Abstract

Post-Shakespearean generations in England and elsewhere are the fortunate inheritors of a body of dramatic masterpieces which by common consent are unsurpassed in the history of European literature at least since the ancient Greeks, and which are preserved in print in editions published during the lifetime of the author or shortly after. The only trouble (which is no problem at all to the vast majority of Shakespeare’s admirers but which is apt to worry dedicated interpreters) is that neither the quartos published prior to 1623 nor the great Folio collection of that year are the word of God. They have no absolute authority. Some of the plays have come down to us in variant versions. Some have peculiarities which indicate their provenance from untidy manuscripts (‘foul papers’) or memorial reports. The texts had an eventful history before reaching print. Transcripts were made for various purposes and by various persons. Stage performances would require adaptation, and special demands were made by court appearances and provincial tours. There was censorship before licence to play. And finally the printing process added its quota of interference. In all of this a great deal happened to the original texts by way of deliberate alteration or accident, particularly on the micro-level (obvious confusions and corruptions of detail have always been noticed), but sometimes on the macro-level too (and these are often harder to trace).

Keywords

Coherence Lost Heroine Verse Unconformity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    See e.g. Jones, Scenic Form in Shakespeare (1971, 1985) andGoogle Scholar
  2. Rose, Shakespearean Design (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Price, ‘Measure for Measure and the Critics’, SQ XX.2 (1969), p. 203.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gesner, Shakespeare and the Greek Romance/A Study of Origins (1970);Google Scholar
  5. Bulman, The Heroic Idiom of Shakespearean Tragedy (1985).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Relevant quotations from Jonson, Manningham, etc. are conveniently collected in Chambers, William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems (1930), Vol. II, pp. 207–10, 328–44. There are photo-reproductions of the Swan sketch and the Titus scene inGoogle Scholar
  7. Thomson, Shakespeare’s Theatre (1983), plates 4 and 11. 7. ‘Unconformity’ is a term borrowed from geology and was first used in a Shakespearean connection by Rossiter — seeGoogle Scholar
  8. Smidt, Unconformities in Shakespeare’s History Plays (1982), p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 8.
    Foakes, Shakespeare: The dark comedies to the last plays (1971), p. 3.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frye, A. Natural Perspective (1965), p. 13.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    See Bibliography. Among the characteristics which distinguished Shakespeare’s plays, Coleridge listed first ‘Expectation in preference to surprize’: ‘God said, let there be LIGHT: and there was LIGHT. not there was Light. As the feeling with which we startle at a shooting star, compared with that of watching the Sunrise at the pre-established moment, such and so low is Surprize Comp. with Expect.’ (Coburn, ed., The Collected Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 5, 1987, p. 129.)Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    See Baldwin, Shakspere’s Five-Act Structure (1947, 1963), pp. 576, 668.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    See Herrick, Comic Theory in the Sixteenth Century (1950, 1964), pp. 109, 119.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    See Salingar, Shakespeare and the Traditions of Comedy (1974), pp. 187, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 17.
    See Bradbrook, The Growth and Structure of Elizabethan Comedy, New edn (1973, 1979), pp. 4–5, 119.Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    Frye, The Myth of Deliverance (1983), pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
  17. See also Smidt, Unconformities in Shakespeare’s Early Comedies (1986), p. 14.Google Scholar
  18. 22.
    Barber, Shakespeare’s Festive Comedy (1959).Google Scholar
  19. 23.
    Pettet, Shakespeare and the Romance Tradition (1949, 1970), pp. 122–8.Google Scholar
  20. 24.
    Boas, Shakspere and his Predecessors (1896).Google Scholar
  21. 25.
    Lawrence, Shakespeare’s Problem Comedies (1931, 1969);Google Scholar
  22. Tillyard, Shakespeare’s Problem Plays (1950, 1970).Google Scholar
  23. 39.
    Tillyard, Shakespeare’s Last Plays (1938).Google Scholar
  24. See also Mowat, The Dramaturgy of Shakespeare’s Romances (1976), p. 6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kristian Smidt 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristian Smidt
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations