Literature and Theatre

You are looking at 61 - 70 of 888 items for :

  • Manchester Shakespeare x
  • Refine by access: All content x
Clear All
Abstract only
Darren Freebury- Jones

This chapter surveys arguments for Kyd’s hand in Edward III and argues against the idea that Shakespeare revised a play written by another dramatist/s, for internal evidence suggests that Shakespeare planned and composed the play with Kyd. The Reign of King Edward III was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 1 December 1595 by Cuthbert Burby. It was published the following year with no allusion to the play’s authors or by which acting company it had been ‘sundry times played about the City of London’. On the basis of internal evidence, Shakespeare’s hand in Edward III is now universally accepted in modern authorship studies. This chapter reveals that the ‘non-Shakespearian’ scenes are commensurate with Kyd’s authorship and that this attribution has been anticipated by numerous scholars. The chapter expands upon previous scholarly observations through analysis of rhyme, prosody, and language in Edward III and in comparison to plays assigned to Kyd. The chapter proceeds to examine the ways in which this collaboration influenced the development of Shakespeare’s style and dramaturgy, using Henry V as a case study.

in Shakespeare’s tutor
Abstract only
Thomas Kyd’s dramatic oeuvre
Darren Freebury- Jones

Thomas Kyd is traditionally accepted as the author of The Spanish Tragedy, Soliman and Perseda, and Cornelia. HeKyd may also have written a lost Hamlet play that preceded Shakespeare’’s version. Among his contemporaries, Kyd enjoyed a far higher reputation than he does today. Thomas Dekker and Ben Jonson’’s respective epithets, ‘‘industrious’’ and ‘‘sporting’’, suggest that Kyd’’s canon was considerably larger than the three plays now acknowledged as his, and that he may have written comedies. This introduction argues that Kyd’’s canon should be expanded from three surviving sole-authored plays to six, including King Leir, Arden of Faversham, and Fair Em. Furthermore, the introduction engages with arguments that the play, The First Part of Hieronimo, represents a reconstruction of a lost Kyd play called The Comedy of Don Horatio, and that Shakespeare, rather than Kyd, was responsible for a lost Hamlet play (the so-called Ur-Hamlet) of the late 1580s. The introduction therefore engages with the attribution and textual histories of each of these plays, and explores the dramaturgical similarities amongbetween the six plays that have been attributed solely to Kyd.

in Shakespeare’s tutor
Abstract only
A reappraisal
Darren Freebury- Jones

This chapter calls for a reassessment of Kyd’s legacy as a major dramatist of the period. It summarises the narrative of the monograph, in which Kyd wrote a number of surviving plays in a variety of genres, which influenced Shakespeare’s dramatic language, his versification style, his dramatic devices, his characterisation, and his plots. It also provides excellent reasons for believing that Shakespeare acted in some of Kyd’s plays, that he later revised Kyd’s work, and that the dramatists even collaborated directly. The chapter compares Kyd’s influence on Shakespeare to the relationship between the latter dramatist and Christopher Marlowe. It does not seek to undermine the pervasive influence that Marlowe had on Shakespeare’s dramaturgy. The impact that Kyd’s room-mate had on Shakespeare has been universally acknowledged by early modern scholars. It is time for Kyd’s impact on Shakespeare to be properly acknowledged. Shakespeare would continue to engage with and learn from Kyd through processes of revision, adaptation, and collaboration, and readers may therefore regard Kyd as an even more important dramatic predecessor than has hitherto been acknowledged.

