{"title":"“King Lear”: A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare. Edited by Richard Knowles","authors":"B. Vickers","doi":"10.1093/sq/quac024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sq/quac024","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39634,"journal":{"name":"SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42168768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Shakespeare and Emotion. Edited by Katherine A. Craik","authors":"Emily Sarah Barth","doi":"10.1093/sq/quac019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sq/quac019","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39634,"journal":{"name":"SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47869353","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
other, exploring everything from the negotiation of space, to shared emotion, to sympathy’s (generally undeliverable) promise of affinity (15). The next four essays examine how Shakespeare responds to the emotional content in his source material. Gwynne Kennedy and Indira Ghose’s chapters on anger and pride find Shakespeare reflecting on and rewriting those emotions in his own work; chapters like these provide particularly good preparation for the final group of three essays in part 2, which tackle feelings we do not necessarily readily identify as emotions. Hester Lees-Jeffries considers nostalgia, while Tom Bishop’s chapter considers wonder and Timothy M. Harrison’s closing chapter explores confusion. These final essays propose a set of ideas that has been active throughout the collection: that emotions are never singular, that the experience of emotion is messy and difficult, and that Shakespeare actively resists any neat ordering of emotional experience. This collection’s reliance on such a wide variety of perspectives, drawing as it does on political, religious, ethical, and practical resources, results in a generous and timely contribution of scholarship that seeks to do what the authors see Shakespeare doing: these chapters “reflect upon, and reimagine, the ways art can revitalise the way we experience the world” (7).
{"title":"Shakespeare and the Fall of the Roman Republic: Selfhood, Stoicism, and Civil War by Patrick Gray (review)","authors":"Erin Casey-Williams","doi":"10.1093/sq/quac020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sq/quac020","url":null,"abstract":"other, exploring everything from the negotiation of space, to shared emotion, to sympathy’s (generally undeliverable) promise of affinity (15). The next four essays examine how Shakespeare responds to the emotional content in his source material. Gwynne Kennedy and Indira Ghose’s chapters on anger and pride find Shakespeare reflecting on and rewriting those emotions in his own work; chapters like these provide particularly good preparation for the final group of three essays in part 2, which tackle feelings we do not necessarily readily identify as emotions. Hester Lees-Jeffries considers nostalgia, while Tom Bishop’s chapter considers wonder and Timothy M. Harrison’s closing chapter explores confusion. These final essays propose a set of ideas that has been active throughout the collection: that emotions are never singular, that the experience of emotion is messy and difficult, and that Shakespeare actively resists any neat ordering of emotional experience. This collection’s reliance on such a wide variety of perspectives, drawing as it does on political, religious, ethical, and practical resources, results in a generous and timely contribution of scholarship that seeks to do what the authors see Shakespeare doing: these chapters “reflect upon, and reimagine, the ways art can revitalise the way we experience the world” (7).","PeriodicalId":39634,"journal":{"name":"SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY","volume":"72 1","pages":"163 - 165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48519266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I N HIS SUPPLEMENT TO THE EDITION OF SHAKSPEARE’S PLAYS, published in 1780, Edmond Malone included an edited text of the 1609 quarto Shake-speares Sonnets. In the advertisement, he extolled the virtues of his undertaking, claiming that it was “somewhat extraordinary, that none of [Shakespeare’s] various editors should have ... taken the