name of Scoggin, and they do not show any evidence how the conflation occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 X 10.Long New.P65
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-71397-9 - How to Read a Shakespearean Play Text Eugene Giddens Index More information Index accidental, 32, 44, 47, 100, 101, 116, 144 Brown, Arthur, 105, 149 act and scene divisions, 77–80 Brown, John Russell, 148, 150 advertisements, 12, 97 Buc, Sir George, 17 Alcorn, Thomas, 35 Burbage, Richard, 27 Allde, Edward, 40, 134 Burre, Walter, 61 Arden Shakespeare, 4, 50, 102, 112, 117, 149, 154, Burt, Richard, 13, 18 159, 160, 161, 164, 165, 167 Butter, Nathaniel, 62 arguments, 75 Armin, Robert, 27 Cambises, 72 Aspley, William, 27, 61, 97 Cambridge School Shakespeare, 167 Cambridge University Library, 143 bad quartos, 23–5, 49 Campion, Thomas Barton, Anne, 163 Masque at Lord Hay’s Marriage, 72 Bate, Jonathan, 109, 112, 154, 163, 167 Capell, Edward, 161 Beaumont, Francis, 9, 12, 18, 23, 33, 35, 39, 41, capitalisation, 81, 85, 88, 93, 107, 140 66, 69, 147, 150, 152 Carson, Christie, 171 Beaumont, Francis and John Fletcher Carson, Neil, 8, 9, 10, 35 Wild Goose Chase, 18 casting off, 41, 42, 89, 90, 133, 134 Beaumont, Francis, John Fletcher, and Philip catchwords, 96, 124–5, 151 Massinger chainlines, 137–8 Beggar’s Bush, 62 Chamberlain’s Men, 27, 29, 58 Benson, John, 19 Chapman, George, 9, 65 Berger, Thomas L., 160 Chettle, Henry, 14, 18 Bertram, Paul, 102 Clare, Janet, 16, 17 Best, Michael, 170 collation, 121–3 beta radiography, 135 collation line, 151, 160–4 Bevington, David, 81, 151, 158, 162, 164 collation, stop-press correction, 142–5 Blackfriars Theatre, 27 colophons, 97 black-letter, 86 composing stick, 43, 133 Blayney, Peter W.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to William Shakespeare's First Folio
    An Introduction to William Shakespeare’s First Folio By Ruth Hazel Cover illustration courtesy of Stephen Collins This eBook was produced by OpenLearn - The home of free learning from The Open University. It is made available to you under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence. 2 Brush up your Shakespeare The comic gangsters in Kiss Me Kate, Cole Porter’s 1948 musical based on Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew, offer Shakespeare’s poetry – by which they actually mean his plays – as a guaranteed way to a woman’s heart: quoting Shakespeare will impress her and be a sure-fire aphrodisiac. Today, Shakespeare has become a supreme icon of Western European high culture, which is ironic since in his own day Shakespeare’s craft – jobbing playwright – was not a well-regarded one. Indeed, those who wrote plays to entertain the ‘groundlings’ (as the people who paid just one penny to stand in the open yard round the stage in public playhouses were called) were often considered little better than the actors themselves – who, in their turn, were only one level up, in the minds of Puritan moralists, from whores. Shakespeare himself did not seem eager to advertise authorship of his plays by seeing them into print, and when some of his plays were printed, in the handy quarto-sized editions for individual consumption, his name was not always on the title page. (The terms ‘folio’ and ‘quarto’ refer to the size of the pages in a book: in a Folio, each sheet of paper was folded just once, with a page height of approx.
    [Show full text]
  • FRONT9 2.CHP:Corel VENTURA
    144 Issues in Review The Red Bull Repertory in Print, 1605–60 With remarkable consistency throughout the early modern period, Red Bull playgoers are characterized as unlettered, ignorant, or possessed of a crass literary sensibility. Interestingly, though, they are also imagined as avid readers: Webster’s well-known depiction, following the failure at the Red Bull of his The White Devil, declares that ‘most of the people that come to that Play-house, resemble those ignorant asses (who visiting Stationers shoppes their use is not to inquire for good bookes, but new bookes).’1 Webster’s association of Red Bull spectators with book-buyers suggests that the persistent representations of the low literacy of this audience may obscure the extent to which the famously spectacle-driven Red Bull repertory intersects with early modern print culture. The number of Red Bull plays that were published with an explicit theatrical attribution, and more importantly the similarities in design and typography between them and plays belonging to the more elite indoor repertories, would seem to bear this out. As reading material, the Red Bull plays indicate that a seemingly ‘low’ or popular theatrical repertory is not sufficient evidence of the social or educational make-up of its audience. It is crucial at the outset to confront the publication figures that have led scholars to assume that a Red Bull attribution on the title page of a play quarto did not have any meaningful currency in early modern print culture: of the roughly 400 editions of plays published
    [Show full text]
  • VII Shakespeare
    VII Shakespeare GABRIEL EGAN, PETER J. SMITH, ELINOR PARSONS, CHLOE WEI-JOU LIN, DANIEL CADMAN, ARUN CHETA, GAVIN SCHWARTZ-LEEPER, JOHANN GREGORY, SHEILAGH ILONA O'BRIEN AND LOUISE GEDDES This chapter has four sections: 1. Editions and Textual Studies; 2. Shakespeare in the Theatre; 3. Shakespeare on Screen; 4. Criticism. Section 1 is by Gabriel Egan; section 2 is by Peter J. Smith; section 3 is by Elinor Parsons; section 4(a) is by Chloe Wei-Jou Lin; section 4(b) is by Daniel Cadman; section 4(c) is by Arun Cheta; section 4(d) is by Gavin Schwartz-Leeper; section 4(e) is by Johann Gregory; section 4(f) is by Sheilagh Ilona O'Brien; section 4(g) is by Louise Geddes. 1. Editions and Textual Studies One major critical edition of Shakespeare appeared this year: Peter Holland's Corio/anus for the Arden Shakespeare Third Series. Holland starts with 'A Note on the Text' (pp. xxiii-xxvii) that explains the process of modernization and how the collation notes work, and does so very well. Next Holland prints another note apologizing for but not explaining-beyond 'pressures of space'-his 44,000-word introduction to the play having 'no single substantial section devoted to the play itself and its major concerns, no chronologically ordered narrative of Corio/anus' performance history, no extensive surveying of the history and current state of critical analysis ... [and not] a single footnote' (p. xxxviii). After a preamble, the introduction itself (pp. 1-141) begins in medias res with Corio/anus in the 1930s, giving an account of William Poel's production in 1931 and one by Comedie-Frarn;:aise in 1933-4 and other reinterpretations by T.S.