in Shakespeare’s tutor
Darren Freebury- Jones

Pervez Rizvi has developed an electronic corpus of 527 plays dated between 1552 and 1657, titled Collocations and N-Grams. Users can download summary spreadsheets for play pairs sharing n-grams (contiguous word sequences). The spreadsheets rank plays in the electronic corpus according to all n-gram matches, as well as unique n-gram matches (i.e. occurring only in two plays in the corpus), and takes account of composite word counts. Rizvi’s results are fully automated and enable scholars to check for every phrasal repetition (including lemmas), as well as all collocations (discontinuous word sequences), shared between texts. Searches of these lemmatised texts – drawn from Mueller’s corpus and the Folger Shakespeare Editions website – allow a wider range of matches to be discovered than by searches using the unlemmatised forms of words. Utilising Rizvi’s corpus, this chapter further explores Shakespeare’s early verbal indebtedness to plays that have been attributed to Kyd. The study utilises quantitative measures to demonstrate the influence of Kyd’s phraseology on plays such as Henry VI Part Three, The Taming of the Shrew, and Richard III beyond reasonable doubt. The chapter proceeds to examine the influence of Kyd’s dramaturgy on Shakespeare’s early plays, including such elements identified by Brian Vickers as vengeful women and foreboding dreams, as well as dramatic structure and staging. The chapter then demonstrates that Shakespeare elaborated on Kyd’s dramatic devices, and that close study of the plays themselves reveals that, in doing so, he recycled aspects of Kyd’s idiom.

in Shakespeare’s tutor
Darren Freebury- Jones

This chapter demonstrates the ways in which Shakespeare engaged with Kyd’s drama throughout his career, with specific focus on Much Ado about Nothing, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth. For instance, the chapter extends Thomas H. McNeal’s observations on Shakespeare’s characterisation of female figures in relation to the strong-willed women found in Kyd’s works; Jacqueline Pearson’s exploration of comic devices shared between Shakespeare and Kyd plays; and Lukas Erne’s arguments that many scenes in Kyd’s plays prefigure moments found in Shakespeare works. The chapter demonstrates that Kyd’s influence on King Lear is far more apparent than is the case with Much Ado about Nothing and Othello, and takes the form of not only plot points and dramatic devices, but also a large number of distinct verbal echoes. The chapter also reveals the ways in which Shakespeare adapts Kyd’s heroic narration in Macbeth, and how, in order to create Lady Macbeth, he fuses Kyd’s characterisation of violent females with the archetype of the grieving woman who succumbs to madness. This chapter establishes that Shakespeare continued to pick up the older dramatist’s cues when he was an established playwright, in terms of rhetoric, staging, characterisation, and plot devices.

in Shakespeare’s tutor
Darren Freebury- Jones

Having explored dramaturgical correspondences among plays attributed solely to Kyd, Chapter 1 provides an overview of methods used by attribution scholars to distinguish dramatists’’ styles, such as analyses of an author’’s verse habits, phraseology, linguistic habits, and vocabulary. The chapter then provides evidence for the stylistic homogeneity of the six plays that have been attributed solely to Kyd, engaging with the work of Philip Timberlake, Ants Oras, and Marina Tarlinskaja on Kyd’’s verse habits; Charles Crawford, H. D. Sykes, Paul V. Rubow, and Brian Vickers on Kyd’’s habitual turns of phrase; MacDonald P. Jackson on Kyd’’s distinct stage direction formulae; Thomas Merriam on Kyd’’s linguistic markers; and Albert Yang on Kyd’’s vocabulary. The chapter demonstrates that these six plays are stylistically of a whole and reveal Kyd’’s distinctive authorial fingerprints.

in Shakespeare’s tutor
Abstract only
Darren Freebury- Jones

This chapter examines the internal evidence for Kyd’s hand in Shakespeare’s Henry VI Part One. On 3 March 1592, Philip Henslowe recorded a performance of ‘Harey the vj’ by the Lord Strange’s Men. Henry VI Part One dramatises events leading up to the Wars of the Roses, as depicted in Shakespeare’s Henry VI Part Two and Henry VI Part Three. Scholarly opinion has diverged over whether the play was written first in the Henry VI trilogy, or as a prequel. This chapter contends that the second and third Henry VI plays were written solely by Shakespeare for Pembroke’s Men as a two-part play, and that ‘Harey the vj’ was designed by Lord Strange’s Men to capitalise on their success. Most modern scholars assign the play’s opening act to Thomas Nashe and approximately three scenes to Shakespeare, but no consensus exists with respect to the play’s third author. Nevertheless, Kyd’s name has often been linked to the authorship of Henry VI Part One. Having surveyed scholarship linking the play to Kyd, the chapter assesses a variety of evidence in order to establish that Shakespeare’s chronicle history play was indeed written by Kyd and Nashe for the Lord Strange’s Men, and that Shakespeare subsequently added three scenes for the Lord Chamberlain’s Men. This chapter also investigates the attribution of The Spanish Tragedy 1602 additions to Shakespeare in order to show the ways in which Shakespeare appears to have revised his dramatic predecessor’s work.