trouble to compare [his poetical works] with the earliest editions.” The idea of Malone as a great Sonnets hero, rescuing the 1609 quarto from oblivion by reprinting it first in his Supplement and then in his own edition, The Plays and Poems of Shakespeare (1790), has been largely accepted by modern critics. But although Malone was the first to publish an annotated text, he was not the first to appreciate the value of the quarto or to confer on it serious editorial attention. That individual, I will argue, was Edward Capell (1713–1781), Cambridge scholar, Deputy Inspector of Plays, and friend of David Garrick, who dedicated his life to the study of Shakespeare. Capell’s importance as an editor of Shakespeare’s plays had been underestimated by modern scholars until the work of Alice Walker and Hymen Harold Hart in the 1960s. According to Walker, Capell “revolutionized
{"title":"\"Distinguished by the Letter C\": Edmond Malone and Edward Capell as Rival Editors of Shake-speares Sonnets","authors":"Jane Kingsley-Smith","doi":"10.1093/sq/quac023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sq/quac023","url":null,"abstract":"I N HIS SUPPLEMENT TO THE EDITION OF SHAKSPEARE’S PLAYS, published in 1780, Edmond Malone included an edited text of the 1609 quarto Shake-speares Sonnets. In the advertisement, he extolled the virtues of his undertaking, claiming that it was “somewhat extraordinary, that none of [Shakespeare’s] various editors should have ... taken the trouble to compare [his poetical works] with the earliest editions.” The idea of Malone as a great Sonnets hero, rescuing the 1609 quarto from oblivion by reprinting it first in his Supplement and then in his own edition, The Plays and Poems of Shakespeare (1790), has been largely accepted by modern critics. But although Malone was the first to publish an annotated text, he was not the first to appreciate the value of the quarto or to confer on it serious editorial attention. That individual, I will argue, was Edward Capell (1713–1781), Cambridge scholar, Deputy Inspector of Plays, and friend of David Garrick, who dedicated his life to the study of Shakespeare. Capell’s importance as an editor of Shakespeare’s plays had been underestimated by modern scholars until the work of Alice Walker and Hymen Harold Hart in the 1960s. According to Walker, Capell “revolutionized","PeriodicalId":39634,"journal":{"name":"SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY","volume":"72 1","pages":"52 - 78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44623802","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Shakespeare and Queer Representation by Stephen Guy-Bray (review)","authors":"Christopher Yates","doi":"10.1093/sq/quac018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sq/quac018","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39634,"journal":{"name":"SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY","volume":"72 1","pages":"159 - 161"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44945000","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
THE EARLY MODERN CLOWN IS ALWAYS ALREADY MULTIPLE, carrying into performance his own puppet double: the fool’s bauble. This short staff topped with a carved likeness of its carrier is a kind of rod puppet—a marotte—who mirrors, extends, and constructs the clown as such. A portrait of the Stuart/ Caroline court fools Tom Derry and Muckle John makes this multiplicity especially clear (see figure 1). The painting’s title, Wee Three Loggerheads, and its grotesque imagery (note the fools’ facial expressions and the extra finger on Derry’s hand) place it firmly in the broader cultural tradition of depicting Folly. Images in this “we three” genre generally feature one fewer fool (here “loggerhead”) than the number in the label, implying that the viewer is the final fool. Here, Muckle John’s marotte might also be seen as the third fool (especially with its log head). We can read the marotte as a character in the picture, and therefore one of the “three” fools, or we can read it as merely an object held by one of the characters that identifies him as a fool. The marotte oscillates between character and object, and in so doing figures the viewer alternately as an external observer and an integral part of the folly being depicted. As a prop, the marotte is a practical performance tool, and Wee Three Loggerheads offers a portrait of performers as much as an allegorical representation of Folly in the world. Scholars of early modern performance have long neglected