    [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]
  • Why Was Edward De Vere Defamed on Stage—And His Death Unnoticed?
    Why Was Edward de Vere Defamed on Stage—and His Death Unnoticed? by Katherine Chiljan dward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, died on June 24, 1604. To our knowledge, there was neither public recognition of his death nor Enotice made in personal letters or diaries. His funeral, if one oc- curred, went unremarked. Putting aside his greatness as the poet-playwright “William Shakespeare,” his pen name, Oxford was one of the most senior nobles in the land and the Lord Great Chamberlain of England. During his life, numerous authors dedicated 27 books on diverse subjects to Oxford; of these authors, seven were still alive at the time of his death,1 including John Lyly and Anthony Munday, his former secretaries who were also dramatists. Moreover, despite the various scandals that touched him, Oxford remained an important courtier throughout his life: Queen Elizabeth granted him a £1,000 annuity in 1586 for no stated reason—an extraordinary gesture for the frugal monarch—and King James continued this annuity after he ascend- ed the throne in 1603. Why, then, the silence after Oxford had died? Could the answer be because he was a poet and playwright? Although such activity was considered a déclassé or even fantastical hobby for a nobleman, recognition after death would have been socially acceptable. For example, the courtier poet Sir Philip Sidney (d. 1586) had no creative works published in his lifetime, but his pastoral novel, Arcadia, was published four years after his death, with Sidney’s full name on the title page. Three years after that, Sidney’s sister, the Countess of Pembroke, published her own version of it.
    [Show full text]
  • Det. 1.2.2 Quartos 1594-1609.Pdf
    author registered year of title printer stationer value editions edition Anon. 6 February 1594 to John 1594 The most lamentable Romaine tragedie of Titus Iohn Danter Edward White & "rather good" 1600, 1611 Danter Andronicus as it was plaide by the Right Honourable Thomas Millington the Earle of Darbie, Earle of Pembrooke, and Earle of Sussex their seruants Anon. 2 May 1594 1594 A Pleasant Conceited Historie, Called the Taming of Peter Short Cuthbert Burby bad a Shrew. As it was sundry times acted by the Right honorable the Earle of Pembrook his seruants. Anon. 12 March 1594 to Thomas 1594 The First Part of the Contention Betwixt the Two Thomas Creede Thomas Millington bad 1600 Millington Famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster . [Henry VI Part 2] Anon. 1595 The true tragedie of Richard Duke of York , and P. S. [Peter Short] Thomas Millington bad 1600 the death of good King Henrie the Sixt, with the whole contention betweene the two houses Lancaster and Yorke, as it was sundrie times acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke his seruants [Henry VI Part 3] Anon. 1597 An excellent conceited tragedie of Romeo and Iuliet. Iohn Danter [and bad As it hath been often (with great applause) plaid Edward Allde] publiquely, by the Right Honourable the L. of Hunsdon his seruants Anon. 29 August 1597 to Andrew 1597 The tragedie of King Richard the second. As it hath Valentine Simmes Andrew Wise "rather good" Wise been publikely acted by the Right Honourable the Lorde Chamberlaine his seruants. William Shake-speare [29 Aug 1597] 1598 The tragedie of King Richard the second.
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of English Printing : 1476-1900
    J \ Books about Books Edited by A. W. Pollard A Short History of English Printing BOOKS ABOUT BOOKS Edited bv A. W. POLLARD POPULAR RE-ISSUE BOOKS IN MANUSCRIPT. By Falconer Madan, Bodley's Librarian, Oxford. THE BINDING OF BOOKS. By H. P. HORNE. A SHORT HISTORY OF ENGLISH PRINTING. By II. K. Plomer. EARLY ILLUSTRATED BOOKS. By A. W. POLI.ARD. Other volumes in pi-eparatioit. A Short History of English Printing 1476-1900 By Henry R. Plomer London Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibncr & Co., Ltd. Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.C, MDCCCCXV I-'irst Edition, 1900 Second (Popular) Edition, 1915 The rights of translation and of reproduction are reserved Editor's Preface When Mr. Plomer consented at my request to write a short history of EngHsh printing which should stop neither at the end of the fifteenth century, nor at the end of the sixteenth century, nor at 1640, but should come down, as best it could, to our ovm day, we were not without appre- hensions that the task might prove one of some difficulty. How difficult it would be we had certainly no idea, or the book would never have been begun, and now that it is Imished I would bespeak the reader's sympathies, on Mr. Plomer 's behalf, that its inevitable shortcomings may be the more generously forgiven. If we look at what has already been written on the subject the diffi- culties will be more easily appreciated. In England, as in other countries, the period in the history of the press which is best known to us is, by the perversity of antiquaries, that which is furthest removed from our own time.
    [Show full text]