in Shakespeare’s tutor
The influence of Thomas Kyd

Shakespeare’’s tutor: The influence of Thomas Kyd defines the early modern playwright Thomas Kyd’’s dramatic corpus and indicates where and how Kyd contributed to the development of Shakespeare’’s dramas. Scholars have yet to recognise the extent to which Kyd influenced Shakespeare, nor the full extent of his surviving dramatic corpus. This book collects and sifts a wide range of evidence in favour of an ‘‘enlarged’’ Kyd canon while introducing cutting-edge digital resources for authorship attribution purposes. Through a combination of computational and traditional literary-critical analysis, Darren Freebury-Jones makes a case for Kyd’’s authorship of six sole-authored plays: The Spanish Tragedy, Soliman and Perseda, King Leir, Arden of Faversham, Fair Em, and Cornelia. The book demonstrates the fibrous influence that Kyd exerted on Shakespeare’’s phraseology, verse style, and overall dramaturgy, and proposes that Shakespeare’’s dramatic output was, in part at least, dependent on processes of adaptation and collaboration with Kyd. A wealth of evidence indicates that Shakespeare and Kyd’’s relationship extended to revision and co-authorship in plays such as Henry VI Part One, Edward III, and the 1602 additions to The Spanish Tragedy. The book situates Kyd and Shakespeare’s plays in their original historical context: the narrow and intensely competitive as well as collaborative world of the London theatres. Dramatists such as Shakespeare were also actors, and would develop an intimate familiarity with plays in which they had performed. Ground-breaking in its implications for our understanding of Shakespeare’s dramatic development, the book aims to revolutionise our understanding of the early modern canon.

Virtuous discipline in the mutable world
Andrew Wadoski

While Spenser is firmly rooted in the virtue ethics premise that the telos of moral life is action oriented towards the production of flourishing, Chapter 5 offers an account of the often radically un-Aristotelian shape this vision of flourishing assumes in Spenser’s ethics. This chapter considers the disciplinary agendas of Spenser’s ethical imagination as a projection of the Garden of Adonis’s metaphysical concerns into the realm of political agency. Through readings of Neostoic thought in the ‘Mutability Cantos’, of Guyon’s destruction of the Bower of Bliss, and of the image of the colonial market town near the close of Spenser’s prose dialogue, A View of the Present State of Ireland, it examines the relationship of this central marker of Spenserian political virtue to broader questions of moral subjectivity, of virtuous action, and of the possibility of a flourishing life in the mutable world. Spenser’s program of ‘vertuous and gentle discipline’ describes how structures of normative behavior and personal comportment are ultimately concerned with marshalling the mutable body, its needs, and its desires towards generating a social order within a disordered, and potentially disordering, world.

in Spenser’s ethics
Abstract only
Andrew Wadoski

Spenser’s ethics are organized among concerns that would become pivotal to the transforming discipline of moral philosophy in early modernity: making the status of humanity itself a central speculative problem of moral inquiry, and centering social obligations as both the normative guide to, and ultimate telos of, virtuous agency. Spenser is thus important to the history of moral philosophy because he also illuminates the ways these questions find a crucial aspect of their historical origin in early modern England’s political emergence as a colonial empire, helping to shape central representational and critical problems of British intellectual culture well into the modern era: the challenge of understanding colonialism, and the coercive violence on which it depends, as a moral activity. Reading Spenser as a moral theorist, and one whose moral theory is significantly shaped by his experiences in Elizabethan Ireland, thus illuminates at a crucial moment of historical inception that philosophical tradition’s pivotal turn as it evolved alongside early modern England’s wider political and economic transformation into a global nation-state built on the foundations of colonial expansion.

in Spenser’s ethics