早期的现代服装总是多重的，在表演中携带着他自己的木偶替身：傻瓜的小玩意。这根短棍顶部雕刻着其载体的肖像，是一种杆状木偶——一种栗色木偶——它镜像、延伸和构建小丑。斯图亚特/卡罗琳宫廷傻瓜汤姆·德里和穆克尔·约翰的肖像使这种多样性特别明显（见图1）。这幅画的标题《三个Loggerheads》及其怪诞的意象（注意傻瓜的面部表情和Derry手上多余的手指）将其牢牢地置于描绘Folly的更广泛的文化传统中。这种“我们三个”类型的图像通常比标签中的数字少一个傻瓜（这里是“记录者”），这意味着观众是最后的傻瓜。在这里，Muckle John的栗色也可能被视为第三个傻瓜（尤其是它的原木头）。我们可以将栗色解读为图片中的一个角色，因此是“三个”傻瓜之一，也可以将其解读为其中一个角色持有的物体，从而将其识别为傻瓜。栗色在人物和物体之间摇摆，在这样做的过程中，观众交替地成为外部观察者和所描绘的愚蠢行为的组成部分。作为道具，栗色是一种实用的表演工具，Wee Three Loggerheads提供了表演者的肖像，同时也是世界上愚蠢的寓言再现。早期现代表演学者长期忽视
{"title":"Prop Culture: The Shakespearean Clown and His Marotte","authors":"Nicole Sheriko","doi":"10.1093/sq/quac015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sq/quac015","url":null,"abstract":"THE EARLY MODERN CLOWN IS ALWAYS ALREADY MULTIPLE, carrying into performance his own puppet double: the fool’s bauble. This short staff topped with a carved likeness of its carrier is a kind of rod puppet—a marotte—who mirrors, extends, and constructs the clown as such. A portrait of the Stuart/ Caroline court fools Tom Derry and Muckle John makes this multiplicity especially clear (see figure 1). The painting’s title, Wee Three Loggerheads, and its grotesque imagery (note the fools’ facial expressions and the extra finger on Derry’s hand) place it firmly in the broader cultural tradition of depicting Folly. Images in this “we three” genre generally feature one fewer fool (here “loggerhead”) than the number in the label, implying that the viewer is the final fool. Here, Muckle John’s marotte might also be seen as the third fool (especially with its log head). We can read the marotte as a character in the picture, and therefore one of the “three” fools, or we can read it as merely an object held by one of the characters that identifies him as a fool. The marotte oscillates between character and object, and in so doing figures the viewer alternately as an external observer and an integral part of the folly being depicted. As a prop, the marotte is a practical performance tool, and Wee Three Loggerheads offers a portrait of performers as much as an allegorical representation of Folly in the world. Scholars of early modern performance have long neglected","PeriodicalId":39634,"journal":{"name":"SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY","volume":"72 1","pages":"126 - 149"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48272869","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T ARQUIN WRONGED ME,” Lucrece states, “I Collatine” (819). 1 The first half of the statement comes as no surprise, but the second half is puzzling. In what way has Lucrece wronged Collatine by being raped? She has had extramarital sex, to be sure, but what blame can attach to her, given the constraints on her consent? It is the uncertain issue—in both senses of the word—of Lucrece’s consent that doubles the nature of the sexual offense, twinning it into two clauses: rape (“Tarquin wronged me”) and adultery (“I Collatine”). That doubling is not reducible to the internalized guilt of a rape victim. In early modern humanism, Lucretia was a defendant against charges of adultery in a perpetual rhetorical trial. She was a standard topic of humanist pro and contra debates that interpreted her motives for suicide through disputation of her chastity: “Shall we say she was an adulteresse, or was shee chast?” If we approach Shakespeare’s Lucrece with a certainty that the sexual offense at its heart is rape, we approach the poem anachronistically. The rape in Lucrece was always already a disputed
T ARQUIN冤枉了我，”Lucrece说，“I Collatine”(819)。这句话的前半部分并不令人惊讶，但后半部分令人费解。卢克丽丝被强奸是在什么方面冤枉了科拉廷?她确实有过婚外性行为，但考虑到她的同意受到的限制，她又能受到什么指责呢?这是一个不确定的问题——从两种意义上来说——卢克蕾斯的同意使性犯罪的性质加倍，将其分为两个条款:强奸(“塔克文冤枉了我”)和通奸(“我Collatine”)。这种双重行为不能简化为强奸受害者的内化内疚。在早期的现代人文主义中，卢克丽霞在一场无休止的修辞审判中被指控犯有通奸罪。她是一个标准的人文主义正反辩论的主题，通过争论她的贞洁来解释她的自杀动机:“我们应该说她是一个通奸者，还是一个纯粹的贞洁者?”如果我们确定莎士比亚的《卢克蕾斯》(Lucrece)的核心是强奸，那么我们对这首诗的理解就不合时宜了。卢克蕾斯的强奸案一直是有争议的
{"title":"\"This bastard graff shall never come to growth\": Conception and Consent in Shakespeare's Lucrece","authors":"Sarah S Keleher","doi":"10.1093/sq/quac014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sq/quac014","url":null,"abstract":"T ARQUIN WRONGED ME,” Lucrece states, “I Collatine” (819). 1 The first half of the statement comes as no surprise, but the second half is puzzling. In what way has Lucrece wronged Collatine by being raped? She has had extramarital sex, to be sure, but what blame can attach to her, given the constraints on her consent? It is the uncertain issue—in both senses of the word—of Lucrece’s consent that doubles the nature of the sexual offense, twinning it into two clauses: rape (“Tarquin wronged me”) and adultery (“I Collatine”). That doubling is not reducible to the internalized guilt of a rape victim. In early modern humanism, Lucretia was a defendant against charges of adultery in a perpetual rhetorical trial. She was a standard topic of humanist pro and contra debates that interpreted her motives for suicide through disputation of her chastity: “Shall we say she was an adulteresse, or was shee chast?” If we approach Shakespeare’s Lucrece with a certainty that the sexual offense at its heart is rape, we approach the poem anachronistically. The rape in Lucrece was always already a disputed","PeriodicalId":39634,"journal":{"name":"SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY","volume":"72 1","pages":"103 - 79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48509190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay has benefited from careful and patient feedback both from individual readers and from audiences who have heard earlier verisons. Debapriya Sarkar and Roslyn Knutson helped me to refine my arguments, and I am grateful to the anonymous peer reviewers at Shakespeare Quarterly for their helpful suggestions. Audiences at the seminar series of the English Department at the University of Connecticut, the Massachusetts Center for Renaissance Studies, and the Columbia Shakespeare Seminar provided incisive commentary that greatly improved the essay. Thanks also to the staff at the Folger Shakespeare Library for introducing me to the wonders of The Book of Magic. 1 The Tempest, 4.1.137, 138. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from the play come from The Tempest, ed. Virginia Mason Vaughan and Alden T. Vaughan (London: Bloomsbury, 2011). 2 The Norton Facsimile of the First Folio of Shakespeare, prep. Charlton Hinman, rev. ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996), TLN 1805–8.
{"title":"\"A Strange, Hollow, and Confused Noise\": Prospero's \"Start\" and Early Modern Magical Practices","authors":"E. Tribble","doi":"10.1093/sq/quac016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sq/quac016","url":null,"abstract":"This essay has benefited from careful and patient feedback both from individual readers and from audiences who have heard earlier verisons. Debapriya Sarkar and Roslyn Knutson helped me to refine my arguments, and I am grateful to the anonymous peer reviewers at Shakespeare Quarterly for their helpful suggestions. Audiences at the seminar series of the English Department at the University of Connecticut, the Massachusetts Center for Renaissance Studies, and the Columbia Shakespeare Seminar provided incisive commentary that greatly improved the essay. Thanks also to the staff at the Folger Shakespeare Library for introducing me to the wonders of The Book of Magic. 1 The Tempest, 4.1.137, 138. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from the play come from The Tempest, ed. Virginia Mason Vaughan and Alden T. Vaughan (London: Bloomsbury, 2011). 2 The Norton Facsimile of the First Folio of Shakespeare, prep. Charlton Hinman, rev. ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996), TLN 1805–8.","PeriodicalId":39634,"journal":{"name":"SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY","volume":"72 1","pages":"229 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45498325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"All the Sonnets of Shakespeare. Edited by Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells","authors":"John S. Garrison","doi":"10.1093/sq/quac017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sq/quac017","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39634,"journal":{"name":"SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49611595","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：